One Church - One City - Biblical?

[DistantStar]

By the way, everyday I pass by the LC church on my way to campus. Today I noticed an inscription on a board that says "The Church in Pretoria".

It made me think of the ridiculousness of it all. Pretoria is the capital city with more than half a million people. Why should all of them go to one building?

Suppose parliament decides to cut the city in two: West Pretoria and East Pretoria. And currently the church is in West Pretoria. Will it then be right or wrong, in the LC eyes, to have a "church in" in both West Pretoria and East Pretoria? In other words, "The Church in West Pretoria" and "The Church in East Pretoria". If this is acceptable, why not divide it further and say a "church in" in each street? If wrong, then there can be only one gathering place. Let me make it clearer. If it is wrong to have a church in both the West and East, then suppose this: The whole world is Pretoria. There used to be only one church location. Then it was divided into a billion pieces. With that logic, it will never be right to have gathering places other than the first one.

Why bind the morality of where you may and may not meet on political structures?

Food for thought. I'd like to hear opinions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Here is a problem with your denomination: God never asks us to forsake our individuality to such an extent. The Local Church denomination does. . .

The Local Church is totalitarian in scope. All your thoughts are pre-arranged. You don't need to think because someone supposedly much more capable has already done the hard work for you.

It is nice, you know, at first: Just do what the Ascended Master up front is telling you. Plus it's all reinforced by negative injunctions: You don't want to be negative, do you? You don't want to be independent, or divisive, or ambitious, or - gasp - rebellious, do you? Then just repeat today's platitudes.

I was there until the "man becoming God" part. Then I became silent. Then I left.

1. The reasoning was poor. "The Oracle says so" was the bottom line. A few verses were offered. All the unhelpful verses were quite ignored.

2. We all know what happened to those who lifted themselves too high, and took positions not explicitly given them by the Creator. "You shall be like Gods, knowing good from evil". There's a lot of sketchy stuff there. People sitting too high up at the banquet table, getting sent down in shame. Warning after warning.

3. Even if being like God is something to be desired, it doesn't say you will be God. My dog is like my cat in that both are furry mammalian quadrupeds living in my house; both come running when food is proffered. Both enjoy being petted and rubbed and told nice nothings. But my dog is not my cat.

4. By definition God is one. If everyone and everything becomes God, then where is God? It seems like somebody is thinking too much, and not thinking enough. They didn't think it through.

5. Lastly, I was there. I remember the crestfallen faces at the trainings as the latest 'revelation' rolled out. The old soldiers, who'd been through so many campaigns, flows and moves, were like, Huh? Then some young, burning acolyte screamed, "I'm a God-man!!" and raced up and down the aisle, waving their arms. The crowd began to stir, slowly building to a frenzied roar. All discretion, common sense, circumspection went out the window. From then on, it was, Prop up the Oracle. He says we're becoming God so let's get behind the latest speaking.

I really loved the Local Church. I wanted to be 'sold out'. But I never really could get excited about some of the theology. And the "becoming God" thing was just a venture into the abyss of Lee's imagination.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Pretoria is the capital city with more than half a million people. Why should all of them go to one building?

The Local Church plays word games. If you live in a big city, you go to Meeting Hall One of the Church in Pretoria, or Meeting Hall Two, or Three. So that is okay.

But First Baptist Church or Second Baptist Church isn't okay, because that is taking a name.

So whatever they call themselves is not a name, but whatever anyone else calls themselves is a name.

And they never think that multiple meetings of Christians in a large city like London or Pretoria is somehow good? Like, the grains of wheat are being multiplied? Instead they think multiple assemblies is "division". Why isn't it "multiplication".

Answer: because that doesn't fit with the official narrative. Um, okay. So it's good to have the Tuesday night prayer meeting at sister Halliday's house, or the Saturday morning prayer meeting on church property, because that is a Local Church activity and is by definition proper, but it's not okay for the Presbyterians to gather and pray to God? Because that's by definition divisive?

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

The Local Church plays word games. If you live in a big city, you go to Meeting Hall One of the Church in Pretoria, or Meeting Hall Two, or Three. So that is okay.

I didn't know they have more than one hall, though it makes perfect sense. In this sense "Christians on Campus" counts as another meeting place.

Like you said, for them other denominations are wrong for doing the same.

This is some stunning hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by aron

The Local Church plays word games. If you live in a big city, you go to Meeting Hall One of the Church in Pretoria, or Meeting Hall Two, or Three. So that is okay.

But First Baptist Church or Second Baptist Church isn't okay, because that is taking a name.

So whatever they call themselves is not a name, but whatever anyone else calls themselves is a name.

And they never think that multiple meetings of Christians in a large city like London or Pretoria is somehow good? Like, the grains of wheat are being multiplied? Instead they think multiple assemblies is "division". Why isn't it "multiplication".

Answer: because that doesn't fit with the official narrative. Um, okay. So it's good to have the Tuesday night prayer meeting at sister Halliday's house, or the Saturday morning prayer meeting on church property, because that is a Local Church activity and is by definition proper, but it's not okay for the Presbyterians to gather and pray to God? Because that's by definition divisive?

I think you are mistaken about what the Local Church believes about this. There is nothing wrong with multiple meetings/assemblies in different locations within the same city. It is more about identification.

The Meeting Hall 1 etc would simply be the name of the building, just like a street name.
They are not calling themselves the "Meeting Hallers" or the followers of the "Meeting Hall" which would be like the denominations do calling themselves "baptists" etc. That is, I can believe in water baptism but I don't have to call myself a Baptist. I can believe in the gifts of the Spirit and speaking in tongues but I don't have to identify myself as a pentecostal. I can meet at a meeting hall but I don't have to call myself a "meeting haller", I am just Christian. I can meet in a park but that doesn't make me a "Park Christian", I am just a Christian.

If we would draw a circle around a city and count all of the believers inside of it, that is the church in that city. If 50 who call themselves "the church in " meet on one street and another 100 meet in another place and also call themselves "the church in ", then it is one church (practically). If the 50 call themselves by their street name e.g. "the 57th streeters" and separate themselves from the 100 who meet on a different street, that would be like denominations do.

The local church does not teach they cannot have any name. They only teach that the only name they should take is the name of the locality in which they dwell, and the name Christian (of course).
Even so, this name of locality does not specify a doctrinal emphasis (as in pentecostal, baptist, presbyterian, ), founder name (as in Luther-an"), it is simply to say that the church dwells in this particular city. But it is all the one church.

Identification and names are important to men and to God. If I go to New York I am a Christian in New York (I don't become a "New Yorkerist Christian"), if I got o London I am a Christian in London (not a "Londoner Christian"). That is, I am not identified by the place I am in (Christ is the only identification), but if you want to find me I have to tell you the place where I am currently (because we are bound by space/time).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are not calling themselves the "Meeting Hallers" or the followers of the "Meeting Hall" which would be like the denominations do calling themselves "baptists" etc. That is, I can believe in water baptism but I don't have to call myself a Baptist. I can believe in the gifts of the Spirit and speaking in tongues but I don't have to identify myself as a pentecostal. I can meet at a meeting hall but I don't have to call myself a "meeting haller", I am just Christian. . .

Yet Witness Lee himself publicly referred to his followers and affiliates in China as 'shouters'; they've also been called 'criers' and 'yellers'. They're identified by their behavior, which behavior Lee's LSM operatives originally promoted there as the way for them to 'eat the divine'. Lee didn't have a problem with that name, apparently. And rightly so, since the name 'shouters' could be used to differentiate Lee-affiliated Christians in China from others. Names are useful, that way - it's why we use them.

And 'Christian' was an appellation given by non-Christians at Antioch to identify Jesus' disciples as 'those who are of Christ'. Yet the Christian disciple eventually received and even embraced this name. Likewise, Living Stream Ministry is a name to specify a certain publishing house, the Meeting Hall One in Seattle is a building where some Local Churchers meet (btw they refer to themselves as 'the saints', and non-LC'ers as 'Christians'). Bibles for America is a publishing distribution outreach, Continuing Steadfastly is a magazine for young people, etc. We all take names; it's how we distinguish things from one another. So we can have the Tuesday night prayer meeting at Sister Smith's house, clearly differentiated from the Saturday morning Bible study meeting at the meeting hall. Those are modifiers to distinguish characteristics of time, place, disposition. Is that perforce sectarian? Then why condemn everyone else as so being?

The local church pretends it doesn't use names, so that it can create and condemn 'the others', here given the pejorative 'denominations', i.e. those who use names, and if they don't use a name they're dismissed anyway, as an unaffiliated 'free group'.

Everything has a name. Jesus asked the man at the Gadarenes, "What's your name?" The demons replied, "Oh, there's a lot of us in here". Likewise we could identify the different forces driving the local church: The Church that Condemns Everyone Else; The Holier-Than Thou Church; The 'Everyone is Divisive But Me' Church; etc. There are plenty of applicable names here.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Yet Witness Lee himself publicly referred to his followers and affiliates in China as 'shouters'; they've also been called 'criers' and 'yellers'. They're identified by their behavior, which behavior Lee's LSM operatives originally promoted there as the way for them to 'eat the divine'. Lee didn't have a problem with that name, apparently. And rightly so, since the name 'shouters' could be used to differentiate Lee-affiliated Christians in China from others. Names are useful, that way - it's why we use them.

And 'Christian' was an appellation given by non-Christians at Antioch to identify Jesus' disciples as 'those who are of Christ'. Yet the Christian disciple eventually received and even embraced this name. Likewise, Living Stream Ministry is a name to specify a certain publishing house, the Meeting Hall One in Seattle is a building where some Local Churchers meet (btw they refer to themselves as 'the saints', and non-LC'ers as 'Christians'). Bibles for America is a publishing distribution outreach, Continuing Steadfastly is a magazine for young people, etc. We all take names; it's how we distinguish things from one another. So we can have the Tuesday night prayer meeting at Sister Smith's house, clearly differentiated from the Saturday morning Bible study meeting at the meeting hall. Those are modifiers to distinguish characteristics of time, place, disposition. Is that perforce sectarian? Then why condemn everyone else as so being?

The local church pretends it doesn't use names, so that it can create and condemn 'the others', here given the pejorative 'denominations', i.e. those who use names, and if they don't use a name they're dismissed anyway, as an unaffiliated 'free group'.

Everything has a name. Jesus asked the man at the Gadarenes, "What's your name?" The demons replied, "Oh, there's a lot of us in here". Likewise we could identify the different forces driving the local church: The Church that Condemns Everyone Else; The Holier-Than Thou Church; The 'Everyone is Divisive But Me' Church; etc. There are plenty of applicable names here.

The issue is largely one of identification, not of naming.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is nothing wrong with multiple meetings/assemblies in different locations within the same city. It is more about identification..

I don't know if you remember in the late '90s when the internet took off, and the LSM promoted each local church to have its own website. They gave each fellowship a template and asked them to fill in the blanks.

If you googled 'the church in ...', it read, "A local church, the church in ..., enjoys Christ and recommends the ministry of Witness Lee, Watchman Nee."

They identified themselves by affiliation and recommendation. So the ministry that supposedly purified and pruned the church from any affiliation and identification save with Jesus Christ Himself eventually usurped that, and became the sole mediatory agent to God. The local church of the Lord's recovery was led to identify herself with a ministry, and a minister, not with the Lord.

And yet everyone else was roundly condemned as 'taking another name'. Please. Spare me.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't know if you remember in the late '90s when the internet took off, and the LSM promoted each local church to have its own website. They gave each fellowship a template and asked them to fill in the blanks.

If you googled 'the church in ...', it read, "A local church, the church in ..., enjoys Christ and recommends the ministry of Witness Lee, Watchman Nee."

They identified themselves by affiliation and recommendation. So the ministry that supposedly purified and pruned the church from any affiliation and identification save with Jesus Christ Himself eventually usurped that, and became the sole mediatory agent to God. The local church of the Lord's recovery was led to identify herself with a ministry, and a minister, not with the Lord.

And yet everyone else was roundly condemned as 'taking another name'. Please. Spare me.

Yet they did not take the name of Lee or Nee, did they?
Local church describes the kind of assembly it is. It is not a name, just like "Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus blah blah".

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet they did not take the name of Lee or Nee, did they?
Local church describes the kind of assembly it is. It is not a name, just like "Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus blah blah".

Of course the blended brothers and elders took the name of Nee and Lee. Every book in their book rooms are by Nee and Lee. Every note in the recovery version bible is from Lee and Nee. It is only the LSM local churches that claim they are not a denomination.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

By the way, everyday I pass by the LC church on my way to campus. Today I noticed an inscription on a board that says "The Church in Pretoria".

It made me think of the ridiculousness of it all. Pretoria is the capital city with more than half a million people. Why should all of them go to one building?

Suppose parliament decides to cut the city in two: West Pretoria and East Pretoria. And currently the church is in West Pretoria. Will it then be right or wrong, in the LC eyes, to have a "church in" in both West Pretoria and East Pretoria? In other words, "The Church in West Pretoria" and "The Church in East Pretoria".

Things like this have actually happened (sometimes in reverse). Here is an example quoted from an LC website:

Saints began to meet as the church in Toronto in the 1960s. At that time a number of municipalities were federated into a regional government known as Metropolitan Toronto. In 1967 a number of municipalities were merged into a six-city configuration that included the City of Toronto, North York, and Scarborough, among others. The meeting hall of the saints was in North York, but the church in 1974 was incorporated as the church of the Torontonians. Subsequently, saints began to meet as the church in Toronto and the church in Scarborough. In 1998 the provincial government consolidated all six cities into the City of Toronto. Based on that decision, the three churches all became the church in Toronto with three halls corresponding to the meeting halls of the three churches.

[aron]

DistantStar,

It might help to see that the word translated 'church' is from the Greek 'ekklesia', which didn't mean 'church', but rather 'meeting', or gathering, or assembly, and there could be any number of them occurring simultaneously, or sequentially, in any given geographical area.

If you see the Psalm 22 - "I will sing praises to you in the midst of the solemn assembly" -- the word in the LXX (Greek OT) is 'ekklesia', and this translation predates Christ by centuries. Yet there was no 'church' as we think of it. But rather an 'assembly', or gathering. A bunch of people together in one place for some purpose.

And in Acts 19:41, "And with these words he dismissed the assembly", the word translated into English 'assembly' is actually 'ekklesia'.. but it doesn't make sense to call it 'church' because it wasn't a religious assembly, but simply a gathering of people. Only later did 'ekklesia' take the connotations of 'religious assembly', specifically 'Christian assembly', and one that was a standing organization apart from any actual physical gathering in one place and time (or meeting, in LC parlance).

I touched on this earlier: what we do today, often, is read back onto the text a meaning that we have today, but that may actually have had little to do with what the authors meant, and wanted their contemporary readers to understand. Because today's needs, and situations, are often different from the original, and we don't even know what the original really was (very well), so we simply appropriate the words for today's needs. Lee was a master at this, and all the while selling the whole "cut straight the word" shtick as if only he was capable of doing it. Patent nonsense.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

. . the word translated 'church' is from the Greek 'ekklesia', which didn't mean 'church', but rather 'meeting', or gathering, or assembly, and there could be any number of them occurring simultaneously, or sequentially, in any given geographical area.

For corroboration, one might see the greetings given by Paul at the end of his Roman epistle. See for instnance the phrase, "Kai ten kat oikon auton ekklesian" . . . "And the church at their house" (16:5)

The 'ekklesia' which was at the house of Prisca and Aquila (see Rom 16:3,4) was what we'd refer to as a 'home meeting'. Others might call them 'house churches'; they're prevalent in places like mainland China where independent Christian organizations are suppressed.

But my point is this: Like in Pretoria, in Paul's Rome there might be a number of independent 'ekklesia' going on at any given moment. Yet they all have the same Lord, faith, confession, and Spirit, and all are still one Body, because 'ekklesia' in scripture are arguably meetings, gatherings, as well as perhaps the larger extant Body of all who believe, regardless of temporal association (e.g. Meeting Hall One, Meeting Hall Two, Baptist Church on Maple Street). In New York City one can hardly suppose that every Christian know and regularly gather with every other for prayer, service, and worship. That various groups would spring up, each attempting to follow the Lord, is not perforce indicative of division, darkness, and decay. Rather it can be seen as the multifarious expression of the multifarious wisdom of the Heavenly Father, that every tribe and people and tongue and 'ekklesia' would glorify His name, and seek His will to be done on earth as in heaven.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I forgot to add something.

Both this year and last year they invited me to join others in staying at the church for two weeks. In that time would would wear a suit, read the Bible and attend seminars by... you guessed it... Witness Lee. During that time all technology use, from laptops to cellphones is also restricted.

I'm not one for isolating myself from my family and dear friends, so when they invited me I always gave an unclear answer (though I guess I should have been more direct).

I suppose that things like this can be good, but it sounded really disturbing.
It did not sound at all like other Bible camps to which I've been invited which one can hear is more open and connected.

Just an extra thought.

Wear a suit - oh no, read the Bible? terrible! seminars by a man - even worse. technology restricted? how to survive?

They what else?, stole your money, raped you, left you for dead?

isolated from family for 2 weeks? - are you serious.. ever been on Summer camp? ever traveled overseas for work? ever been a Boy Scout?

Seriously dude, stop being delusional. Many are well meaning people with a heart for Jesus, you'd be safer there than in your local shopping mall. Or rather, safer than a choir boy in a Catholic church.

Some people here are frauds and making it out to be some death cult.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wear a suit - oh no, read the Bible? terrible! seminars by a man - even worse. technology restricted? how to survive?

Why do we need to wear a suit to read the Bible? Why do we need one exclusive ministry to understand its contents? Because it's all about conformity. Not to the image of Christ, but to the image of the ministry. Everyone has to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever", according to this ministry.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would it help them somehow if they had some books by Creflo Dollar on their shelf as well? Would that make you more comfortable? Sorry for them that they found Creflo Dollar's books a bit too contrary to the teachings of a man who died in a Chinese prison cell. Sorry for you that you don't know the difference between men who wrote that they tried to live and belief and your average American church preacher out to make a buck!

Your argument sounds like the man praying in Luke 18:10, who said, "I'm so glad I'm not like that man over there, that sinner". Yes it's good news that the LC isn't much like Creflo Dollar. The bad news is that the LC isn't very much like Christ, either. They're more like the Pharisees, who studied the Bible and condemned everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why do we need to wear a suit to read the Bible? Why do we need one exclusive ministry to understand its contents? Because it's all about conformity. Not to the image of Christ, but to the image of the ministry. Everyone has to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever", according to this ministry.

I can still remember back in May of 1987 sitting in the church in Taipei hall #1 auditorium balcony and seeing Witness Lee on stage all giddy because we all wore the same blue LSM jackets and uniforms.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

we all wore the same blue LSM jackets and uniforms.

It's Maoism with a religious face. Culture re-emerges, triumphant at last. Of course he was happy. He was home.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Why do we need to wear a suit to read the Bible? Why do we need one exclusive ministry to understand its contents? Because it's all about conformity. Not to the image of Christ, but to the image of the ministry. Everyone has to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever", according to this ministry.

Your argument sounds like the man praying in Luke 18:10, who said, "I'm so glad I'm not like that man over there, that sinner". Yes it's good news that the LC isn't much like Creflo Dollar. The bad news is that the LC isn't very much like Christ, either. They're more like the Pharisees, who studied the Bible and condemned everyone else.

That's not about conformity, it's about respect. Just like taking shoes off when going into a Hindu temple or wearing a Sarong is respectful. Dressing nicely is not unique to the Lord's Recovery. Many churches do it. Dressing nicely is to show respect for the Lord. You would wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral or a job interview right? And when you do I bet most people are a wearing black suit right, is not that a kind of conformation as well?

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not about conformity, it's about respect. Just like taking shoes off when going into a Hindu temple or wearing a Sarong is respectful. Dressing nicely is not unique to the Lord's Recovery. Many churches do it. Dressing nicely is to show respect for the Lord. You would wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral or a job interview right? And when you do I bet most people are a wearing black suit right, is not that a kind of conformation as well?

I take your point about respect. I am not sure what happens in the local church where you live, but in the local church I am in, the dress code for a brother serving at the Lord's table (i.e. breaking the bread and distributing bread and cup) would be white long-sleeved shirt with trousers.

If dressing respectfully was the main point, then they would not have stipulated it as "white". A blue shirt could also be respectful.

It seems like there is a degree of "uniformity" expected.

You probably know this:- the oneness that God wants is unity, not uniformity.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

The oneness that God wants is unity, not uniformity.

"That they all may be one"....NOT "That they all may look as one".

Thanks you micah6v8 for pointing this out!

-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I take your point about respect. I am not sure what happens in the local church where you live, but in the local church I am in, the dress code for a brother serving at the Lord's table (i.e. breaking the bread and distributing bread and cup) would be white long-sleeved shirt with trousers.

If dressing respectfully was the main point, then they would not have stipulated it as "white". A blue shirt could also be respectful.

It seems like there is a degree of "uniformity" expected.

You probably know this:- the oneness that God wants is unity, not uniformity.

There is no policy about that. No dress code. I would say only about 10% dress according to your regulation. Some feel that dressing like that is respectful towards the Lord.

This is a quote from Lee's
"THE LIFE AND WAY FOR THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH LIFE"

Furthermore, do not try to unify the work. Do not say, "We are in America, so we should be unified. Let us have a conference to unify the situation." This is wrong. We strongly insist on having the unity, but we are altogether against unification and uniformity. I have the full assurance that in the early days the churches in Judea were quite different from the churches in the Gentile world. The apostles did not try to unify the churches or make them uniform.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not about conformity, it's about respect. Just like taking shoes off when going into a Hindu temple or wearing a Sarong is respectful. Dressing nicely is not unique to the Lord's Recovery. Many churches do it. Dressing nicely is to show respect for the Lord. You would wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral or a job interview right? And when you do I bet most people are a wearing black suit right, is not that a kind of conformation as well?

I understand the rationale of wearing what is known as the "Sunday best" is this:- "You are coming to church (God's house) to worship. How dare you approach God in nothing but your best?"

One thing the LSM got right is that the church consists of the believers, not the building. It also explains why the LSM church buildings are not lavishly decorated.

Should it not follow then that the LSM should also ask their members to wear the same Sunday attire for their weekday small group meetings and prayer meetings held in saints' homes? (God is also present in those meetings and could you afford to be less respectful?)

I googled and came across this interesting article about wearing "Sunday best".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timoth...b_7272212.html

Not having a dress code could be helpful:- First, it encourages people to "Come as you are" (certainly good for those unbelievers who dare not believe that God would accept them in their fallen state).

Second, it symbolizes that God looks at our inward appearance rather than our outward appearance.

Similarly, if I am approaching the throne of God when I pray in my room, what I need is a humble spirit, not my best clothes.

If I am speaking forth God's word (prophesying) in a meeting, I do not need to dress smartly to impress the church members that my message is to be believed. The content of my sharing should be the key.

I have not known any biblical characters (Jesus, John the Baptist, Elijah) who were known for dressing up even though they went round saying they were God's messengers and speaking His word.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I understand the rationale of wearing what is known as the "Sunday best" is this:- "You are coming to church (God's house) to worship. How dare you approach God in nothing but your best?"

One thing the LSM got right is that the church consists of the believers, not the building. It also explains why the LSM church buildings are not lavishly decorated.

Should it not follow then that the LSM should also ask their members to wear the same Sunday attire for their weekday small group meetings and prayer meetings held in saints' homes? (God is also present in those meetings and could you afford to be less respectful?)

I googled and came across this interesting article about wearing "Sunday best".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timoth...b_7272212.html

Not having a dress code could be helpful:- First, it encourages people to "Come as you are" (certainly good for those unbelievers who dare not believe that God would accept them in their fallen state).

Second, it symbolizes that God looks at our inward appearance rather than our outward appearance.

Similarly, if I am approaching the throne of God when I pray in my room, what I need is a humble spirit, not my best clothes.

If I am speaking forth God's word (prophesying) in a meeting, I do not need to dress smartly to impress the church members that my message is to be believed. The content of my sharing should be the key.

I have not known any biblical characters (Jesus, John the Baptist, Elijah) who were known for dressing up even though they went round saying they were God's messengers and speaking His word.

I do not agree with dress codes. I am not saying that people should not dress up. I am saying that they should be led by the inner leading of the Lord. A dress code somewhat violates that principle. Some women wear head coverings for the same reason. Many don't. There is no regulation about that.

Then there is respect for the feeling of the Body. Suppose someone dressed in pyjamas, because they felt the Lord tell them to do that. But what about the Body? If the majority of people would be offended because we dress a certain way, then we should respect that and not offend their conscience. I cannot think why anyone would be offended if we dress up in business attire. If the leading brothers dressed in pyjamas probably someone would be offended.

It is also about the respect of the Lord's table. If the Lord's table is held in a house people will normally wear their best as well. It's about not treating the body and blood of the Lord as a common thing. The Lord's table is not the same as coming to a friends house for a snack.

There are other reasons people dress up. I recall one writing of Lee's (I forget which one) that says we should dress nicely for our husbands and wives at home. I suspect this is a cultural thing, there is nothing religious or practical about that. I have been to some Chinese folks homes where the husband and wife dresses as if they were for a business meeting. It is funny to see them do the dishes etc in their good clothes.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They what else?, stole your money, raped you, left you for dead?

No need to be sarcastic. The absence of more evil does not justify the evil that exists.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

isolated from family for 2 weeks? - are you serious.. ever been on Summer camp? ever traveled overseas for work? ever been a Boy Scout?

You miss my point. Isolating yourself from people whom you love while having your means to contact them restricted is disturbing. In my post I neither endorsed nor denounced it. It is my testimony. I stated the way it seemed, or did you not read my next sentence?:

I suppose that things like this can be good, but it sounded really disturbing.

It can be good, I agree. My point is that this is precisely different from other bible camps, or did you not read what I said?:

It did not sound at all like other Bible camps to which I've been invited which one can hear is more open and connected.

Even in this they are not like other churches. Everything the LC denomination does is weird to say the least.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Seriously dude, stop being delusional.

Thanks for summing up the reason why I left. People like you in the LC denomination who believe that those not in their denomination is somehow deluded.

Then again, we think you are. I get that. What bothered me is this perception that the LC church is somehow special and not driven by "division" like the "denominations". I (and I believe most Christians) do not view people in other denominations as such. I view it as good people who disagree on minor (or major) things. So yeah, Catholics might be misguided but that doesn't mean that their churches are not blessed while my church is. That God has forsaken their community and He only cares for mine. I can pray for them, but (if they believe what I state below) they are still my brothers and sisters and I will fight for them. And die with them.

I will attend events which are held for all denominations. I haven't met a church that won't. Does the LC denomination ever join with other denominations?

Slightly off topic but not quite, this year I went with a best friend to a place called Eksderde where we stayed for a few days (In Afrikaans "Ek is derde" means "I am third" - "Jesus first, spouse second, me third"). Everyone slept on mattresses and we would attend sermons the whole day long for the entire weekend, with the time between sermons spent with other believers. It was fantastic. The worship, the messages, the brothership. All of it was truly blessed with a lot of people who thought they were Christians giving their hearts to Christ truly for the first time. It was beautiful how at first the one preacher said something along the line of: "We are all from different denominations. For this weekend we put them aside and we worship and grow together. When we go home we can go to our denominations again".

This paradox is what non-believers and the LC denomination miss: We are united in our division.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many are well meaning people with a heart for Jesus, you'd be safer there than in your local shopping mall. Or rather, safer than a choir boy in a Catholic church.

I agree. That's why I don't make the same mistake that the LC denomination is making. I believe that any one, no matter in which church (even the Catholic Church) is saved if he believes that Jesus Christ was God himself (yet His perfect son) who came to earth, took our sins upon himself, died and rose again. The majority of members in the LC denomination are saved. I grant you that. That does not mean that there are not serious problems within it, just like there may be problems in the Catholic church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some people here are frauds and making it out to be some death cult.

Like who?

Tell me, what books beside Witness Lee do the "elders" or whatever they are called read? I'm honestly not asking a rhetorical question here. I really want to know.

Edit: Where I said: "It can be good, I agree. My point is that this is precisely different from other bible camps, or did you not read what I said?: "

I meant that as a reply to what you said (at the moment it looks like I replied to myself. I meant it as an answer to this quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ever been on Summer camp? ever traveled overseas for work? ever been a Boy Scout?

[Evangelical]

I'm sorry if I offended your feelings when I said delusional. I said that not because of the denominations being deluded, but because you made it sound the LC is some sort of death cult.

It is great you experienced some unity on the interdenominational or crossdenominational camp. I have also experienced such camps when I was younger. I would encourage you to follow the Lord as best you can, into a denomination, or out of a denomination, it does not matter, all that matters is you follow the Lord. It is more important that we follow the Lord in or out, than to blindly follow any denomination without the Lord.

People left their divisions at home, and came together in unity. But if the unity they and you experienced is so great, as you say, why remain divided? Why does it not continue Sunday to Sunday? Why are there two or three different churches on the same street that do not speak with each other unless they have one of these occasional organized church camps?

Yet went back straight to their divisions. What is the purpose for the divisions? There is no need for them. If they can be in a unity for a camp, they can't be in unity every Sunday? Where is the sense in that?

This is why I believe such a unity is not a unity at all. It is a false unity. What you experienced was true unity, but the unity was not genuine and sincere. Because everyone went back to being divided again.

"unity in division" is just illogical and plain wrong according to the Bible. It is like saying a divorced couple which comes together occasionally for their child's birthday party is a genuine unity. But these occasional signs of friendship and good will, do not change the fact that they remain divorced.

I believe many denominations are separated by something as thin as a hair. I know of one long running dispute between the Lutheran church and another major denomination on the nature of the bread and wine. Many Lutherans, for example, will not take bread and wine in a different church, even if it is for special family occasions.

Denominations will split themselves over such minor things, including the proper method of baptism. They forget that it is the fact they are all baptized in the same name of the one Christ, that is the important thing, not the method of baptism or whether you believe the bread and wine is a symbol or more than a symbol.

I found many of those in denominations were too blind to see the things which divided them are trivial and they had more in common than not.
That is probably why those in your church camp went back to their own denominations and did not remain in unity.

If I was you I would ask them, "since our time in unity was so great in the camp, why cannot we meet the same way every Sunday?".
Then when they tell you, it is for this small reason or that small reason, or because it is too hard, or too inconvenient, you might get the real sense of what division is all about. And realize, what you think is "unity in division", is not unity at all. Their ways and methods are too entrenched, their pastors or priests would lose their jobs, their organizations would lose money, there is too much bad blood and negative history between them.

There is also such a thing as a false unity. Remember Satan tries to bring unity as well, unity against God. That is, if all of the churches start to join the Roman Catholic church and come under the Pope, beware, that may be a genuine unity, but may not be of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet went back straight to their divisions. What is the purpose for the divisions? There is no need for them. If they can be in a unity for a camp, they can't be in unity every Sunday? Where is the sense in that? .

Why can't the local church be in unity every Sunday? Some of them are in meeting hall A, some in meeting hall B. Division! Some go to Chinese-speaking meeting, some to English-speaking. Why can't they remain in fellowship?

You use one ruler to measure yourself, and another ruler to measure others.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet This is why I believe such a unity is not a unity at all. It is a false unity. What you experienced was true unity, but the unity was not genuine and sincere. Because everyone went back to being divided again.

"unity in division" is just illogical and plain wrong according to the Bible. It is like saying a divorced couple which comes together occasionally for their child's birthday party is a genuine unity. But these occasional signs of friendship and good will, do not change the fact that they remain divorced.

I believe many denominations are separated by something as thin as a hair. I know of one long running dispute between the Lutheran church and another major denomination on the nature of the bread and wine. Many Lutherans, for example, will not take bread and wine in a different church, even if it is for special family occasions. .

I'd argue that your division is the most divided of all, the "everyone is blind but me" division. Who can have fellowship with your group.

Yes, Christianity is divided. Some is geographical, and practical, just like Meeting Hall A, and the College-age training meeting. Do you really expect every single Christian to be in one room on Sunday morning at 10 AM to hear one person speak one message? Some Christian disunity is deliberate, small-minded and unfortunate, just like in the local church where someone goes to another local church where they like the eldership better. They don't even "migrate", just drive past one meeting hall, to another. Everybody has division. Only God is undivided. We aren't there, yet.

But the local church of Nee and Lee solution to division is like the woman who swallowed the fly. Yes there was indeed a fly down there. But her solution was eventually to swallow a spider, cat, dog, and horse... "You strain the gnat and swallow the camel".

The camel you swallow is condemnation of everyone else for being wrong, and pleading for mercy for your defects which (you hope) are so small and few. I don't think God is impressed. I surely am not.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Why can't the local church be in unity every Sunday? Some of them are in meeting hall A, some in meeting hall B. Division! Some go to Chinese-speaking meeting, some to English-speaking. Why can't they remain in fellowship?

You use one ruler to measure yourself, and another ruler to measure others.

Unlike the denominations, we do not call ourselves the "meeting hall A" and the "meeting hall B Christians" like the denominations. This means we identify ourselves as all being the same. It is not about which location we meet in, but how we identify ourselves. Those in meeting hall B, will travel and meet those in meeting hall A, it switches around, people visit various other meeting homes. We come together as a whole group regularly and do not remain independent.

We use the same ruler. We measure ourselves by this ruler of just calling ourselves Christians and we measure others by the same. Why the denominations don't define themselves as just Christians and not baptist Christian, Lutheran Christian, etc.?

Originally Posted by aron

I'd argue that your division is the most divided of all, the "everyone is blind but me" division. Who can have fellowship with your group.

Yes, Christianity is divided. Some is geographical, and practical, just like Meeting Hall A, and the College-age training meeting. Do you really expect every single Christian to be in one room on Sunday morning at 10 AM to hear one person speak one message?

I agree it is not practical to have "one speaking person a message", so we don't practice that. We practice that every member can function by speaking. So our approach is more practical, more like the New Testament church.

Anyone can have fellowship with us. The sign on the front says "all welcome".

Originally Posted by aron

Some Christian disunity is deliberate, small-minded and unfortunate, just like in the local church where someone goes to another local church where they like the eldership better. They don't even "migrate", just drive past one meeting hall, to another. Everybody has division. Only God is undivided. We aren't there, yet.

Much of Christian disunity started 500 or so years ago. It started in your country didn't it? Still remains today right? What happened to the Christian concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation? Clearly your approach to unity does not work and is far more impractical than Lee/Nees, given the entrenched organizational structures. Are the Catholics going to open their cathedrals to the Lutherans and say "please come and celebrate your communion on our altar". Are they doing that? They will never do that.
Will the Catholics allow a Lutheran to conduct a homosexual blessing service? I doubt it.

I often see two or more large denominational buildings on the same street. There capacity each is 200, yet the regular attendance is more like 50 every Sunday. How it is practical to operate two large buildings next to each other when the attendance is so low? More practical and efficient that they both move into one building.

Originally Posted by aron

But the local church of Nee and Lee solution to division is like the woman who swallowed the fly. Yes there was indeed a fly down there. But her solution was eventually to swallow a spider, cat, dog, and horse... "You strain the gnat and swallow the camel".

The camel you swallow is condemnation of everyone else for being wrong, and pleading for mercy for your defects which (you hope) are so small and few. I don't think God is impressed. I surely am not.

here is your backward logic:
It is right to condemn a group which condemns the division and stands in unity.
It is wrong to condemn denominations which are a division. Groups which stand apart from the division are seen as divisive for doing so.

But I think from what I know of God, God stands with those who are against disunity, just as Christ stood against his disciples being divided, we stand against Christianity being divided.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet went back straight to their divisions. What is the purpose for the divisions? There is no need for them.

I can't help but notice you ignoring all of my points except the one on division. No answers on them? No opinions? No advice on the books they read? Nothing? Interesting...

Do you still not get it? All the denominations are willing to meet except the LC denomination. Why is that?

Stop having this inside perspective of "Oh, we are united while they are divided". You are part of the division. The LC's mere existence means there is a division in Christiantiy, or don't you realise that? You are just as much a denomination as any other. If there were only one denomination, let's say the Methodists, and the LC came along... then don't you think the LC are, by establishing themselves, creating division? The same applies when there are a hundred denominations and the LC came along.

I noticed you think the Catholics as being rather wrong (they most likely are) but don't you see how akin you are to the Catholic church? The Catholic church has a number of churches around the globe, each one almost identical in practise and belief, while they look on the poor, divided Protestants. Sound familiar? The LC denomination is the same: We are correct, look at those poor, divided denominations.

You are a PART of the denominations. You are just one out of hundreds.

The best thing any of us can do in regards to the LC denomination is to drill it into their heads that they are just like all the other denominations. They are just another part of the division. Or do you think yourself special?

By using "denomination" we establish two facts: that the LC does believe in the foundation of Christianity (Jesus' divinity, death and resurrection), making them true believers (though with some big issues), and secondly, that they are just another group with just another set of beliefs. By using this word we can remain respectful of them as fellow Christians while also making clear to them that they are not above or beyond any other denomination. This term minimizes them. It takes away their "Us against Them" mentality.

Look at the LC church from the outside. Most of us on this forum used to be in it and since we left it we have got a good insider and outsider view. See your denomination from, let's say, a Baptist's eyes:

The Baptist went to a church where he did Baptist things. Later on as he drives through the town he sees a number of different denominations. He disagrees with them, but he still loves them and he attends inter-denominational events. Then he passes by the LC denomination. These people (in his eyes) are a weird bunch. They are not quite like any normal denomination. They are born-again, that's true. But they view themselves as special and they, unlike most other denominations, are strictly against socializing with other denominations - they are extremely isolated. They never attend events with the Baptists.

Who is pushing division here?

This is how I started to doubt the LC. When I invited a friend from Zimbabwe to attend a meeting, I could see everything through his eyes. I saw him looking at the other people very suspiciously. When they sang the songs and talked about the god-man, he didn't sing or talk. He looked very agitated. I suddenly viewed everything through fresh eyes... through the eyes of an outsider. It was then that I realised how... peculiar... everything is.

Today I realised another fact. I used to be in South Africa's most "traditional" denomination, the NG Church (Nederduits-gereformeerd). You know those churches with a piano, a long sermon, and only a select number of slow songs. A great place actually, no one is pushing an agenda. No weird trainings like the LC and no focus on money like some other churches.

But as I went to university, I started viewing myself as "non-denominational". Not anti-denominational, just non. I didn't know where to fit in. At this moment I'm still looking for the right one. Like C. S. Lewis put it, I am currently in the Hall of Christianity. A number of Christians already found their rooms, I have not yet.

The absence of a church made it easier for me to join the LC completely. If I were a steadfast Methodist, I would not have joined so easily.

P. S. For any Catholics here, I am not saying that all of you have this condescending view (probably few do). I'm simply making a point.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I can't help but notice you ignoring all of my points except the one on division. No answers on them? No opinions? No advice on the books they read? Nothing? Interesting...

We are not a denomination because we do not "denominate" (that is, classify) ourselves. We just call ourselves Christian.

In your last point it said:

""We are all from different denominations. For this weekend we put them aside and we worship and grow together. When we go home we can go to our denominations again".

It's kind of funny because a weekend it seems is all they can tolerate of each other.

But we are made up of people from all sorts of denominations (originally), and can meet week to week as "Christians".

So we don't have to have weekend unity, we can have regular ongoing unity.

Even if we meet with these denominations for a weekend, they would not come with us and join us week to week. So they are the divisive ones, not us.

The denominations can too, if they drop the denomination thing, but as you can see from their words, they can't wait to "go home to our denominations again".

The thing is, Christ did not build the rooms in the halls of Christianity. We did. They actually do not exist, only in the minds of those who think that division is normal.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

By the way, everyday I pass by the LC church on my way to campus. Today I noticed an inscription on a board that says "The Church in Pretoria".

It made me think of the ridiculousness of it all. Pretoria is the capital city with more than half a million people. Why should all of them go to one building?

Suppose parliament decides to cut the city in two: West Pretoria and East Pretoria. And currently the church is in West Pretoria. Will it then be right or wrong, in the LC eyes, to have a "church in" in both West Pretoria and East Pretoria? In other words, "The Church in West Pretoria" and "The Church in East Pretoria". If this is acceptable, why not divide it further and say a "church in" in each street? If wrong, then there can be only one gathering place. Let me make it clearer. If it is wrong to have a church in both the West and East, then suppose this: The whole world is Pretoria. There used to be only one church location. Then it was divided into a billion pieces. With that logic, it will never be right to have gathering places other than the first one.

Why bind the morality of where you may and may not meet on political structures?

Food for thought. I'd like to hear opinions.

One church, one city discussion history.