[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

And so the Kingdom is about church? No. It is the display of the righteousness of God. I never said that we had to crank it out on our own. That was your strawman argument. Defeat it all day long because I didn't make it.

Well first, I didn't create a straw man from your argument. You did, however, write that "God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. You would agree that simply having "good relationships" and "right living" outside the influence of Christ is not sufficient in displaying the kingdom, right? To me saying, "good relationships" is the same as saying "crank it out on our own." The best we have is "goodness" in ourselves.

Nonetheless:

I said that if you are not living righteously, then you are not living the Kingdom. I did not say that you should try to live it on your own. And "church" is not the way that you do live it. It is Christ. I would agree that meeting together is a positive influence in your tendency to live Christ. But it is not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

Christ is all and is in all. How is that compartmentalizing the kingdom?

In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is note the Kingdom.

Not the meeting. The church itself. The meeting is a practical expression of the kingdom. In much the same way that the "gathering together" of a king's township would be the expression of his kingdom during the Feudal period of England's history.

Whether you like the meetings of other Christian groups or not is irrelevant. I don't experience the kind of thing you just mocked. But my snide remark was not that you do what you do, but that you think it is so superior, and that "church life" is the Kingdom. All of the trappings of church, in LC style all the way down to the most liturgical meeting you can find, are not "the Kingdom" except to the extent that it is part of the living of the Kingdom people.

Your posts drip with cynicism. I'm glad you acknowledge that as something purposeful on your part. My point was that I don't view LC meetings as any less relevant or meaningful to its participants as other Christian meetings who conduct their services in different ways, and neither should you, regardless of your obvious resentments. And no, I don't believe that any person, myself included, feels that the LC's way of conducting "service" is any more superior than other congregations.

The Kingdom is the entire life of the Kingdom people. It includes taking care of your kids (and not just by taking them along to your church meetings), helping your wife with mundane things in the house, living righteously in your environment. Ignore one of those and you are ignoring the Kingdom.

I would say that taking care of your own children, as well as helping to shepherd the other children in the church, is a natural expression of a life which regularly enjoys the king and the kingdom likewise. This would include personal interactions with Jesus as well as regular fellowship in the church - you know? That "meaningless" expression we use? The [big bad] "church life."

Yeah. That's quality time. It makes up for ignoring them at home, or being home so little that you aren't even there to ignore them in person. Now they are in a large group setting being ignored by you (and everyone else) there.

What in the world are you talking about?

Look. I'm not saying that you should not go to meetings, or "to church" or however you want to say it. I'm saying that it is not "the kingdom." And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are. If you believe otherwise, then your "church life" is an idol. You place it above obedience to Christ. "Church life" is not a commandment. Love your neighbor is. Your righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees is. And on and on. And don't bother with that "We're no longer under the law" malarkey. You surely are. Matt 5 increased the requirements. And Jesus said to teach them to obey it all.

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom. Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form. Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians." :rollingeyes2:

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

Bull. If anything Lee pointed out the need to keep from being religious in our terminology. We don't "go to church" we are the church. We don't "attend service" we are in His service, etc. Nee pointed out the same things. And even throughout church history we find a constant churning of definitions and re-definitions as culture and various movements in church history affected the language. So I don't buy that Lee believed LC terminology to be any better in terms of what we use and what others use. Certainly he believed that the terminology was more accurate and less religious in its origins, but what exactly is wrong with that? If certain terminology is overly religious - or perceived to be such - or if certain terminology is not as accurate as it could be, why not strive to find something that works and is more accurate; even using language that, by its nature, stimulates deeper fellowship?

Rather, let our "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." Speak the same language. Don't confuse meetings by speaking different languages (that was the meaning of the "trumpet" thing). Don't equivocate around terms so that the common meaning is ignored and some private meaning is intended (but not made clear).

Actually the "trumpet thing" was more about speaking different dialects absent interpretation. It wasn't about using the same language in different ways. If someone says "Bible study" and I understand it by my terminology to mean "home meeting," then what's it to anyone else? Or if I say "home meeting" and someone else understands it to mean, "Bible study" by their terminology where's the harm? In fact there is currently a growing movement within non-denominational congregations to have "home meetings." Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar to me.

In other words, get over the terminology. If I actually say "go to church" don't have a conniption. If I say "communion" likewise. Don't throw out alternate terminology and insist that everyone use yours or be deficient. For example, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, and Communion are equivalents.

I don't throw anything, much less conniptions. And I haven't witnessed this type of interactions between LCs and other Christians. I think this is where you are creating the straw man. As for "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper," etc. you know that we use "Lord's Table," and that the term has been around for hundreds of years. Read Chapter 9 of Frank and George Barana's "Pagan Christianity" with regard to the term "Lord's Supper."

Why should we "get over" the terminology if it happens to work for us?