Re: There is a Solution2

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Below is a quote which will likely be seen as outright HERESY by the "up-to-date-Vision" loyalists in the local churches. But it is the truth from the Bible, and If I took the time, It would be easy to back up each point by quoting directly from the ministry of Watchman Nee and (early) Witness Lee.

Question: What Should be the order of Priorities in our Family?
Audio MP3: Family Priorities

Answer: The Bible does not lay out a step-by-step order for family relationship priorities. However, we can still look to the Scriptures and find general principles for prioritizing our family relationships. God obviously comes first: Deuteronomy 6:5, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” All of one’s heart, soul, and strength is to be committed to loving God, making Him the first priority.

If you are married, your spouse comes next. A married man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). Christ’s first priority—after obeying and glorifying the Father—was the church. Here is an example a husband should follow: God first, then his wife. In the same way, wives are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). The principle is that a woman’s husband is second only to God in her priorities.

If husbands and wives are second only to God in our priorities, and since a husband and wife are one flesh (Ephesians 5:31), it stands to reason that the result of the marriage relationship—children—should be the next priority. Parents are to raise godly children who will be the next generation of those who love the Lord with all their hearts (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4), showing once again that God comes first. All other family relationships should reflect that.

Deuteronomy 5:16 tells us to honor our parents so that we may live long and so things will go well with us. No age limit is specified, which leads us to believe that as long as our parents are alive, we should honor them. Of course, once a child reaches adulthood, he is no longer obligated to obey them (“Children, obey your parents...”), but there is no age limit to honoring them. We can conclude from this that parents are next in the list of priorities after God, our spouses, and our children. After parents comes the rest of one's family (1 Timothy 5:8).

Following one’s extended family in the list of priorities are fellow believers. Romans 14 tells us not to judge or look down upon our brothers (v. 10) or do anything to cause a fellow Christian to “stumble” or fall spiritually. Much of the book of 1 Corinthians is Paul’s instructions on how the church should live together in harmony, loving one another. Other exhortations referring to our brothers and sisters in Christ are “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13); “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32); “encourage one another and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11); and “consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Finally comes the rest of the world (Matthew 28:19), to whom we should bring the gospel, making disciples of Christ.

In conclusion, the scriptural order of priorities is God, spouse, children, parents, extended family, brothers and sisters in Christ, and then the rest of the world. While sometimes decisions must be made to focus on one person over another, the goal is to not be neglecting any of our relationships. The biblical balance is allowing God to empower us to meet all of our relationship priorities, inside and outside our families.

© Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries. www.GotQuestions.org

P.S.

Ok, since there was little response to my last post [except for Countmeworthy - Thank YOU!] here goes with a little more fuel for the bonfire:

On Nov 15, 2009 in Bellevue WA, toward the end of a talk to young adults, Ron Kangas was asked a direct question about relationship priorities in the local church. Here is the question he was asked:

QUESTION [from a brother in the audience named Andrew]: "I don't know how to best express this, but I have a question concerning the balance between a life of consecration and being "Jesusly" human. And you know, as a parent of three children, and I think many of us, we all want to see our children live a normal human life, and to be gained for the lord in the church life. But on the other hand, as part of the church life, there are many constraints on our time. And there's meetings and there is service. This is something I have been grappling with - how do we care for our families in the proper [way]? I mean, you shared some of this, but I'd like to hear a little bit more concerning this... And I know that, you know, even our children, the Lord has their own course for them. And they may not all make it into the church life. But I have seen many who have been so given for the church life that sometimes the children suffer, and I don't want to go to either extreme. But this is just my nature, I think it's the nature of brothers especially to go to an extreme..."

ANSWER from Ron Kangas: ".....The first thing I would say is we need to re-affirm the priority - and that is, we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church. If we invert that, and family replaces the church as a priority, we're cutting ourselves off from the Lord's blessing. So the priority is Christ and the church is first, and that's based upon Christ as the burnt offering. This is settled..."

Unfortunately, Ron's response to this question about the God Ordained priorities for Christian parents stands in direct opposition to the Ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. Compared to what the Ministry has to say on this, I feel Ron's answer constitutes a subtle, yet very destructive [to family relationships] lie. And, sadly, that lie apparently, went completely un-challenged.

Now, here's the audio so that you can listen for yourself:
8 points of fellowship given by brother Ron Kangas in the Northwest, USA source courtesy of http://livingtohim.com/dload/

Listen to the very Last Question along with Ron's Answer [11min]: 16KbsMp3 or 32KbsMp3

Or, hear Ron's Entire Recorded Fellowship to Young Adults - (Could point one possibly be in violation of the 5th Commandment to honor our parents?) [Mark 7:11-13]

I'm no longer a political junkie, but at the time when Donald Rumsfeldt was in office serving as Secretary of Defense, I admired his personal operating principles, or "Rumsfeldt's Rules" as they came to be known:

My Favorite Rumsfeld's Rule - "Look for what's missing. Many advisers can tell a president how to improve what's proposed or what's gone amiss. Few are able to see what isn't there." <--- Click Here to see them all

NOW I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU FOLLOW "RUMMY's" LEAD AND TRY THIS: While playing that short eleven min audio clip, instead of allowing yourself to casually listen to Ron's words, please pay careful attention to what he might have left out in his answer to this very crucial question. Ask yourself, what vital things did he fail to mention? Which important items did Ron fail to pass on to those eagerly listening young parents present there in Bellevue Washington? What could he have said that would promote oneness in their marriage, or to prevent divorces or to keep the saints children from going to the world? Does this word come anywhere near to delivering whole counsel of God regarding such a question?

Besides completely leaving out the importance of FIRST applying God's Economy to our family life, which other family & relationship related commands found in the New Testament were omitted by Ron? Think about it. Exercise your God given discernment to detect what else might be missing from this speaking by a prominent Blended Brother in the Lord's Recovery. And, if you decide to listen to Ron's entire fellowship, please discern whether any of the items he does put forth there might be just a few degrees off from the Ministry and also from Biblical Truth. For instance, in his points of fellowship Ron tells the couples that it is normal for a wife to love her children more than she loves her husband - because they [the children] came out from her own body. That may only be a slight deviation from the Truth, but embracing such an aberrant teaching could open the door for "emotional incest" to creep into a parent's relationship with a child.

Don't forget that according to Paul in Acts 20:20, our sins of passive "OMISSION" toward others are just as big of a deal to God as any sins we may actively "COMMIT" toward others.

"You yourselves know... how I did not withhold any of those things that are profitable by not declaring them to you and by not teaching you publicly and from house to house..Therefore I testify to you on this day that I am clean from the blood of all men, For I did not shrink from declaring to you all the counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock.." Acts 20:18-28 Rcv

P.S.

[countmeworthy]

HEY !!!

I ain't married !! So I can't 'properly' respond to your post ! But I will respond to Ron's comments:

".....The first thing I would say is we need to re-affirm the priority - and that is, we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church. If we invert that, and family replaces the church as a priority, we're cutting ourselves off from the Lord's blessing. So the priority is Christ and the church is first, and that's based upon Christ as the burnt offering. This is settled..."

IF this is the case, THEN no one in the LSM should be allowed to get married and have children !! ( What IDIOTIC thinking ! OBVIOUSLY he was NOT responding from his spirit ! Ron was responding straight from his flesh ! )

LORD Have MERCY !!!

I will say this:
IF these people truly understood what it is to WALK in SPIRIT/spirit, then they would be walking in S/spirit as they become bonded with their spouses and with their children...which is a process...a journey and not something we accomplish overnight. To he/she that OVERCOMES....says the Word of God.

Anyway, IF we truly endeavor to walk in S/spirit with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit IN ALL THINGS...doing ALL to the Glory of GOD both in Word and IN DEED, (that is our ACTIONS), then we will be an example to the world AND we will be building/edifying the Body of CHRIST giving the LORD all due HONOR and PRAISE.

This is my .02 worth...coming from a SINGLE sister in Christ, Praise the LORD and now I will step down off the podium and give the floor to someone else.

P.S. Keep looking for more San Diego teachings when you have time, sir PriestlyScribe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I feel very sorry for the people who are bound by a need to "make it" when the "it" is something as meaningless as the "church life."

I guess you missed all that "real" talk that came out years ago about --

"I can't make it, I can't take it, I can't fake it."

That said a whole lot about the program we were in, but few of us saw through it.

.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I cannot agree with your definition of righteousness nor your characterization of LC meetings. A proper definition of righteousness is "absolute uprightness before God." In terms of the period of the law from Moses until Christ it was related to the keeping of the law. In terms of the church-age, from Christ onward, it is a matter of faith, of believing into Christ (Rom. 4:3; 1:17; 3:22, etc.). Any so-called "righteous behavior" in and of ourselves - even as Christians - is completely insufficient to properly display the kingdom of God. We have to be related to Christ and the church has to be related to Christ. Without regular involvement with Christ - our personal interactions with Him - and without our regular interactions with the Body of Christ, the church, we cannot display the righteousness of God. Not in any way, shape or form. I don't care how "good" you are to your family, friends, co-workers or customers.

And so the Kingdom is about church? No. It is the display of the righteousness of God. I never said that we had to crank it out on our own. That was your strawman argument. Defeat it all day long because I didn't make it.

I said that if you are not living righteously, then you are not living the Kingdom. I did not say that you should try to live it on your own. And "church" is not the way that you do live it. It is Christ. I would agree that meeting together is a positive influence in your tendency to live Christ. But it is not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.

In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is note the Kingdom.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As far as your comment regarding the LC meetings is concerned, displaying God's righteousness is not even that. Nor, for that matter is it standing in a Christian "worship meeting" while a band plays a rock version of "Oh My Soul" with your arms up in the air like some kind of spiritual satellite dish.

Whether you like the meetings of other Christian groups or not is irrelevant. I don't experience the kind of thing you just mocked. But my snide remark was not that you do what you do, but that you think it is so superior, and that "church life" is the Kingdom. All of the trappings of church, in LC style all the way down to the most liturgical meeting you can find, are not "the Kingdom" except to the extent that it is part of the living of the Kingdom people. The Kingdom is the entire life of the Kingdom people. It includes taking care of your kids (and not just by taking them along to your church meetings), helping your wife with mundane things in the house, living righteously in your environment. Ignore one of those and you are ignoring the Kingdom.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Which is exactly why we bring our children to the meeting.

Yeah. That's quality time. It makes up for ignoring them at home, or being home so little that you aren't even there to ignore them in person. Now they are in a large group setting being ignored by you (and everyone else) there.

Look. I'm not saying that you should not go to meetings, or "to church" or however you want to say it. I'm saying that it is not "the kingdom." And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are. If you believe otherwise, then your "church life" is an idol. You place it above obedience to Christ. "Church life" is not a commandment. Love your neighbor is. Your righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees is. And on and on. And don't bother with that "We're no longer under the law" malarkey. You surely are. Matt 5 increased the requirements. And Jesus said to teach them to obey it all.

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

Rather, let our "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." Speak the same language. Don't confuse meetings by speaking different languages (that was the meaning of the "trumpet" thing). Don't equivocate around terms so that the common meaning is ignored and some private meaning is intended (but not made clear).

In other words, get over the terminology. If I actually say "go to church" don't have a conniption. If I say "communion" likewise. Don't throw out alternate terminology and insist that everyone use yours or be deficient. For example, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, and Communion are equivalents.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

And so the Kingdom is about church? No. It is the display of the righteousness of God. I never said that we had to crank it out on our own. That was your strawman argument. Defeat it all day long because I didn't make it.

Well first, I didn't create a straw man from your argument. You did, however, write that "God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. You would agree that simply having "good relationships" and "right living" outside the influence of Christ is not sufficient in displaying the kingdom, right? To me saying, "good relationships" is the same as saying "crank it out on our own." The best we have is "goodness" in ourselves.

Nonetheless:

I said that if you are not living righteously, then you are not living the Kingdom. I did not say that you should try to live it on your own. And "church" is not the way that you do live it. It is Christ. I would agree that meeting together is a positive influence in your tendency to live Christ. But it is not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

Christ is all and is in all. How is that compartmentalizing the kingdom?

In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is note the Kingdom.

Not the meeting. The church itself. The meeting is a practical expression of the kingdom. In much the same way that the "gathering together" of a king's township would be the expression of his kingdom during the Feudal period of England's history.

Whether you like the meetings of other Christian groups or not is irrelevant. I don't experience the kind of thing you just mocked. But my snide remark was not that you do what you do, but that you think it is so superior, and that "church life" is the Kingdom. All of the trappings of church, in LC style all the way down to the most liturgical meeting you can find, are not "the Kingdom" except to the extent that it is part of the living of the Kingdom people.

Your posts drip with cynicism. I'm glad you acknowledge that as something purposeful on your part. My point was that I don't view LC meetings as any less relevant or meaningful to its participants as other Christian meetings who conduct their services in different ways, and neither should you, regardless of your obvious resentments. And no, I don't believe that any person, myself included, feels that the LC's way of conducting "service" is any more superior than other congregations.

The Kingdom is the entire life of the Kingdom people. It includes taking care of your kids (and not just by taking them along to your church meetings), helping your wife with mundane things in the house, living righteously in your environment. Ignore one of those and you are ignoring the Kingdom.

I would say that taking care of your own children, as well as helping to shepherd the other children in the church, is a natural expression of a life which regularly enjoys the king and the kingdom likewise. This would include personal interactions with Jesus as well as regular fellowship in the church - you know? That "meaningless" expression we use? The [big bad] "church life."

Yeah. That's quality time. It makes up for ignoring them at home, or being home so little that you aren't even there to ignore them in person. Now they are in a large group setting being ignored by you (and everyone else) there.

What in the world are you talking about?

Look. I'm not saying that you should not go to meetings, or "to church" or however you want to say it. I'm saying that it is not "the kingdom." And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are. If you believe otherwise, then your "church life" is an idol. You place it above obedience to Christ. "Church life" is not a commandment. Love your neighbor is. Your righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees is. And on and on. And don't bother with that "We're no longer under the law" malarkey. You surely are. Matt 5 increased the requirements. And Jesus said to teach them to obey it all.

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom. Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form. Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians." :rollingeyes2:

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

Bull. If anything Lee pointed out the need to keep from being religious in our terminology. We don't "go to church" we are the church. We don't "attend service" we are in His service, etc. Nee pointed out the same things. And even throughout church history we find a constant churning of definitions and re-definitions as culture and various movements in church history affected the language. So I don't buy that Lee believed LC terminology to be any better in terms of what we use and what others use. Certainly he believed that the terminology was more accurate and less religious in its origins, but what exactly is wrong with that? If certain terminology is overly religious - or perceived to be such - or if certain terminology is not as accurate as it could be, why not strive to find something that works and is more accurate; even using language that, by its nature, stimulates deeper fellowship?

Rather, let our "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." Speak the same language. Don't confuse meetings by speaking different languages (that was the meaning of the "trumpet" thing). Don't equivocate around terms so that the common meaning is ignored and some private meaning is intended (but not made clear).

Actually the "trumpet thing" was more about speaking different dialects absent interpretation. It wasn't about using the same language in different ways. If someone says "Bible study" and I understand it by my terminology to mean "home meeting," then what's it to anyone else? Or if I say "home meeting" and someone else understands it to mean, "Bible study" by their terminology where's the harm? In fact there is currently a growing movement within non-denominational congregations to have "home meetings." Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar to me.

In other words, get over the terminology. If I actually say "go to church" don't have a conniption. If I say "communion" likewise. Don't throw out alternate terminology and insist that everyone use yours or be deficient. For example, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, and Communion are equivalents.

I don't throw anything, much less conniptions. And I haven't witnessed this type of interactions between LCs and other Christians. I think this is where you are creating the straw man. As for "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper," etc. you know that we use "Lord's Table," and that the term has been around for hundreds of years. Read Chapter 9 of Frank and George Barana's "Pagan Christianity" with regard to the term "Lord's Supper."

Why should we "get over" the terminology if it happens to work for us?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

First, it is the assumption that “Christ and the church” are “the” essential factors of the Kingdom that is the problem. If you had just said “Christ” then there would have been no argument.

But while “Christ and the church” sounds so noble, it is the experience of what that means that makes it “compartmentalized.” It is almost entirely about the gathering of believers (and more importantly, the gathering of the believers that follow the way of the LC). It is not really about how life is lived outside the walls of the “tent of meeting” whatever form that takes. The whole “Christ and the church” theology is built upon a compartmentalizing of Paul’s writings in such a manner that righteousness becomes more about being spiritual together than righteous in all ways.

When I viewed the early believers, I saw people who had their lives changed. It was not that instead of being at the bar they were at church. It was that they were different in everything that they did. It was a change in their talk, in their actions toward others, in the cessation of excessive drink (if they had been marked by such), etc. It may not always be that they were suddenly more outwardly different as it was that their very attitude about everything was changed.

But once they retreat to their little group of believers, the Kingdom is no longer displayed to the world. That does not mean that it does not exist. But it is a different aspect of the Kingdom. Yet this is in essence the whole of the Kingdom in the LC’s mind. The Kingdom is about becoming more spiritual; more connected to God and each other. And that is happening in the meeting and not out in the world.

But it should be. Back to how I “see” the early church. They lived their lives much as they had, but with a difference. They no longer cheater their customers. They no longer treated the rich better than the poor. They no longer despised slaves and deferred to slave owners. They no longer refused to serve those of different cultures. They were very different. But they lived their lives in simplicity and humility. And they gathered to worship the One that had made it so and to learn more about Him and His ways. They did not treat their Christian community as the “Kingdom” and the rest of their lives as something to get through. (And I am not saying that the LC entirely does this. But while there are statements, such as in the messages Priestly Scribe has posted since, the practice was already different before those messages were given.)

You make the above-quoted statement immediately after I said “The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.” But your response, above, while not addressing what I actually said, does not disagree with it, but seems to ask why I should think that it should not be exactly as I said. And in that, you seem to establish my point of compartmentalization.

While I wanted to do the following in a different post, it does circle back to the compartmentalization a little, so here goes.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So the messenger is the primary constituent? I am not arguing that Christ is not the primary constituent of the Kingdom. I’m arguing that saying it is because He is the messenger that he is the primary constituent is ridiculous. Kings send messengers. Lawyers hire couriers. The messenger is generally not the constituent at all. In the case of the Kingdom, it was the declaration of the Kingdom that was significant. The only reason to make a statement like “If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent” is to follow that with something that otherwise would not make sense. But saying “surely” does not give it any weight. It is not “surely so.” It happens to be so. But it absolutely is not because Christ was the herald. If we take that kind of thought, then what was John the Baptist? I guess he was the primary constituent of Christ since he was the herald of the coming of Christ.

Constituents of the Kingdom. Yes we are. Very much so. All of those who believe are, even the pathetic whore of Babylon ones that find themselves in the modern Thyatira.

But the Kingdom is not just the constituents any more than the economy of God is just dispensing. The Kingdom is the expression of God’s righteousness through its constituents during this life and on this planet. It is not just the constituents nor is it merely a foretaste of a future thing. While the church is part of the kingdom, it is not the kingdom.

I know that there is the thought (underpinned by verses that I cannot immediately quote or find) that indicates that we are to shine for the world to see. But that shining is not because we are figuratively a collective cathedral of people who gather together and worship God better than anyone else worships their god (even the true God). It is because those people are among all others and their lives shine with the gospel of Christ. And I’m not just talking about preaching the verbal gospel, although that is part of it. I’m talking about the testimony of the good news. The change in the life due to an encounter with Christ is good news. It is good news to their neighbors, their coworkers, those who they meet in stores and on streets. That is where the Kingdom shines. It does not shine to the world in a meeting. That is for God. And it is not unimportant. But it is not the whole of the Kingdom.

The assembly is not the Kingdom. We are the Kingdom. In everything we do. If you are willing to expand your definition of “church” to encompass every aspect of every life of every believer in every interaction with all the world, then the church is the Kingdom. But while in a universal sense this is true, experience shows that LC usage is not so broad. “Church” is about the “Local Churches” and is about how they meet, what they believe, and what they do not believe. It is more about the assembly and less about the life. You can’t dispute this because I was there for many years.

[tasteslikegold]

Mike.

I'll wait until you're finished with each portion before I rebut. It'll help things to run more smoothly, I think. Sufficed to say for now, however is the fact that I can, and will likely, dispute many things in your responses, as I have also been in the Lord's Recovery for many years. So whatever respective responses each of us offer, let's just put the whole "well I know better than you because I was there longer" nonsense behind us. Years "behind the mast" so to speak does not qualify one or the other of us as a respective authority on particular matters.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

What?

Art Katz had nothing at all to do with Watchman Nee.

What is the context of your statement? Art Katz most likely had not the personal relationship with Watchman Nee as Witness Lee and Stephen Kaung had. Yet Art Katz in multiple messages has referred to books by Watchman Nee. Following is portions I could locate.

"I think we all need to heed a book that is rarely read. I was probably not ready for it when I picked it up a few years ago. It said nothing to me at that time. It is saying much more to me now. The book is called The Latent Power of the Soul by Watchman Nee. How prophetic this book is! " (from A man in whom the Spirit of God is)

"Do you know that in the Welsh revival, they would not even allow musical instruments? Have you read Watchman Nee's book, The Latent Power of the Soul? Find a copy and study it. In the 1920s, he warns us about the use of musical instruments, how they have the power to bring deception, and that was before the advent of amplifiers and our musical technology. Today, you not only hear the music; you have to feel it. "
(from Holiness or Blessing?)

In his book on spiritual realities, Watchman Nee wrote:
"Note that Jesus said, “This is My body” rather than, “This represents My body.” And after He said, “This is My blood of the covenant,” the Lord continued with, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on,” clearly indicating that the wine had neither been transubstantiated nor is representative of the blood."
(from Communion: The Joyful Sacrament)

Art Katz was not in the recovery, but he was a minister of Christ. If one has an ear to hear it will become evident Art's messages are equally applicable to the recovery.

Terry

[OBW]

Before I go to your statements, I must at least deal with one sentence of my own. I knew that it was potentially confusing when I wrote it. But I thought that I had made it fairly clear. But since then, I have come back to it and had to try twice to understand it the way I already knew it was intended. So let me try again.

“And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are.” Too many negatives cancelling each other out, or not, or whatever. I will break it down. Not being “in the church life” when spoken by a member of the LC does mean not being in the LC. But that does not mean not being in the Kingdom although some may sort of think that way. This is a little like whether “saint” means any Christian, or only those in the LC. Not a single one would say that it only means those in the LC. But if one of them uses “saint” and you come back with a reference to a Christian who is not in the LC, you get a funny, sheepish look as they sort of admit that they really meant member of their sect.

And since this sentence was with respect to the children whose portion may not be to be in the LC, I don’t think that this particular brother meant that they were not in the Kingdom. Or did he? Or are there two parallel kingdoms; one for the superior race of LC members and one for the inferiors (the rest of us). I know it sounds harsh and critical. And I don’t think that you really think this when you are actually thinking. But somewhere down inside there is the thought that it is true because things like this keep popping out of LC members. And not just the marginal ones.

OK, here goes your response. (If clarifying the above makes any of this moot, just ignore it.)

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom.

Not quite true. You did say:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

And before that, the thing that got all this started was Ron Kangas’ comment that “we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church.” That is where the whole thing started.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form.

This is probably cross-over from the comment on the brother’s question of RK that got his simplistic answer above. If I seemed to be pointing it at you, that was not intended. I take these discussions as a topic. I will take a comment by someone that I agree with and go into other issues. They occasionally think that I am accusing them of what I am discussing.

In any case, I really wasn’t talking about children being or not being part of the Kingdom as much as talking about the LC terminology that would seem to indicate that they are not if they are not in “the church life.”

I will not bother finding your quote, but to suggest that when a LC member says “church life” they are not talking exclusively about being an active part of the Local Churches and not in any way talking about the corporate life of other Christians in their assemblies then you think I am ready to buy Florida swampland from you. You know good and well that “the church life” is specifically the “Local Church life.”

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

Are you arguing against following the commandments of Christ? I’d much rather err on my side than yours. The warnings against any who teach otherwise are severe. Read Matt 5 again, especially the part after the “beatitudes.”

This is one of the primary areas in which I think the LC is horribly deficient. The focus on the inner life is fine. Even using terminology that might be confusing to others is OK. But if that inner-life and “church life” is not being seen in lives that actually follow and obey Christ, then there is a problem. I already made a comment about the “Great Commission.” The third part of it was “teach them to obey.” Have you taken note recently that the knowing of the “truth that sets us free” is not the result of studying, or “turning to your spirit"? It is the result of Holding to His teachings (doing them) which means you are truly disciples, or followers, and not just tagalongs.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians."

I almost left part of it out, but I realized that it would be better t include the whole thing.

Let’s start with “very large portion of scripture.” How large is “very large”? And how clear is it that all of these portions are just about “church life” and not about “all life”? Now, consistent with what I have said before, if “church life” really did mean “all life” to the LC, then I would expect to see a very different attitude toward those who are Christian, but not part of their fellowship. And toward those that are not Christian.

Another thing is that so much of that “very large portion of the scripture” really does talk about the interaction of the believers who were a mixture of races, nationalities, social status, etc. Paul spent time in each of those talking about the spiritual and factual underpinnings of the sacrifice of Christ to make us one, or whatever the particular portion was about. But once Lee got finished with it, it was all about the spiritual stuff. We were to focus on the spiritual stuff. And if you weren’t managing to love those “others” very well, don’t sweat it. Get some more dispensing and one day it will just happen.

What happened to having all things for godliness. (Unfortunately my memorization is more general than word-by-word so I haven’t found the reference. I hope that I have not “scripturized” some saying from outside the scripture.) If we have it, then we should do it. That even comes back to your question about how we do “righteousness.” I agree that we should not do it in ourselves. But what does it take to not do it in ourselves? If we have what it takes already, then we should simply do it.

But as for the amount of scripture on anything, I will tell of my past. I was raised in the Assemblies of God. When I was in high school, I decided to try to find all the verses that supported our holding to the supernatural gifts. After a rather lengthy study, I came up with very little. An entire group built upon so little. Now there is more about how we should live and interact with both believer and non-believer. And even the parts concerning the believer are not just about “church life.” But it does not create a “church life” that, in conjunction with Christ, is the Kingdom.

I will leave it at that for now. I think that there will be one more. But it may have to wait until tomorrow. Terminology.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the context of your statement? Art Katz most likely had not the personal relationship with Watchman Nee as Witness Lee and Stephen Kaung had. Yet Art Katz in multiple messages has referred to books by Watchman Nee. Following is portions I could locate.

"I think we all need to heed a book that is rarely read. I was probably not ready for it when I picked it up a few years ago. It said nothing to me at that time. It is saying much more to me now. The book is called The Latent Power of the Soul by Watchman Nee. How prophetic this book is! " (from A man in whom the Spirit of God is)

"Do you know that in the Welsh revival, they would not even allow musical instruments? Have you read Watchman Nee's book, The Latent Power of the Soul? Find a copy and study it. In the 1920s, he warns us about the use of musical instruments, how they have the power to bring deception, and that was before the advent of amplifiers and our musical technology. Today, you not only hear the music; you have to feel it. "
(from Holiness or Blessing?)

In his book on spiritual realities, Watchman Nee wrote:
"Note that Jesus said, “This is My body” rather than, “This represents My body.” And after He said, “This is My blood of the covenant,” the Lord continued with, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on,” clearly indicating that the wine had neither been transubstantiated nor is representative of the blood."
(from Communion: The Joyful Sacrament)

Art Katz was not in the recovery, but he was a minister of Christ. If one has an ear to hear it will become evident Art's messages are equally applicable to the recovery.

Terry

Notwithstanding your citation of Katz's recommendation of Nee's books, the above comment by Priestly Scribe appeared to say that Katz implemented the ministry of Watchman Nee better than Witness Lee. Yet Katz was not a constituent of Nee's ministry. Other than perhaps reading a few of his books and picking up on the major conceptual tenets of his theology, it's doubtful that he "implemented" Nee's ministry in any full way. Not any better than a man who served both under and alongside Nee for years. Perhaps, at best, Katz advocated the same concepts and implemented a few of them within the scope of his own ministry, but that's hardly implementing the whole of the ministry of Nee as seemed to have been implied.

Mike, let me know when your finished so I can respond. Thus-far it's quite a lot to address point-by-point.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. His Kingdom comes when there are people living according the the restored position as representatives of God on the earth. Not just in religious meetings having a joyous time popping out of our seats to repeat our "portion" from HWMR or reading from the collected works of Nee and Lee.

You are right on the money. Well said OBW! Here is my serious warning number five [quoting Lee] on this very same matter:
WARNING FIVE
''In the church meetings we may live Christ, but do we live Christ in our bedrooms or dining rooms and with our wives, husbands, and children? ...Many saints are very good in the church meetings and in the church service, but at home they may live the life not of a God-man but of a ''scorpion-man,'' exchanging words or quarreling. A certain couple may love the Lord and His recovery. However, at dinner the husband may criticize his wife for her attitude, and she may condemn him for his way of speaking. Then after dinner they attend the meeting of their vital group. But how can these two ''scorpions'' be vital? Because of such a daily situation, in this country it is very difficult to find a genuine vital group. According to my observation, in the vital groups I have seen only deadness, not vitality. All the vital members should be God-men, crucified in their natural life to live a God-man life by the divine life within them.''
Witness Lee - Life Study of First And Second Chronicles - Message 11 - Living Stream Ministry]

Originally Posted by OBW

Pushing your kids aside so you can get to more meetings is the opposite of righteous living.

Again, you are correct. These same two points motivated me to expose Ron Kangas' false teaching regarding the foundational Priorities for Parents in the local churches. This angers the Lord Jesus Christ greatly and it must be brought out into the light and dealt with.

Here is what Witness Lee had to say about those "uber-spiritual" LC parents who neglect their responsibility to teach their own children at home and also to model Resurrection Life in their Marriage relationship:
WARNING ONE
''To depend upon others for a kind of Sunday school or any other kind of meeting to build up your children for you is altogether not healthy. From the beginning we have torn down this concept... The church is not going to build up your children... No meeting, no work is going to build up your children... So forget about the thought, the concept that you would depend upon the church to have a certain kind of meeting to build up your children. You have to drop this thought. This is a wrong thought.''
Witness Lee - From an unpublished message in Anaheim, CA. January 30, 1978 - Living Stream Ministry

OBW - What I am trying to point out on this forum is that Kangas & Co have gradually jettisoned a crucial part of Witness Lee's [EARLY] ministry. They have rejected that very part which required saints to "live Christ" first at home, and then, to bring that "lived-out-in-daily-experience" Christ to the meetings - along with all their truly happy family members. Whenever folks who actually live like that prophesy in a corporate meeting, [local church or elsewhere] then there will be a big impact; there will be conviction of hearts followed by repentance. That kind of prophesying can bring about a real Revival. Here is an example of that from recent church history: ''Chefoo'' style revival in England

But the big problem concerning this for the BB's was that this is something that cannot be faked for very long. This is precisely why such respected champions for a "living Christ at home" family life, like Eugene Gruhler and Chuck Debelak, were shoved off to the side after brother Lee's death by this "family-UN-friendly" BB operation.

To look at some of Chuck Debelak's BB-rejected teaching, visit BlendedBody.com
And to see Eugene Gruhler's BB-rejected teaching, visit OurSecondGeneration.com

And also OBW, if you consider yourself to be fully committed to produce a godly household, please take a minute to check out Denny Kenaston's 2003 messages on The Godly Home. I can guarantee that they will challenge you in a positive way.

Thanks for your meaningful contribution.

P.S.

[OBW]

The previous posts were moved/copied here for the purpose of moving the discussion that tasteslikegold and I began there. Since it seems to have grown to a significant thing, we agree that it should be moved to a new thread. Not all of the posts are part of the conversation, and as of this post, there is at least one missing, the one on "terminology" that I mention at the end of #11 above. It is possible that I have simply managed to arrive back while UntoHim is still in the process of moving the posts, so it may still appear here.

While not necessarily a "closed" discussion, we request that any who decide to participate do so in a constructive manner that is respectful to all participants and relevant to the topic(s) under discussion.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

QUESTION [from a brother in the audience named Andrew]
"I don't know how to best express this, but I have a question concerning the balance between a life of consecration and being "Jesusly" human. And you know, as a parent of three children, and I think many of us, we all want to see our children live a normal human life, and to be gained for the lord in the church life. But on the other hand, as part of the church life, there are many constraints on our time. And there's meetings and there is service. This is something I have been grappling with - how do we care for our families in the proper [way]? I mean, you shared some of this, but I'd like to hear a little bit more concerning this... And I know that, you know, even our children, the Lord has their own course for them. And they may not all make it into the church life. But I have seen many who have been so given for the church life that sometimes the children suffer, and I don't want to go to either extreme. But this is just my nature, I think it's the nature of brothers especially to go to an extreme..."[/B]

ANSWER from Ron Kangas: "The first thing I would say is we need to re-affirm the priority - and that is, we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church. If we invert that, and family replaces the church as a priority, we're cutting ourselves off from the Lord's blessing. So the priority is Christ and the church is first, and that's based upon Christ as the burnt offering. This is settled..."

PriestlyScribe, we are here for a purpose. I would agree with Ron, Christ is first. Not having listened to all 8 points of fellowship, under what context did Ron refer to the church as? Is it the church as the Body or the church as a unit of congregation?
Ultimately our desire is to see the kingdom age ushered in, but until that time arrives we still have a human life to live and as a father I still need to nurture my children so they might know Christ not only objectively, but experientially.
Our children are a blessing from God and a responsibility I cannot take lightly. As the church we should spread the gospel and build up the Body, at home is the gospel field for parents. It's at home where the spouse and children can see how much Christ is truly lived out.

Terry

[countmeworthy]

Meetings, fellowship, reading/meditating on the Word of God are for the sole purpose imho to help us walk in spirit at all times. They are teaching tools. They are supposed to help us express Christ in us the Hope of Glory when we are raising our families, working at our jobs, attending to the practical chores of every day living.

They are supposed to help us be the 'LIGHTS of the WORLD' so when people see us they see 2 Corinthians 3:18 (Amplified Version) 'oozing' out of us.
... with unveiled face, [because we] continued to behold [in the Word of God] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are constantly being transfigured into His very own image in ever increasing splendor and from one degree of glory to another; [for this comes] from the Lord [Who is] the Spirit.

If our kids, our co-workers, our neighbors, our unsaved friends and even our saved friends do not see us reflect the Word of GOD--JESUS Himself as in a mirror, HIS GLORY, what hope do THEY HAVE then to look forward to be transformed by the renewing of their minds and to be transfigured into His very own Image in ever increasing splendor from one degree of glory to too the next degree of GLORY !

I KNOWWWWWWWWWW that most of us who are in our 40s, 50s & 60s and beyond have not had happy go lucky lives. The apostle Paul knew exactly what he was saying when he said we were going to have trials, tribulations and tests not to mention ATTACKS on our spirits, souls and physical bodies !

But our foundation in the early days of the LC prepared us for times as these. Lots of marriages have been broken and the spiritual journey for most of us have not been easy ones. Yet I think we were soo excited in the 70s because we 'touched' the Glorious Church Life that we all felt were going to get us through when we walked through the valley of the shadow of death, when we would be thrown into a den of lions. We had the CHURCH LIFE to get us through it all but sadly it was only that a "TOUCH".

May the LORD restore in us the JOY of our SALVATION and uphold us with a Willing and Free Spirit to obey Him. (Psalm 51:12)

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not having listened to all 8 points of fellowship, under what context did Ron refer to the church as? Is it the church as the Body or the church as a unit of congregation?

Terry, Ron places the church on the same level as God, which conflicts with the God-Ordained covenant vows between a husband and wife. This is why so many marriages have struggled in the local churches.

Here is a diagram which shows the proper order of priorities in God's Economy:

Restoration Diagram


And I would like to remind everyone reading this that God's Economy begins and has it's firm foundation in the home life of God's children.
Banner Song - God's Eternal Economy Children's Version

P.S.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Terry, Ron places the church on the same level as God, which conflicts with the God-Ordained covenant vows between a husband and wife. This is why so many marriages have struggled in the local churches.

Here is a picture of the proper marriage AND family life,

5:22Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. 5:24But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; 5:26that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, 5:27that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 5:28Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: 5:29for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;5:30because we are members of his body. 5:31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 5:32This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. 5:33Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband.

6:1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 6:2Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), 6:3that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 6:4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22-6:4)

3:18Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 3:19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. 3:20Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord. 3:21Fathers, provoke not your children, that they be not discouraged.
(Colossians 3:18-21)

PriestlyScribe, I underlined Ephesians 5:23 to make my point in reference to your post. Ephesians 5:30 refers to us being members of His Body. Romans 12:5 says, "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another." This here reveals the church as being organic.

Terry

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Terry

Here is a picture of the proper marriage AND family life...
...I underlined Ephesians 5:23 to make my point in reference to your post. Ephesians 5:30 refers to us being members of His Body. Romans 12:5 says, "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another." This here reveals the church as being organic. Terry

Actually, in reality, that portion of the Body of Christ with which we are firstly obligated to be one and to which we are most obligated to show unconditional love would be the members of our own flesh and blood family. Starting with our own spouse.

But if we instead follow our religious flesh's craving to zealously "serve God" in the field of the world [like we see portrayed at www.beseeching.org] without having first learned to be a priest at home, we will eventually become shipwrecked in our faith.

Chuck Debelak has some healthy teaching to both husbands and wives on this much neglected subject of taking care of the Body at home. The below links include both the transcript and the audio:

The Husband's Responsibility
The Wife's Responsibility

P.S.

[tasteslikegold]

Please accept my most sincere apology for not responded in this thread thus-far. I had planned on posting a response more than a week ago, but I got tied up with some major computer issues. I have a response composed in a separate document which I hope to post on Monday 3/22. I will be away on a retreat this weekend.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

But if we instead follow our religious flesh's craving to zealously "serve God" in the field of the world [like we see portrayed at www.beseeching.org] without having first learned to be a priest at home, we will eventually become shipwrecked in our faith.

To serve God in the field of gospelizing begins at home with our children. See Ephesians 6:4 and Deuternomy 6:6-7. As one brother recently said, "it is the minimum requirement" in the gospel. It is not the responsibility of the assembly nor of the serving ones. Sorry to say, but if a brother would rather spread the gospel to the world instead of his children, it's best not to be married nor to have children.

Terry