What is the structure of the assembly?

[aron]

Peter D. posted this question: "After we do the heavy lifting of finally letting go of the one-city-one-church doctrine, should there not be a follow-up question with the same level of scrutiny?" I thought it deserved its own thread, and I wanted to place it on the "David Canfield" section because I see this as a potential counterpoint to the Canfield/Lee one-city-one-church paradigm. I admit I only read an excerpt of Canfield's argument, but that was enough for me -- "If you would just honestly and humbly consider my selected verses, you would agree that this paradigm is right." I am not interested in having a lengthy discussion with someone who approaches me thus, so I will just post some thoughts here as an alternative to the Canfield/Lee universe.

What is the fixed structure of the assembly? (Please note, that I see "assembly" as both what we would call a "meeting" or "service", i.e. a temporary gathering together in one place at one time, as well as the "standing body", i.e. what we would call "the church". The NT term for both seems to be the same: "ekklesia").

1. You must be born again. This, I would argue, is a prerequisite. Those who come to the assembly, who have not yet believed into and received the Lord Jesus, should be presented with the gospel, the good news, and given the opportunity to be saved.

2. Those who attempt to continue to openly practice gross sin (theft, drunkenness, fornication, witchcraft, debauchery, fighting and/or violence) should be respectfully asked to re-consider their path, if they want to continue being gathered together with the assembly.

3. I take Matthew 18 as the opposite of what the LSM teaches. They say that there is a difference between 2 and 3 gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus, and "the church". I say no. Jesus goes from the particular (a sinning brother in v. 15) to the universal (vv. 19, 20); he equates the power of these 2 or 3, in agreement, with the very powers of heaven. So to me, the minimum quorum, or structural requirement, for Jesus' assembly is 2 or 3 gathered in His name (nothing in Matt. 18 on affiliation with a ministry, or "local ground"). You will have, perforce, multiple assemblies in any large metropolitan area. The LSM one-church-one-city paradigm dodges this bullet by re-labelling, and calling these as "meetings". My own interpretation of Matthew 18's "tell it to the church..." allows for "tell it to the other assemblies (of 2 or 3, or more, etc)..." Note the possibility of plural assemblies, varied in size.

4. Okay, now to the "heavy lifting" -- who is in charge? We can all say "Jesus is in charge", or "The Holy Spirit leads us", but how is that to play out in the meeting? First off, I categorically reject the LSM mantra that "we are all just small potatoes here". The LSM "small potato" mantra was code for "Lee is the big potato." I think that this is an affront to our Head, Christ. So we need a different way to sort ourselves out.

There clearly is differentiation in the Bible, both in heaven and on earth. Paul gives a great example in 1 Corinthians 15:41. Different heavenly bodies give varied light. We cannot say that the stars are undifferentiated. Nor can we say that the christian polity is just "small potatoes". No, that is Maoist theology: the drab, nameless and faceless proletariat, with a despot or supreme council overseeing all assemblies on behalf of "the Body".

So if we reject that model, what to replace it with? I propose the words of Jesus: "If you want to be great in the kingdom, be the least". He deliberately and specifically spoke those words to the disciples when they were arguing about which one of them was the greatest. That is my proposed structure in the assembly. If you go to the meeting, and someone has an 'Alexander Haig' moment, and declares, "I am in charge here", that person has disqualified themselves. We can just smile and say, "Thank you, brother/sister, for your opinion", and continue with our business.

Our meeting is about Jesus. It is not about local ground, or affiliation with someone's ministry. It is about Jesus Christ, who came to earth and made it out alive. And unlike Enoch or Elijah, when Jesus made it out alive He became the doorway for us all. Because Jesus of Nazareth went through death for us. The power of death has now been broken. We should no longer fear death. We no longer need to build death-avoidance mechanisms, all of which fail. One of the death-avoidance schemes is to attempt to be "great", and to gather around oneself a kingdom of material wealth, and/or servants, and/or influence. We must be clear that the assembly of Jesus can be corrupted by this kind of mechanism. I argue that the one-church-one-city model ultimately became a vehicle for such corruption, and should be rejected. It stands neither upon the scriptures nor upon hard human experience. Its history of schisms and spin-off sects, called variously "rebellions" and "quarantines", should be proof enough. "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." ~ Matt. 7:27

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

4. Okay, now to the "heavy lifting" -- who is in charge? We can all say "Jesus is in charge", or "The Holy Spirit leads us", but how is that to play out in the meeting? First off, I categorically reject the LSM mantra that "we are all just small potatoes here". The LSM "small potato" mantra was code for "Lee is the big potato." I think that this is an affront to our Head, Christ. So we need a different way to sort ourselves out.

Spiritually speaking the Lord is in charge, and every church would place that in its statement of faith, but practically speaking a church is going to look a lot like its leader(s), especially the gifted or dynamic ones. That's just the way it is. Kind of like the children in a family resembling their parents.

The reason we have these discussions is due to our background in an oppressive system. I spent decades under the rule of both Anaheim and Cleveland. Both often crossed the lines, those normal and healthy, yet established boundaries, into regions which became unacceptable. It's rare, however, to meet a believer who has problems with all established church authority, only when that authority is taken advantage of.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... practically speaking a church is going to look a lot like its leader(s), especially the gifted or dynamic ones. That's just the way it is. Kind of like the children in a family resembling their parents..

This speaks to my point that there is variation in the assembly. We are not a bland, faceless proletariat of "small potatos". Everyone has gifts, disposition, and personality. The one-church-one-city paradigm allowed certain personalities (WL, TC, DYL, BP) to dominate not only their respective assemblies, but even all "affiliated" (their word) assemblies.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's rare, however, to meet a believer who has problems with all established church authority, only when that authority is taken advantage of.

I like the word "authority". Jesus had authority to heal, to raise the dead. And by extension He had authority to forgive, to comfort. He certainly had authority to teach. What He refused, however, was authority over temporal affairs. "Who made me judge over your affairs?" ~Luke 12:14 He refused even to acknowledge Herod.

So the "authority" to tell people what to wear, what to sing, what to read, what to think, where to "migrate", or what is the "feeling of the Body", should be seen as counterfeit; as manipulations of human control. Such machinations, to me, testify rather to a lack of power and authority.

Jesus had the power to lay His life down, and to raise it up again. I respect that power, as it manifests itself in the assembly. We can rejoice when we see people being released from Satan's bondage. The meeting should be, I think, a celebration of release from captivity, by God sending His Only Begotten Son on our behalf. If we get stuck on "Who is first" discussions I think we miss the point of the exercise. The name of Jesus is a name of freedom.

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery."

[aron]

I don't see "elders" appointed by an apostle to be a requirement for the assembly(cf Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Trying to re-create, wholecloth, Paul's activities may necessitate one of us stepping forward as "today's Paul", which thus far hasn't turned out very well, from what I have seen.

Or we could vote in each assembly, which will probably lead to political machinations. No, I don't really see that "office" as a pressing need, any more than trying to re-create "12 apostles" to oversee the Body today.

Plus, John (pointedly?) does not address the elders in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3, instead using "messengers". Also, John's first epistle addresses "fathers", "children", and "young men", without the sense of outward appointment or office.

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

Let me give another example, of the peril of trying to re-create, wholecloth, the "normal church life" of the first century.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (NIV) That was written in the day when women did not have equal rights in society, and Paul was wary that the freedom in Christ might be used to upset the social order, and cause confusion and accusations against the faithful. Paul actually did let a woman teach: he let Prisca and Aquila straighten out Apollos.

For another example, Paul told slaves to obey their masters; again, that doesn't mean Paul was "pro-slavery", but was respecting the standing social order. So using Paul's words 2,000 years later to tell women to be "silent in the church" is about as anachronistic as drinking a little wine if you have a tummy ache (1 Timothy 5:23) or anointing the sick with oil (James 5:14). It may have been the rule at one time, but that does not make it the norm, or standard, for all times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me give another example, of the peril of trying to re-create, wholecloth, the "normal church life" of the first century.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (NIV) That was written in the day when women did not have equal rights in society, and Paul was wary that the freedom in Christ might be used to upset the social order, and cause confusion and accusations against the faithful. Paul actually did let a woman teach: he let Prisca and Aquila straighten out Apollos.

For another example, Paul told slaves to obey their masters; again, that doesn't mean Paul was "pro-slavery", but was respecting the standing social order. So using Paul's words 2,000 years later to tell women to be "silent in the church" is about as anachronistic as drinking a little wine if you have a tummy ache (1 Timothy 5:23) or anointing the sick with oil (James 5:14). It may have been the rule at one time, but that does not make it the norm, or standard, for all times.

aron, tell that to the pentecostal churches which provide vials of holy anointing oil at every service, or those snake-handling churches in West Virginia. (Mark 16.18) I just read about one preacher who died of a snake bite. His dad died the same way, and his active burden was to restore this "lost ministry" to the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't see "elders" appointed by an apostle to be a requirement for the assembly(cf Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Trying to re-create, wholecloth, Paul's activities may necessitate one of us stepping forward as "today's Paul", which thus far hasn't turned out very well, from what I have seen.

Or we could vote in each assembly, which will probably lead to political machinations. No, I don't really see that "office" as a pressing need, any more than trying to re-create "12 apostles" to oversee the Body today.

Plus, John (pointedly?) does not address the elders in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3, instead using "messengers". Also, John's first epistle addresses "fathers", "children", and "young men", without the sense of outward appointment or office.

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

Kind of like throwing the net on the other side of the boat and expecting a huge haul of fish. It happened to Peter, didn't it?

The appointment of elders by the so-called "Apostle" became a most valuable tool in the hands of dominant men, those lording it over the flock. First of all, who is the elder-appointing apostle? Supposedly, he was the one who directly established the church. Eventually the apostle was the one who supposedly "raised up brothers" who then were appointed the elders. That to me sounds like the job description of Bishops, which we were, of course, vehemently opposed to. Can someone please explain to me what was so bad with bishops, and how does our present system differ from them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This speaks to my point that there is variation in the assembly. We are not a bland, faceless proletariat of "small potatoes". Everyone has gifts, disposition, and personality. The one-church-one-city paradigm allowed certain personalities (WL, TC, DYL, BP) to dominate not only their respective assemblies, but even all "affiliated" (their word) assemblies.

I never came to this conclusion about the one-church-one-city paradigm, in fact, it should have had the opposite effect, that is, according to WN's teachings in the book TNCCL, the "highest authority" in the church are the local elders, and their "jurisdiction" never extends beyond their borders.

His conflicting teaching, which I think did the most to undo the concept of locality, was that of the "work," a para-church organization which "allowed certain personalities to dominate" their assemblies and whole regions. The authority of local elders, in the words of WL, was reduced to "deciding the time and day of meetings," that is, as long as they don't conflict with ministry meetings.

I have mentioned a couple times that lies to cover up this "dirty little secret" were the straw that broke this camel's back, and the last time I participated in "local" church fellowship. I finally ... I mean finally ... concluded that the whole "local" thing was nothing more than a farce.

Originally Posted by aron

So the "authority" to tell people what to wear, what to sing, what to read, what to think, where to "migrate", or what is the "feeling of the Body", should be seen as counterfeit; as manipulations of human control. Such machinations, to me, testify rather to a lack of power and authority.

Not to split hairs here, but I guess I would parse this list and evaluate individual instances according to context, though I do understand your point. For example, "what to sing" -- I have no problem with elders deciding beforehand which songs to sing, but when the only songs approved and qualified for singing are those written by WL, then we got problems. "Where to migrate" was a particularly egregious practice of "the work," since those who decided to serve full-time lost say in perhaps the most important decision of their life. And you know how I feel about that nonsensical manipulation called the "feeling of the Body."

[alwayslearning]

I think the question of this thread suggests there is a universal answer. It assumes there is an ideal model that can be discovered and applied anywhere at anytime and actually work. IMHO this is wishful thinking. At best I think a group of believers can piece together a workable assembly arrangement and it can only remain workable if the willingness to be flexible and adjust is constantly present. Not on theological or moral issues but on practical "how to" issues.

Take the example of music - using drums electric guitars etc. For one assembly this might not be a problem at all. For another it might offend 2/3 of the congregation. Is there a universal answer? I don't think so. Each place has to find it's own way and solution.

What is the problem with a para-church work? Nothing until it interferes in such matters and makes statements on music as if they are an authority giving edicts on how individual assemblies should handle the situation. Or insisting that local assemblies attend 7 "feasts" a year as if this is some sort of requirement to be in good graces with the God of the universe.

Para-church work has it's place but it has to be kept in it's place and the character of each local assembly rigorously protected by the local shepherds and more mature believers who know what's what.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

. . .

Take the example of music - using drums electric guitars etc. For one assembly this might not be a problem at all. For another it might offend 2/3 of the congregation. Is there a universal answer? I don't think so. Each place has to find it's own way and solution.

And many assemblies discover that they need at least two different ways to do it. My son is attending a Bible church in Dallas that has a "traditional" (in the Bible church, Baptist, etc., sense) service that sings hymns and the people are heavily dressed in suits and ties, followed by a contemporary service with a band, no organ and little piano, jeans, few suits, etc. Both have the same sermon, but each is tailored to the taste of the group.

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste. So either the old folks have to put up with loud music, or the younger ones have to be put to sleep. And any who disagree are shown the door.

[Peter Debelak]

I certainly agree that, having debunked the "universal structure" of one-city-one-church, there is not necessarily some alternative "universal structure."

This question regarding the structure of the assembly, it seems to me, is all about how it is approached or "framed."

If one starts with reading all these versus in the NT about elders and deacons, and prophesying etc..., one might say, as many do, the burden is on those who say you don't have to be "under" a spiritual "office" in a cognizable and definable assembly.

If you approach it simply with the basic items of faith of the New Covenant, one might say - "sure, having gifts in the assembly are fine and even having leaders is fine - but these aren't necessarily Biblical prescriptions.

I don't disagree with those who point out that there are gifts to the assembly. But that is not a rebuttle to those who bristle at the notion of "offices" of authority.

Mike references an assembly that was trying NOT to have a "leader" but ran into problems once it got to the 200 member size. This is an interesting example.

The first comment I would make is, well, you are still presuming that you're "supposed" to meet in an ever-growing group that can be identified by outsiders. As opposed to say, a loose collection of believers that meet as circles of fellowship in a community shift, change, grow.

The second comment is to say, okay - that congregation attempted something and realized that it was experiencing problems. Natural leaders, if recognized, could add some stability. So be it. This is entirely different than placing folks into formal "offices" of the church, wherein "spiritual authority" necessarily resides in the office as opposed to between people thru Christ contextually.

The key push of this sort of thread, I think, is that most Christians - within and without the LC - take it as a given that you should be within a recognizable congregation which, again by assumption, there are recognized "offices of authority." If you've ever taken the position that that's NOT necessary - you'll know that most people look down on that view and see it as "immature."

I would contend, however, that if one takes the strong argument about all the "elder" versus - that they establish a prescription - then you'll have to answer all the questions about administration that the LC is unable to do regarding one-city-one-church. As an individual believer, if God has placed elders in an "office" He established, then it is my responsibility to align myself with that....

The push is NOT to say there shouldn't be congregations or that there shouldn't be various gifts manifest in an assembly. The "default" position is that there will be. The question is how open we are to those who don't fall into that mode?

Understandably there is skepticism about the spiritual health of those who are not "members" of a formal congregation. But the question in this thread, I think, is:

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

A big ramble.

Peter

[OBW]

Peter,

One of the blogs I follow is by a guy in the Orange county area who has had a small church in his home for several years. While he does not see this ending he has noted that, once the group is established, it does tend to want to grow. And then when you suggest splitting into two home groups, things are difficult. There are connections that they don't want being reduced to lesser connections or less frequent occurrences. While there is no preacher, per se, the guy with the blog (and the house) is their de facto leader. They aren't sure if any of the others among them are up to the task.

And so on. There is no magic in the home church. It is what it is. It has limitations, yet with connections to other home churches, some of those can be overcome.

Of course, the spread of the gospel is always an issue. If you expect new converts to join your group, then you will inevitably grow. If you are happy that they begin to meet with a group of Christians (where they meet is not an issue) then there are fewer issues.

The thing is that there is no special way to do it. Just do it. If going to the third service at a place that has 4,000 to 5,000 every Sunday is good for you, it is good. If being in Don Rutledge's living room is good for you, it is good.

And, as aron has said, while the thread suggests a way, he is more interested in finding ways, or patterns.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

If one starts with reading all these versus in the NT about elders and deacons, and prophesying etc..., one might say, as many do, the burden is on those who say you don't have to be "under" a spiritual "office" in a recognizable and definable assembly...

The key push of this sort of thread, I think, is that most Christians - within and without the LC - take it as a given that you should be within a recognizable congregation which, again by assumption, there are recognized "offices of authority."

Most christians I meet ask what church I go to. It is taken as a given that one should find some defined assembling point, with a building and a website and a pastor. I understand that, and I also love fellowship. But beyond acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ to one another, I find myself asking, "Brothers, what should we do?" -- like the question to Peter in Acts 2:37. What wineskin will hold such precious wine?

As I watch the wineskin that emerges in the NT, I myself have deepening misgivings. The calls to repentance in Revelations 2 and 3 seem to me to be fully in line with the preceding "building" that I observe. But if you ask me for an alternative wineskin, I can only say, "I dunno. Love one another?" Too vague, perhaps... what do we do when the piano player plays too loudly? Who watches the watchers... who oversees the overseers? It's difficult to idealize in such complex situations.

But I enjoy asking such difficult questions. For me, it's part of the journey. Thank you all for bearing with me. Peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

When you find the answer to this, please let me know.

Personally, I "joined" a nearby community church several years ago, even going thru membership classes with my DW. My old LC alarms were set off, but the Lord was not so troubled. It was humbling to start from scratch again. We did connect with some families and joined 3 home meetings off-n-on. I continually focused on the positives.

Then the economy went sour, and the pastor with lofty goals, began to oppress the congregation with the need to be "sowing seeds." I became convinced that I could not afford to be a Christian there any more. Apparently half the congregation felt so too and also left, including our friends, who have gone separate ways. Why is it that gifted preachers feel the need to build their empire on the backs of God's people?

This brings me to your point about fellowshipping outside of organized churches. If you can, that's wonderful, but it may be hard to find active believers who are not in churches. It's even harder when older since most people have their lives and friendships established by then. Yet the Bible assumes that the believers are together in fellowship. Interactions between believers seem to fill every page of scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... it may be hard to find active believers who are not in churches... [but] the Bible assumes that the believers are together in fellowship. Interactions between believers seem to fill every page of scripture.

I lucked out. I church-hopped for quite a few years post-LC, usually telling them about the superior theology I posessed, and passing along appropriate literature to demonstrate. Eventually, I stopped meeting anywhere, even wondering whether I was a christian anymore. God just seemed awfully remote to me.

When I eventually began to turn and seek God again, I found the most amazingly spiritual person at work. He was like a child: he was constantly astonished and amazed by God's goodness, kindness, wisdom, and blessings. From him I got no theology, just sincerity and joy. It affected me profoundly, and not long after I started seeing christians pop up everywhere. Today I am blessed with multiple "ekklesia", or meetings, or gatherings, or fellowships, or whatever you want to call them. I found that if you just honor the christians that God has placed near you; and feed them with whatever crumbs of food you have, God will also minister to you. The fields are truly white for the harvest.

If you don't have anyone, ask the Father. If necessary, demand it, loudly and repeatedly(Luke 18:1-8; also Matt. 11:12). Stamp your feet. Ask, where is our family? Where are Your people? He will give you someone.

One christian that I speak to regularly today, he goes to his church and tells them about things that have impressed him from our conversations. Once when his pastor asked him where he heard something, he said, "Oh, some guy I know." He's never told them my name, nor have I ever asked the name of his church. But when we speak together, often I sense God opening up for us the scriptures.

Whether this building work will endure "in that day", I do not know; but I do know that the sheep can hear their Master's voice. Nothing else matters, but to hear His voice. Then, I am satisfied. If anyone out there doesn't have satisfying interactions with other believers, ask God; He will surely give you that experience. Just let go of your concepts about what that is supposed to look like. Let God surprise you.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The push is NOT to say there shouldn't be congregations or that there shouldn't be various gifts manifest in an assembly. The "default" position is that there will be. The question is how open we are to those who don't fall into that mode?

Understandably there is skepticism about the spiritual health of those who are not "members" of a formal congregation. But the question in this thread, I think, is:

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

IMHO I think the authors of the NT basically assume assemblies exist or are being brought into existence. And there is the admonishment in Hebrews not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together. It is assumed that community is part of the Christian experience and for good reason: it is harder to go it alone. But to my understanding the idea of formally joining a congregation as a member cannot be found anywhere in the NT. There is not even a formal official prescription of how an assembly should operate.

Personally I have no skepticism about those who don't belong as members of a congregation. If God is leading them down another path: Praise the Lord! Who am I to judge? If they go to a home meeting twice a week and once a month to a bigger church in their neighborhood what's wrong with that? If they meet in a basement with 10 believers on Tuesdays at 8 pm what's wrong with that?

Anyway IMHO American Christians need to wake up and snap out of our comfort zone. Millions of Christian in China meet in underground informal house churches. What's wrong with that? In Saudi Arabia Christians have to meet in secret with black curtains over the windows. Should we be skeptical about their experience? I'm not!

[Cal]

Someone might correct me, but I don't see anything in the NT about determining whether a certain gathering of Christians is "a true church" or not. The NT just assumes we are all part of the Church and that we will gather together. The NT refers to some of those gatherings as "churches." It refers to elders, deacons and pastors, etc., taking leadership roles. But it doesn't give us much else to go on.

The LRC gave us this idea of determining whether a particular assembly was a church or not, by certain specific and questionable criteria. But the NT doesn't tell us to be so discerning. It identifies false believers, but not false churches. There is no such concept of a false church in the NT as far as I can tell.

Even the idea that a sectarian group is not a church is something not so clear in the NT. We were trained to think "that's not a church, but rather a sect." But does the NT teach this idea? Not that I can tell. This thought of needing to decide which groups are churches and which aren't seems artificial. And in the case of the LRC it was clearly a pretext to claiming church-hood only for themselves.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste. So either the old folks have to put up with loud music, or the younger ones have to be put to sleep. And any who disagree are shown the door.

Lee's assertion is itself a taste. Shoehorning everyone into your idea of the Universal Plan is a taste. "There should be no opinions" is itself an opinion. Why can't they get this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste.

This was one of the most pathetic forms of exclusive manipulation ever devised -- pompous leaders in Anaheim defining what each congregation in the body of Christ should look like, smell like, and taste like ... and who and what tasted differently.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think the question of this thread suggests there is a universal answer. It assumes there is an ideal model that can be discovered and applied anywhere at anytime and actually work. IMHO this is wishful thinking.

Perhaps the question to start the thread should have been "Is there a structure of the assembly?" But my initial hypothesis was that there IS some required structure in the assembly, because that is the sense I get from most believers, and it seems to fit the church history that we read.

Since we've abandoned the LRC one-city-one-church structure (or model, or paradigm), what, if any, should follow? My own experience has led me towards "two or three" in Jesus' name, meeting at work, on the street, in a home, on the bus, wherever. It is fluid and free, although it occasionally does seem rather lonely. But I feel the presence of Christ sometimes.

Two of my paradigmatic meetings(ekklesia), as such, are found in Luke 24, with Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and Acts 8 with Philip, an angel, the Holy Spirit, and an Ethiopian eunuch. For example, I don't see Philip instructing the Ethiopian to return to Jerusalem for further training, and somehow to me that just feels right.

Anyway, I sort of started the thread with a premise, that there is some minimal structure to the assembly. The idea of no structure whatever seemed like, "...and the church was without form, and void", a la Genesis 1:2. But I also felt that any structure shouldn't go beyond what the Master has taught us. So as I saw structure emerge, in Acts and beyond, I compared it to the Master's teachings in the Gospels. The Acts chapter 6 bifurcation into "table servers" and "Bible scholars" is an example that got my interest.

So I more or less am in the same position as alwayslearning. Neither Nee's TNCCL nor any other that I am aware of presents us with a practical, idealized structure. Any attempts to shoehorn all the assemblies into being "absolutely identical", per Lee's footnote in Revelations, to some idealized construct of our fallen minds is about the furthest thing from new wineskins that I can possibly imagine. The comparison to Marx' communism healing the wounds of capitalism is quite apt. The cure is clearly worse than the sickness.