LSM Suppression of Individuality, a Chinese Trait?

[Cal]

Chinese government revs up another kangaroo court.

For discussion: Are the Blendeds expressing China more than Christ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_re_as/as_china_online_dissent_5


China to try critic of government's quake response
By AUDRA ANG, Associated Press Writer Audra Ang, Associated Press Writer
24 mins ago

BEIJING – A Chinese court on Monday abruptly scheduled a trial for an activist who criticized the government's response to last year's devastating Sichuan earthquake, giving his lawyer only one day to prepare and prompting him to mount an immediate legal challenge.

Huang Qi's lawyer Mo Shaoping said the judge told him Monday that the trial would start Tuesday morning, leaving less than 24 hours for Mo to look through the indictment and build a defense against the charge of possessing state secrets.

"This is a totally illegal process," Mo said. "They are intentionally creating difficulties."

He said the law requires that the defendant be informed 10 days before the trial starts, while lawyers need to be told at least three days ahead. His assistant has gone to the Wuhou District Court to see if the trial date can be changed.

"If it cannot be changed, we will lodge a strong protest because this is unfair and it deprives Huang Qi of his right to a defense," Mo said.
According to Mo, the judge said he had difficulty reaching Huang's lawyers and family.

Both Mo and Zeng Li, Huang's wife, said their telephone numbers and addresses are recorded in court documents.

"I've been trying to reach the court for weeks but no one would give me the time of day," said Zeng. She said she was also told of the trial Monday morning and was not sure if she would be allowed to attend.

Telephones at the court in Chengdu, Sichuan's capital, rang unanswered Monday.

Huang, one of the country's most outspoken dissidents, posted articles on his Web site 64Tianwang.com criticizing the government's response to the May 12 quake after visiting affected areas and meeting parents who lost their children.

While independent reporting was allowed right after the magnitude-7.9 temblor, access was shut down within days and public complaints by parents who blamed corruption and shoddy construction on school collapses that killed their children became an extremely sensitive issue.
Zeng said Huang's arrest was a result of his work in the quake zone.
"This is because he went to the disaster area a couple of times. He reported on the shoddy schools and reported about the appeals of the parents of the students. So he was arrested and charged with possessing state secrets," she said.

The ill-defined charge is often used to clamp down on dissent and send activists to prison.

Human rights groups said Huang was forcibly taken away by three unknown men on June 10 and police informed his mother six days later that he had been detained.

Zeng said police told Huang in October that if he stopped his activist work, he would be released.

Mo said police made no mention of the earthquake in their indictment proposal, adding that he was not allowed to reveal the contents of the document.

Earlier this decade, Huang, 45, served a five-year prison sentence on subversion charges linked to politically sensitive articles posted on his Web site.

Since his release in 2005, Huang has supported a wide range of causes from aiding families of those killed in the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Beijing, to publicizing the complaints of farmers involved in land disputes with authorities.

[OBW]

“You can't recreate the past, you can only apply timeless principles.”

But that is not entirely true. The victors write the histories and therefore the past is often recreated, sometimes permanently. I read about a year ago that the claim that the church thought the world was flat before Columbus sailed to America is not true. While sailors had interesting myths about what might be out there, the world was generally thought of as a sphere ─ and that everything revolved around it. It was not until sometime centuries after the successful navigation of the whole world that someone started the claim, almost as a rumor, that the church had taught the earth as flat. It was for the purpose of discrediting the church relative to science. Since it was in reference to centuries past, and there had never been a reason to make a strong statement about it in those remote times, there was nothing that obviously contradicted the claim and we went forward thinking that our Christian ancestors were scientific fools.

No the truth of the past cannot be recreated. But it can be lied about so thoroughly that no one would believe the truth if it managed to surface.

Unfortunately, if the lie is good enough, the truth sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Chinese government revs up another kangaroo court.
For discussion: Are the Blendeds expressing China more than Christ?

Igzy please tie in the article to what the Blendeds are expressing?

Terry

[tasteslikegold]

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

TLG,

This is an interesting question. But it seems to presume that individuality = 1 Corinthians division. Nowhere are the problems in 1 Corinthians described as the result of individuality. Instead, they are described as the result of taking sides and excluding others over leaders and teachings and also about an attitude of self importance.

Individuality does not equal self importance. Neither does it equal exclusiveness. It merely denotes differences.

Actually, Jesus called people to be followers and believers. Those who follow/believe are defined as being the body of Christ. They are the called-out ones. Someone did write that it was important enough to meet with other followers/believers that they said to not forsake assembling together.

When I read passages that mention all the parts that are not the same yet all work together, I realize that there is something wonderfully different about us all. And there is nothing in those passages that makes those differences so exclusively spiritual that there is nothing of the differences of our personalities, experiences, struggles, victories, etc., included in those wonderful differences.

But where is it that scripture actually says that we are called into a “corporate Person?” Can you find such a scripture, or at least tie a few together in a way that clearly prescribes such an idea. I do not think it exists, but you must have some basis for your statement. Rather than make me read the entirety of scripture hoping to find the one or more passages and create the link, can you provide it?

I have found that there are many things that I learned from years of learning from Lee that sound wonderful, sound higher than what common Christians talk about, but that are not actually found in scripture. It took more years after my last LC meeting to realize this than the total number of years I spent learning it.

And the fact that Paul strove against division does not mean that he strove to avoid the existence of anything that could lead to division, but only the actual division that arose. In other words, the fact that we could divide over something does not make that something evil or wrong. It only means that some potential for division exists and we should be on guard against that possibility. If we presume that Paul strove against things that tend to cause division, then he would have to strive against the fact that some are Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, masters, slaves, etc. But he did not. He said that whatever you are, you should not think more highly of yourself than you ought to. He did not tell the rich to give their wealth to the others until they all became equal. He did not tell masters to free all their slaves or tell Jews to simply drop everything Jewish and be just like the Greeks or whoever were the Gentiles in their area. He simply said to realize that there is something uniting that is higher than the natural differences that exist.

I await your response.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom.
..............
Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

Welcome to the forum tasteslikegold. Nice handle.

You actually addressed a lot in this one post. I'll try to just hit on a couple of the points real quick.

Here is my take. We were called by God as individuals. We were saved as individuals. We were baptized as an individuals (although others may have been baptized with us) We received the Holy Spirit as individuals. We grow in grace and life and mature as individuals (although we usually take this venture with others, our growth is not necessarily dependent or in parallel with others) Finally, we will all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ as individuals. So as you can see much of our spiritual journey is, in fact, taken as an individual. This does not mean others are not there with us, or that others play no part - in fact much of the journey could not take place without others.

So individuality is not really a "trait" per se, it is who we are. Our individuality is part and parcel to being a living, breathing human being...and when we get saved we do not stop being an individual. The Word clearly states that we are "members of the body". The apostle Paul even makes the point "If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?" (1Cor12:17) Looking back now, in retrospect, it seems as if Witness Lee wanted to make all the members an eye. He wanted to force the other members to drop their individuality and take up one certain person's individuality. It was couched in the spiritual terms, such as "the one new man" and "the oneness of the body" and such, but in practice it really ended up looking and feeling a lot like what Igzy has posted here in the opening.

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

Boy, this is a biggie. Hard to address this right here and now. The short answer is I don't see a lot of biblical evidence that we were called "into a corporate person", at least not in the sense as it was taught by Witness Lee. When this kind of teaching is taken too far it ends up looking like this:
"Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God.' These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."
(Witness Lee, A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing pg. 203)

Also I would point us to last footnote in the Recovery Version:
"...According to the entire revelation of the complete Bible, the New Jerusalem, the conclusion of the complete Bible, is a divine mingling of the process Triune God with the redeemed and transformed tripartite man, a mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person."
(Footnote 3 Revelation 22:21 RV)

I do not believe the New Testament speaks of a "four-in-one God", nothing even close. The Body of Christ is NEVER elevated to this status, and in fact I think most Christians would consider this kind of teaching extremely unbiblical, if not out and out heresy. Of course knowing what we know now (in terms of the history of the Local Church), the real danger in this kind of teaching is the wiping out of the individual person. "No opinion" was one of Lee's constant mantras. "The Body" was to dominate and overrule every hope and dream of every brother and sister. I have much more to say here but I'll just leave it at this for now.

"a mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person"

When I read and review the end of Revelation I don't see "a universal, corporate, mysterious person". What I see is God and the Lamb upon the thrown, getting the glory, the nations getting healed, and His servants serving Him forever. Notice that at the end there is still individuals... "Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy.." not blessed are they"....."Let him who does unrighteousness do unrighteousness still"...not "let they who do unrighteousness.." "Behold, I come quickly, and My reward is with Me to render to each one as his work is". So at the end we see the individual still remains.

Good questions tasteslikegold. Keep it up! Let's explore God's Word.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom

Because God didn't want us to be CLONES... A hand does not look like a nose, a nose does not look like a foot..and neither do they have the same function..but they all are fitly framed together in the body...and that is how the Body of Christ ought to be. No one needs to be told to act like a foot, a nose or hand. Neither is a hand better than a foot or a nose.

In the body of Christ, we have ONE HEAD...Christ Jesus...we are led by the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit and the WORD of God, the Holy Bible. We are to exhort one another, to teach one another, to build up one another that the world would see we are ONE in CHRIST JESUS...one with each other as the Son is ONE with the Father.

We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait.

It depends on your perception TLG. In truth, there ought not to be any denominations or non-denominations..no "local church / Living stream Ministry". We ought to be breaking bread from house to house.

Yet we read about the offices in the New Testament...some apostles, some deacons, some Shephards (pastors), some prophets, some evangelists. In a perfect world, as each believer matures in Christ, we ought to just begin to function in the office we've been called to.

In Christendom, people are ordained for the most part. In the LC, Lee was the 'apostle of the age'. He selected the elders. Perhaps there was a meeting/discussion on who qualifies/qualified to be an elder/leading 'one'. He considered himself an apostle..and so did everyone in the LC consider him to be an apostle..THE apostle. But to my knowledge,he overlooks the other offices noted in 1 Corinthians 12:28 for instance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how the LC selected the elders and 'leading ones'. And why can't they just call them PASTORS for crying out loud!

Everyone else uses the Bible's terminology except Lee and the LC....talk about divisive !

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

And from the Amplified Version, here's what Ephesians 4: 11-12 has to say

And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock, and teachers)

His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that they should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church),

Never is there a PASTOR in the LC..or a PROPHET spoken of..there is also more than ONE apostle in the NT. Yes.it does look like Paul took the lead among the other apostles. He planted quite a few churches for sure.

In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division.

Yes...you may be correct. And the LSM/LC with everyone reading the same HWMRs, reading the footnotes...NEVER questioning the footnotes..for that would be considered divisive even if a particular teaching or view Lee held is incorrect.

We, as mature believers, ought to be at a point in our lives where we are relying on the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus in us.

We ought to be learning from one another..not solely from ONE MAN'S point of view!

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities.

Hmm..ministries? Very little discernment of those diversities? What makes you an expert?

Can you explain 1 corinthians 12:5, please?
I don't have an RcV in front of me..but here is what the NASB has to say about ministries:
And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

The KJ puts it like this:
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

In Christ, we ought to be in one accord..by 'osmosis' if you will...we ought to know each other by the Fruit of the Spirit in us. When we're at the grocery store, we ought to be recognizing believers. We are the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. We should be able to see each other Glow in the dark.

The way you are presenting your question..however, sounds very close to Socialism, to Communism..and to what will soon be the ONE WORLD ORDER...where everyone is "one". Everyone will pay homage to the ONE World Leader..there will be ONE world government..ONE world currency. ONE mark on the hand or the forehead. No individuality.

This isn't conspiracy junk..this is what is written in the book of Revelation...and we're right at the edge of this new world order. Be careful what you wish for friend.

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

CORPORATE????? ....uhhhhhh..where does it say THAT in the BIBLE?

My bible talks about the One New Man..one new people.

The KJ puts it like this:

For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

The New Living Translation's wording is much easier to comprehend:

For Christ Himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in His own body on the cross, He broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in Himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as One body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

[tasteslikegold]

Brothers/sisters,

Please note that I am attempting to keep within the confines of this discussion as possible, and that I am also attempting to respond to numerous comments. Please forgive me if my responses here are not in keeping within the current scope of discussion. When I began posting in this thread I had a goal in mind, but had not anticipated that the discussion would lead me in so many directions all at once. If I do not directly address any person's comments, please do not suspect that I had purposefully ignored them. At this point I am basically trying just to keep up.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Because God didn't want us to be CLONES... A hand does not look like a nose, a nose does not look like a foot..and neither do they have the same function..but they all are fitly framed together in the body...and that is how the Body of Christ ought to be. No one needs to be told to act like a foot, a nose or hand. Neither is a hand better than a foot or a nose.

I understand this point, but it is not how I understand the term "individuality" in context with this discussion.

In the body of Christ, we have ONE HEAD...Christ Jesus...we are led by the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit and the WORD of God, the Holy Bible. We are to exhort one another, to teach one another, to build up one another that the world would see we are ONE in CHRIST JESUS...one with each other as the Son is ONE with the Father.

Actually, the oneness of which you speak is not related to exhortation, teaching or building up. It is an essential oneness in both spirit (with the Spirit), and in "harmonious agreement" without division. How is such a oneness accomplished? It cannot be accomplished by a varying degree of opinions over doctrine, practice, or through culture, politics, or any number of items which are sourced in the soul of man.

It depends on your perception TLG. In truth, there ought not to be any denominations or non-denominations..no "local church / Living stream Ministry". We ought to be breaking bread from house to house.

I think this is more related to the other thread, the one concerning the ground of oneness. There appears to be no practical solution to the matter of our division. Therefore, it appears that all believers simply accept our divisions as inevitable products of humanity. This, to me, appears as a grand exercise in fatalism. If one group branches off from another it is received as somewhat problematic, but then again, "What the heck, they're Christians just like us, so we'll just accept the division as inevitable and continue as if God approves." Well, when one group stands on a particular tenet of oneness and claims that it is proper to meet in this way, they are labeled "sectarian." Both Nee and Lee made a standing in such a way. Of course, in so doing they fell to the same type of fatalism, but in a way that was clearly unpopular.

Yet we read about the offices in the New Testament...some apostles, some deacons, some Shephards (pastors), some prophets, some evangelists. In a perfect world, as each believer matures in Christ, we ought to just begin to function in the office we've been called to.

Actually these are not "offices" within the church, but functions within the Body of Christ. Technically the only three offices in the church are apostle, elder, and deacon. These offices may function in the Body according to one or more of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12, however. For example and apostle may also be a teacher or gifted in administrations, etc.; and even an apostle may also be an elder of a church locality (cf. Nee's "The Church and the Work"). The gifts, the functions in the Body are not exclusive, as they were given to the Body as whole. Therefore one member may actually function in the Body with more than one gift. However, in terms of "offices," offices carry out the practical needs of Body. An apostle "plants churches," and elder heads up or leads a local church, and a deacon serves the local churches in their practical needs.

In Christendom, people are ordained for the most part.

Ordained by whom?

In the LC, Lee was the 'apostle of the age'. He selected the elders. Perhaps there was a meeting/discussion on who qualifies/qualified to be an elder/leading 'one'. He considered himself an apostle..and so did everyone in the LC consider him to be an apostle..THE apostle.

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

But to my knowledge,he overlooks the other offices noted in 1 Corinthians 12:28 for instance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how the LC selected the elders and 'leading ones'. And why can't they just call them PASTORS for crying out loud!

Why must they be called "pastors"? Actually, according to many denominations an elder is an office below a pastor. Then again, there are "bishops" who are above the pastors. I've rarely heard any Christian denomination refer to the leader of a region as an apostle, even though the office is clearly defined in Scripture. In some denoms there are "reverends." Where are the reverends in the Bible?

Everyone else uses the Bible's terminology except Lee and the LC....talk about divisive !

Actually, as I've just written, not everyone uses the Bible's terminology. And what translation are you referring to? The term in 1 Timothy 3:1 in the King James is "bishop," whereas in the NIV it's "overseer." Then in the NLT (as well as RcV) it's "elder." In fact, that I am aware, no English version renders the term "pastor."

...Never is there a PASTOR in the LC..or a PROPHET spoken of..there is also more than ONE apostle in the NT. Yes.it does look like Paul took the lead among the other apostles. He planted quite a few churches for sure.

Many of the original apostles set off for other countries, and then some settled in Jerusalem and functioned as elders there. Paul is generally viewed as being the leading apostle by virtue of his writings having been canonized. Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Yes...you may be correct. And the LSM/LC with everyone reading the same HWMRs, reading the footnotes...NEVER questioning the footnotes..for that would be considered divisive even if a particular teaching or view Lee held is incorrect.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

We, as mature believers, ought to be at a point in our lives where we are relying on the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus in us.

We ought to be learning from one another..not solely from ONE MAN'S point of view!

I agree. We don't have "one man's point of view" in the local churches.

Hmm..ministries? Very little discernment of those diversities? What makes you an expert?

I don't claim to be an expert. I only observe, consider and report what I believe to be true. Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

Can you explain 1 corinthians 12:5, please?
I don't have an RcV in front of me..but here is what the NASB has to say about ministries:
And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

The KJ puts it like this:
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.In Christ, we ought to be in one accord..by 'osmosis' if you will...we ought to know each other by the Fruit of the Spirit in us. When we're at the grocery store, we ought to be recognizing believers. We are the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. We should be able to see each other Glow in the dark.

Literally glow in the dark?

The term "ministries" is diakonia in the Greek. It means "to minister, to carry out an administration." It is a form of the word diakonia which means, "to execute the commandments of a master or king." According to the context of 1 Cor. 12, "ministries" is related to the functioning in the Body for the furtherance of the divine commission (the spreading of the Gospel). It is generally not understood by today's standards of "my ministry, his ministry, the prison ministry, the biker's ministry," etc.

The way you are presenting your question..however, sounds very close to Socialism, to Communism..and to what will soon be the ONE WORLD ORDER...where everyone is "one". Everyone will pay homage to the ONE World Leader..there will be ONE world government..ONE world currency. ONE mark on the hand or the forehead. No individuality.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

The content of the rest of your post I believe I responded to in my answer to another.

Grace,

TLG

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Brothers/sisters,

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

You should be aware that most in evangelical Christianity do not believe that apostles with the authority of the twelve and Paul and possible James existed or exist after the death of the Apostle John. Certainly there are missionaries and church planters and recognized leaders. But there are no apostles with the apostlistic authority held by those in the early days. Our "apostles teaching" is the New Testament. We have no one these days with the authority to come into a city and appoint elders in an existing group of Christians. Lee might have acted as an apostle, but it was only because people submitted to him as such, not because he actually held the authoritative office.

Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Please be honest. The LC deemphasizes these gifts because either they don't want to emphasize miracles or they don't want anyone to rival the speaking of Lee and the BBs. The reason the LC doesn't mention the gift of being a prophet is because prophets can rebuke leaders, if the OT examples mean anything, and the LC wants to downplay that as much as possible.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

This is probably true. However, it is only half the story. If a member of a group has enough problem with the direction of the church he can go in peace. In the LC, he is simple a reprobate who must repent or be condemned to wander the earth without a home. Big difference. But you forgot to mention that, I guess.

Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

This is ancient history and very misleading as a tempertature gauge of today's situation. I think you need to get out and visit more. Christians are more sophisticated now than you seem to think.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

No, all property was not given to the community. It says they had "all things in common." There is a difference. If I share my home it is in common, but it's still mine. Someone had to own the homes. Some are called to poverty, but not all are.

The chuch is not socialistic at all. Enforcement of giving by man is socialism. Enforcement of giving by conscience is libertarianism. So, actually we are closer to libertarianism. Everyone is free to give, and urged to give, but no giving can be enforced except by God.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

TLG,
Actually, this is not true. If you read Witness Lee's "Vision of the Age," he specifically states that God uses "one man" in every "Age." He even pointed to Madame Guyon as that "one man" during her "age." Go figure.

He emphasizes "one man" throughout the book, while pointing to a line of people who were supposed to be that "one man" in their respective "ages." In that long line, he ends up with Watchman Nee.

Now he doesn't come out and say that he himself is/was that man, but he certainly brings it right up to his toes, and strongly implies it. It's been a while since I read the book (two times) but he says something to the effect that he alone is qualified to bring forth the "vision" of Watchman Nee.

I know this is off topic, but it caught my eye, and I couldn't let it go.

Roger

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

An addendem to my post TLG...
When we stand before the Son of Man at the Bema seat..that is the Judgment seat of Christ, and give account, we are not going to stand as a 'Corporate' person. We ain't going w/our husbands/wives..kids, brothers & sisters in Christ...

We stand before HIM..the JUDGE individually...not 'corporately'.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

TLG,
This is an interesting question. But it seems to presume that individuality = 1 Corinthians division. Nowhere are the problems in 1 Corinthians described as the result of individuality. Instead, they are described as the result of taking sides and excluding others over leaders and teachings and also about an attitude of self importance.

Actually this was not my presumption. There are obviously divisions in the church which are the result of personal preference to persons, as in 1 Corinthians. However, all division - that is purposeful division is the direct result of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5).

Individuality does not equal self importance. Neither does it equal exclusiveness. It merely denotes differences.

My understanding of the term "individuality" as it relates to the topic, however, is that is is something more than merely wearing a different colored hat on Sundays.

Actually, Jesus called people to be followers and believers. Those who follow/believe are defined as being the body of Christ. They are the called-out ones. Someone did write that it was important enough to meet with other followers/believers that they said to not forsake assembling together.

When I read passages that mention all the parts that are not the same yet all work together, I realize that there is something wonderfully different about us all. And there is nothing in those passages that makes those differences so exclusively spiritual that there is nothing of the differences of our personalities, experiences, struggles, victories, etc., included in those wonderful differences.

Paul used the practical example of a person's physical body to impart certain truths about the Body of Christ. I think it's perfectly acceptable, then, to take such an example and show how, although the members distinct they are not separate, they are not individual. My hand cannot survive without my body, and also my body cannot be considered complete without my hand. The fact that one of my hands may have "more experience" in handling tools (ie. my dominant hand will be used more than my non-dominant hand) does not mean that it is individual. However, what if my right hand decided that it's importance in the further advancement of my physical health, and so decided that it would function of its own accord? It would be completely bizarre for such a thing to happen. It would cease to become a functioning member of my body and, because of its independence, become a foreign element.

But where is it that scripture actually says that we are called into a “corporate Person?” Can you find such a scripture, or at least tie a few together in a way that clearly prescribes such an idea. I do not think it exists, but you must have some basis for your statement. Rather than make me read the entirety of scripture hoping to find the one or more passages and create the link, can you provide it?

There are actually a few which "link up" this way:

Rom. 12:5 - many members being one in the Body, and members of one another.

1 Cor. 12:12 - is the term "yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

Eph. 3:16 - connects the Jews and gentiles into the body of Christ.

Col. 1:24 - uses the term "His Body" in relation to the church.

Col. 2:17 - says that the Body "is of Christ," meaning it "consists of Christ" rather than merely belonging to Him.

Also, there are examples which we can pull from regarding the corporate aspect of God's people. The children of Israel were called such because they were God's people. On the one hand they were the literal descendants of Jacob ( Israel ), and on the other hand they were referred to as a corporate person (the language being singular). Then after Jerusalem was established God called His people by that name - Jerusalem . Jesus also referred to Jerusalem in the "corporate" aspect when He lamented over them - God's people. Also, Paul alludes to there being a corporate person when he talks about the children of Abraham by faith.

In terms of the church being a corporate "person" we are such by virtue of the fact that we are "in Christ." In terms of our having the same life, the same eternal life, as Christ, we are called a "new creation," of which Christ is the head. Well, He's not just the head, but the "life blood" all who are in the new creation as well. We all know, of course what He said to Paul as Saul, when He said, "when you do this to one of these you do it also to me" (paraphrase). There are other examples which I'm sure I could cite, but I believe this makes enough of an argument.

I have found that there are many things that I learned from years of learning from Lee that sound wonderful, sound higher than what common Christians talk about, but that are not actually found in scripture. It took more years after my last LC meeting to realize this than the total number of years I spent learning it.

Actually the subject of the Body of Christ has been commented on by many others. The fact that Lee also did so should be no surprise, and frankly I don't know why someone would have to "unlearn" it simply because he sees it as being extra-Biblical. Many of us who have experienced debates from the anti-Trinitarian groups are familiar with the idea that the Trinity, while not explicitly defined in Scripture, is nevertheless present in concept (And certainly through the revelation in Scripture). However, such a concept, while not clearly delineated in Scripture, has been widely accepted as Biblical truth and established as a basis for orthodoxy in the church for literally centuries. I believe this answers a question above, "Where does it say THAT in the Bible?" Well, where does it say "Trinity" or "Triune" or "Communion" in the Bible?

Some may disagree with the term "corporate Person" because it appears on the surface to remove the individual aspect of the believer's participation in salvation. However, the Bible relates salvation itself to the participation in a corporate "person," or "Body." So one cannot escape either individual salvation or the "corporate salvation" (In relation to essence and time) of the Body of Christ. At one time the Body of Christ, the church, or whichever term you wish to use to describe the totality of God's people, will be resurrected and saved. And it will be in this totality, the house of God, in which God will execute His judgment first (1 Pet. 4:17).

And the fact that Paul strove against division does not mean that he strove to avoid the existence of anything that could lead to division, but only the actual division that arose. In other words, the fact that we could divide over something does not make that something evil or wrong. It only means that some potential for division exists and we should be on guard against that possibility. If we presume that Paul strove against things that tend to cause division, then he would have to strive against the fact that some are Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, masters, slaves, etc. But he did not. He said that whatever you are, you should not think more highly of yourself than you ought to. He did not tell the rich to give their wealth to the others until they all became equal. He did not tell masters to free all their slaves or tell Jews to simply drop everything Jewish and be just like the Greeks or whoever were the Gentiles in their area. He simply said to realize that there is something uniting that is higher than the natural differences that exist.

Interesting concept. And I happen to agree with the idea that the mere existence of classes, nationalities, etc. in and of themselves are not evil, but only that we should be on guard for those things to become potential sources of division. However, what of those "factions, divisions, sects"? These are clearly related to various teachings and sidings with varying schools of thought, aren't they? Certainly, unless a certain teaching or school of thought is outright heretical, it is not evil in itself. But the potential for division is there. Yet it is these that Paul identified as being sourced in the flesh; and to Timothy he wrote explicitly that certain ones in his charges aught not to teach "different things." So I think it is a fair assessment to say, yes, Paul did strive against

That's all I have for now. It appears that my first posting here prompted a few responses. I hope that with yours, and at least on other, I have been able to answer, to give you my perspective. I hope to respond completely to the other posts directed toward me in the next day or so. It's getting quite late now and I've run out of gas.

TLG

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

An addendem to my post TLG...
When we stand before the Son of Man at the Bema seat..that is the Judgment seat of Christ, and give account, we are not going to stand as a 'Corporate' person. We ain't going w/our husbands/wives..kids, brothers & sisters in Christ...

We stand before HIM..the JUDGE individually...not 'corporately'.

That would be one side of the coin, yes. Of course there is the individual aspect and responsibility of salvation. I have not denied that here. However, the other side of that coin reflects a definite connection to, and salvific relation to, the house of God, a "corporate person" or entity if you like.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

HI TLG, Welcome to the forum

I think your statement above implies presumptions and conclusions that are not supportable in the light of the Word, history and creation.

Let me start at the end with your statement "Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?"

The short answer is you could put it that way, but being able to do so doesn't imply the conclusions you seem to want to draw--that all our individual traits including our opinions need to be swallowed up in this corporate Person. That's taking the metaphor of the Body and the Head, and the corporate aspect of the Church to a suppressive (Chinese?) extent, which was my point with this thread.

God obviously loves diversity. Just look at creation, which we are told by the word declares the glory of God. Did you know there are over 10,000 types of birds in the world? Do all those birds have to look and act exactly alike to declare God's glory? Or is God's glory more declared by the rich diversity? Did you know that every single one of the billions and billions of snowflakes that have ever existed are unique? What does that tell us about God?

God created individuality and it is clearly a good and useful thing. He didn't just create it for the fun of watching it be crushed into the mass of the "corporate Person." God has used individuals throughout history when he needed to move the masses. Look at the prophets in the OT. Do you think God wanted them to go along with the crowd? There surely is glory to God in our learning to cooperate and submit and serve one another. God also gets glory when we let go of our preference when he wants us to accept a common wisdom. But God does not get glory when we subsume our will as a rule to some corporate mass. All that leads to is lemmings going off a cliff. (Note: See local church movement.)

I see very little in the Bible that suggests the kind of mindset preached in the local churches--that God wants us all to go along with the Baaady as if he would never suggest we do otherwise. Obviously, God wants us to push back against conventional corporate opinion sometimes. As the prophets did, as Jesus did, as Paul did, as Martin Luther did, as most of the great spiritual pioneers of history did. All of them acted as individuals being led by God "against the tide" of corporate opinion.

[tasteslikegold]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any correlation between diversities in various plant, and animal species and diversities of opinion in the church. The fact that God created a number of plant and animal species does not necessitate His blessing upon any number of varying opinions in the Body of Christ which tend to cause divisions. Paul, did, after all, exhort the Corinthian believers that they should be of the same opinion (1 Cor. 1:10, that which is rendered "judgment, thought" in some translations being the GreeK "gnōmē" which is given by Strong's to mean "the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason...view, judgment, opinion) , and I have yet personally to see in the New Testament where varying opinions are desirable.

[Cal]

Well, I'm sorry you don't see it. TLG. But I see it. I suggest you pray about it. Ask the Lord why all the snowflakes are different. See what he tells you.

Besides, if we are only to have one opinion, which one is the right one? Who decides? How do we know they are right?

You can't enforce this stuff, TLG. If you try you are just going to end up lording it over the saints. Trust the Holy Spirit to lead people as he wishes. He knows what's needed. He will use the diversity of the saints to meet all the needs of the church and the world. That's what he's doing now. Human leadership can't orchestrate what God is doing. No one has that kind of wisdom. One size fits all is man's way, not God's way.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any correlation between diversities in various plant, and animal species and diversities of opinion in the church. The fact that God created a number of plant and animal species does not necessitate His blessing upon any number of varying opinions in the Body of Christ which tend to cause divisions. Paul, did, after all, exhort the Corinthian believers that they should be of the same opinion (1 Cor. 1:10, that which is rendered "judgment, thought" in some translations being the GreeK "gnōmē" which is given by Strong's to mean "the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason...view, judgment, opinion) , and I have yet personally to see in the New Testament where varying opinions are desirable.

TLG:

Howdy. We haven't interacted before. I appreciate your enagement and thoughtfulness here (as much as I've read).

I hope I'm not too terse to respond to your above quote with this:

It is true that Paul exhorted the Corinthians to be of the same opinion.

But doesn't that just beg the question: what opinion?

One centralizing opinion could, very well, be "love the diversity in the Body."

Paul writes his share of appreciating and exhorting "each one" and "every member". (the extent to which Paul, or the rest of the scripture, does this, is a great discussion itself- we should have it).

So, just because Paul exhorts believer to be of the same opinion is not really a retort to someone saying the Bible advocates or appreciates diversity in the Body.

I could simultaneously believe that God desires diversity in the Body as well as desires uniformity of opinion on the most important aspects of the Body. They are not mutually exclusive. So, I think your response to Igzy's well made point needs to be more extensive - that is, if you disagree with him. In short, your response didn't really respond on the central issue: that is, what "opinion" should be shared among the members of the Body?

Just some food and questions for thought.

In Love,

Peter

[aron]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom.

I am not sure if this generalization holds very strongly in "Christendom". I have been a Christian for some years and have traveled a lot and met with different groups, from ultraliberal Unitarians to fundamentalists who said "Women can't speak in church: it's in the Bible". And I've seen a lot of groups in between. I generally don't see individualism being held up as a virtuous trait in any group.

Instead, what I usually see trends more toward what I call "groupthink": to some degree or another, everyone somewhat submerges their individuality to try and fit in. That's why, by definition, it's a group, not merely a temporary collection of individuals in shared space. Some common denominator, if only faith in Jesus Christ, calls us together out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and socio-economic class to gather together and celebrate God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and to look together towards His soon return.

Now, having said that, I really loved my initial "Lord's recovery" meetings because it was a free-for-all. Not chaos, though a few times it bordered on that. But what I loved was that everyone was allowed to share whatever portion of "Christ" they thought was relevant to the group experience. You had truck drivers sharing, then PhD's; you had some old Chinese woman who knew Watchman Nee back in China speaking right after some young blonde college student who just got saved last week. Somehow it all worked, and marvelously. God wasn't threatened by our "individualism" - hardly. Rather you got the sense of the Father rejoicing in all His children. More than once I got a glimpse of wide eyes and astonished face of some incredulous visitor, as if they were thinking, "Who's in charge here?"

We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division.

Au contraire. I would recommend listening to an audio Bible sometime, and listen for the "voice" of Paul versus that of John. The two styles could hardly be more different. Yet Christ was pleased to reveal Himself in each one. Then Peter, James, etc. Each one brimming with a unique voice; with "individuality". None of them "the apostle of the age", to which all others must slavishly submerge their thoughts and identities. More on this later.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

I know that tlg may no longer be posting and this conversation may have run its course, but I just wanted to comment to this post, especially the bolded part, above. The problem with trying to "suppress individuality", as tlg puts it, is that it ultimately becomes a cover for one personality, one individuality, to dominate everyone else. In this present case the individuality was of Witness Lee. We aped his mannerisms, his speech inflections, his language (I quit saying something was the 'best'; instead it was now the 'top'), and his hermeneutics. So if WL said that Christ didn't inhabit the bulk of the Psalms, contrary to the NT's repeated indications, then we all agreed: they were just "natural" expressions of the "fallen sinner" king David. We were no longer to ''eagerly search the scriptures'' daily seeking Christ; He is not there, says ''God's present oracle''. Instead just stick with ''the interpreted word'', stick with the "daily food".

By our trying to "suppress individuality" we actually foster the individuality of someone who is not Jesus Christ. In this case we begin to express WL, not Jesus Christ. I am not blaming WL; if it had been "the church of ARON" it would have been much, much worse!

I just think tlg has been caught by a bad idea, that's all. I was there; eventually I saw the result of this idea bearing fruit. You suppress your "individuality" to be a part of the group, and both you and the group begin to express something that is not Jesus Christ. You may have "one trumpet" but it is not from heaven. It is the trumpet of suppression, of conformity, of domination, of Babylon. It is a veneer of unity, with confusion lurking within. As I've said before, look at the 'unity' described in Revelation 13:8. Hardly our goal.

Contrast that to the repeated praises in Revelation 19. Verse 6, for example, says "Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns..." John, attempting to characterize what he hears, uses several dissimilar terms (multitude, waters, thunder), each of which has its own modifiers to highlight its inherent complexity, and the combination of all three together recollects in my mind the very "local church" meeting I remember so well, of various individual, unique personalities uninhibitedly expressing corporate thanks and praise and glory to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Why suppress that? Why submerge that? What "body" over-rules that marvelous noise? That is, rather, the "body" of a corpse. Any life it once possessed has long since gone.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Instead, what I usually see trends more toward what I call "groupthink": to some degree or another, everyone somewhat submerges their individuality to try and fit in. That's why, by definition, it's a group, not merely a temporary collection of individuals in shared space. Some common denominator, if only faith in Jesus Christ, calls us together out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and socio-economic class to gather together and celebrate God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and to look together towards His soon return.

Now, having said that, I really loved my initial "Lord's recovery" meetings because it was a free-for-all. Not chaos, though a few times it bordered on that. But what I loved was that everyone was allowed to share whatever portion of "Christ" they thought was relevant to the group experience. You had truck drivers sharing, then PhD's; you had some old Chinese woman who knew Watchman Nee back in China speaking right after some young blonde college student who just got saved last week. Somehow it all worked, and marvelously. God wasn't threatened by our "individualism" - hardly. Rather you got the sense of the Father rejoicing in all His children. More than once I got a glimpse of wide eyes and astonished face of some incredulous visitor, as if they were thinking, "Who's in charge here?"

There's a thread with an attached article on groupthink
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=394

Those free-for-all days of brothers and sisters testifying of their daily experience of Christ are long gone. Typically now they are referred to as See stories. Back then as a high school brother, I received much encouragement from these "See stories".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Those free-for-all days of brothers and sisters testifying of their daily experience of Christ are long gone. Typically now they are referred to as See stories. Back then as a high school brother, I received much encouragement from these "See stories".

That is, "Sea stories", with an "a". As in "ocean stories", as in sailors returning from travels and recounting adventures. The problem with a "sea story" is that it may include such personal impressions as to render facts into fables. A sailor may briefly glimpse the back of a whale, while at sea, and come back with tales of giant sea monsters that eat ships. Or may get caught in a storm, but as the story is retold the waves increase from 8 feet high to 20 feet high.

So the subjective nature of "sea stories" is always a peril. But again, who or what was to guard against the subjective nature of "Uncle Witness' story time"? So we still got subjective impressions, "sea stories", and yes, fables, but just from one source. Everyone else got a piano note banged unceremoniously, with a "thank you, brother, thank you, brother".