[MacDuff]

Igzy

By Igzy
Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

by MacDuff
This is not only insulting to me, it gives the impression that this forum concerns the trivial.

By Igzy
I was just asking you to be a little more succinct and to summarize better. You don't have to be so sensitive and defensive.

Sorry that’s all you can see in my statement. That’s what happens when I try to be succinct.

It’s insulting to me because it gives the impression you think the content of my posts is composed of mere verbosity. It gives the impression of triviality relating to this forum because short posts are usually trivial and about trivial things. Containing little content of worth when they do contain something not so trivial. I can engage in trivial pursuits out here in real life. I don’t need a forum for that.

I think the Spirit is totally capable. The problem comes is when even reasonable, well-meaning people disagree on what the Spirit is doing and how he is leading.
That's really the whole issue, and why in some circumstances human organization is needed.

Human organization is necessary in human endeavors. What one has to decide is whether the community in question is simply a human endeavor or something else, something more. The necessity for human rule shows the community is merely a human endeavor. No different than any other human endeavor.

Here's the problem. You talk about "Christianity" as if everyone agrees what it is. But where, exactly, does the ekklesia leave off and Christianity begin? You seem to think you know, but some might not agree with your assessment.

No Christian agrees with my assessment of Christianity so far as I know. You seem to think that should bother me. Christians can’t even agree among themselves as to the nature of Christianity as you suggested. Nor the reality that goes with it. Except in a denominational sense. Nothing to imply my view of Christianity is the one that is wrong.

In answer to your question, in my view the ekklesia doesn’t leave off where Christianity begins. The two have existed side by side for two millennia and are two different things. Christianity began in the 1st century. It was what the New Testament writers were writing against. Of course, Christianity wasn’t called Christianity at that time.

I understand the whole "leaders should be servants" idea, and agree with it.

Don’t know why you would want to say that and then argue for the necessity for human rulers. Decision makers rule those for whom they make decisions.

The Spirit-led ideal hopes that everyone will agree. When they don't--and they usually don't--you've reached an impasse. What does the group do then?

Spirit-led ideal? Either it’s a reality or it’s not. And from what you said, it’s usually not. Which is just more evidence for my view of Christianity.

Throughout history, some groups have tried to be directly led by the Spirit with no authoritative leaders. They never endure. It's a wonderful ideal, but it doesn't work. Sooner or later there is going to be disagreement. And the question is, Who decides what to do then?

Why not just acknowledge outright that being led by the Spirit is NOT a tenable idea? That a big discrepancy exists in the Bible thereby? You who would accuse the Recovery of equivocating.

When Paul was writing to Rome and to the Galatians concerning walking according to the Spirit, he was not writing to individuals.

When he asked the Galatians “who has bewitched you?...... Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”, to what was he referring? A Spirit-led ideal? Is there something there between the lines these old eyes can’t see that says we really don’t have to take Paul seriously in this matter?

To whom was Paul referring? Protestants, who are individualistically minded to begin with, interpret what he says to conform with their own individualism. But Paul was writing to groups, to communities. His whole point was that believing communities were to be led by the Spirit. And only was referring to individuals as individual members of the community

1Corinthians comes after Romans for a reason. 1Corinthians shows what happens when believing men rule, or more specifically in this case, when believing men choose to follow specific believing men. Instead of the Spirit. Having seen first-hand what human rule amounts to in Christianity, the bad with the good, through your experience with the Recovery, I find it hard to believe you would advocate more of the same.

It’s my view that Christianity started when the idea of being led by the Spirit was to certain believers no longer tenable, and it’s been untenable to their followers ever sense.

It appears that many Protestant groups started by following the Spirit and then slid into following men. Lutheranism began to follow Martin Luther, Restoration Movement began to follow Alexander Campbell, Plymouth Brethren began to follow several men and divided accordingly. Quakers, when they left of following the Spirit, just began to follow themselves individually. From what I understand, the Recovery began in America with a human leader already in place.

Failure of men is no reason to discount or interpret differently the reality that is portrayed in the Bible.

When I realized the human nature of Christianity:

I could have said, “let’s start again to try to bring into being the true expression of the Body of Christ”. Reversionism in action.

Or I could have said, “so much for Christianity and its Bible”. Christians and non-Christians alike lump Christianity and the Bible together as one thing.

Or I could have just chosen a Christian denomination (probably the one I was born into seeing as I’m a cradle Christian) and conformed my own thinking to it and lived the rest of my life in the blessed bliss of thinking all is well with my soul.

If I did the first, like Witness Lee, I would have created a new Christian denomination with new ideas derived from personal interpretation. Which certainly is pointless, if being led by the Spirit has any reality to it at all.

If I did the second, I wouldn’t be here in the first place. I would agree with Richard Dawkins in one thing at least. Christians are sick in the head to believe such an obvious fabrication. Or I might think that the tendency to believe in a religion is due to a genetic defect.

If I did the third, I probably wouldn’t be here either. Or if I was, it would only be for the reason of pontification in the sense of an apology for my chosen denomination. One thing is certain. I would no longer read the Bible. Not for what it says in and of itself. I might read a lot of books about what the Bible says from the perspective of my chosen denomination. And I would only look at Bible verses through the lens of the interpretations of my chosen denomination. Sound familiar? It should. It’s pretty much a common practice in Christianity.

The LC appealed to human authority and denied that conscience was a good reason to disobey authority. That was blatant madness because the appeal to human authority, like any moral appeal, is ultimately an appeal to conscience.

So the LC was not making a moral appeal at all, it was asking the saints to be mindless and senseless. Does that sound like any "economy" God would associate himself with?

I really haven’t a clue as to your point here.

Guest, I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group.

But when it comes to the personal lives of members, there is no special authority.

This is the kind of thing I don’t understand. All the special circumstances under which a person is to submit to a ruler. If Hebrews 13:17 says “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you”, I fail to see the point of all the bickering about under what circumstances the rule of rulership applies. If they are watching out for you souls in the sense of rule, then they certainly do have authority over your private lives. Over anything that applies to you. How will they watch over your souls otherwise? And what of the verses in Timothy where the example is “ruling” over the home? Do the children obey their parents only under special circumstances?

In typical Protestant fashion, there is rebellion fomenting in the Churches. And you are the rebels. Where the rule of the human rulers is being as rebelled against as is the rule of the Spirit. Where the typical bedlam will continue to be typical.

Either obey or not, but don’t try to comply somewhere in the middle and say you’re obeying those who have the rule over you. The foolishness would be apparent to everyone but you.

Members have the right to leave a group if they feel led to. No group has the authority to insist everyone must join them. No group has the right to declare themselves the unique manifestation of the Church.

And why wouldn’t they, if they feel that God has chosen them to a special function or calling?

The only thing the Recovery missed is that it was already done before in the Catholic Church millennia before they were born, and they were trampling on territory already taken. Again in typical Protestant fashion. Why do you think the Catholics are insisting the only true unity is to be through them, through submission to the Pope who they believe is the direct descendent of the specially chosen Peter through the laying on of hands? The Pope they believe is the Vicar of the Christ who is the only true shepherd of our souls? Lee (and perhaps Nee) attempted to recreate the wheel, and did a poor job of it being practical descendents through influence of rebellion themselves. The Protestant Rebellion.

But unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "Recovery" is.....

Right. Church leaders. Not Recovery leaders. The Bible doesn't have anything to say about Recovery leaders. I'm not saying saints don't want to know who the leaders are. I'm saying that the question can't really be answered from a Biblical standpoint because the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of Recoveries.

Apparently, you never did listen to “Brother” Lee, who constantly revealed the Recovery in the Bible through his allegorical interpretations. And what of the fact that Recovery communities are called Churches? I take it you’re denying that they even deserve to be called Churches? That’s quite a bias. Am I understanding you correctly that because they don’t hold to what you understand as the “Historic or Biblical Christian Faith”, they aren’t even a part of Christianity? And not to be numbered among the Churches of Christianity on that account?

By Ohio
Since this thread asks "Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?" in the context of the Recovery, I think it is a valid question to ask "Who are the real leaders of the Recovery?" Who should be obeyed if anyone at all? Whether we are discussing the Recovery or another church setting, how do we understand Hebrews 13.17?

There you go.


MacDuff