Re-learning the ABCs (Assembly, Body, Church)

[YP0534]

The so-called vision of the so-called "universal church" is the EXACT problem with the Local Church.
It is also, not coincidentally, the unique fundamental problem of Catholicism and every descendant denomination.
Probably 99% of the independent and free groups as well.

How can there be hierarchy and ambition?
How can there be neglect and abuse of the local saints?
How can there be issues regarding finances spanning the globe?
Indeed, how can there even be the divisions and denominations?

These things ALL exist because of a heretical teaching called "universal church".

Thinking back to the earliest days among the Local Church saints.
My, how wonderful those meetings were!
We still hear the word concerning the glorious meetings at Elden Hall.
Here were a people who were FULLY focused on being absolute for Christ and having nothing BUT Christ in their meetings and He was there.
And they knew all the verses and lots of good practices. He manifests among them regularly, constantly.
They truly have the reality of "the local churches" among them in those days. Christ is there!

What happens?

Well, even at Elden Hall, there's been a creeping problem among them for a long time, each particular issue tracing its roots back to this same source.
The saints pass through all sorts of smaller issues together, all sacrificing their opinions and objections, even all of themselves, toward a larger goal.
I think you see what I mean.
What is that larger goal?
What do they call it? What do they intend it to be?

The Church!

At least at a certain point, Lee decides it's time to expressly focus on the increase. The numbers are too low after too many years.
His focus is on what?

According to his great vision, building up the "universal aspect of The Church," of course!

The elders and co-workers all sign on for this thing. All the saints get very excited, too.
Let's all work to gospelize and truthize first Taiwan, then the US, and then the rest of the world!
We will bring the Lord back because He will have His builded Bride, The Great Universal Church!
Hallelujah! Too GLORIOUS!

But something went wrong.
Nothing got gospelized or truthized.
A lot of activity, some small gains in numbers that don't remain, and right back down to no growth, no increase.

Lee died and things are seriously off kilter among them now.
They've built a seminary and we can perceive grave errors regarding oneness in the Body among them.
The stories come out about all the side effects of these efforts over the years.
The responsible parties cannot even see where they erred and if they do they are unrepentant.
Perhaps not incorrectly, when cornered they take the blood and move on, but they make no adjustments to their course.
The casualties continue to mount and they become even more concerned about uniformity and control of dissent.
If we are not one, we could never have the builded Church!
If you are not one with us, just shut up or get out, preferably both!
We will not look back like Lot's wife to mourn your loss and be under a curse!

How did they come to a place where they could throw the saints themselves under the bus of the Local Church?

They were focused on building up The Church.
They believe that God desires a builded Universal Church.

But what God really wants is only a little builded assembly, here, there and everywhere, where He can be manifest upon the earth.

Surely the Lord desires to see the Body built!
But the way that happens is very simply and practically through the glorious and small meetings of the saints.

The use of this devilish word "universal church" brings up the possibility for ALL the other issues to come in.

And they never STOPPED using this term.
It has been there from the very beginning, from Constantine at least.

The assembly is just(!) a practical manifestation of the very God in the meeting believers.
"The Church" is something of organization and religion that eventually manifests nothing but fallen humanity.

If somewhere lurking in the back of our minds is a concept of a larger purpose, that's just going to frustrate the Lord.
And we are almost genetically predisposed to look for a larger purpose in all that we do.
But the Lord's purpose is a very small purpose, writ large only from a certain, practically meaningless point of view.
Not to say that the BODY is meaningless, of course! But the Body is only manifest because of and in the assembly.
If you want to really know what is the universal Body of Christ, you need to get to know what is the reality of the local assembly.

And the problem with "blending" we can recognize now is that this is a just human-sized version of the Universal Church idea.

I think I may have even seen this vision of the assembly before 20 years ago but the Universal Church idea covered it over in time.

The problem with the elders' letter in 1986 was not precisely that it established a denomination, per se.
The problem is that it manifested their allegiance to the Universal Church notion, this time as expressed by Witness Lee.
Probably the best expression of that doctrine to date, but still fundamentally off and unsound.

The ASSEMBLY is the goal of the Lord's heart's desire.

It is so simple and so clear.


The assembly is the practical manifestation of the very God in the meetings of the believers.
Or, more precisely, the assembly exists wherever there is a meeting of the believers with the practical manifestation of the very God.

Turned around one more way - that kind of meeting is the \ekklesia\ - nothing more and nothing less.

Most of us here can immediately identify with the meetings where the room seemed brighter as God's glory shined upon and among us, but those were the special times. Except that that should be the ordinary experience of our assembling. Just exactly WHO do you think that shining was? Christ is THERE in those meetings. The assembly is the very house of the Living God, you see. This is how we are built together into God's dwelling place. Our job isn't to worry about the universal Body. We have a wonderful Head for that. We just need to focus on our little assembly and make sure He always appears and that we do not run Him off by our foolishness.

When we come together with our individual portions to testify of and share our experiences of Christ in practical oneness as the assembled saints, Christ Himself is manifest among us in the shining glory that can actually be seen by ourselves, any visitors, and even the principalities and rulers in the heavenlies.

I would say it this way: there are lots of Christian meetings in the world, but they are NOT the assembly and mostly cannot be the assembly for a variety of reasons. But to have the assembly really isn't difficult at all and it happens all over the place in small little places and ways all the time. Truly, when two or more are gathered in the right atmosphere, He is there and can be seen in His shining manifestation. The thing is we cannot establish the assembly by means of anything at all. The assembly exists in the practical manifestation of Christ in the gathered believers and in an abiding fashion in those believers who are constantly meeting in little ways all the time. The divisions are bad because they hinder the practical manifestation.

The reason there is no "universal aspect" is because for there to be a Body useful to the Head, there needs to be a "local aspect." The entire purpose of the universe is to have this "local aspect" because that is where you can actually see the very God of the universe manifested on the earth.

The Triune God is going to work to nourish and cherish the assemblies of the believers, or more particularly, the assembly in the particular place, because His purpose in the entire universe is to be manifest in it and through it.

In a sense, we see our small meetings as some pitiful little gathering in an obscure place. But in reality, God has been very satisfied in it because THAT is all He is looking for. He got manifested that day and, as it turns out, it's not so easy for Him to accomplish that. This is the reason we also have to share His burden. He can create the vastness of the universe with billions of galaxies into infinity but He cannot force even two believers to come together in oneness to give expression to Himself. And to be clear, it is NOT merely the gathering of Christians as believers in oneness that is His goal. It is the manifestation of Himself, as we have all seen, which might happen from time to time in gatherings of believers who don't really understand what they are doing and why, but which needs to happen in a continuing way by believers who share God's goal.

Here is the thing: in the Local Church, we took The Church and even the local church as our goal. We knew all the verses. We learned some good practices. We had some revelation. And truly Christ was manifest sometimes. But somehow, none of us ever saw that the practical meetings with the other saints where Christ was manifest as the real and present shining One was what we were actually talking about.

But that's it.

THAT'S what we're talking about.

The assembly is just the meetings where the Shining One visits with us.
Our goal is to figure out how to never have a meeting where He isn't clearly seen.

The ones who meet this way might be referred to as "the assembly" while not assembled but only because they will assemble again.
Ones who no longer assemble could not be referred to as "the assembly," could they?

It's not a club you can join or quit.
It's a living activity.

The incorporeal reality of divinity perceptibly displayed in the gathered redeemed humanity.

Think about that.

Think of the knucklehead atheist professors at the university.

They want to be able to see God before they will believe.
Well, guess what?

That's the plan.

And especially in the early stages ("early" after 2000 years!) it's still somewhat laughable.
But it's not funny.
It's serious and it's real.
Just as real as anything else in the universe.
And they will certainly one day see it.

The builded Body as the One New Man will cast the enemy into the Lake of Fire and remain the manifestation of God in eternity.
And it all started from that one little meeting in Jerusalem where the Lord began building it with Peter and his revelation...

[aron]

I contend that Lee fell into the same error Luther and Wesley had fallen into before him. They all organized.

Lee's other errors (I say this not to judge; we all have numerous faults) would not have ballooned the way they did, and would not have swallowed so many, if he had not been compelled to organize his vision.

To state the same thing from the other side: how can you successfully organize the Spirit? You can't. When you put the 'wind' into a box it is no longer the wind. It's sole purpose is to flow freely...

Thank you YP. Your 'speaking' resonates with me. Being 'local' is a great salvation, and preservation. When we are local, God gets to be universal. God wants to be the One who fills all in all, and He needs your square inch to do so. Do that, leave the rest to Him, and all will be well, I believe.

[countmeworthy]

Great Thread !

I want to make a comment however in response to Aron's thoughts..and that is... PRIDE! What an evil, evil thing that is! So many people who God uses mightily end up with big egos.

It's a two fold problem. God uses people mightily and people begin to drool all over themselves because of what God has shown them through these Evangelists/Preachers/Prophets/Teachers.

I think part of the reason Nee didn't fall under the category as Lee did is because he was in prison much of his adult life.

This problem is epidemic in the church...many, many people are being used by God but have become celebrities themselves.

So as I see it...people 'worship' a great teacher but won't say they are. And the teacher/preacher/prophet/evangelist then succombs to his popularity.

I can't wait for the day when all we see JESUS face to face & to see JESUS in one another.

Be back later to submit more thoughts.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

This problem is epidemic in the church...many, many people are being used by God but have become celebrities themselves.

You can't get to be too big of a celebrity in your own locality alone and any problems usually would be limited to that one place.

Whenever you go bigger than where you are, it's possible to make things up.

Aron's insights about extralocality are very helpful here.

It IS an epidemic in "the church."

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

You can't get to be too big of a celebrity in your own locality alone and any problems usually would be limited to that one place.

Whenever you go bigger than where you are, it's possible to make things up.

Aron's insights about extralocality are very helpful here.

It IS an epidemic in "the church."

I don't think we're on the same page YP...... I was thinking of the TV evangelists/preachers...not the LC elders.

However.....it seems the LC is gathering around videos during 'meetings'. They are watching and sharing what the BBs are sharing over the big screens.

The 'elders' of each locality seem to be proxies it seems. Don't know for sure.

[YP0534]

Can anyone direct me to the verses that show that the believers who die in Christ remain in the "universal Church"?

While you're at it, let's gather those that identify them as remaining the the Body as well.

Thanks.

This morning's light is that the problems with the "universal aspect" are not only in terms of locality but also in terms of temporality.

The assembly exists in space and time.

The "universal aspect" is divorced from both.

[Ohio]

YP, this has been a sore spot for me for many years. When I read I Cor. all the "body" talk is member-to-member, not church-to-church. It is NOT the universal ageless "thing" LSM teaches -- for entirely self-serving motives I might add.

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

[YP0534]

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

But, Ohio.

LSM isn't the only group who teaches universal and ageless.

I thought you said you used to be RCC?

[Ohio]

Yes I was, but I don't understand your point.

My comments were supporting yours.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

Sleep is a great thing.
I always see more clearly after sleeping on it.

Thank you!

In other words, Ohio, you're suggesting that there's no "universal Body" either?

Interesting to say the least!

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

What I have realized in this discussion, but hadn't stated yet, is that the reason the assembly is the Body of Christ is because the body is the substantial and tangible part of the person.

What you suggest here is that the Body is the same thing.

It sounds like a tautology but it isn't:
The Body of Christ is the body of Christ.
In other words, the Body of Christ is Christ's physical presence.

I think this might really be so, Ohio!
And I haven't even gotten my being around "assembly" yet!

Praise the Lord!

But if "church" just means "assembly" and "Body" just means "the physical part of a person," where did this "Universal Church" thing even come from???

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

There is a verse that says the body is composed of many members. See Romans 12:4-5. (not churches)

The Gk word which is translated as "assembly" or "church" simply means "called out." I think that we, over time and through tradition, have come to attribute a much more complex meaning to this word. The Bible says he "called us out" of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9), out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of the son of His love.

This whole problem had been solved for me by this simple understanding. Whenever and wherever the called out gather in his name that is a gathering of the called out. If every called out one that has ever been called out, past present and future could gather that would be a universal gathering of the called out.

I think the whole thing is much simpler than we have made it. I wonder who is behind that?

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

In other words, Ohio, you're suggesting that there's no "universal Body" either? Interesting to say the least!

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

YP, I am not sure at this point, but you have me thinking!

I can say for sure, that the majority of scripture indicates that the body is many members, and the body is the local assembly, mainly from 1 Cor.

The thought of the universal church comes from vv. like Mt 16, "I will build My church" and Eph 1:23, "To the church, His body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all.

YP, I encourage you to flush this one out. Take your "hunch" to the word of God. Such searching reaps great rewards and the best understanding of scripture. Let's look at what the Bible says about this. I now question much of what I used to be convinced I knew.

As a corollary to your thought. Can we possibly have "many churches, but one body" without some fallen human oversight? Call them RCC monseigneurs, bishops, cardinals, and popes or LSM FT'ers, co-workers, BB's, and oracles -- what's the difference?

But if we have "many members, but one body," then we have a local assembly, with elders and deacons, now that I have seen in my Bible!

[Peter Debelak]

YP:

Excellent post. I have considered the nature of "ekklesia" much as of late. There is such an immediate quality to that word. It was not used as a "group title" or status.

One interesting thing from 1 Cor. 11:18 is “when you come together as a church.” Huh? Are they not “a church” when they don’t come together? It seems that only in Ephesians and Colossians does Paul refer to “ekklesia” in a sense other than “an instantly assembled group.” Why did Paul use this word? He could have used thiasoi (religious clubs) or synagogai (assemblies or synagogues). These words seem to me to more like “titles” or group labels. On the other hand, there is a quality to ekklesia that makes it “instant” and “immediate” – not a “status” or a title. It is, by nature, a description of people coming together.

That said, Paul does seem to use the word "church" in a broader sense on some occasions (I'll post some of these in another post). Words can take on new or broader meanings. The question is, does or should that affect what we perceive ourselves to be "building" - if we are to be "building" in a conscious way at all...?

More food to add to the delicious schmorgesborge (sp?) of thought already here...

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

YP:

Excellent post. I have considered the nature of "ekklesia" much as of late. There is such an immediate quality to that word. It was not used as a "group title" or status.

One interesting thing from 1 Cor. 11:18 is “when you come together as a church.” Huh? Are they not “a church” when they don’t come together? It seems that only in Ephesians and Colossians does Paul refer to “ekklesia” in a sense other than “an instantly assembled group.” Why did Paul use this word? He could have used thiasoi (religious clubs) or synagogai (assemblies or synagogues). These words seem to me to more like “titles” or group labels. On the other hand, there is a quality to ekklesia that makes it “instant” and “immediate” – not a “status” or a title. It is, by nature, a description of people coming together.

That said, Paul does seem to use the word "church" in a broader sense on some occasions (I'll post some of these in another post). Words can take on new or broader meanings. The question is, does or should that affect what we perceive ourselves to be "building" - if we are to be "building" in a conscious way at all...?

More food to add to the delicious schmorgesborge (sp?) of thought already here...

Peter

Well, you aren't going to like this resposne probably but, open your understanding to permit that "ekklesia" just always means "local assembly" and read prayerfully those places where we've always been taught that they are "broader" meanings. Don't assume what Paul meant. Suspend that for a few minutes and see if you aren't touched with something real and solid in its place. There is no place that REQUIRES a "universal aspect" definition.

I tell you, it's our practical assembling that the enemy hates and, as it turns out, it's the universal doctrine which is the best way to prevent it and it has been that way for nearly 2000 years....

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, you aren't going to like this resposne probably but, open your understanding to permit that "ekklesia" just always means "local assembly" and read prayerfully those places where we've always been taught that they are "broader" meanings.

Actually, that's exactly the kind of response I like: one that requires me to go back to the Word and challenge previously unchallenged assumptions.

Another adventure in the Word... I'll get back to you.

Thanks.

Peter

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I think both ideas: local and universal are somewhat abstract. Practically speaking the church is people. When we build up the church we build up people. Or put another way: we disciple people and help them grow.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Actually, that's exactly the kind of response I like: one that requires me to go back to the Word and challenge previously unchallenged assumptions.

Another adventure in the Word... I'll get back to you.

Thanks.

Peter

well, good!

I've seen this far but I have no idea what comes next.

I think aron said he's been working on the same theme for awhile now.

The interesting thing is that this reading really makes clear that Lee obviously saw something at one point but never really got very clear on it as a result of this very issue.

In other words, he saw the "local church" but his failure to divest of the "universal church" meant that most of the stuff got all jumbled up.

Check this one out, for instance:
In "Practical Expression of the Church" (itself a problematic statement!) Lee says that the Body of Christ is the expression of the (universal) "Church."
The thing is, and I think we all pretty much know this already, the local assembly is the real expression of the Body. But Lee gets this exactly upside down because he has to give a place for the "Universal Church" in his ecclesiological system.

The key is to realize that the verse reads "the assembly, which is His Body" but that doesn't mean that His body IS the (universal) Church. When you touch the assembly, you touch the Body. Clearly, no argument there. But you'll never see the entire universal Body and the only way to get a universal "assembly" equivalent is to invent one. Problem is, \ekklesia\ basically means "town hall meeting" and it's just nonsensical to try to discuss an international town hall meeting.

[Peter Debelak]

I was working on a compilation and analysis of several mentions of "church" thorought Acts and the Epistles, but realized that perhaps its too much to chew at once. Instead, for now, I'll take a look at a dichotomy Watchman Nee drew, based on his understanding of the "universal Body" versus the "local assemblies." Here is Nee's distinction between "gifts to the whole church" versus "gifts to the local church." From Assembly Life (beginning on page 47):

“Every believer has at least one talent. There is no slave who does not have any gift. First Corinthians 12 says that to one is given one kind of gift and to another is given another kind of gift. Therefore, everyone has a gift. Every regenerated person has a gift. But not everyone has the same kind of gift. According to Ephesians 4, there are only five kinds of gifts that build up the whole church. But as to the gifts that are for the growth of the local church, we have those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. Not every believer has the gifts of Ephesians 4, but they may have one of the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12.”

…

“Ephesians 4 refers to people, while 1 Corinthians 12 referes to things. Ephesians 4 says God gives some apostles, prophets, evangelishts, and shepherds and teachers; these are five kinds of people. First Corinthians 12 says that God gives some the ability to prophesy or speak in tongues. Paul was a gift given by God to the church; he was an apostle. But Paul also had other gifts, such as prophesying, speaking in tongues and healing.

To my observation, Brother Chi Yung-tung looks very much like a pastor. Let me take him as an example. God has given a gift to the church in Soo-chia-tsui, which is Chi Yung-tung. The whole church in Soo-chia-tsui should then receive brother Chi as a gift given to them by God. At the same time, Brother Chi has the pastoral gift. His gift is the gift of a pastor. If anyone asks what gift Paul had, we would answer that he had the gift of an apostle. But if anyone asks what gift God has given to the church, we would answer, “The apostle Paul.” All five kinds of people in Ephesians 4 are gifts given by God to the church and they are for the whole church. First Corinthians 12 mentions the various gifts that God gives to individual believers; the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 are for the local churches. Paul was a gift given by God to the church for the purpose of building up the whole church. Therefore, the gift which was released through Paul has benefited men of all times and places; his work did not pass away; it remains even until today.”

I glean that Nee is saying, the people, who are gifts given by God, in Ephesians 4 are gifts to the whole Body of Christ – while the “things” (such as prophesy) are gifts given by God to individuals for the local assembly. Is this right?

I just don’t see that dichotomy (between the “whole church” versus the “local church” in these passages). In 1 Corinthians 12, it says

“But the one and the same Spirit operates in all these things [the gifts mentioned], distributing to each one individual as He purposes. For even as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of the body being many are one body, so also is the Christ.” (vv. 11-12).

From this, it seems that the gifts given to each member are for the whole body.

Similarly, in Ephesians 4, it is not obvious that only a select few are given as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, sheherds or teachers” to the whole church. In face, verse 7 says

“But to each one of us was given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Sure, it could be said that the gifts in verse 11 are different and a specific subset whose specific purpose is “for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the Body of Christ” – but later in the chapter Paul says that “Out from whom all the Body, fitted and knit together through every joint of the supply, according to the operation in measureof each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.” As such, each one part does the work of “building up the Body” and thus “each one part” is parallel to to the work of the gifted ones in verse 11 whose work is “unto the building up of the Body of Christ.”

What do you all think? First, does Nee's distinction hold up? Second, even if it doesn't - are these gifts for the "whole Body of Christ"? If so, is that the same as being for the "whole church universal"? If not, why not? I have a hard time reading the "Body" references here as being purely local. That doesn't mean individual members must concern themselves with anything more than "the Body" as expressed in their local assemby, but the verses still seem to refer to a larger entity, no?

Peter

P.S. YP, I anticipate that you will say, yes - there is a difference between saying "universal Body" versus "universal church." You made this point in your first post. However, I guess I don't see the distinction. Is it because "church" is something that is "built" and thus to think we must "build" the "universal church" causes us to focus on something God never intended -whereas the "Body" is organic and therefore, if you "grow" the local assembly, the "universal Body" is necessarily increased? If so, I get the distinction. But I just wonder if its a distinction without a difference. Cf. Ephesians 2:19-22 where it seems Paul is discussion the universal entity which is "build" - including "God's household," a "holy temple," and a "dwelling". Though I do note that "to build" in these passages is always passive... (sorry, too many thoughts jammed into a small space - I'll unpack it later...).