View Single Post
Old 02-10-2009, 12:10 AM   #10
tasteslikegold
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 48
Default Re: LSM Suppression of Individuality, a Chinese Trait?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
TLG,
This is an interesting question. But it seems to presume that individuality = 1 Corinthians division. Nowhere are the problems in 1 Corinthians described as the result of individuality. Instead, they are described as the result of taking sides and excluding others over leaders and teachings and also about an attitude of self importance.
Actually this was not my presumption. There are obviously divisions in the church which are the result of personal preference to persons, as in 1 Corinthians. However, all division - that is purposeful division is the direct result of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5).

Quote:
Individuality does not equal self importance. Neither does it equal exclusiveness. It merely denotes differences.
My understanding of the term "individuality" as it relates to the topic, however, is that is is something more than merely wearing a different colored hat on Sundays.

Quote:
Actually, Jesus called people to be followers and believers. Those who follow/believe are defined as being the body of Christ. They are the called-out ones. Someone did write that it was important enough to meet with other followers/believers that they said to not forsake assembling together.

When I read passages that mention all the parts that are not the same yet all work together, I realize that there is something wonderfully different about us all. And there is nothing in those passages that makes those differences so exclusively spiritual that there is nothing of the differences of our personalities, experiences, struggles, victories, etc., included in those wonderful differences.

Paul used the practical example of a person's physical body to impart certain truths about the Body of Christ. I think it's perfectly acceptable, then, to take such an example and show how, although the members distinct they are not separate, they are not individual. My hand cannot survive without my body, and also my body cannot be considered complete without my hand. The fact that one of my hands may have "more experience" in handling tools (ie. my dominant hand will be used more than my non-dominant hand) does not mean that it is individual. However, what if my right hand decided that it's importance in the further advancement of my physical health, and so decided that it would function of its own accord? It would be completely bizarre for such a thing to happen. It would cease to become a functioning member of my body and, because of its independence, become a foreign element.


Quote:
But where is it that scripture actually says that we are called into a “corporate Person?” Can you find such a scripture, or at least tie a few together in a way that clearly prescribes such an idea. I do not think it exists, but you must have some basis for your statement. Rather than make me read the entirety of scripture hoping to find the one or more passages and create the link, can you provide it?
There are actually a few which "link up" this way:

Rom. 12:5 - many members being one in the Body, and members of one another.

1 Cor. 12:12 - is the term "yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

Eph. 3:16 - connects the Jews and gentiles into the body of Christ.

Col. 1:24 - uses the term "His Body" in relation to the church.

Col. 2:17 - says that the Body "is of Christ," meaning it "consists of Christ" rather than merely belonging to Him.

Also, there are examples which we can pull from regarding the corporate aspect of God's people. The children of Israel were called such because they were God's people. On the one hand they were the literal descendants of Jacob ( Israel ), and on the other hand they were referred to as a corporate person (the language being singular). Then after Jerusalem was established God called His people by that name - Jerusalem . Jesus also referred to Jerusalem in the "corporate" aspect when He lamented over them - God's people. Also, Paul alludes to there being a corporate person when he talks about the children of Abraham by faith.

In terms of the church being a corporate "person" we are such by virtue of the fact that we are "in Christ." In terms of our having the same life, the same eternal life, as Christ, we are called a "new creation," of which Christ is the head. Well, He's not just the head, but the "life blood" all who are in the new creation as well. We all know, of course what He said to Paul as Saul, when He said, "when you do this to one of these you do it also to me" (paraphrase). There are other examples which I'm sure I could cite, but I believe this makes enough of an argument.

Quote:
I have found that there are many things that I learned from years of learning from Lee that sound wonderful, sound higher than what common Christians talk about, but that are not actually found in scripture. It took more years after my last LC meeting to realize this than the total number of years I spent learning it.
Actually the subject of the Body of Christ has been commented on by many others. The fact that Lee also did so should be no surprise, and frankly I don't know why someone would have to "unlearn" it simply because he sees it as being extra-Biblical. Many of us who have experienced debates from the anti-Trinitarian groups are familiar with the idea that the Trinity, while not explicitly defined in Scripture, is nevertheless present in concept (And certainly through the revelation in Scripture). However, such a concept, while not clearly delineated in Scripture, has been widely accepted as Biblical truth and established as a basis for orthodoxy in the church for literally centuries. I believe this answers a question above, "Where does it say THAT in the Bible?" Well, where does it say "Trinity" or "Triune" or "Communion" in the Bible?

Some may disagree with the term "corporate Person" because it appears on the surface to remove the individual aspect of the believer's participation in salvation. However, the Bible relates salvation itself to the participation in a corporate "person," or "Body." So one cannot escape either individual salvation or the "corporate salvation" (In relation to essence and time) of the Body of Christ. At one time the Body of Christ, the church, or whichever term you wish to use to describe the totality of God's people, will be resurrected and saved. And it will be in this totality, the house of God, in which God will execute His judgment first (1 Pet. 4:17).

Quote:
And the fact that Paul strove against division does not mean that he strove to avoid the existence of anything that could lead to division, but only the actual division that arose. In other words, the fact that we could divide over something does not make that something evil or wrong. It only means that some potential for division exists and we should be on guard against that possibility. If we presume that Paul strove against things that tend to cause division, then he would have to strive against the fact that some are Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, masters, slaves, etc. But he did not. He said that whatever you are, you should not think more highly of yourself than you ought to. He did not tell the rich to give their wealth to the others until they all became equal. He did not tell masters to free all their slaves or tell Jews to simply drop everything Jewish and be just like the Greeks or whoever were the Gentiles in their area. He simply said to realize that there is something uniting that is higher than the natural differences that exist.
Interesting concept. And I happen to agree with the idea that the mere existence of classes, nationalities, etc. in and of themselves are not evil, but only that we should be on guard for those things to become potential sources of division. However, what of those "factions, divisions, sects"? These are clearly related to various teachings and sidings with varying schools of thought, aren't they? Certainly, unless a certain teaching or school of thought is outright heretical, it is not evil in itself. But the potential for division is there. Yet it is these that Paul identified as being sourced in the flesh; and to Timothy he wrote explicitly that certain ones in his charges aught not to teach "different things." So I think it is a fair assessment to say, yes, Paul did strive against

That's all I have for now. It appears that my first posting here prompted a few responses. I hope that with yours, and at least on other, I have been able to answer, to give you my perspective. I hope to respond completely to the other posts directed toward me in the next day or so. It's getting quite late now and I've run out of gas.

TLG
tasteslikegold is offline   Reply With Quote