"In the divisions He sought us"

[aron]

The Local Church hymn #1221 says:

"In the divisions He sought us,
Weary and famished for food;
Into the good land He brought us,
Oh, to our spirit how good!"

"In the divisions" -- this phrase presupposes The Great Whore Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church, with its various illegitimate offspring (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican) following this. This view says that there is the "Whore" and then there are the "Divisions", and then there is "us", recovered into the "glorious church life".

But that is a historically-based view which assumes a Post-Reformation, Post-Protestant thought process. There was, according to this view, a "recovery" from the "divisions" which followed the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther et al. In this version of history Luther correctly heard the call to "come out of her, my people", but unfortunately divisions followed the Reformation and that needed further recovery. Voila, the glorious Local Church life, with Jesus Himself as our pasture.

But I find that reading of history to be pretty narrow. Its viability involves ignoring a lot. And it merely results in creating a new division, whose primary focus seems to be sneering at other divisions.

I can see two glaring things it ignores. First of all, if the post-Reformation Protestant denominations are divisions, then what is the Eastern Orthodox? A division? A division of what? And what is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? A division -- of what?

The "Great Whore Babylon astride the land, and her illegitimate progeny" view is post-Protestant, Rome-centric, and ignores any church that doesn't fit. It is a make-believe, simplistic, cardboard cut-out and so is its reaction to that cartoon image. Reality unfortunately isn't as convenient, and ecclesiastical history didn't start with the Roman church. There were, and are, millions of Christians who never were "of Rome" nor of the subsequent Protestant church groupings.

It's understandable that such a view existed. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church wasn't trying to kill Martin Luther, but the RCC was. Luther didn't even know the Ethiopians existed! So obviously the RCC dominated the conceptual vision of the Protestants. But it shouldn't fill our vision as well. We shouldn't be deliberately narrow, when history is broader. Likewise, in the 1920s the Chinese were reacting to a European/Western "denominational" model of Christianity dominating their land, when they started the Brethren-inspired Little Flock movement. But again, that is a historical reaction, abetted by its own culture, to cultural imperialism. It is not something that necessarily applies to all Christians, at all times. We don't have to be subsumed into that movement to validate it. Culture is not validated by its successful export. Culture simply is.

Second, if your "recovery" criteria are #1 coming out of the Great Whore Babylon and #2 having one church per city, then the Puritans already provided a model of the "glorious church life". For nearly a hundred years there was only one church per city in the American colonies, until the Baptists started splitting off, and Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson and other dissenters showed up. So the ex-Rome "recovered" church was already there, and having "taken the ground". Not a division at all; in fact, you got seriously punished for being divisive, back then.

But unfortunately that one-church-per-city model on virgin American soil wasn't sufficient. It wasn't started in the virgin soil of China by Watchman Nee, the Seer of the Divine Revelation, so we should ignore it. I guess.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by aron

There the Local Church hymn #1221 it says:

"In the divisions He sought us,
Weary and famished for food;
Into the good land He brought us,
Oh, to our spirit how good!"

If someone doesn't know much about the Church history, he may be hooked on the words easily. Besides, the hymn lines can be supported by the Bible: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me". (John 17:20-23, NIV)

So it sounds good until you dig into history.

But I am more concerned about "Into the good land" than "In the divisions". To me, the good land of the LRC is nothing but a barren desert, with the mirage of an oasis.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I am more concerned about "Into the good land" than "In the divisions". To me, the good land of the LRC is nothing but a barren desert, with the mirage of an oasis.

Mirage is a good word. First you set up the mark with a simplistic version of history. "It was dark and dreary, then God raised up Prophet X to rescue us." And the listener is lured into becoming a co-conspirator; all they have to do is agree that this is in fact how history has played out. When in fact history contains much more than your narrative.

I myself do not know much of church history before the Great Schism of 1054. I was born a Protestant and church history effectively began for us in 1525 with Martin Luther. Everything before that was "the Dark Ages", an empty void. We were ignorant, and people like Lee prey upon our ignorance with their simplistic "just so" stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

I may not know much, but what I have seen demonstrates convincingly that church history is not as Lee portrayed it to us.

And to complete the mirage of the Local Church as equivalent to the good land, once you've convinced your mark that history is "just so", then you present them with your shiny alternative. You can repeatedly yell at them, "We're in the good land!!!" Believe me, it was convincing when I went to my first meeting and everybody was shouting, euphoric, and enthusiastic. I thought, So this is what church meetings should look like!

And later, when the enthusiasm dies down, when the Prophet begins to demand more and more, when you hear of "rebellions" and "storms" and whispered conspiracies, when you start having questions, you just need to keep repeating the mantra. Just keep telling yourself that everyone else is Babylonian, in the divisions, in dead religion, and we the blessed Local Church are in the good land. Ignore what your eyes and ears tell you. Ignore the history not in your simplistic version. Ignore those pesky Bible verses that don't line up with the Oracle. Just keep repeating the mantra. Probably that's why they made Lee's teachings into songs, so people would just keep beating them into their brains. Just keep repeating the mantra - it's God's economy!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Just keep repeating the mantra - it's God's economy!

It's this fabled term God's Economy that is used to claim legitimacy for churches aligned under LSM as lampstands on the earth. All other assemblies and fellowships are deemed as counterfeits and illegitimate.

Do your research and do your homework and you will learn these fellowship of churches have much in common with the Exclusive Brethren among others. Terminology might be different, but in practice ironically similar. Just as with Darby's Exclusive Brethren, divisions were produced.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Terry

Do your research and do your homework and you will learn these fellowship of churches have much in common with the Exclusive Brethren among others. Terminology might be different, but in practice ironically similar. Just as with Darby's Exclusive Brethren, divisions were produced.

Revived Exclusive Brethrenism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

There is a line in a hymn which I was recently considering:

"In the divisions He sought us,
Weary and famished for food;
Into the good land He brought us,
Oh, to our spirit how good!

Hymns, #1221

You're kidding me. What brought that to mind?

Originally Posted by Lowly One - Non-Sir Max-alot

"In the divisions"... that view presupposes The Great Whore Babylon, Roman Catholic Church astride the land, with various illegitimate offspring (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican) following this. This view says that there is the "Whore" and then there are the "Divisions", and then there is "us", recovered into the "glorious church life".

"Glorious church life?" Yeah, giving our whole life to, running around acting and talking silly all the time; that I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have in mind for his followers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But I find that reading of history to be pretty narrow. Its viability involves ignoring a lot. And it merely results in creating a new division, whose primary focus seems to be sneering at other divisions.

Supposedly Nee, who had read every book known to man, passed down an accurate record of church history to Lee. Actually, Nee's limited account was thru the prism of Western culture, that which was passed down via the British missionaries.

Unfortunately, Nee's and Lee's views of ecclesiology have all become suspect, since their "ground of oneness" one church / one city model has gone little further than Revelation chapters 2 & 3 for their proof texts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... if your "recovery" criteria are #1 coming out of the Great Whore Babylon and #2 having one church per city, then the Puritans already provided a model of the "glorious church life". For nearly a hundred years there was only one church per city in the American colonies, until the Baptists started splitting off, and Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson and other dissenters showed up. So the ex-Rome "recovered" church was already there, and having "taken the ground". Not a division at all; in fact, you got seriously punished for being divisive, back then.

But unfortunately that one-church-per-city model on virgin American soil wasn't sufficient. It wasn't started in the virgin soil of China by Watchman Nee, the Seer of the Divine Revelation, so we should ignore it. I guess.

Another good one-church-per-city model, which predated Watchman Nee's Chinese variant, was 16th Century Geneva Switzerland, which was overseen by the Council of the Two Hundred, a group of overseers. Here's a record of their care for the church in Geneva:

... "A conspiracy of men and women has lately been discovered, who, for the space of three years, had spread the plague through the city by what mischievous device I know not. After fifteen women have been burnt, some men have even been punished more severely, some have committed suicide in prison, and while twenty-five are still kept prisoners, — the conspirators do not cease, notwithstanding, to smear the door-locks of the dwelling-houses with their poisonous ointment. You see in the midst of what perils we are tossed about. The Lord hath hitherto preserved our dwelling, though it has more than once been attempted. It is well that we know ourselves to be under His care.".

The Council was always on the alert that the "one accord" must be preserved, which meant ferreting out deviants, conspiracies and purging the flock. They believed that this kind of purification is necessary to keep the rest in the group compliant with leadership. As RK later put it so well, "Sometimes you must cut off the churches to preserve the Body".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Two_Hundred