How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"

[ToGodAlone]

This was a question that I've wondered over the past few months. From the way some of you post, it seems as though you have a disdain for both the LRC and "mainstream" Christianity as well. I'm not saying that "regular" churches are not without flaws or anything like that, but from what I've read, it just seems as though a few of you have retained the LRC dislike of non LRC churches.

That being said, I was wondering how has being in the LRC affected your views of denominational (and non-denominational) churches? If I recall correctly, some people had an issue with the pastoral system or the elder system or something like that, but maybe I am confusing that with another place.

[OBW]

Interesting question. And I have opined on it a couple of times in different ways. I frame the question as two questions:

1. Is Lee’s use of “Babylon” valid?
2. Are there problems with Christianity in general?

I disagree with Lee’s view of Babylon. First, he has treated it as something that is chosen by pathetic Jews. He has ignored the biblical record that all of the Jews were sent there due to general sins, most prominently of idolatry. The nation as a whole was only free of idols for a few limited periods of time. So they were exiled to Babylon. After that time, idolatry is not seen among the people again.

But most interesting is that when the 70 years had ended and the Persian rulers decreed that they could return, only some did. And nowhere near all of the leaders. Several years later, Nehemiah returned for a purpose with a promise to return to Babylon and resume his service to the king. There is nothing indicating that there was a spiritual failure for doing this.

And for a race of people who are supposed to bless all of the people of the earth, staying cooped up in that little strip of land at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea is not very effective. But after the exile, those that did not go back began to spread out across the empire. That is how there were synagogues or other Jewish gatherings all over the Roman empire for Paul to start off in when he did his ministry. Rather than some horrible problem, Babylon was the proverbial sower of the people of God.

As for the problem with Christianity in general, it’s just not there. They don’t do a lot of things in the LRC way. So if you think that is the end-all of Christian worship and living, then they are deficient. But I don’t see it that way. While I attend a rather normal “Bible church,” I have come to appreciate a broad spectrum of other worship styles. There is something positive about any of them. There are advantages to larger churches and to smaller churches. Certain denominations are good at digging through the scripture. Others have that for those who want it, but are more focused in their worship. There is value in the old hymns and in the new choruses. All of that is “style” and none of it is prescribed in scripture. More current ways speak to those of the current culture better than ways that seem archaic and odd.

And yet the liturgy of the Lutherans, Episcopals, Orthodox, and even RCC is not without meaning. I realize that last one will raise eyebrows. Surely there is something amiss with the RCC, at least in terms of prayer to Saints and to Mary. But if we accept the warnings to Thyatira as being to the RCC it is still a church. The open reviling of it somehow fails the 1 Corinthians 13 test (IMHO).

Babylon was a tool of God in the history of Israel. And it figuratively plays into some of the prophecies of Revelation. Outside of that, I don’t see it in the church (or the Church).

As for pastors, elders, etc., it takes something like rejecting portions of the New Testament as being the Word of God to reject them the way some have. Very much like Lee rejecting the epistle of James and relegating it to the status of warning sign for what not to do. I accept James over Lee any day of the week on any subject.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the problem with Christianity in general, it’s just not there. They don’t do a lot of things in the LRC way. So if you think that is the end-all of Christian worship and living, then they are deficient. But I don’t see it that way. While I attend a rather normal “Bible church,” I have come to appreciate a broad spectrum of other worship styles. There is something positive about any of them. There are advantages to larger churches and to smaller churches. Certain denominations are good at digging through the scripture. Others have that for those who want it, but are more focused in their worship. There is value in the old hymns and in the new choruses.

As for pastors, elders, etc., it takes something like rejecting portions of the New Testament as being the Word of God to reject them the way some have. Very much like Lee rejecting the epistle of James and relegating it to the status of warning sign for what not to do. I accept James over Lee any day of the week on any subject.

If meeting in the LSM brand of local churches is not an option there is value in visiting other assemblies in your locality. Do not be so naive to think just because Witness Lee called Christianity "Christless", that it is. "Just taste and see" if assemblies in your locality are deficient, superficial, or shallow. I haven't had that experience, just different. Probably the number one item to adjust to is one man speaking. Personally I find more value listening to a brother speak according to the Bible than to speak according to a ministry. In a ministry you can cherry pick scripture that best supports your ministry. When a brother is giving a message week after week going through a book of the Bible, there is less chance of a cherry-picked message.
Another point some may make is any assembly you meet with outside a LSM assembly, lacks in the high peak teaching. Quite possible. However I'd rather meet with an assembly that's rich in love and lacking in high peak teaching compared to one that's rich in high peak teaching and lacking in love.

The number item I think many have issues adjusting to is singing. You have usage of electric instruments over a piano or accoustic guitar. Okay, there are other Christian sects such as the Exclusive Brethren who don't use any instruments when singing hymns. Then we have the hymns. So much criticism over contemporary hymns. Those who criticize the hymns, are you paying more attention to the music or to the lyrics? Whether traditional or contemporary, they were God inspired and written at some point.

OBW, I agree with you on the epistle of James.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Babylon was a tool of God in the history of Israel. And it figuratively plays into some of the prophecies of Revelation. Outside of that, I don’t see it in the church (or the Church).

So what do you think the Lord means in Revelation when he says, "Come out of her [Babylon] my people, and do not partake of her sins"?

I'm not baiting, I'm just wondering how you interpret that. What are they in that they should come out of?

[OBW]

Babylon, the nation, was an enemy of Israel. While God used it as a tool of chastisement for the chosen people, that did not absolve it of its part in the calamity. And prior to the end of the 70 years, that did happen. By that time, Babylon was not its own nation. It was overtaken by the Persians who were the ones that allowed the return. So in that sense, Babylon is judged for its part in the ransacking of Jerusalem and Judea. The Babylon they returned from was not the same Babylon that took them captive.

And when looking back at the nation that reached out to captivate so much of the area — much more than just Jerusalem — that nation was corrupt and was punished. And if you want a metaphor concerning a system that takes over everything in its path and consumes it, Babylon is a good metaphor. They took the property of their conquests, killed many of the people, and enslaved much of the rest.

But is this reference to Babylon in Revelation being cast upon some aspect of the church? If so, the presumption generally is that it is on the RCC (at a minimum). But if that is true, then I would expect that something sounding like the charge against Babylon there in chapter 18 would be foreshadowed somehow in the 7 letters to churches. In that case, the nearest thing is the existence of a woman (Jezebel) within Thyatira that is ordered to be cast out. The woman is not the church. And the church is not referred to as committing adultery.

I think this is one of those cases of over-"simply"-fying words and phrases into a single thought. Like all references to leaven are bad. Surely the nation of Babylon was not a positive thing. And this "Babylon the Great" is not someone to bring home to Mama. But nothing in those statements casts the aspersion of "Babylon and her whore daughters" onto Christianity in general, or necessarily onto the RCC (said with reasonable trepidation).

Last, in one way of looking at the original captivity, they were already out of Babylon before they began to return. At that point, they were in Persia. No. They were still in the area known as Babylon, but Babylon was no longer an independent country. It was now ruled by Persia. So, in a sense, they came out of Persia to return to Jerusalem. And those that stayed did not stay in Babylon, but in Persia.

[OBW]

In any case, the insistence that the declaration in Revelation 18 is about Christianity in general, or the RCC in particular, is, at best, speculative and weak. There needs to be more than a bunch of exclusivist preachers denigrating everyone but their kind out there saying it is true based on something more than the kind of nonsense that Lee spouted about it. I need to see scripture more directly aim this at the church rather than at the "world" and/or Satan.

Assuming that John was actually writing Revelation in about 95 AD, the best view of people being drunk on the blood of the saints was the execution of so many Christians by heathen rulers, especially in a way of exhibition, such as in the Coliseum.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In any case, the insistence that the declaration in Revelation 18 is about Christianity in general, or the RCC in particular, is, at best, speculative and weak. There needs to be more than a bunch of exclusivist preachers denigrating everyone but their kind out there saying it is true based on something more than the kind of nonsense that Lee spouted about it. I need to see scripture more directly aim this at the church rather than at the "world" and/or Satan.

Assuming that John was actually writing Revelation in about 95 AD, the best view of people being drunk on the blood of the saints was the execution of so many Christians by heathen rulers, especially in a way of exhibition, such as in the Coliseum.

Babylon the Great in Revelation is presumed to refer to Rome in some fashion because Revelation 17:9 says "the seven heads are the seven mountains the woman sits on," and Rome was famously built on seven hills.

I think the best bet may be that Rome (and BtG) simply refers to the whole false worldly system, which includes false religions. As you implied, at the time Rome was not a Christian religious center, it was the center of worldly power and oppression of Christians. I do not think it refers to any legitimate Christian group, including Catholic churches. As you said, if Thyatira refers to the Catholic church, then why didn't the Lord tell the believers to leave that church? However, that is not to say there are not some systematized things that Catholics, and indeed many non-Catholics, need to "come out of."

When the Lord says "come out of her my people," it may be a warning to not participate in the evil practices of the worldly system. Or it may simply be a warning to, as Rooster Cogburn immortally put it in True Grit, "get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on" it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for pastors, elders, etc., it takes something like rejecting portions of the New Testament as being the Word of God to reject them the way some have.

Given the criticism the recovery has towards "pastoral" Christianity, have you as the ready considered the criticism non-recovery Christianity has towards the non-pastoral system. That being the danger is too great of a non-trained member of the body to speak in error.
Does the speaking supported by scripture?
Is the speaking used to edify or for personal gain?

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Terry

Given the criticism the recovery has towards "pastoral" Christianity, have you as the ready considered the criticism non-recovery Christianity has towards the non-pastoral system. That being the danger is too great of a non-trained member of the body to speak in error.
Does the speaking supported by scripture?
Is the speaking used to edify or for personal gain?

I believe the purpose for having a pastoral position is to have a speaker who has been trained in studying the Bible speak God's message to the members of the church. This is not meaning that individual members cannot speak at all, but just that they cannot (or I suppose, rather, should not) in front of the whole congregation like the LRC chooses to because they might deviate (intentionally or not) from the Word. Individual prophesying takes place in smaller group settings where everyone has a chance to participate.

Having ordained teachers is mentioned in the Bible, if I recall correctly. If not, there at the very least is the mention of teaching/speaking being a spiritual gift given to a few people specifically for the purpose of guiding (ie sheparding/pastoring) the church.

[UntoHim]

In the beginning……..
The term "pastor" is simply another translation of teacher or elder. They are all interchangeable in the New Testament. There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches. There were established requirements. It is my belief that none of the apostles just pulled these requirements out of a hat - they themselves were chosen, trained and mentored by the Lord Jesus himself. Then it was a matter of "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you" (1 Cor 11:23). Then young men such as Timothy in turn selected, trained and mentored the next generation. As the centuries passed, man did what man always does….he left the path established by God himself, and instituted a corrupt system which is, to one degree or another, still with us today.

However…….
Those who have advocated a church without official, trained and educated leadership are seeking a kind of utopia which has never existed in church history, and I suggest never will. I think this is one of the major flaws in Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology – that he thought he and his followers could simply ignore and bypass 1900 years of church history and start all over again. A nice thought, but totally naïve on his part. We know from recorded history that, despite his good intentions, Nee ended up surrounding himself with many men who were not necessarily beholden to God and his Word, but rather they were man pleasers, simply and fully beholden to the person and work of Watchman Nee. Then when Nee was no longer available, the wolves among the flock could take advantage of the situation. Nee was the only strong shepherd….there were no officially selected, trained and educated men to go forward as the next generation.

Fast forward to the beginnings of The Local Church movement in the USA…….
The dynamic I described above repeated itself here in America, but this time without the advantage of starting out with someone with the genuine heart and altruistic intentions of Watchman Nee. We now know that Witness Lee did not arrive upon our fair shores with the same genuine heart and altruistic intentions, in fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I will not get into all the gory details at this point….they are well documented on this and other places on the Internet. Witness Lee, not being educated, or allowed to be challenged and balanced by any of his contemporaries (even within the Movement itself, much less within Christianity in general) ended up compounding and greatly magnifying the errors of Watchman Nee and the Little Flock….with the disastrous results we now see before us in The Local Church of Witness Lee.

And tying this into the original question posed by ToGodAlone…….
Witness Lee ended up compounding and magnifying one of Nee’s greatest errors – surrounding himself with, and then appointing into leadership, men who were not beholden to God and his Word, but rather simply and fully beholden to his own person and work. We see this dynamic in full blossom in the Local Church today – a religious system with a fully developed hierarchy (at the top of the pyramid the Blended Brothers) , and even their own faux seminary, which they have dubbed the “Full-Time Training”. So now we get to the rank-and-file members…. “the saints”. The same prejudices and haughty attitude that Witness Lee passed on to his early followers are now passed on to a new generation. (The Full-Time Training simply being a “crash course” - pun intended - that instills all the same prejudices and attitude into young people in a condensed period of time) As for all the older ones, well they need no more training at all. All the prejudices and haughty attitude is now in their DNA. I have been out of the system for many years and I still find myself muttering under my breath “poor, poor Christianity”.

[John]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

... There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches. There were established requirements. It is my belief that none of the apostles just pulled these requirements out of a hat ...

Those who have advocated a church without official, trained and educated leadership are seeking a kind of utopia which has never existed in church history, and I suggest never will.

UntoHim,

I am not sure if you mean that the "solid evidence" you claim exists were the lists of requirements in the Bible or if you are referring to some other evidence. Which is it? If the former, I don't think the lists support the idea of a leadership training system. If the latter, what is the evidence?

By the way, in the case of Matthias, they did pull his name out of a hat, so to speak: They drew lots. Since this was the first apostle that was not selected by Jesus, it may be significant.

I have experienced "a church without official, trained and educated leadership." It was a kind of utopia for me.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

This was a question that I've wondered over the past few months. From the way some of you post, it seems as though you have a disdain for both the LRC and "mainstream" Christianity as well. I'm not saying that "regular" churches are not without flaws or anything like that, but from what I've read, it just seems as though a few of you have retained the LRC dislike of non LRC churches.

That being said, I was wondering how has being in the LRC affected your views of denominational (and non-denominational) churches? If I recall correctly, some people had an issue with the pastoral system or the elder system or something like that, but maybe I am confusing that with another place.

Man oh man, ToGodAlone, didn't think you'd get such boisterous and diverse response did ya? Of course, you've been around here a while now, so I guess you know how we ex members roll...we were so cooped up for so long without any outlet to express our opinions...well sometimes we just get a little aggressive with our newfound freedom. (even though some of us have been out for years, at least speaking for myself, we still don't handle prosperity very well)

In any event, I think you can see that there is not really a monolithic way we all look at mainstream Christianity or the pastoral system as you call it. Some of us have eventually found our way back into what we used to know as "Christianity", in many of it's different forms and formats. I know of a few ex Local Churchers who have actually returned to the Catholic Church (gasp) Some ex members have, for many and diverse reasons, chosen to refrain from attending mainstream (or mainline) Christian churches. I think John has given a very clear and reasonable reason for his stance regarding this matter, and I hope he will expand upon this when he gets a chance.

For me personally, my "views of denominational (and non-denominational) churches" have evolved greatly over the past 15+ years that I've been out of the Local Church. I think this might be a function of the fact that Evangelical Christianity has itself evolved greatly (for the better mostly) over the past 20 - 30 years. Many of the tired, old religious/philosophical traditions have been discarded for a fresh and renewed turn towards the Word of God, and along with this turn has come a revival of true worship. It seems to me that God is taking the different man-made "streams" (traditional, conservative, pentecostal/charismatic, etc), taking what is biblical and profitable from each, and infusing a little of each in The Body of Christ. Time will tell I guess.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In any event, I think you can see that there is not really a monolithic way we all look at mainstream Christianity or the pastoral system as you call it.

I was very active in the Recovery since the mid-70's, even migrating twice to start new churches. I say this so that no one can happen by and conclude that "maybe Ohio never saw the vision of God's economy" or perhaps one might think that I "never was really consecrated to Christ and the church."

After several years of serious study, I was forced to conclude that the Recovery has made no improvements over the so-called "pastoral system" in mainstream Christianity, nor in any of the matters of church ecclesiology, such as the ground of oneness. The exact same pitfalls and shortcomings which can be seen in mainstream Christianity, can also be seen in the Recovery. But since the Recovery boasts of its superiority, and condemns the rest of the body of Christ for its failures, she has become like the Pharisees of old, steeped in hypocrisy.

All the various descriptions of what a dreaded denomination looks like can be applied to the Recovery. On the one hand we claimed that we had no name, yet LSM assisted some in Columbus to sue their brothers in court over the rights to their name. We claimed that we had no hierarchy, but the hierarchies among the co-workers regularly fought with each other and overruled the elderships in the LC's. We claimed that we had no headquarters, yet here in the Great Lakes area, we had two, Anaheim and Cleveland, which both fought for control over the area LC's. We claimed that we only had the pure word of God and no systematic theology, yet any LC caught not using LSM's materials was in serious trouble. Senior workers claimed there were no controls, yet our history was filled with stories of godly elders removed from their office simply for deciding to keep the Shepherd and His flock above the demands of "the ministry office."

I could go on and on here about the blatant contradictions that troubled mine and many a conscience. When I began to stare these hypocrisies in the face, I finally received my answer as to "why was there so little blessing in the LC's?" We sued outsiders and quarantined insiders. We had effectively squashed every available means for the Lord to correct us. We had become like Jerusalem of old, "who kills the Prophets and stones those who are sent to her." We were no different than Laodicea, who claimed to have "all the riches of the ministry, and in need of nothing."

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"why was there so little blessing in the LC's?" We sued outsiders and quarantined insiders. We had effectively squashed every available means for the Lord to correct us. We had become like Jerusalem of old, "who kills the Prophets and stones those who are sent to her." We were no different than Laodicea, who claimed to have "all the riches of the ministry, and in need of nothing."

It’s interesting that you brought this point out Ohio, because I was just discussing this exact same thing with my wife the other day. I was telling my wife about my experience having coffee with the pastor of the church we’ve recently been attending. During the conversation w/ the pastor I told him of my experiences with the Lord recently and about some of my doctrinal views. To my surprise he didn’t express the slightest bit of suspicion; none, no wrinkling of the forehead, no raised eyebrow, no grimace, nothing. He was completely positive and receptive and I gotta say it was nice for a change.

I think of the locality that I used to attend and how suspicious they were of everyone and everything. That’s why there is no increase there. Thirty years, THIR-TY! And no increase, because they ran off the increase, they ran off all the help, all those who were sent to her, gone. How sad. I imagine it was the same kind of environment among the Brethren. May the Lord have mercy on us all and may we not fall victim to suspicious pride.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by seeking1

It’s interesting that you brought this point out Ohio, because I was just discussing this exact same thing with my wife the other day. I was telling my wife about my experience having coffee with the pastor of the church we’ve recently been attending. During the conversation w/ the pastor I told him of my experiences with the Lord recently and about some of my doctrinal views. To my surprise he didn’t express the slightest bit of suspicion; none, no wrinkling of the forehead, no raised eyebrow, no grimace, nothing. He was completely positive and receptive and I gotta say it was nice for a change.

I think of the locality that I used to attend and how suspicious they were of everyone and everything. That’s why there is no increase there. Thirty years, THIR-TY! And no increase, because they ran off the increase, they ran off all the help, all those who were sent to her, gone. How sad. I imagine it was the same kind of environment among the Brethren. May the Lord have mercy on us all and may we not fall victim to suspicious pride.

The Recovery folks have been programmed over the years to somehow believe that they were the Lord's unique testimony on earth. Coupled with that is the ingrained belief that the Lord is actively managing the direction of the Recovery thru WL and the Blendeds. LC'ers are convinced that if the Lord were somehow upset with the current state of things, then "He would have done something by now."

The same could be said of the nation of Israel 2,000 years ago. God used all manner of ways to effect change in His people, yet without success, to the point He sent His own Son. We know how that turned out.

Today a fortress surrounds the Recovery. They convince themselves that they are today's Israel, to the exclusion of all other Christians, and are waiting for Him to return. Like their predecessors the Exclusive Brethren, the mental strongholds, reinforced by insider teachings and past events, have become bunkers that can withstand atomic blasts. Who would they listen to? Even the apostles rise from the dead, the Blendeds would find ways to discredit them. Similarly as Israel's chief priest justified the murder of Jesus Christ, I have repeatedly watched LSM defend the indefensible and justify that which should only have been condemned. When it comes to many areas of church administration at LSM, wrong is right and right is wrong, white is black and black is white.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it comes to many areas of church administration at LSM, wrong is right and right is wrong, white is black and black is white.

In a nutshell, that's Isaiah 5:20.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Man oh man, ToGodAlone, didn't think you'd get such boisterous and diverse response did ya? Of course, you've been around here a while now, so I guess you know how we ex members roll...we were so cooped up for so long without any outlet to express our opinions...well sometimes we just get a little aggressive with our newfound freedom. (even though some of us have been out for years, at least speaking for myself, we still don't handle prosperity very well)

Haha I assure you I actually did expect a diverse array of responses. I just wanted to see where people were coming from with regards to their views on mainstream Christianity.

So often I have seen current LRC members mistakenly think that they have something that everyone else does not (and Ohio touches on this in his post above rather nicely) and that everyone else is lacking. Even in members who don't want to think that the LRC is above any other church gathering end up having the sense of superiority ingrained into their minds and so while they can't seem to put their finger on what they actually think is wrong with "regular" Christianity, they still believe it to be lacking. If this view had somehow been retained throughout the years by ex-members, then I think that just goes to show how deep the LRC culture gets into you.

Personally I think it's a darn shame if an ex-LRC member can't eventually come to peace with the rest of Christianity because they think there's still something wrong with it. The church has its problems and it always will...but don't those always come from the people and not the system itself? Heck, the LRC system isn't full of superiority and condemnation on paper is it? It's how WL and LSM used and manipulated it that created those feelings. Now I'm not saying that everyone has to go and attend an Evangelical church or whatnot, do whatever the Lord moves you to, but as long as everyone accepts each other as part of the Body of Christ, we're all on the same team, no matter where we attend. That goes for those in the LRC as well (although I will admit this is hard for me to do at times).

[RollingStone]

In one of the WL books I seem to remember reading about the two winds of the spirit, that one wind was blowing toward Babylon and the other toward New Jerusalem.
I bought into that concept.
I think some felt that the LRC were the only ones riding the wind to the New Jerusalem and the rest of Christianity was heading to Babylon.
Today though I was reading,, 1 Cor 4:6
Now these things, brothers, I have transferred in figure to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us the matter of not going beyond what has been written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one, against the other.
In this matter of not going beyond what is written, I have eaten a lot of things that went beyond what was written. Witness Lee wrote a lot of things that were not written when Paul wrote to the Corinthians.
I was puffed up and proud to have the knowledge provided by WL and viewed myself as having something to feed interpretations to others that wasn't in their Bible. I was one who on behalf of one (WL), against the other (the rest of Christianity)
I was reading this today and it was something I was looking for as I was debating with some Catholics where they believe that you need someone of authority to interpret scripture. I was challenged that I could not find one scripture that supported the doctrine "Solo Scriptura" and that in fact believing that Scripture can be understood by the Spirit and did not need a man's interpretation was actually a man-made belief system. They can say that because that is the Catholic teaching and they have placed the Catholic teachings into a position of authority.
I must admit today that I was seeking to do the same in the Local church.
I was puffed up and one against another. Lord forgive me.
I am one who was quaranteed by the LRC,, Praise God!
I am alone and in a position where I am not looking for an official interpretation.
Today I started writing about my experience just before being connected to the LRC and what I see now.
Puffed up:
[left]
Why are the churches, each one against the others? That was the question I found myself asking God while looking at the intersection that I could see from my living room window. Three of the four corners each had a church building built on it. I watched in amazement as people went in and out of those buildings. I was wondering why I had driven across town to go to church for several years. There was three "churches" close to home just a short walk from my house.
But, I told God, "I am not going to any "churches" until You show me where to go".
I thought it was going to be a long time till I went to church again. I was feeling like a "leper" as the leadership in my church had just told me "I knew where the door was".
The next Lord's day I had a brother from another church group call me and ask me "brother what are you doing". I replied sheepishly, "well I was about to watch a football game as I was just kicked out of my church". The brother let me know that he also had been kicked out of his church too. I was stunned! Before I could think, I told him I would be right over.
It has been many years since that happened and now I would have to say that the church I had been shown where the door was had been like what Paul was afraid of as he wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:20
For I fear that perhaps when I come, I may find you not such as I wish; that perhaps there may be strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, slanders, whisperings, demonstrations of being puffed up, tumults;

I had experienced the slander in the church, been told about the whisperings about me and my family and had seen the strife. There was great ambition there as they wanted to become the biggest church group in the area with a big "work" with all kinds of new positions (ministries) to which those who had selfish ambitions were jealously seeking after with a lot of tumults. There was a huge chart posted on the wall as to who would disciple whom and who was accountable to whom and who was over whom. To me it looked like a chart used in corporations but with the pastor on top, then the elders, then the ones in charge of the different ministries, then the group leaders, and then those who were on the bottom. I spoke up about the chart and said "God builds His church up in love. I was suppose to believe that there was no other place in town that was better than that place and to be honest I had believed them. Now I know they had only convinced me with their demonstrations of being puffed up.

Now all over the world in church groups there is a lot of demonstrations of being puffed up. For our sakes though Paul said he used himself and Apollos as examples in 1 Corinthians 4:6 so that we can learn how not to be "one, against the other". He wanted the Corinthians to learn the matter of "not going beyond what has been written.
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now these things, brothers, I have transferred in figure to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us the matter of not going beyond what has been written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one, against the other.

Since Paul wrote this, we have had about 2,000 years of experience of going beyond what has been written. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians he had scolded them for some saying I am of Paul, and some others saying I of Apollos, and and others I am of Cephas and even I of Christ.
1:12 Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of 2Christ.

Today there are billions of people saying "I am of"...... then insert one of over 30,000 names for Christian groups.
Here are the ABC's for examples
Adventists, Baptist, Catholic, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Four Square, Greek Orthodox, Holiness Churches, Independent, Jehovah Witness, Krimmer Mennonite Brethren, Lutheran,
Mennonite or Methodist, North American Old Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox, Pentecostal or Presbyterian, Quakers, Reformed, Seventh Day Adventist, True Holland Reformed Church, Unitarian, Vineyard, Worldwide Church of God, Church of Yahweh and Zwingli.
Are they puffed up? Are they one against the other?
Did this happen by not learning the "matter of not going beyond what is written"?

I pray that the Lord helps us learn the matter of not going beyond what is written and that we are not one opposed one to the other.

In 1 Corinthians 4:19 Paul says.
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will ascertain not the speech of those who are puffed up but the power.

Oh Lord! How much speaking have we heard from those who are puffed up? That go on and on beyond what is written. Sharing how they have become wise and are letting us in on something they know will cause us to follow them. Now I ask, Do they want to feed us something from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Do they just want to stay within the bounds of what was written?

Genesis1:6 says
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good (suitable, pleasant) for food and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate".
We can see that:
The tree was pleasant for food,,
The tree was delightful to look at,,
The tree was to be desired in order to make one wise,,
What can you say about eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil in order to make one wise?
In James 3:15, 17 it says;
This wisdom is not that which descends from above, but is earthly, soulish, demonic.
In 1 Corinthians 3:19 we read
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, He grasps the wise in their craftiness'';
but there is another source
17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, forbearing, compliant, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, without hypocrisy.
In 1 Corinthians 1:30 I say
30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to you from Him: both righteousness and sanctification and redemption,

and in Colossians 2:3 we read
3 In whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.
Then Colossians 3:16
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to Me.
and finally 2 Corinthians 2:17
17 For do not be like the many, adulterating the word of God for profit; but as out of sincerity, but as out of Him, before Him speak in Christ.

Lets all speak in Christ and as Paul made himself an example of, not going beyond what is written.I have had two experiences of being treated like a leper and I want to let it all go and put it all behind me. I hope to stay out of going beyond what is written and getting puffed up, one against another. Am I being puffed up?
I think Babylon is the going beyond part. We all can follow Pauls example as in Babylon we can't understand each other but maybe that thought in and of itself is going beyond what is written. What do you think?