Churches vs sects: a logical viewpoint

[Evangelical]

In Christianity today, there are many buildings with the words "something church". Today, it seems anyone with a pastoral degree and a denominational affiliation can start a church.

Most Christians don't know that the groups that call themselves churches are actually sects, according to a definition of church which has lasted for 1200 years (until the Reformation). Since the Reformation until today, Catholics have not changed their view about this. On the other hand, in Protestantism, confusion reigns. Today, most Protestant Christians can easily define a church versus a cult, but find it challenging to properly define what is a sect versus a church. That is because they confuse the meaning of church versus sects and this actually stems from the Reformation, when for the first time, a group of Christians attempted to chart a new course apart from the Catholic church. These groups themselves, became the "new normal" in the countries they gained hold - Lutherans in Germany, Church of England in England. The term sect was then applied to any groups or dissenters which broke away from these. So on and so forth....

Today, the meaning of "sect" is largely reserved for JW's and Mormons, or any group which does not believe in the Trinity and is "different enough" from the major or well known denominations.

As the Catholic encyclopedia says:
The Protestant denominations which assume such an attitude are at a loss to determine the essential elements of a sect. In countries like England and Germany, where State Churches exist, it is usual to apply the name "sect" to all dissenters.

Over time, the meaning of the word sect and difference between a sect and a church has been lost. Today, Christians apply the word church to any group of Christians which reveals the truth of God, such as by preaching the Bible and holding to sound doctrine.
The flip side of this view is that any group who decides to preach the Bible and agree with the status quo is considered a "genuine church". It is not surprise then, that today almost anyone can start their own church and be accepted by the majority of denominations as a genuine church. Attributing the meaning of "church" to a group which preaches sound doctrine or is of sound quality, however, is a definition which does not stand up to the test of logic.

In another thread I raised a question regarding LGBT churches and their status as churches. Here is another: Why, according to most Christians, is a church which calls itself the LGBT church, not a church, but a church which calls itself "the Lutheran church" is a church?

Many Christians might say that the LGBT church is not a church because it stands for unbiblical things. They might say the Lutheran church is a church because its statement of faith is biblical and its doctrine is sound. However, suppose the LGBT church had only 10% actual LGBT members and the rest were faithful Christians, and 90% of the Lutheran church was LGBT with only 10% faithful Christians. Many Christians would not change their definition of which group is a church and which one is not. This is a kind of illogical viewpoint.

There is only one definition of a church that makes logical sense and is easy to apply and can resolve this paradox. That definition is that church is a single entity as defined by locality, and that both the LGBT and Lutheran churches are not churches but sects, or sub-groups within the Body of Christ. That is, the illogical viewpoint can be resolved by defining church not by quality, but by something which is independent of quality such as locality.

Under this definition, we can easily and clearly explain why the LGBT church is not a church. Why the LGBT is not a church? Not because they believe and practice unbiblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality. Likewise, the Lutheran church is not a church, not because they believe and practice biblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality.

To many Christians it may seem unfair to label both the the Lutheran and LGBT churches as sects, but we should realise that to label them both as sect in no way means that the quality of both churches is the same or that they are equal. There is clearly a difference - the quality of the Lutheran church may be very good. The term "sect" is viewed by many Christians as a negative thing, however its true definition does not have such negative meaning:

Some churches, however, still take exception to the application of the term to themselves because of its implication, in their eyes, of inferiority or depreciation.

The use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians. It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression "sectarian" (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word "in no invidious sense" ("A Study of the Sects", Boston, 1891, p. 4). (The Catholic encyclopedia).


The Catholic encyclopedia says:
To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorised leadership.



We have seen that to judge what is a church and what is not on the basis of quality or doctrine is not logical and leads Christians into confusion about what a church actually is. This is because what the church says it is and what it actually is may be different. The quality and doctrine of a church may change over time, just as it did for the apostle Paul in the New Testament. This does not, however, mean it is no longer a church.

For example, when the church in Corinth was founded, it was probably in a pure state. However various problems crept in over time, which the apostle Paul addresses in his letters found in our New Testament. According to the typical definition, the Corinthian church in the bible would not be a church because of its problems and immorality. However, we find that the apostle Paul never defines a church by its quality or soundness of doctrine. Paul never says to the Corinthians that they are not a church anymore because of their failures. Likewise for the Ephesians and other churches. In Revelation, most churches had problems, yet Jesus did not stop referring to them as churches. Ephesus had lost their first love for Christ, yet Jesus did not tell them to start a new denomination of the few lovers in their midst, and call it the "lovers of Jesus church".

So far I have defined church by its locality, as one way to define church without basing the definition on quality or doctrine. To my knowledge there are only two alternative ways that a church may be defined (without basing on quality or doctrine):

1. Catholicism /Orthodox - appeal to church history, traditions, lineage to the time of the apostles. Those who hold to this view may appreciate the organisation, structure and rich traditions. They make many convincing arguments regarding their authenticity as the genuine church. They do not see Protestant churches as real churches, but divisions or sects, because they consider themselves to be the one genuine church. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church - a Catholic church, no matter how poor it is, will always be considered a genuine church, over a very good protestant church in the same locality.

2. Protestant and non-denominational - The true church is none of those which call themselves churches, but a third invisible, pure and perfect entity. This view I consider to be impractical. It exists in theory but not in practice. Those who hold to this view may have trouble settling down in one place and may be constantly seeking for "the perfect church". Some may settle for a good denominational or non-denominational church or one close enough to it (Baptist, for example), and live in the expectation that everything will be fixed on Jesus's return. Or they may stop attending church altogether out of frustration in being unable to find a church which fits their ideals. I believe that Spurgeon falls into this category - against denominationalism, and looking forward to a future time when the true church is revealed, while remaining in his denomination. This view might be characterised as a pessimistic or defeatist view. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church, but they would never say that a church in the here and now can be a genuine church, because they do not believe that is possible until a future time when Jesus fixes all the problems. Typically, they believe that the genuine church no longer exists and cannot exist until a future time.

This viewpoint is somewhat right in the sense that Jesus will return and fix all the problems, and the many differences that divide Christians will be resolved. But this view is also wrong, in the sense that the New Testament does not speak of church in such a way, but as a practical and visible entity in the present.

There is a third definition of church I have not discussed which is independent of quality/doctrine which is that all who call themselves churches are genuine churches. While a number of Christians may hold to this view, I consider this view to be one that lacks discernment and common sense so will not address it.

reference:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

[OBW]

So there was:

1. The church traditional.
2. Then came the church universal (to make up for the outward splintering)
3. But from the beginning there was church that was simply church because it was the assembly of those called out by God.
4. And then came the group that took all that was deemed wrong with the others and deemed a better way upon an outward formula that would then require everyone to adhere to the internal preferences of one who declared himself to be the Oracle of God and the Minister of the Age.

When all is said and done, it looks as if the third one is most in keeping with the ways of Christ, the first and second have at least some support in the words and practices of the scripture, while #4 is the most sectarian of all.

And at the core of "sectarian" is "sect." So there you have it. Each has a view of what constitutes a sect based on their view of themselves. But the one that is the most completely dismissive of all others and insisting that theirs is the only way is the one that fits the definition the best.

And that is the LRC.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

So there was:

1. The church traditional.
2. Then came the church universal (to make up for the outward splintering)
3. But from the beginning there was church that was simply church because it was the assembly of those called out by God.
4. And then came the group that took all that was deemed wrong with the others and deemed a better way upon an outward formula that would then require everyone to adhere to the internal preferences of one who declared himself to be the Oracle of God and the Minister of the Age.

When all is said and done, it looks as if the third one is most in keeping with the ways of Christ, the first and second have at least some support in the words and practices of the scripture, while #4 is the most sectarian of all.

And at the core of "sectarian" is "sect." So there you have it. Each has a view of what constitutes a sect based on their view of themselves. But the one that is the most completely dismissive of all others and insisting that theirs is the only way is the one that fits the definition the best.

And that is the LRC.

Thankyou OBW for that insight. I agree that the third one would be most in keeping with the words of Christ, but unfortunately, this church does not exist. It is a theory. It ignores the practicality of the churches splintering into different groups. The apostle Paul no where sanctions this. In the bible we see visible, practical, imperfect churches, without any sort of name or identification other than "Christian" in each locality.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou OBW for that insight. I agree that the third one would be most in keeping with the words of Christ, but unfortunately, this church does not exist. It is a theory. It ignores the practicality of the churches splintering into different groups. The apostle Paul no where sanctions this. In the bible we see visible, practical, imperfect churches, without any sort of name or identification other than "Christian" in each locality.

I'm not so sure that #3 does not exist. For the most part, even #2 is on the edge of #3. From what I can read about the church, while it is universal, it is also "local" in the sense that an assembly is an assembly.

It appears to me that the difference between #2 and #3 is whether they are focused on the things that cause one assembly to exist separate from other assemblies v those who simply are an assembly and are not concerned about it. Either way, there are reasons that they separately exist. So the real question is not whether you know your reasons, but that there are reasons. So then you have to consider whether the fact that there are reasons is really that important, or that each assembly is of those called-out — Christians.

Whether or not Paul specifically allowed or disallowed is not really so important except that to the extent that he did speak against something, it is important. But he did not speak against the existence of separate assemblies. Period. Amen. End of statement. Move along to next point.

He did speak about people having differences that were so severe as to cause some to exclude others. That is different from whether there are multiple assemblies that have identifiers other than the name of the city. There was never any statement made about how a church should be identified. Churches are in places. In cities, regions, countries, etc. It is true that no other differentiators were supplied, but it is not evident whether there was not any such differentiators in existence, or whether the intent was to write to the whole of he body of Christ in an area therefore it was not simply to a single assembly but rather to all believers in a place.

It would appear that you presume that if there were two separate assemblies in a single city that there must already be a problem and that Paul would not write to such a situation. But that is clearly not known. And in at least a couple of places, it is evident that the first recipient was requested to be sure to make a specific greeting to another.

It was specifically the exclusionary and puffed-up behavior in Corinth that got any ink on the subject, and that was not clearly on-point. Was that in-fighting within a single assembly, or a collection of assemblies that were having very open warfare? And if there were multiple assemblies, was the problem that there were multiple assemblies, or the fact that they were so opposed to each other?

Do you really think that all these assemblies in whatever city you are in are any more (if not less) opposed to each other than the LRC is to any of them? You claim oneness with them all, but only if they come to you. What gives you the right to make that demand but denies them the same?

While I would say that there are groups that have some questionable positions and practices, should we really be so opposed to them that we lash out publically? That we take out newspaper ads telling of their errors? Many have done this with respect to how other churches:

• Do worship
• Deal with gays
• Do or don't allow women to preach
• . . . .

Do you really think this is a good testimony of Christ living on the earth today? If we are Christ's body, then we should behave in the manner that Christ did. Eat with tax collectors and prostitutes. Be seen with undesirables. (And not be defiled by any of it.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not so sure that #3 does not exist. For the most part, even #2 is on the edge of #3. From what I can read about the church, while it is universal, it is also "local" in the sense that an assembly is an assembly.

It appears to me that the difference between #2 and #3 is whether they are focused on the things that cause one assembly to exist separate from other assemblies v those who simply are an assembly and are not concerned about it. Either way, there are reasons that they separately exist. So the real question is not whether you know your reasons, but that there are reasons. So then you have to consider whether the fact that there are reasons is really that important, or that each assembly is of those called-out — Christians.

Whether or not Paul specifically allowed or disallowed is not really so important except that to the extent that he did speak against something, it is important. But he did not speak against the existence of separate assemblies. Period. Amen. End of statement. Move along to next point.

He did speak about people having differences that were so severe as to cause some to exclude others. That is different from whether there are multiple assemblies that have identifiers other than the name of the city. There was never any statement made about how a church should be identified. Churches are in places. In cities, regions, countries, etc. It is true that no other differentiators were supplied, but it is not evident whether there was not any such differentiators in existence, or whether the intent was to write to the whole of he body of Christ in an area therefore it was not simply to a single assembly but rather to all believers in a place.

It would appear that you presume that if there were two separate assemblies in a single city that there must already be a problem and that Paul would not write to such a situation. But that is clearly not known. And in at least a couple of places, it is evident that the first recipient was requested to be sure to make a specific greeting to another.

It was specifically the exclusionary and puffed-up behavior in Corinth that got any ink on the subject, and that was not clearly on-point. Was that in-fighting within a single assembly, or a collection of assemblies that were having very open warfare? And if there were multiple assemblies, was the problem that there were multiple assemblies, or the fact that they were so opposed to each other?

Do you really think that all these assemblies in whatever city you are in are any more (if not less) opposed to each other than the LRC is to any of them? You claim oneness with them all, but only if they come to you. What gives you the right to make that demand but denies them the same?

While I would say that there are groups that have some questionable positions and practices, should we really be so opposed to them that we lash out publically? That we take out newspaper ads telling of their errors? Many have done this with respect to how other churches:

• Do worship
• Deal with gays
• Do or don't allow women to preach
• . . . .

Do you really think this is a good testimony of Christ living on the earth today? If we are Christ's body, then we should behave in the manner that Christ did. Eat with tax collectors and prostitutes. Be seen with undesirables. (And not be defiled by any of it.)

The is not about multiple assemblies in a locality. That is Scriptural.
The is about the identity "is Christ divided?", the division and sectarianism of "I follow Paul".

In Paul's time, there could have been a group following Apollos who held firmly to the teachings of Paul. In terms of doctrine and practice there would have been little difference. The difference was, that group took their identity as "Apollos followers", and for no good reason other than preferring the teaching of Apollos over Paul. So Christ looks divided, to which Paul would say "is Christ divided? did Apollos or Paul die for you?".

Some divisions are right. Without division we cannot be holy. For example, the division between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran church is right. The division between the brethren or presbyterian and church of England ( a Roman Catholic proxy) is also right. But there is little justification for the existence of two different community churches, or one baptist and one Presbyterian church, on the same street. The key difference between baptist and Presbyterian is really just the name and organizational structure. Both practice baptism by full immersion, both are very similar in structure and style. Yet they remain separated because of "I follow baptist" versus "I follow presbyterian".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The is not about multiple assemblies in a locality. That is Scriptural.
The is about the identity "is Christ divided?", the division and sectarianism of "I follow Paul".

In Paul's time, there could have been a group following Apollos who held firmly to the teachings of Paul. In terms of doctrine and practice there would have been little difference. The difference was, that group took their identity as "Apollos followers", and for no good reason other than preferring the teaching of Apollos over Paul. So Christ looks divided, to which Paul would say "is Christ divided? did Apollos or Paul die for you?".

Some divisions are right. Without division we cannot be holy. For example, the division between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran church is right. The division between the brethren or presbyterian and church of England ( a Roman Catholic proxy) is also right. But there is little justification for the existence of two different community churches, or one baptist and one Presbyterian church, on the same street. The key difference between baptist and Presbyterian is really just the name and organizational structure. Both practice baptism by full immersion, both are very similar in structure and style. Yet they remain separated because of "I follow baptist" versus "I follow presbyterian".

You can't define the bases for separation on Lee's claim that they call out that they follow anything particular. The Baptists do not cry out "I follow Baptist" and refuse those who follow another way. That is a false statement added to the discussion to create a problem that is not there.

But the real problem is that you feel free to say some divisions are good while others are bad and then declare that you know which are which and that yours is the only one that stands properly, therefore everyone else is an improper division from you.

You make the divisions more than they are. The separation between the Baptists and the Presbyterians is less than the separation between either and the LRC. But that is not because of the positions of the Baptists or the Presbyterians. It is because of you. You refuse them, not the other way around.

While there are surely some personality cults around, the bulk of Christianity is mainly receiving help from many quarters. Almost none listen only to the insider teachers of their groups. (And I am not talking only about the level of the members, but also in the leadership.) But you can't say that about your group. Start a sermon serious on something written by John Piper and find out how fast it is shut down and a return to Witness Lee is enforced. (And you say you are not of Lee.) There are Baptist congregations getting good teaching from Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and even Catholic theologians and writers. That is just like your example of people following Apollos that are well versed in the teachings of Paul.

But your group openly decries as a waste any attempt to read other than Nee or Lee as a means of spiritual enlightenment.

And you want us to stop being part of Christianity as a whole and separate to your little sect where we can be limited to only Nee and Lee (mostly Lee). All in the name of unity.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Christianity today, there are many buildings with the words "something church". Today, it seems anyone with a pastoral degree and a denominational affiliation can start a church.

Most Christians don't know that the groups that call themselves churches are actually sects, according to a definition of church which has lasted for 1200 years (until the Reformation). Since the Reformation until today, Catholics have not changed their view about this. On the other hand, in Protestantism, confusion reigns. Today, most Protestant Christians can easily define a church versus a cult, but find it challenging to properly define what is a sect versus a church. That is because they confuse the meaning of church versus sects and this actually stems from the Reformation, when for the first time, a group of Christians attempted to chart a new course apart from the Catholic church. These groups themselves, became the "new normal" in the countries they gained hold - Lutherans in Germany, Church of England in England. The term sect was then applied to any groups or dissenters which broke away from these. So on and so forth....

Today, the meaning of "sect" is largely reserved for JW's and Mormons, or any group which does not believe in the Trinity and is "different enough" from the major or well known denominations.

I find it interesting that you are attempting to appeal to Catholic tradition in order to argue that most Protestant groups are just sects. First of all, while you are correct in pointing out that the word sect has a different meaning between Catholics and Protestants, an understanding of what defines a sect really has nothing to do with what identifies church.

I by no means believe that every group out there calling itself a church is a real church. As you have pointed out, the RCC would label any group who doesn’t recognize their authority as being a sect. So actually, it is the ‘traditional’ understanding of what a sect is that really serves no purpose. The reason Protestants label certain groups as sects is because it is a convenient way to point out that a group either differentiates substantially from standard Christian doctrine/practice, or also if the group is one of those ‘isolationist’ type of group that don’t want to play nice with everyone else. In any case, it is always good to be able to have a general way of identifying such groups.

It is only when the church is correctly defined that a sect can be identified. I’m happy with recognizing the church as an assembly of Christians, but I realize that kind of definition might be too simplistic or ‘broad’ for some. However, I think that a simplistic view of what defines the church is exactly where issues of doctrine or practice come into play, thereby helping to determine what is not the church.

As OBW has mentioned, groups who hold themselves in high regard are precisely those who are the most sectarian.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I find it interesting that you are attempting to appeal to Catholic tradition in order to argue that most Protestant groups are just sects. First of all, while you are correct in pointing out that the word sect has a different meaning between Catholics and Protestants, an understanding of what defines a sect really has nothing to do with what identifies church.

I by no means believe that every group out there calling itself a church is a real church. As you have pointed out, the RCC would label any group who doesn’t recognize their authority as being a sect. So actually, it is the ‘traditional’ understanding of what a sect is that really serves no purpose. The reason Protestants label certain groups as sects is because it is a convenient way to point out that a group either differentiates substantially from standard Christian doctrine/practice, or also if the group is one of those ‘isolationist’ type of group that don’t want to play nice with everyone else. In any case, it is always good to be able to have a general way of identifying such groups.

It is only when the church is correctly defined that a sect can be identified. I’m happy with recognizing the church as an assembly of Christians, but I realize that kind of definition might be too simplistic or ‘broad’ for some. However, I think that a simplistic view of what defines the church is exactly where issues of doctrine or practice come into play, thereby helping to determine what is not the church.

As OBW has mentioned, groups who hold themselves in high regard are precisely those who are the most sectarian.

Thankyou for that insight. I believe that a view which appeals to relativism (like OBW said, "our view of a sect is in light of how we view ourselves") cannot "define THE church", and therefore we cannot clearly see who are the sects. This is why, as the Catholics might say, they have no problem identifying the difference between the church and sects.

[aron]

We've noted on this forum that the most divisive of all may say, "Everyone but me is divisive". And the most fractious among us may insist that all agree with them on minutae or else there never will be peace.

Rather than simply wave off such, we might, for the sake of the young and the easily swayed, ask how such positions come about. And I'm guessing here it's not due to venality. Jesus said that we're all evil. ( Matt 7:11; Lu 11:3)

No, I think it is ignorance of God's word which forms the plate upon which human logic carries one away from peace, satisfaction and rest.

Note the gospel introduction: Jesus said, "My church" in Matthew 16. It was well understood to the hearers and subsequent readers that there were other 'ekklesia' besides Jesus's 'ekklesia'. For an example, we don't need to leave the NT. "And with these words he dismissed the ekklesia".(Acts 17) Which 'ekklesia' was that? Not one of Christ.

The same combination of ignorance and zeal carried forth the recent Sabbatarians, 'Jehovah-witnessers' and the like. They lack context, then mis-read and misunderstand, then proclaim, "It's in the Bible!" and somehow mandated by their logic trains, and therefore they now can bulldoze through the weak, simple, and gullible.

[Evangelical]

Could you elaborate on who these 'other ekklesia' are?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Could you elaborate on who these 'other ekklesia' are?

Do you even know what the word 'ekklesia' meant in 33 AD?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Over time, the meaning of the word sect and difference between a sect and a church has been lost. Today, Christians apply the word church to any group of Christians which reveals the truth of God, such as by preaching the Bible and holding to sound doctrine.

This was along the lines of what I've been saying. The original meaning of 'ekklesia', that of a meeting, gathering, or assembly of some sort was lost. But at the time when Jesus spoke of "My ekklesia" in Matt 16, it would be well enough understood that there were other ekklesia not of Jesus' purview. A good example is in Acts 19:41. And when Paul said, "All the ekklesia of Christ greet you" in Rom 16:16, it was also well enough understood that there were in existence both ekklesia of Christ and also ekklesia not of Christ.

Likewise, there can be ekklesia on Friday night in Sister Smith's house, Saturday morning prayer ekklesia etc. They are meetings, gatherings, assemblies.

The LSM LC way is to label their gatherings as "meetings", and say it's okay to have many of them. This, they say, is multiplication. A blessing to God. But if anyone gives meetings non-LSM-affiliated labels, they're division! They've taken a name, are disapproved and near to burning. Only one church per city. Sorry. We are it.

And if they call it "XYZ Christian Fellowship" or "Jonesville Christian Assembly" that's also doomed in LC eyes. Because, again, it isn't affiliated with the LSM LC. Likewise the "Free Groups" who don't take a name at all. Lee & Co. put a label on them anyway. No label? Don't worry, we'll give you one. We have names for everyone. BUT of course we don't take a name! No! (daintily wipes corner of mouth)

Watchman Nee really just didn't know any better. He didn't grasp the 1st-century meaning of 'ekklesia', but instead read 18th- and 19th-century readings back onto it. But his gambit was hugely successful since the Chinese of his era didn't understand either, and it was the best way to get shed the Occidentals and remain 'biblical'. But 100 years later it looks much less sanguine. And the excuse of ignorance gets thinner as time passes. One has to be deliberately obtuse, at some point. "Oh, I'm just an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

This was along the lines of what I've been saying. The original meaning of 'ekklesia', that of a meeting, gathering, or assembly of some sort was lost. But at the time when Jesus spoke of "My ekklesia" in Matt 16, it would be well enough understood that there were other ekklesia not of Jesus' purview. A good example is in Acts 19:41. And when Paul said, "All the ekklesia of Christ greet you" in Rom 16:16, it was also well enough understood that there were in existence both ekklesia of Christ and also ekklesia not of Christ.

Likewise, there can be ekklesia on Friday night in Sister Smith's house, Saturday morning prayer ekklesia etc. They are meetings, gatherings, assemblies.

The LSM LC way is to label their gatherings as "meetings", and say it's okay to have many of them. This, they say, is multiplication. A blessing to God. But if anyone gives meetings non-LSM-affiliated labels, they're division! They've taken a name, are disapproved and near to burning. Only one church per city. Sorry. We are it.

And if they call it "XYZ Christian Fellowship" or "Jonesville Christian Assembly" that's also doomed in LC eyes. Because, again, it isn't affiliated with the LSM LC. Likewise the "Free Groups" who don't take a name at all. Lee & Co. put a label on them anyway. No label? Don't worry, we'll give you one. We have names for everyone. BUT of course we don't take a name! No! (daintily wipes corner of mouth)

Watchman Nee really just didn't know any better. He didn't grasp the 1st-century meaning of 'ekklesia', but instead read 18th- and 19th-century readings back onto it. But his gambit was hugely successful since the Chinese of his era didn't understand either, and it was the best way to get shed the Occidentals and remain 'biblical'. But 100 years later it looks much less sanguine. And the excuse of ignorance gets thinner as time passes. One has to be deliberately obtuse, at some point. "Oh, I'm just an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand."

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

I do get your point, and share at least some of your concerns, and like you I hope for a better future. But I'm concerned that our ideational template is not based on reality. We see the word 'ekklesia' used repeatedly, and we agree it had meaning established already when Jesus spoke first (at least on record) of "My ekklesia". And there does seem to be some fluidity. The ekklesia in someone's house in Romans 16 could be what the LSM LC typically refers to as a 'home meeting' or it could be what some regard as a 'house church'.

The danger, as I see it, is in reading present understanding and present perceived need back onto millenia-old text. Then we translate words one way or another to suit our fancy. And ignorance reigns. And the loudest and most persistent ignoramus wins the day, or at least a considerable following.

The way to break the chains is to repeatedly read, consider, and think. How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I do get your point, and share at least some of your concerns, and like you I hope for a better future. But I'm concerned that our ideational template is not based on reality. We see the word 'ekklesia' used repeatedly, and we agree it had meaning established already when Jesus spoke first (at least on record) of "My ekklesia". And there does seem to be some fluidity. The ekklesia in someone's house in Romans 16 could be what the LSM LC typically refers to as a 'home meeting' or it could be what some regard as a 'house church'.

The danger, as I see it, is in reading present understanding and present perceived need back onto millenia-old text. Then we translate words one way or another to suit our fancy. And ignorance reigns. And the loudest and most persistent ignoramus wins the day, or at least a considerable following.

The way to break the chains is to repeatedly read, consider, and think. How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

Or more accurately "solely and exclusively affiliated with," otherwise you can and will be excommunicated.

Go explore the historical facts surrounding the Blended's divisive activities on the GLA.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

Suppose you take two assemblies from Seattle, WA and two from Bellevue, WA. The Church in Seattle, Seattle Christian Assembly, the Church in Bellevue, and Eastside Christian Community Church. Each of these assemblies share the influence of Watchman Nee's ministry, yet Church in Seattle will only fellowship with Church in Bellevue and not SCA or ECCC based on "affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". Assemblies such as SCA and ECCC that don't share the same affiliation, there's no fellowship.
So undoubtedly "affiliated" does come across as "of".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

Have you ever read W. Nee's book TNCCL in light of LSM?

Why do you keep critiquing obscure sects like the Anglican/Episcopalians to contrast with the LC? That's like comparing the Biblical ekklesia to your local mosque, thus "proving" that your LC alone is legit.

By Nee's own teachings, once a LC gets tied to an exclusive ministry like LSM, they are no longer a N.T. church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Terry

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

Terry - Very diplomatic!

My experience has been the same, even a non-denominational congregation is a denomination - no question about it, no grey area, Babylon. In my experience the LSM publications are absolutely essential for fellowship - more so than scripture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

In my experience the LSM publications are absolutely essential for fellowship - more so than scripture.

It's not just your experience. It's in print in a HWFMR I saw last time I visited the locality where my parents live.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

In the last 30 years in all the localities I've visited in Washington state, Oregon, and California I have yet to see one locality that's not taking a LSM publication corporately. It may not be a HWFMR, but it is a LSM publication. I am sure there are those within those assemblies that take the Bible only.
How long would they be permitted to meet abstaining from the publications?
I don't know, but whenever someone sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the assembly, they're going to draw attention.
Much as if someone would consistently stay only for the Table meeting, but leave before the Prophesying meeting begins. It's going to draw attention and maybe even questions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

Did you really just say that?