Nullification of the function of the body members

[aron]

My history was different than many ex-Local Churchers: I had a great experience pretty much start to finish. As a new and struggling Christian I felt that I needed something more so I really loved the 24/7 immersive experience in the 'local church life' of the 'Lord's recovery'. We had meetings pretty much every day, and on weekends sometimes 2 or 3 meetings even. We really got into the word of God, and I got to speak a lot, which encouraged me quite a bit.

I heard about 'storms' and 'rebellions' but they seemed remote. I didn't know the details and didn't want to. Hear no evil, speak no evil. Occasionally I saw the Maximum Brothers come by and say or demonstrate something less-than-Christlike, but as WL said, "You have to forgive our 'messy kitchen' because we are trying to make something here".

WL didn't forgive the 'messy kitchen' of other christian assemblies, however, but pointed out their shortcomings repeatedly. I suppose he felt that their messes were systemic, and his were superficial. Maybe so, but nonetheless I would like to point out a shortcoming of WL's "local church system" which has increasingly become evident to me as systemic.

This is the system of the functioning of the members of the body. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul famously likened the church to a body, and differentiated church members as like the parts of a human body: eye, ear, hand, foot, etc. All the parts, said WL, had functions. He said that the clergy/laity system in Christianity had ruined the functions of the members of the body. I remember that he used the word 'nullified', as in 'rendered to none effect'.

My point is this: WL may have had a legitimate point regarding "the nullification of the function of the members of the body of Christ in Christianity", but what happened inside his system? In his system, there was to be only one church organization in each city, with one set of elders, who were dependent on the one speaking and leading of the one apostle, God's oracle. Nobody else could get any 'leading' or 'speaking' except on how to cooperate, or 'be one' with the latest directive from Headquarters. Did this not nullify the operation of the members of the body? Did this not cut off the speaking of the Shepherd of the sheep? I say yes, it did.

Let me give an example, and propose an alternative, which I see clearly presented in God's word. My example is a typical weekend 'conference'. What would happen is 2 or 3 'co-workers' would come by from Headquarters and give a series of messages. All the 'saints' from the various 'localities' would gather at one church building and listen. Usually it was Friday and Saturday night, and then Sunday morning. So there would be 3 or 4 meetings with a common theme. After each message, all the saints would get an opportunity to speak. Often they would only get a minute and somebody would bang a note on the piano if they went over their time. And the 'sharing' was supposed to be just repeating, verbatim if possible, what the co-worker had just said. Often the sharing was simply 2 or 3 saints who would chant a line together from the outline, then say, "amen!" with raised fists and sit down. Is this functioning? A robot could do that, or a tape recorder, which is exactly what we were told to be, more than once. Just enthusiastically repeat the word from Big Brother and sit down.

Now, let me propose an alternative. In the scriptures, I see three mediatorial agencies between God and man. First, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. "There is one mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus." "There is no other name given by which man may be saved." Etc. Etc. That seems pretty basic, and pretty clear.

Second, there is the Word of God. God's word reveals His Son, who in turn reveals the Father to us. In fact, the New Testament even calls Jesus Christ the incarnated Word. The Word of God shows us Jesus Christ, and Jesus shows us the things of the Father. Again, pretty basic.

Third, there is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that he was going back to the Father's house, and would send us the Spirit, who would guide us into all the true experiences of the Father's kingdom. Thus, in the absence of the physical Jesus, whom the disciples had for 3+ years, the disciples today have the indwelling Spirit leading us through the scriptures. Again, the Spirit shows us Jesus, who shows us our Father in heaven.

Of course, this is within the common collective experience of the church, in which there are specialized functions like prophets, evangelists and teachers. There are different gifts, and special manifestations of the Spirit. But none of these ministries should grow to the point that it nullifies the leading of God's Spirit in His Word in the rest of the body members.

The main function of the leading ones is to be an example for the rest. They should be the most obedient to the Lord, the Word, and the Spirit, and this visible example is a great encouragement for the rest of the 'flock'. The individual Christian believer, meeting in the church, says to himself/herself, "If so-and-so can do it, why not me?" They are emboldened to function by the functioning of others. They are not suppressed by the functioning of others.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In [WL's] system, there was to be only one church organization in each city, with one set of elders, who were dependent on the one speaking and leading of the one apostle, God's oracle. Nobody else could get any 'leading' or 'speaking' except on how to cooperate, or 'be one' with the latest directive from Headquarters. Did this not nullify the operation of the members of the body? Did this not cut off the speaking of the Shepherd of the sheep? I say yes, it did.

Let me give another example. In my 'locality', one of the elders wanted to give a conference. He had picked out a book from WL which we were going to cover in depth. He had the speakers chosen, with the subjects, and so forth.

He contacted Anaheim, and told them his plans. He wanted to buy some more books so that everyone at the conference could have a copy. Nix. He was told to re-speak the messages from the latest 'feast'; he was clearly told, "Re-speak the latest speaking." They even sent out a couple of the Maximum Brothers to share, and to ensure that everything duplicated Headquarters.

At another of our regional conferences, I remember EM saying, "I love leftovers". Everybody laughed. Well, this might be funny, and arguably all the christian experience for the last 2,000 years is merely a 'rehearsing' or 'respeaking' of the words of Jesus Christ, except for this: WL told us that a lot of the Bible is not the word of Christ. He said it is the word of fallen men. So in this, we are not to listen for the Spirit speaking to us in the Word. We are not to look for Christ; WL told us that there's not any Christ to be found there. Even where WL points out Christ, we are only to see the Christ that he saw. Nothing else. Because in WL's system we have to be 'one' with the oracle.

So I believe that being 'one' with WL's system cut us off from the Shepherd's speaking in scripture, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And this nullified our ability to function as members of the body of Christ.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me give another example. In my 'locality', one of the elders wanted to give a conference. He had picked out a book from WL which we were going to cover in depth. He had the speakers chosen, with the subjects, and so forth.

Sounds like an experience of mine. In the locality I was meeting with in the mid-90's, similar scenario. The lead elder wanted to take Witness Lee's Life Messages. This was at a time we were having many visitors. Went as far to suggest selected brothers would ask questions on the material covered. Don't know what happened to change our brother's mind, because by the next week it was back to the HWFMR. Quite frankly I was looking forward to taking the Life Messages, because I didn't think very much of HWFMR.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

After each message, all the saints would get an opportunity to speak. Often they would only get a minute and somebody would bang a note on the piano if they went over their time. And the 'sharing' was supposed to be just repeating, verbatim if possible, what the co-worker had just said. Often the sharing was simply 2 or 3 saints who would chant a line together from the outline, then say, "amen!" with raised fists and sit down. Is this functioning? A robot could do that, or a tape recorder, which is exactly what we were told to be, more than once. Just enthusiastically repeat the word from Big Brother and sit down.

Just some random thoughts ...

It's too bad none of us could bang notes on the piano when the message was void of anointing.

Some of those "one line testimonies" were quite entertaining.

For some to get one minute after the message to speak is not all bad, Joyce Myers would never be so gracious.

"Functioning" of the members is not just related to how much time one speaks in the meetings.

Trainings slowly replaced conferences. The reason always given was some "chaos" at the Convention Center. One result is that the actual message from the word of God took second place to Witness Lee's speaking.

Witness Lee loved to take the best of the Recovery and compare it to the worst of Christianity and, "see how much better we are."

The "only one man speaking" as is common among Protestant congregations got replaced by the "speaking of one man" which is indicative of Catholic and Orthodox systems.

Robbing the function of the members in the meetings is far less serious than usurping the role of the Head as our unique Mediator with God, and replacing the word of God with the teachings and traditions of man.

[OBW]

I like Ohio's post as a comment on the condition of the LRC. But as a comment on Christianity as a whole, this point has a different meaning to me than to many:

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Functioning" of the members is not just related to how much time one speaks in the meetings.

The problem too often is that "functioning" of the members is gauged almost entirely in terms of speaking in the meetings. Yet, despite one line in 1 Corinthians 14 that has uncertain meaning, functioning of the body of Christ was not found in chapter 14, but in chapter 12. There we find that there are a multitude of ways to function. And not everyone does every one of these. And not every one does any particular one of these. Rather, the functions are dispersed among the members as it pleases God.

While chapter 14 does turn the attention to the meeting, it is not defined as the place for all to function. It is the place where all join together. It was a gentile version of the Acts 2 joining in the Temple for the teaching of the apostles. There was surely more going on than just teaching, and Paul did not feel to end that. But it was not defined as the place for all to demonstrate their spirituality. Paul limited the tongues. He limited the prophets and even gave some advice concerning how they interacted. He gave order to what had been a three-ring circus with everyone doing their "thing" (which, being interpreted, would mean their "functioning").

Not all of the functions are meeting functions. And not everyone has function for the meeting in the way that Paul is speaking in these chapters. To insist that everyone is a prophet just because Paul said "I would that you all prophesy" is to insert Paul as superior to the Spirit. Paul has already indicated that it is God who gives the "gifts." Paul can wish about them all he wants, but he is not the one who gives them. To presume that the fact that Paul said it and it was written into the scripture means that God said it is a misapplication of "all scripture is God-breathed." In this case the scripture is clear. God gives — Paul wishes.

I would suggest that the problem with "nullification of the function of the body members" is more a matter of misinterpretation of the meaning of the function of the body members than being nullified.

I would agree that within the teaching of the LRC, that is exactly what is happening. But it is based on faulty teaching that it is speaking in the meetings that constitutes functioning of the members of the body. That is not an established fact, but an unsubstantiated assumption.

As for examples of a church designing to have a local conference on something and being overridden by Anaheim, it just demonstrates that the denomination of the LRC (at least the LSM branch of it) is more highly regulated than most other denominations.

[ZNPaaneah]

When the Lord rebuked the unprofitable servant He told him he should have given His money to the bankers and then the Lord would have received his money with interest. I considered "giving the money to the bankers" to being similar to sharing in a meeting, fellowship with saints, etc. To me "bankers" is similar to the virgins storing oil in their lamps.

So I would agree that speaking in the meeting may be the lowest level of functioning, still it is functioning. Nowhere in the NT does it ever say that spectating, or listening to a message is functioning.

I would certainly consider evangelism, shepherding and teaching as a higher level of functioning, yet speaking in the meeting can be a very good training for these other functions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I would agree that speaking in the meeting may be the lowest level of functioning, still it is functioning. Nowhere in the NT does it ever say that spectating, or listening to a message is functioning.

I would certainly consider evangelism, shepherding and teaching as a higher level of functioning, yet speaking in the meeting can be a very good training for these other functions.

My point remains, that these 'functions' in the local churches of Lee were limited to what was delineated by Headquarters. Of course every 'locality' was different, as was the experience of every 'saint', but nonetheless the expectation was that somewhere Witness Lee had written a book or pamphlet about whatever you were doing. The ministry of Lee was a mediatorial agent in your local church life experience.

My example of 'popcorn testimonies' equaling 'functioning' in the meetings was not meant to be exhaustive by any means; it was just one of the more glaring examples, looking back.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

My point remains, that these 'functions' in the local churches of Lee were limited to what was delineated by Headquarters. Of course every 'locality' was different, as was the experience of every 'saint', but nonetheless the expectation was that somewhere Witness Lee had written a book or pamphlet about whatever you were doing. The ministry of Lee was a mediatorial agent in your local church life experience.

My example of 'popcorn testimonies' equaling 'functioning' in the meetings was not meant to be exhaustive by any means; it was just one of the more glaring examples, looking back.

There was a big emphasis in the LSM teaching that if you get the function of the 1 talented member then you will reap a big reward. Hence, the focus was on the lowest common denominator, not unlike todays schools.

In and of itself that would still be an admirable goal. The problem was the LRC was very strong to restrict the function of the talented members. No one could publish or start a ministry apart from LSM without being labeled as rebellious, and booted out. So what was taught as a way to get pew sitters to function really became a fig leaf to hide the fact that there was only room for one minister. The function of the saints was stifled with this excuse. I remember back in 1980 we were encouraged to write songs. The saints did, enjoyed them tremendously (singing Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, etc), many saints got involved and then when it seemed to really take off we were told it was fleshly and it was shut down.

Also, testimonies used to be just that, a personal testimony of an experience of Christ. However, EM and RG pushed quoting RcV footnotes as a "testimony". This was based on 1Cor whenever you come together each one has a..."teaching". What this really did was make it critical for everyone to buy the RcV which was in the process of being published as a complete NT for the first time. This was a great gimmick that made the LSM much more profitable. Coincidentally, this was the exact same time that WL decided to put RG and BP in charge of LSM and JI, etal were removed. So the entire concept of testimonies was hijacked to make merchandise of the saints. It is very difficult for EM or any of that ilk to stand up and give a testimony, but reading a footnote in an animated way as though you just got some great light is easy for them. This made it easy for the Toady to thrive in the LRC. Although I think they are now called elders.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

despite one line in 1 Corinthians 14 that has uncertain meaning, functioning of the body of Christ was not found in chapter 14, but in chapter 12...

As an example of WL mediating our seeing the written word, I was introduced to "you can all prophesy one by one" in chapter 14 as an exhortation to get up and speak one by one. But if you look at the context of the chapter, in Corinth they were all trampling on one another, to demonstrate their "spirit". So Paul said, "Calm down; speak one by one."

But WL had another agenda so we got a different take-home message from that.

As for examples of a church designing to have a local conference on something and being overridden by Anaheim, it just demonstrates that the denomination of the LRC (at least the LSM branch of it) is more highly regulated than most other denominations.

Well, at some point you regulate away the Shepherd's voice. Everyone has to make the assessment whether that was the case here. I saw what I saw; everyone else has their own testimony.

And I'm not saying WL didn't have a point vis-a-vis his own denominational experience. I just think he recollected a splinter, or a twig, and missed a beam or a branch right in front of him.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

I The problem too often is that "functioning" of the members is gauged almost entirely in terms of speaking in the meetings...I would suggest that the problem with "nullification of the function of the body members" is more a matter of misinterpretation of the meaning of the function of the body members than being nullified. I would agree that within the teaching of the LRC, that is exactly what is happening. But it is based on faulty teaching that it is speaking in the meetings that constitutes functioning of the members of the body. That is not an established fact, but an unsubstantiated assumption.

I completely agree that the whole idea of functioning as a member of the Body being tied exclusively to what someone does in a meeting is a faulty teaching and puts undue pressure on people to publicly speak regardless of their personality, etc. Those who are naturally extroverted and/or comfortable speaking in public become the "heros" of the church as if that is some sort of sensible measuring stick. Not to mention what they are speaking in the LC system is nothing but the endless repetition of Witness Lee and his BB.

I have been to several churches where IMHO the idea of functioning members of the Body is much better understood and practiced than what is done in the LC system. I recall one example when a teacher/pastor/elder: "Said if the Lord puts something on your heart to do you should do it. If you need help with manpower or finances or prayer of whatever just come to us and fellowship and we'll see what we can do." Then he gave an example of a woman in their church that wanted to help the poor in the community by opening a food bank and kitchen. So she did. She registered it as a non-profit ministry and launched it. And the church quietly helped her get it up and running. Isn't this functioning as a member of the Body? And this is just one example. There are many more.

BTW I've noticed a lot of brothers and sisters who leave the LC system have a hard time relating to other Christians and other churches. I think one reason is the difficultly of getting past the negative conditioning that all places outside the LC are nothing but Babylon. But a close second is the complaint that these places don't let everybody jump up and speak in their meetings like the LC did. Truth be told most churches have home bible studies where people are free to openly speak and share what light the Lord has given them. But more importantly how about you go start a ministry? Reach out to the poor. Go on a missions trip. Write a book. Put a podcast of music together. Do something instead of complaining as if everything is measured by whether or not a church has open mike on Sunday mornings!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem too often is that "functioning" of the members is gauged almost entirely in terms of speaking in the meetings. Yet, despite one line in 1 Corinthians 14 that has uncertain meaning, functioning of the body of Christ was not found in chapter 14, but in chapter 12. There we find that there are a multitude of ways to function. And not everyone does every one of these. And not every one does any particular one of these. Rather, the functions are dispersed among the members as it pleases God.

Great points Mike.

Meetings are just an hour or so out of a long week.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just some random thoughts ...
For some to get one minute after the message to speak is not all bad, Joyce Myers would never be so gracious.

I can't tell if this is negative towards Joyce Myers, or positive. I mean I can't tell if "gracious" is sarcastic.

But Joyce Myers is far more gracious than local church elders and leaders, no question. And at her conferences the re-speaking often goes on in homes and small group fellowships. People even disagree with her, and they aren't thrown out!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me give an example, and propose an alternative, which I see clearly presented in God's word. My example is a typical weekend 'conference'. What would happen is 2 or 3 'co-workers' would come by from Headquarters and give a series of messages. All the 'saints' from the various 'localities' would gather at one church building and listen. Usually it was Friday and Saturday night, and then Sunday morning. So there would be 3 or 4 meetings with a common theme. After each message, all the saints would get an opportunity to speak. Often they would only get a minute and somebody would bang a note on the piano if they went over their time. And the 'sharing' was supposed to be just repeating, verbatim if possible, what the co-worker had just said. Often the sharing was simply 2 or 3 saints who would chant a line together from the outline, then say, "amen!" with raised fists and sit down. Is this functioning? A robot could do that, or a tape recorder, which is exactly what we were told to be, more than once. Just enthusiastically repeat the word from Big Brother and sit down.

First, this forgets the 2-3 hours in the car each way to this conference, some of the best fellowship of the weekend. It also forgets that we took (or gave) hospitality with the saints, another excellent opportunity for fellowship and spiritual service. Although it is true many testimonies were repetitious, especially when quoting footnotes came into vogue, that however was never the "goal". The sharing was supposed to be related to the topic, particularly the verses covered. However, personal testimonies that were "on point" were often very well received and also very often given extra time as needed. This was true at the trainings as well. I remember one testimony from some new brother who had preached the gospel in the afternoon after hearing the message that brought the house down. However, this form of testimony required a genuine experience of Christ, as the experiences dwindled the amount of rote testimonies increased. I don't see how this can be compared to Christianity, as the common saw goes, "even a fool appears wise if he keeps his mouth shut".

To me the secret to a successful meeting is to experience Christ. If you do that and you are in a training with 2-4,000 it can be fantastic, just as if you were in a home meeting with 10 or 12.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In the scriptures, I see three mediatorial agencies between God and man. First, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ...

Second, there is the Word of God. God's word reveals His Son, who in turn reveals the Father to us...

Third, there is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that he was going back to the Father's house, and would send us the Spirit, who would guide us into all the true experiences of the Father's kingdom.. .

In the interests of simplification, I think we can even eliminate the scripture (the written word) as a 'mediatorial agent'. The Son of God and the Holy Spirit suffice. The written word testifies; it is a witness. The Son, the incarnated Word, along with His sent Spirit, is our guide.

Just trying to clean house. I usually write as I think, and often I look back and realize that I can neaten it up.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, let me propose an alternative. In the scriptures, I see three mediatorial agencies between God and man. First, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. "There is one mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus." "There is no other name given by which man may be saved." Etc. Etc. That seems pretty basic, and pretty clear.

Second, there is the Word of God. God's word reveals His Son, who in turn reveals the Father to us. In fact, the New Testament even calls Jesus Christ the incarnated Word. The Word of God shows us Jesus Christ, and Jesus shows us the things of the Father. Again, pretty basic.

Third, there is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that he was going back to the Father's house, and would send us the Spirit, who would guide us into all the true experiences of the Father's kingdom. Thus, in the absence of the physical Jesus, whom the disciples had for 3+ years, the disciples today have the indwelling Spirit leading us through the scriptures. Again, the Spirit shows us Jesus, who shows us our Father in heaven.

Originally Posted by aron

In the interests of simplification, I think we can even eliminate the scripture (the written word) as a 'mediatorial agent'. The Son of God and the Holy Spirit suffice. The written word testifies; it is a witness. The Son, the incarnated Word, along with His sent Spirit, is our guide.
Just trying to clean house. I usually write as I think, and often I look back and realize that I can neaten it up.

Actually aron I think you had it quite right the first time. I think your first post gets us to the lowest common denominators as far as the practical Christian experience of the Trinity goes. I noted that at the beginning you stated "In the scriptures, I see three mediatorial agencies between God and man" So after all my brother, I hope you can see that you could have hardly gotten to the 1st and 3rd mediators without the 2nd! Anyway, I think we all know where you were going with this and I appreciate this thread very much.

You have described quite well and very succinctly the irony (actually hypocrisy) of Lee and his followers claiming that most of Christian churches practices cause the "nullification of the function of the body members", when in fact it is the practices in the Local Church that do the very same thing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually aron I think you had it quite right the first time. I think your first post gets us to the lowest common denominators as far as the practical Christian experience of the Trinity goes.

Yes; perhaps it was simple enough originally. In any event the scriptures are essential. And my main problem with the ministry of WL (hypocrisy aside) is that the function of his ministry caused us to look away from the words of scripture, and the Christ revealed therein.

I have gone into detail elsewhere on this forum about how Jesus Christ is arguably revealed in the Bible, both in type and in plain language, only to have WL wave the text away as 'natural' and even 'fallen'.

Our ability as sheep to hear our Master's voice, and to "see Jesus" (Heb 2:9), was therefore nullified by WL's ministry. "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?" (Rom 10:14a)

Of course, seeing the truth in scripture doesn't guarantee obedience. But how can you obey the Master if you don't see Him in the text, revealed before you? How can you follow the Shepherd if you don't hear His voice? How can you function as a member of the body?