The Fallacy of Ecumenism

[Evangelical]

There are two main ways in which Christian unity may be achieved. One way is to leave all the divisions and meet on some common ground. This is like throwing away a square peg and making a new round peg so it fits in the round hole.

The other way is Ecumenism which is basically to try and merge the divisions by squishing them closer together. This is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Ecumenism is "the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian Churches." It is a quest for Christian unity. In this post I will show what is the problem with it and why it cannot work, and that the kind of unity it will produce is opposed to God's plan.

The ecumenical symbol is the church portrayed as a boat afloat on the sea of the world with the mast in the form of a cross. Some of you who read my posts may recall my analogy of boats floating in the ocean. I used that analogy for good reason, because it is related to the ecumenical symbol. The symbol of the ecumenical movement is one boat in the ocean. Their goal is one boat. However currently there are many boats in the ocean. Bringing boats closer together and building bridges between boats does not change the fact that people are still "in the boats". Can building bridges between denominations bring a kind of unity? Yes! Is the kind of unity ecumenism can bring, genuine unity mentioned in the Bible? No!

Let us consider some valid reasons against ecumenism from some Protestant and Orthodox:

The pressure to compromise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism
There are some members of the United Methodist Church who oppose ecumenical efforts which are "not grounded in the doctrines of the Church" due to concerns over theological compromise.[49] For example, an article published in Catalyst Online: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians stated that false ecumenism might result in the "blurring of theological and confessional differences in the interests of unity."[50]

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) bars its clergy from worshiping with other faiths, contending "that church fellowship or merger between church bodies in doctrinal disagreement with one another is not in keeping with what the Bible teaches about church fellowship."[51] In keeping with this position, a Connecticut LCMS pastor was asked to apologize by the president of the denomination, and did so, for participating in an interfaith prayer vigil for the 26 children and adults killed at a Newtown elementary school; and a LCMS pastor in New York was suspended for praying at an interfaith vigil in 2001, twelve days after the September 11 attacks.[52] In 2015, LCMS Presiding Pastor Matthew Harrison excommunicated one Lutheran minister for a number of stated reasons, including ecumenism with Roman Catholics. Another conservative Lutheran body, the American Association of Lutheran Churches, is strongly opposed to ecumenical (more accurately, interfaith) dialogue with non-Christian religions and with denominations it identifies as cults.

However, many Orthodox Christians are vehemently opposed to ecumenism with other Christian denominations. They view ecumenism, as well as interfaith dialog, as being potentially pernicious to Orthodox Church Tradition; a "weakening" of Orthodoxy itself.[55] In the Eastern Orthodox world, the monastic community of Mount Athos, arguably the most important center of Orthodox spirituality, has voiced its concerns regarding the ecumenist movement and opposition to the participation of the Orthodox Church.[56] They regard modern ecumenism as compromising essential doctrinal stands in order to accommodate other Christians, and object to the emphasis on dialogue leading to intercommunion rather than conversion on the part of participants in ecumenical initiatives. Greek Old Calendarists also claim that the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils forbid changing the church calendar through abandonment of the Julian calendar.[citation needed] The Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference entitled "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations, Disenchantment",[57] organized in September 2004 by the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki has drawn negative conclusions on ecumenism.

As some have rightly pointed out, a step towards ecumenism is compromise. Now compromise can be a good thing if the matters compromised about are within the realm of Christian freedoms. However as we will see, the compromises to be made are in the matter of light and darkness, not merely right or wrong over minor doctrinal disputes.

For this we need to look at the The World Council of Churches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_of_Churches

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a worldwide inter-church organization.

What are the leanings of the WCC?

Anti Israel:

The World Council of Churches has been described as taking an adversarial position toward the state of Israel.[63] It has also been claimed the council has focused particularly on activities and publications criticizing Israel in comparison with other human rights issues.[64][65] It is similarly claimed that it downplayed appeals from Egyptian Copts about human rights abuses under Sadat and Mubarak, in order to focus on its neighbour.[63] In 2009, the Council called for an international boycott on goods produced in Israeli settlements, which it described as 'illegal, unjust' and 'incompatible with peace'.[66] In 2013, the General Secretary was reported to claim in Cairo, "We support the Palestinians. The WCC supports the Palestinians, because they are in the right."[67] The WCC's Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) has been criticised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews for promoting "an inflammatory and partisan programme at the expense of its interfaith relations".[68] The WCC secretariat was involved in preparing and helped disseminate the Kairos Palestine Document, which declares “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights”,


Pro-gay marriage:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_wcc.htm
The World Council of Churches (WCC) represents 332 Orthodox, Anglican and other Protestant denominations, with a total membership of about 400 million Christians. There are serious internal tensions within the group. Christian Orthodox churches are distressed at some of the increasingly liberal positions of the WCC. Chief among these are the eligibility of women for ordination, acceptance of gays and lesbians for ordination, and acceptance of committed homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual.


Let us consider the affiliations of the current WCC leadership:

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-us...ure/leadership

WCC presidents
Rev. Dr Mary-Anne Plaatjies van Huffel, Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa
Rev. Prof. Dr Sang Chang, Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea
Archbishop Anders Wejryd, Church of Sweden
Rev. Gloria Nohemy Ulloa Alvarado, Presbyterian Church in Colombia
Bishop Mark MacDonald, Anglican Church of Canada
Rev. Dr Mele’ana Puloka, Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga
H.B. John X, Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East
H.H. Karekin II, the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians

Now let us consider which of these affiliations are clearly pro gay marriage:

Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa - YES
http://www.christianpost.com/news/du...cision-147554/

Church of Sweden - YES
http://www.thelocal.se/20091022/22810

Anglican Church of Canada - YES:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...from-unanimous

So a key reason why ecumenism will never work in a genuine way is because of the necessary compromises to be made on gay marriage and Israel.

Another reason is that the largest denomination is not a member although they are involved:

It is notable that "The largest Christian body, the Catholic Church, is not a member of the WCC, but has worked closely with the Council for more than three decades and sends observers to all major WCC conferences as well as to its Central Committee meetings and the Assemblies"



The Future of Ecumenism

What are the main reasons it does not work? Because it involves compromise on key issues such as Israel and homosexual marriage. It is inevitable that denominations that currently do not compromise will either compromise or leave the ecumenical movement as it continues to head towards liberalism. The ecumenical movement cannot result in genuine Christian unity because it is:
1. A compromise on key issues such as homosexual marriage and Israel
2. A waste of time, given
-the largest denomination, Roman Catholic, is not a member.
- Any efforts towards unity are countered by the fractures and splits within denominations over contentious issues - denominations are already fracturing over the gay marriage issue:
http://religionnews.com/2015/09/23/b...-gay-marriage/
3. In future, likely to result in some united liberal-focused Christian entity which is supportive of gay marriage and other aberrations. In other words, greater unity may be achieved but it will not be based on traditional Christian values and biblical principles.

2 Corinthians 6:14 says "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?"

[Nell]

Just curious, but this forum is "Local Church Discussions". What does this topic have to do with the purpose of this forum?

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just curious, but this forum is "Local Church Discussions". What does this topic have to do with the purpose of this forum?

Nell

Hi Nell,

Given the apparent failure of the local churches in trying to achieve Christian unity, some have proposed ecumenism as the way forward. Some have proposed that the local churches should join the ecumenical way.

However I do not think they have a clear view of the nature the ecumenical movements worldwide, neither do they consider that the alternative of ecumenism is far worse than the kind of unity proposed by the local church.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Nell,

Given the apparent failure of the local churches in trying to achieve Christian unity, some have proposed ecumenism as the way forward. Some have proposed that the local churches should join the ecumenical way.

However I do not think they have a clear view of the nature the ecumenical movements worldwide, neither do they consider that the alternative of ecumenism is far worse than the kind of unity proposed by the local church.

Evangelical,

OK. In that case, I have questions for you: When Jesus said "I will build my church", what did he mean? Do you think he is so spiritually inept that he needs man-made organizations, movements and, for that matter, the Local Church/Witness Lee to "achieve Christian unity?" "Christian unity" is in the eye of the beholder, organizationally speaking, giving rise to endless arguments about who is "right." Whatever is achieved by the continuing failed efforts of man will not be the church for whom Christ died.

The church will be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. What you're trying to do is manage the spots and wrinkles.

Spots and wrinkles equate to sin. Today's church is powerless because of sin. There will be no "Christian unity" as long as there is sin in the camp. As Matt. 1:21 says "He came to save His people from their sins." Above all else, God is Holy. God is clean.

Just because a bunch of different men come up with their own pet doctrines and organize around their preferences and claim to be "the church" doesn't mean squat. Jesus will return to claim a bride that looks like him; a bride that loves him; a bride that is spotless...like he is.

This hymn says it best and this is what I want:

1 The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
she is his new creation by water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.

2 Elect from every nation, yet one o’er all the earth;
her charter of salvation: one Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses, partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses, with every grace endued.

3 Though with a scornful wonder the world see her oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping; their cry goes up: “How long?”
and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

4 Mid toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation of peace forevermore,
till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious shall be the church at rest.

5 Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly, may live eternally.

By Samuel J. Stone

Nell

[Evangelical]

Hi Nell,

God principally works through human beings, not that he needs to do so (He is God), but he has chosen to do so. The ecumenical movement is an attempt to bring man-made organizations together, which is a false unity.

The church is not an organization but the Body of Christ. The church is just Christ. The gates of hell can prevail against man -made organizations but not the true church. The true church is that which is made of living stones by God and not human hands, and is none other than Christ himself who is the only one who can prevail against the gates of hell. If we have a vision of the church we will see that Christians are already united spiritually in the one church, the body of Christ. To make any sort of distinctions between Christians is to exercise a sectarian and divisive spirit. The principle of Matt 23:8 is "all ye are brethren". There is no hierarchy in the sense of organizations and denominations and ruling over others. There is hierarchy in the sense of function - just like in our bodies the shoulder is higher than the arm and the arm cannot move unless the shoulder "tells" it to, but this does not mean the shoulder is more important than the arm.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Nell,

The church is not an organization but the Body of Christ. The church is just Christ. The gates of hell can prevail against man -made organizations but not the true church. The true church is that which is made of living stones by God and not human hands, and is none other than Christ himself who is the only one who can prevail against the gates of hell. If we have a vision of the church we will see that Christians are already united spiritually in the one church, the body of Christ. To make any sort of distinctions between Christians is to exercise a sectarian and divisive spirit.

E,

I believe I just said most of that. Except for the part about distinctions between/among Christians being sectarian and divisive...a hallmark of Witness Lee.


N

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Given the apparent failure of the local churches in trying to achieve Christian unity, some have proposed ecumenism as the way forward. Some have proposed that the local churches should join the ecumenical way.

The 'some' (have proposed ...) , pls may I ask 'who' are these 'some'?
I don't mean to know the names of persons (the some). I am asking whether these 'some' are the 'local church' members and/or LSM members, or people outside of LSM and LSM local churches?
Angelical, I am asking questions because I know many LSM local churches members in different countries and I am concerned for them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

The 'some' (have proposed ...) , pls may I ask 'who' are these 'some'?
I don't mean to know the names of persons (the some). I am asking whether these 'some' are the 'local church' members and/or LSM members, or people outside of LSM and LSM local churches?
Angelical, I am asking questions because I know many LSM local churches members in different countries and I am concerned for them.

Some on this forum, who see LSM like any other denomination, and think it should be in fellowship with other denominations.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

The ecumenicism you are excoriating is a relic from the past. Once again you are taking your riff from something Witness Lee taught long ago. Have you no inspiration other than things a man dead for twenty years taught?

You are succumbing to the fallacy of the excluded middle, aka false dilemma. You say either everyone will spontaneously "leave all the divisions" (which we both know is code for joining the LCM) or they will succumb to a murky, marshy "unity" where everyone must have the blood of the lowest common denominating sin on their heads.

You missed the middle you excluded in your fallacious reasoning.

What is actually happening today is that God is working out unity in the community churches and some denominations. Is it according to the theoretical idealism of the LCM? No, but that ideal is not going to happen anyway, so who cares. Fact is, it's just a unobtainable fantasy by which the LCM discredits everything but what they want to believe they are. (Which they aren't, but that's another story.)

But neither is it according to your cynical excluded middle alternative of man-made ecumenicism. Oneness is being seen these days. Not just shaking hands over the fence, but commitment, cooperation and a genuine desire to see God break out to a level never before really seen. It is happening.

So I don't buy your cynicism. And I see it for what it really is--another attempt to discredit everything but the LCM. Continue to throw stones from your ivory tower. Continue to be part of the problem rather than the solution. Continue to be a Pharisee, if that's what floats your boat. Meanwhile God is working...

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical,
The ecumenicism you are excoriating is a relic from the past. Once again you are taking your riff from something Witness Lee taught long ago. Have you no inspiration other than things a man dead for twenty years taught?

Hi Igzy,

God is also working people out of denominations: Non-denominationalism is on the rise
http://www.christianitytoday.com/eds...ost-recen.html

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Igzy,

God is also working people out of denominations: Non-denominationalism is on the rise
http://www.christianitytoday.com/eds...ost-recen.html

I believe God is moving his people to major on the majors and minor on the minors. People want Jesus, and they know proprietary doctrines and practices which do not speak directly to God's basic truths of salvation and relationship with Him are superfluous. They are not interested in those. This is resulting in people seeking out churches which are less interested in being distinct. God can be fresher in community churches, and this is attractive.

So, yes, I believe that this is all part of God plan. But it doesn't mean God hates denominations. It means that denominations need to become more general. And they will, to survive, because people will vote with their feet. The name of a denomination is a superficial issue. A denomination is simply an attempt to present a certain flavor of Christianity. Every group at some level thinks they are doing it right and, at the very least, how God wants people to do it. The LCM is no different. There is nothing really unique about it. It's a flavor of Christianity.

But the flavors tend to become set in their ways and ossify. The more a group becomes entrenched in tradition and routine the less God is free to use the group. That is why simplicity and generality and sticking to the essentials is so important. It helps us (1) stay light and (2) more able to receive and cooperate with others. This works more toward unity.

The LCM is a weird duck. It is very particular, very quirky, very proprietary. Yet it wants to think of itself as general. But no group so devoted to one teacher can hope to be general. Despite Lee's early foray into generality, he soon realized he could not keep control of the movement without making himself essential. So a double-mindedness was put in place. On the one hand he preached generality, but when push came to shove he was anything but general. This double-mindedness and hypocrisy eventually became the prevailing mindset, which remains to this day. And it is what makes many LCMers so difficult to reason with.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM is a weird duck. It is very particular, very quirky, very proprietary. Yet it wants to think of itself as general. But no group so devoted to one teacher can hope to be general. Despite Lee's early foray into generality, he soon realized he could not keep control of the movement without making himself essential. So a double-mindedness was put in place. On the one hand he preached generality, but when push came to shove he was anything but general. This double-mindedness and hypocrisy eventually became the prevailing mindset, which remains to this day. And it is what makes many LCMers so difficult to reason with.

I agree completely. To speak from my own experience, in the LC I saw many come and go - those who were disillusioned with denominations and the like. At the end of the day, those who came to the LC thinking that it had something more to offer weren't those who remained, it instead was those who knew nothing else. That distinction is telling.

Allow me to rephrase for emphasis. Those who stumbled across the LC in search of unity aren't the current LC constituent. People hear the narrative that comes from the LC and it does captivate some people. Eventually, people either realize that the LC is a proprietary system like Igzy says, or they buy into the narrative without knowing what lies ahead.

Those who feel that the LC is the best of two options will never be free from the oppression of the LC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree completely. To speak from my own experience, in the LC I saw many come and go - those who were disillusioned with denominations and the like. At the end of the day, those who came to the LC thinking that it had something more to offer weren't those who remained, it instead was those who knew nothing else. That distinction is telling.

Allow me to rephrase for emphasis. Those who stumbled across the LC in search of unity aren't the current LC constituent. People hear the narrative that comes from the LC and it does captivate some people. Eventually, people either realize that the LC is a proprietary system like Igzy says, or they buy into the narrative without knowing what lies ahead.

Those who feel that the LC is the best of two options will never be free from the oppression of the LC.

One day you realize, "if I am really for the oneness of the Body I need to put the talk about 'proper ground' aside and just meet with others in the name of Jesus".

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those who feel that the LC is the best of two options will never be free from the oppression of the LC.

When I left the LC, many friends and relatives told me, essentially, "Yes, I know there are problems, but what else is there?/this is the best there is."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are two main ways in which Christian unity may be achieved. One way is to leave all the divisions and meet on some common ground. This is like throwing away a square peg and making a new round peg so it fits in the round hole.

I'm sure those who are pro-LSM may think the common ground is in the local churches. It is if one considers common ground to be LSM publications.
Another alternative for example is found in community churches, non-denominational assemblies, and house churches. Their common ground is the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure those who are pro-LSM may think the common ground is in the local churches. It is if one considers common ground to be LSM publications.
Another alternative for example is found in community churches, non-denominational assemblies, and house churches. Their common ground is the Bible.

Why isn't common ground the Lord's name (and all that that implies)?

The name of Jesus includes the Father and the Spirit. It includes the one faith. It includes one Lord.

As long as you meet in the name of the Lord Jesus with other believers then you will also have the presence of the Lord.

Now in that light I agree that meeting for the purpose of uniting various denominations in a common umbrella would not be aligned with the simpler "meeting into the name of Jesus".

I also think it is possible for some members in the LRC who have not known the deeper things that take place there to think that "the ground of the church" is in the spirit of meeting in the name of Jesus, and for them it is. But for those who know that the purpose is to mark out a specific sect as a ministry church, then for them it isn't.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure those who are pro-LSM may think the common ground is in the local churches. It is if one considers common ground to be LSM publications.
Another alternative for example is found in community churches, non-denominational assemblies, and house churches. Their common ground is the Bible.

I think that Nee/Lee saw Christians dividing over basic things like doctrine and what have you, so they presumed that unity couldn't be found in the basic things. Their approach was to develop something 'unique', a supposed uniting factor that bypassed working to find common ground with others. Instead of working to find unity, their approach was to simply declare that they alone (their movement) was the only group on this earth that possessed unity, and if you weren't a part of it, you were neither in true 'oneness' or part of the church at all:

Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. Those who are not in a local church are not truly in the church. In order to be in the church we must be in a local church.

Witness Lee, The Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. Those who are not in a local church are not truly in the church. In order to be in the church we must be in a local church.

Witness Lee, The Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10

At times, Christian unity can be a perplexing issue, because there are so many different things that are capable of dividing. It's not surprising that some would try to solve the problem of division or to create unity. Attempts to manufacture unity, however, are not what the Bible tells us to do.

Eph 4:1-6 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul urges us to walk worthy of our calling. Part of this involves working to maintain of a unity that exists by default. That is what the word 'keep' implies. Of course Christians have failed at doing their part, but the failure doesn't warrant these side attempts to create a magic formula to ensure unity.

Unity doesn't come by leaving one group for another. Unity is not a done deal. It takes effort on our part. In the early days of the LC, there are various testimonies of members "coming out of the denominations." It seems unity was equated with a move from one group to another, and in some cases, bad-mouthing past affiliations. In the LC, unity is a presumption. It is believed to exist solely because of what group and ministry members have affiliated themselves with. Thus, there is little to no effort to work to keep the unity of the Spirit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. Those who are not in a local church are not truly in the church. In order to be in the church we must be in a local church.

Witness Lee, The Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10

This is baloney. Was Antipas not in the oneness because he wasn't in the Local oneness?

Think of the OT story of Elijah, living out in the woods when Jezebel was hunting him. Was he not in the "oneness" because he wan't in the "local oneness"?

Since when does Jezebel get decide who is and is not in the oneness? Since when does Balaam get to decide who is and is not in the oneness?

In the letter to the church in Philadelphia the Lord promises the overcomers that they will be pillars in His temple and will not go out anymore. So then, being driven out of a Jezebel run church does not mean you aren't an overcomer nor does it mean you are not in the oneness. On the contrary that can be the experience that makes you a pillar at holding up the oneness.

In the letter to the church in Laodicea the Lord tells them He is outside knocking and if they go out to Him He will eat with them. Laodicea does not control the oneness, staying in that fellowship is not the oneness, the oneness is being one with the Lord who is outside.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At times, Christian unity can be a perplexing issue, because there are so many different things that are capable of dividing. It's not surprising that some would try to solve the problem of division or to create unity. Attempts to manufacture unity, however, are not what the Bible tells us to do.

Eph 4:1-6 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul urges us to walk worthy of our calling. Part of this involves working to maintain of a unity that exists by default. That is what the word 'keep' implies. Of course Christians have failed at doing their part, but the failure doesn't warrant these side attempts to create a magic formula to ensure unity.

Unity doesn't come by leaving one group for another. Unity is not a done deal. It takes effort on our part. In the early days of the LC, there are various testimonies of members "coming out of the denominations." It seems unity was equated with a move from one group to another, and in some cases, bad-mouthing past affiliations. In the LC, unity is a presumption. It is believed to exist solely because of what group and ministry members have affiliated themselves with. Thus, there is little to no effort to work to keep the unity of the Spirit.

Freedom,

I'd like to take your thoughts one step further.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Good questions, huh? Here's another one: how do you keep the unity of the Spirit? If it's THAT important, how do you do it? There's got to be a way.

I can think of a few ways that start with the ten commandments. Love God with your whole being, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, honor your parents, love one another more than you love yourseld (whoa! That's a big one!).

There's more, but here's another BIG one. If you find out that your brother is offended with you, don't even pray until you go to him and clear it up. If your brother offends you, go to him...to be reconciled.

If this seems simplistic, why don't Christians practice it? If Christians practiced Matt. 5 and Matt. 18, in addition to the ten commandments, would Christians be divided? Would denominations exist? Would we be in this mess we're in? Maybe. But if Christians don't practice and rely on these basic elements of what it is to be a Christian as our foundation, can we complain about denominations and the lack of unity of the Spirit? No. Not in good faith.

Unity of the Spirit starts here, otherwise we hardly have a leg to stand on. What would happen in the church if Christians first practiced the most fudamental commands in the Bible by confessing our sins and offenses among those with whom we are related? I believe that the unity of the Spirit will be the fruit of this.

What have we got to lose? Ya' gotta' start somewhere. How bad could it be?

Nell

(Thanks O--)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Freedom, I'd like to take your thoughts one step further...

Nell, you have missed the obvious. You cannot keep the unity of the Spirit by following the Law.

To keep the unity of the Spirit is by the Spirit! Trying to follow the commandments is going to result in a division. There will be disunity between those who keep 8 of the commandments and those who keep all 10, or 12, or 400 of them. We have to know what it means to live by the Spirit in order to experience genuine unity. Most Christians think unity is about agreement and commonality, but it is actually about living in the one Spirit. Living in the Spirit is the only way that a Sabbath keeper (for example) could be in unity with a Sunday worshiper. If it's based upon commandments or any other thing it won't work. If we are in the Spirit we are actually in unity with every other believer no matter where we are. The practical expression of that is what.. you go to your favorite church and I go to my favorite? No, it means we meet on the common ground of locality (if we live in the same locality, that is). Many might agree with the concept of spiritual unity by being in the Spirit. But they think they can then go or do whatever they like. What they don't see is the practical unity that should result from that and this is on the basis of locality. In other words, in the new testament they had spiritual unity and also practical unity. A person who is truly in the Spirit will seek and arrive at both spiritual and practical unity. This is because the Spirit is seeking to accomplish Jesus's prayer for oneness in John 17 in a practical way. So I would say follow the Spirit for both spiritual and practical unity, not spiritual unity by the Spirit and practical unity by the Law.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure those who are pro-LSM may think the common ground is in the local churches. It is if one considers common ground to be LSM publications.
Another alternative for example is found in community churches, non-denominational assemblies, and house churches. Their common ground is the Bible.

We believe the common ground is Christ and locality, not even the Bible is our common ground. Much bloodshed was split over the past centuries over different Bible versions. And not every Christian has a bible. So having a bible or reading a bible is not what gives us unity.

[OBW]

What gives us common ground is Christ. You point at the differences when most of the others with differences know that the common ground is Christ.

But you assert that it is Christ plus something else. That creates a division.

Calling it not a division does not change the facts. You have a basis for dividing that is other than Christ. You refuse fellowship that is not either independent of any other church, or in your church, based on something that is not Christ. I am free to meet with others because we have Christ in common. There is no "plus" in our rules for fellowship.

You are blind to the fact that the thing that you give as cause for not meeting with others at their time of worship is more divisive than the name that is outside their meeting place. They advise you what to expect, but do not exclude you. And they do not warn their people of meeting with others.

But you do. You have a "plus" that excludes all worship not in your place and/or under your formula.

You exclude fellowship with me unless I come to you. I make no such distinction concerning fellowship. Who is therefore exclusive and who is inclusive?

But this is useless. You will come back with yet another hollow statement that you are free to refuse others simply for not coming through your doors. And the blatant demand for conformity to your rules is your basis for not being in unity with all those others.

[Evangelical]

OBW,

unity is not just a matter of being inclusive or exclusive. Unity is "in Christ" and if you truly knew what that meant you would know that it does not mean we can simply join any other Christian group for fellowship, if they are not fellowshipping "in Christ". Remember that unity is about the unity of the Body of Christ, not the Body of someone else. So we cannot fellowship with the "body of something else", only Christ will do.

It does not make sense for you to ask that we leave life (Christ) and join death (not Christ) for the sake of unity. The Lord does not just desire unity but also holiness. The Babylonian worldly mixture as expressed by ecumenism is a kind of unity. You would ask that we join with that, and we cannot. The Lord would not ask us to compromise worship in Spirit and truth for the sake of unity. In other words, we are not going to approach Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and Mormons for example and join with them just for the sake of unity. If this were a matter of worshiping Christ in any way we liked, then you would have a point. But it isn't. The Bible teaches us that we should worship according to God's way - in Spirit and in truth. Denominations conducting services not focused on Christ - a worship service, a program, an activity, something other than Christ, we cannot join that in the name of so-called "fellowship". In many places, you would be hard pressed to find a denominational church in which any member can share, pray, contribute freely, like they can in the Lord's Recovery. The alternative is house churches which are too small to be a church. Simply attending church services is not genuine fellowship or worship in Spirit and truth. It must be fellowship "in Christ", and cannot be part of the dead religions, and especially those which are degraded by acceptance of gay marriage etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

unity is not just a matter of being inclusive or exclusive. Unity is "in Christ" and if you truly knew what that meant you would know that it does not mean we can simply join any other Christian group for fellowship, if they are not fellowshipping "in Christ". Remember that unity is about the unity of the Body of Christ, not the Body of someone else. So we cannot fellowship with the "body of something else", only Christ will do.

It does not make sense for you to ask that we leave life (Christ) and join death (not Christ) for the sake of unity. The Lord does not just desire unity but also holiness. The Babylonian worldly mixture as expressed by ecumenism is a kind of unity. You would ask that we join with that, and we cannot. The Lord would not ask us to compromise worship in Spirit and truth for the sake of unity. In other words, we are not going to approach Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and Mormons for example and join with them just for the sake of unity. If this were a matter of worshiping Christ in any way we liked, then you would have a point. But it isn't. The Bible teaches us that we should worship according to God's way - in Spirit and in truth. Denominations conducting services not focused on Christ - a worship service, a program, an activity, something other than Christ, we cannot join that in the name of so-called "fellowship". In many places, you would be hard pressed to find a denominational church in which any member can share, pray, contribute freely, like they can in the Lord's Recovery. The alternative is house churches which are too small to be a church. Simply attending church services is not genuine fellowship or worship in Spirit and truth. It must be fellowship "in Christ", and cannot be part of the dead religions, and especially those which are degraded by acceptance of gay marriage etc.

And so you make it clear that you have so redefined "in Christ" that those who are truly Christian (believers in Christ, not just attenders of some church) are not necessarily "in Christ."

But they are "in Christ." It is a fallacy — a theological and spiritual error — to say otherwise. It is a fantasy created by people who want to be the only ones who count.

Not worth saying anything more. You have made these statements that it is the way it works, but have provided no basis for it being true. In the grand scheme of things, thinking to the contrary of what you are speaking has been with us since the beginning. It is the novel teachings of Nee and Lee that put forward this demeaning position on everything. To have any reason to take it seriously, you have to have more than their word for it. It needs to have the support of the only solid evidence we have — the Bible. And nothing I have seen to date will get you there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

You exclude fellowship with me unless I come to you. I make no such distinction concerning fellowship. Who is therefore exclusive and who is inclusive?

But this is useless. You will come back with yet another hollow statement that you are free to refuse others simply for not coming through your doors. And the blatant demand for conformity to your rules is your basis for not being in unity with all those others.

This has been my feeling. In the Local Churches, they will except most believers, but not all. If you come, you will be received. However it doesn't go both ways. Fellowship with non-LC assemblies is considered as "shaking hands over the fence." There could be an all city together in prayer. Could be a place like Austin, TX. Many churches will come together in unity except one. There's one that believes only they are on the proper ground.
Same applies when it comes to home meetings. If you meet in the local churches, you will want to invite friends. However if your friends invite you, there may be a polite decline. As in the local churches "if the fellowship isn't through LSM publications, there can be no fellowship."
I'm not making this up. I read it in a HWFMR edition back in 2014 last time I visited a local church in Southern Cal.