Titus Chu Conference at "Chicago Gospel Hall" (April 9-10, 2016)

[Koinonia]

Those in Chicago inclined toward following Titus Chu have recently purchased a disused church facility at 5518 West Gettysburg Street, three miles northwest of the Local Church buildings on West Irving Park Road. The group is referring to themselves as the "Chicago Gospel Hall" and also as "The Church of the Chicagoans." The following are links:

• http://www.chicagogospelhall.org
• http://www.thechurchofthechicagoans.org

Their websites announce a class for new believers with a book by Titus Chu as course material, as well as a "special gathering to open our new meeting hall" on April 9-10, with Titus Chu speaking. A letter states that "The Responsible Brothers in Chicago" "trust and pray that in the coming days the Lord will greatly use this hall for His own glory, to raise up His testimony in this city and beyond."

In the LC, people are very concerned with names. The name "The Church of the Chicagoans" is reminiscent of the name used by the LSM people in Toronto ("Church of the Torontonians") after their most recent church split. "Chicago Gospel Hall" is somewhat more interesting. This is a designation that would be familiar almost only to "Exclusive Brethren" types or to "Open Brethren" with more exclusive leanings. The former manager of the LC bookstore in Chicago once tried to woo into the LC mold members of two ex-Exclusive Brethren groups meeting in the Chicago area.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Those in Chicago inclined toward following Titus Chu have recently purchased a disused church facility at 5518 West Gettysburg Street, three miles northwest of the Local Church buildings on West Irving Park Road. The group is referring to themselves as the "Chicago Gospel Hall" and also as "The Church of the Chicagoans." .

Perhaps a little ironic that the notable "oneness" church in Chicago would now have a second location on Gettysburg St. following such a nasty civil war.

[Freedom]

It always interests me to read about what some of these groups have chosen after severing ties with LSM. Obviously some have gone back to their Exclusive Brethren roots, and while I don’t say that to criticize, it is essentially what you get when Lee/LSM are removed from the equation.

[Ohio]

This section stood out to me ...

Why Doesn’t Our Church Have a Name?

In the New Testament, the believers simply came together wherever they lived to be the church in that place, e.g., the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1), or the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess, 1:1). We do refer to ourselves as “the church in Chicago” or “the church of the Chicagoans,” but we do not take these terms as a name; we are only using them to describe who we are. We are incorporated as “The Church of the Chicagoans,” but that is only for legal purposes, or for practical matters such as designating this website. Again, we don’t take such descriptions as our actual name.

To “denominate” literally means “to give a name to; designate” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition). Christians today are so divided in part because they are denominated; that is, they want to be called by some name other than the name of Christ, e.g., Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. In fact, the apostle rebuked the early believers for this very thing:

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
– First Corinthians 1:11-13

I wish current LC members would think about what they are saying. They love to promote their "no-name" oneness, as if they are onto something special. Actually Paul never rebuked them for names per se, but that they had divided themselves from one another by selecting who they wanted to follow exclusively.

Now what in the world do they think just happened in Chicago?

Greater Chicago formerly was "of Titus," and now they are "of Lee" ... again. Are they so naive as to think this is not so? Do I really have to walk around wearing a sandwich sign reading "I am of Titus," and parroting the phrase repeatedly, for this to occur???

I went thru the recent divisions and quarantines first hand. My LC elders told us repeatedly, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Titus and by Titus and of Titus. Some of the others in my LC disagreed and said the same thing, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Lee and by Lee and of Lee.

Then there were a few oddballs like me who said, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are the church, and we don't have to take sides when ministries decide to fight. Few people listened to me.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This section stood out to me ...

I wish current LC members would think about what they are saying. They love to promote their "no-name" oneness, as if they are onto something special. Actually Paul never rebuked them for names per se, but that they had divided themselves from one another by selecting who they wanted to follow exclusively.

Now what in the world do they think just happened in Chicago?

Greater Chicago formerly was "of Titus," and now they are "of Lee" ... again. Are they so naive as to think this is not so? Do I really have to walk around wearing a sandwich sign reading "I am of Titus," and parroting the phrase repeatedly, for this to occur???

I went thru the recent divisions and quarantines first hand. My LC elders told us repeatedly, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Titus and by Titus and of Titus. Some of the others in my LC disagreed and said the same thing, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Lee and by Lee and of Lee.

Then there were a few oddballs like me who said, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are the church, and we don't have to take sides when ministries decide to fight. Few people listened to me.

"The church in..." (or "church of the...") is a name. Because it defines the group that LCers believe to be the actual "practicality" of church in any given location. Witness Lee had it right when he taught that "the church in" describes the spiritual reality of all of the believers in a given location being in God's eyes the church in that place. But over time this phrase, instead of being a mere "description," become a name, used to define their group.

It is the spiritual equivalent of proclaiming to be "I am of Christ," in the very passage quoted.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

"The church in..." (or "church of the...") is a name. Because it defines the group that LCers believe to be the actual "practicality" of church in any given location. Witness Lee had it right when he taught that "the church in" describes the spiritual reality of all of the believers in a given location being in God's eyes the church in that place. But over time this phrase, instead of being a mere "description," become a name, used to define their group.

Exactly, it is a name. Whenever I go to the department of revenue website for Washington state, I can look up any local church and the localities' name will show. Which clearly indicates there is a name. Whether a church calls itself First Presbyterian Church or their next door neighbor, The Church in Bellevue; it's taking a name.
If a group of Christians were really strong about not taking a name, they wouldn't register for a name and just come together as Christians meeting as an expression of the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It is the spiritual equivalent of proclaiming to be "I am of Christ," in the very passage quoted.

Can you elaborate?

Lee likewise condemned those that declared this, saying they rejected the apostles, and thus were similarly divisive.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This section stood out to me ...

Why Doesn’t Our Church Have a Name?

In the New Testament, the believers simply came together wherever they lived to be the church in that place, e.g., the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1), or the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess, 1:1). We do refer to ourselves as “the church in Chicago” or “the church of the Chicagoans,” but we do not take these terms as a name; we are only using them to describe who we are. We are incorporated as “The Church of the Chicagoans,” but that is only for legal purposes, or for practical matters such as designating this website. Again, we don’t take such descriptions as our actual name.

To “denominate” literally means “to give a name to; designate” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition). Christians today are so divided in part because they are denominated; that is, they want to be called by some name other than the name of Christ, e.g., Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

Legal purposes? Really! Why not say for tax benefits? Quite easily Christians can come together in His name without resorting to taking a name.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

Only Brother Lee could truly know a man's heart, or so the loyals believe.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It always interests me to read about what some of these groups have chosen after severing ties with LSM. Obviously some have gone back to their Exclusive Brethren roots, and while I don’t say that to criticize, it is essentially what you get when Lee/LSM are removed from the equation.

What's really ironic is Nee/Lee never really abandoned their Exclusive Brethren roots. Similar practices, but different terminology.

[Koinonia]

They appear to have closed down the "Chicago Gospel Hall" version of the website (which was different) and redirected it to "The Church of the Chicagoans."