A Word of Love

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.

As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.

And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.

I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.

So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.

Also, this view is somewhat narrow. If we look at the history of Christianity in the US since the 1940s we can see that we used to have many denominations that required you to be baptized by them before taking communion. Over the last 70 years that has been exposed to most Christians as being divisive and sectarian and more and more Christians realize that if someone has received the Lord they should be welcomed into the Lord's table, regardless of where they were baptized. I think you have to give credit to WN for raising an issue with the previously divisive practice and to his ministry for having some effect on what I consider an improved situation among Christian congregations.

So although WL and the LRC has taken this teaching to build their own little division, the ministry of this word has helped the Body of Christ as a whole to have a more practical oneness. If you do give WN some credit for this change, then that shows the value in his discussing it in his ministry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.

So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.

I won't comment on Lee's version because I think we all have problems with it.

But while Nee's is clearly not some kind of didactic "you must go my way" thing, as a solution, I think we have previously concluded (maybe before your time here) that it had nowhere to go other than to ultimately separate based on seeing and accepting his version of what is church (or somebody else's) and dropping everything else.

I am more and more convinced that the best solution is what is mostly happening today. And that is that we acknowledge that we don't agree on everything, we do have a level of comfort in practicing in certain ways that others do not necessarily feel as comfortable with, and outside of how we practice and play with our peculiar nonessentials, we really are one. We might argue until we are blue in the face over some points that are more extreme in difference, but except in a few cases, end the argument by praying together and going out to eat together, joining together in community outreach, etc.

And it is the very seeking for a solution to the "division" issue when we will always divide at some level, even if we have only smaller assemblies. There will always be some reason that I (or you, or whoever) will meet with someone who is not merely the physically closest assembly. It may simply be a matter of comfort. Of a need for particular "gifts" that might accrue in my direction. I note that in a blog I read periodically written by a guy who has had a church in his house for several years admits that without seeking outside help from other Christian groups (which includes larger more typical denominations, free groups, etc.) they do not always have the help internally that they need. We can argue that the Spirit can supply that need, but it is presumptive to demand that it would simply happen within that small group. The body is greater than an assembly, so just because he has given gifts as needed does not mean that a little church of 10 has everything within its little group. They are not the body, but a body, and part of the body.

And I'm sure that the next question will be how to differentiate between the body and a body. And my response is that this whole line of reasoning is too aimed at getting everything so neatly figured out. Fix all the problems. Come up with solutions that don't leave us with divisions and names. I'm not convinced that this is the most important thing we need to be focused upon. I believe that it is much more important that we each are engaged in living, obeying, praying, worshiping, etc., than getting everything arranged in the best way. Just like we are given the strength to withstand our personal problems that are not simply taken away by God, we should also withstand the need to fix all of our "practice" problems just because we think we can.

OK. I'll bite. How will we do communion? (And will someone have a cow because I called it "communion"?) What kind of music. How will we baptize? Will we baptize only believers, or the whole household? (I lean to believers only — pretty strongly — but what does that "and their whole household" thing mean?) Will we teach a kind of Calvinism? Or at least believe that? Or something more Arminian? Or something in between? And what do we do with those who a convinced that something different is the right way? Are they denied the right to speak out about their opinion on the subject unless it is in the context of an open discussion for the purpose of exploring alternatives?

How many of those kinds of issues will you actually be faced with and keep everyone in your small proximity assembly happy? Will you allow three to speak in tongues every meeting? Will you emphasize the tongues and miracles or deemphasize them?

Get used to homophily. Birds of a feather will flock together. It doesn't make other birds not birds. Or deny others the right to fly. And despite Lee's (and the LRC's) constant look at the landscape through the lens of the 1960s, things are not like they were then. Just like Corinth seems to have changed between the first and second letter. Were they all meeting in one place? Not obvious. Although I do believe there was a reference to "when the whole church gets together" (in more modern wording).

My problem with the whole church-city thing is that it is almost the creation of a problem, or at least the exacerbation of one, so that a solution can be supplied. Is Christianity as broken as we have learned to believe, or are we forcing problems onto it that don't exist in the way we think, and despite all the claims otherwise, is actually changing for the better.

And all of this discussion is coming at one of those times in the history of the church when there is significant upheaval related to many things that are not addressed by such a thing as one-church-one-city. In fact, it might be that within 100 years (assuming that we continue to rick on here) the kind of assembly that Nee, Lee, and the LRC have proposed (as similar or different as any of those may be) could be essentially obsolete in some sense. Not because the church is obsolete, but because so much of its existence, practice, emphasis, etc., changes very drastically.

You think I sometimes emphasize the "obey" side of the gospel more than we are used to. Just wait 100 years and it may be the predominant thing. All this talk about dirt may be irrelevant. Everyone may be regularly meeting in 3 or 4 different contexts over the course of a few weeks such that their "allegiance" is not obvious or even discernible. Have their practice spread between things that look Baptist, Charismatic, Presbyterian, and RCC/Anglican. Not all at once, but all accepted and practiced.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

My problem with the whole church-city thing is that it is almost the creation of a problem, or at least the exacerbation of one, so that a solution can be supplied. Is Christianity as broken as we have learned to believe, or are we forcing problems onto it that don't exist in the way we think, and despite all the claims otherwise, is actually changing for the better.

I now view with suspicion any ministry which begins with the notion of "the church has failed." Once the whole of the body of Christ is condemned by his self-imposed standard, then he alone becomes "qualified" to introduce "the solution." Who, except for the Head Himself, can ever say His body has failed, or His body is degraded, or "poor poor."

To do this is to play God, and to usurp His rightful place.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I now view with suspicion any ministry which begins with the notion of "the church has failed." Once the whole of the body of Christ is condemned by his self-imposed standard, then he alone becomes "qualified" to introduce "the solution."

Basic sales pitch. Create a need, fill it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My problem with the whole church-city thing is that it is almost the creation of a problem, or at least the exacerbation of one, so that a solution can be supplied. Is Christianity as broken as we have learned to believe, or are we forcing problems onto it that don't exist in the way we think, and despite all the claims otherwise, is actually changing for the better

That is true if you look at it from the angle that the LRC looks at it. Suppose we look at it from a different angle: in the city of NY the "church" is "one". We don't need to artificially impose a oneness on it, it is one because everyone reads the same NT, it is one because everyone received the same Lord and savior, it is one because everyone believes in the same God and Father.

Now suppose someone comes along and says they are not one because:....

Well either the reason is trivial and does not undermine the oneness, or the reason is significant and demonstrates that some group has truly left the faith.

Generally speaking we can move along in our little congregation without the need to work with other congregations. But occasionally, as in the case of our memorial at the UN, you do need to work together. I read stories from UN ambassadors that said it was our memorial service that convinced them Sudan was an issue that they needed to address.

One of our messages in our first memorial service was that if you don't respond to what is happening in Sudan while it is still in Sudan, then it will come to your home and who do you ask for help then? Our second memorial was scheduled for September 15th, 2001 but was cancelled when the city was locked down after 911. Prior to the second event I wrote an article encouraging the saints saying that their sacrifice and labor was like building an altar for the Lord and that we needed to have faith that He would answer with fire from heaven.

[OBW]

ZNP,

I got timed out this morning (guess I just thought I x’d the little box at the top when signing in) and lost my post, so I need to take a different approach this afternoon.

And I will do it in reverse order.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, you begin this teaching on the assumption that "not every word in the Bible is for me" but this leads you to a place where "that word is for my pastor, not for me". That to me flies in the face of the Lord's word "judge not lest you be judged for with what judgement you judge you shall be judged". Ultimately you know that word was spoken and written for someone, just not you. That is a scary teaching.

First, I am not giving a “teaching.”

Second that is a novel use of the “judge not lest you be judged.” You are taking a pretty closed minded approach to simply say that because I see words clearly given to a subset as possibly indicating that we are not all told to do everything that is written that I am teaching something scary. Go wash in the Jordan 7 times. Now. Do it. God told that Syrian(??) prince to do it. So it is for you too.

As to the point in the first paragraph, I feel that this reading reduces the Gospel of Matthew to a book that explains to pew sitters that their "leaders" have been commissioned, so putting money in the offering is nice, but not necessary. Why would you even call the book a gospel? Because we are not required to give tithes? You might think that is a better than plausible explanation, I don't.

Sorry you don’t. But you seem determined to treat the whole of Matthew as a vanilla book written to everyone in one plain vanilla way. If you truly understand the difference between a commission to go to the far reaches of the earth and the general charge to be ready with a defense, then you understand what I am talking about when I suggest that the “great commission” was given to those who were to go to the far reaches. I forget how many of Jesus’ remaining followers after the resurrection actually saw him, but I believe it was greater than the number in the “upper room” at Pentecost. Yet only 11 were sent separately to a place where Jesus made this commission. It takes some real blinders to not at least ask why. Wonder out loud whether this one thing has been handed down since some 18th or 19th century Evangelical sort of got this thing going as a command to all of us and we just take it like a tradition and don’t think about it.

I’m not saying we don’t preach the gospel. (And I’ve already said this.) But is this “commission” simply about that? The Baptists, Presbyterians, LRC, Brethren, and virtually all the Evangelicals simply say it is so. But when I read it I don’t see it that way.

But what is most irksome is not that you don’t agree with me. You don’t even have any room in your closed system to consider that it could be a reasonable reading of the passage, and instead are incredulous that I even bring it up. You do not seem to be seeking truth, but standing firm with a sledge hammer to stop any attempt to read something in a different way than has traditionally been done.

And we wonder why there are divisions.

Does a specific, particular promise made to someone become something that we can all bank on if we can dredge up enough "faith"? . . . . Two promises here, "all power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." and "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Yes, I believe we can all bank on these two promises if we receive them by faith.

”If you obey all that I command, you will prosper.” (very paraphrased). Is that a promise to us? Are we truly to read this as a command with a promise for all times for all people and in all places? Do you assert this to be true? Can I bank on this? How about my sister and her husband who have struggled for many years. They are very “obedient” yet she has to work as Starbucks to get the insurance and make ends meet.

The problem is that you throw out two promises that we can bank on and end the discussion. I did not say that none of the promises are to us. I said that not all of the promises are to us. Yet there is a whole cottage industry of little trinkets to carry and put around your house reminding you of all those “precious promises,” at least some of which are not much different from that promise to those who entered the good land back in the OT. Yes, we can argue about hypothetical “good land” equivalents that are spiritual rather than physical, but the prosperity mentioned back in the OT was physical.

As for your discussion of the qualification of elders, I start with the general premise that like the OT, where the Torah is God’s word and the rest is commentary (in the mind of the Jew), the gospels are God’s word and the rest is commentary. (Yes, it is all God’s word. And a lot of what is in the OT “commentary” is clearly quotes of God speaking.”) “Commentary” does not mean lower than the Word of God. Just that it is explanation. The core is in the Torah and the Gospels.

So when I read qualifications for elders written by Paul, I do not presume that it is God moving Paul’s hand (or his lips) to get some precise “this is it” list of qualifications. It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate. And so you trot out some pithy dichotomy as if how we would judge that one is proof of concept. There are many problems with it. First, if those are your choices, someone didn’t look very far for candidates. And they didn’t even bother to use the ultimate criteria to put them on the “list” in the first place. But assuming that we can get past that, the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot. Some of it may be about the ones who would leave. But some of it is about the one chosen as elder. If there is that little respect, then maybe you (whoever) have not looked at the parts of the qualifications about their stature in the community. If 10 percent of Christians have a problem, then what about the unbelievers. What do they think?

But the worst part of it all is that I was not talking about trying to select an elder. I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians. We do not reject from membership those who could not be elders. We do not declare that everyone who has divorced and now lives with a second spouse is simply continually living in sin. (There are some who take this kind of stance. And I was aware of your situation, although I did not think of it before I wrote what I did before.) So when you read the passage(s) where that seems to be indicated, it cannot be simply stated as true because we have reason to limit the applicability of that statement.

There is an army and there are citizens. Despite the mantra against it in this particular environment, there is a clergy and most of us are not it. That does not mean we are simply pew sitters throwing in our “tithes and offerings.” You really insist upon taking as extreme a position as possible. I simply state that it would appear that the “great commission” was actually a specific charge to some rather than all and you have acted as if I have said the entire gospel of Matthew is just an FYI and not really written to us. What balderdash!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

If you truly understand the difference between a commission to go to the far reaches of the earth and the general charge to be ready with a defense, then you understand what I am talking about when I suggest that the “great commission” was given to those who were to go to the far reaches.

I am not clear what you have been trying to say, I will try to say what I understand you to have said, and perhaps that is where the problem will show up.

It seems to me that you are saying that Matt 28:16-20 was spoken directly to the 11 disciples. It was recorded by Matthew so that we could get some insight into the commission the Lord gave to the apostles and is not written by Matthew as a "great commission" to all that read the gospel of Matthew, though you do not reject that view outright. You also, based on this that I have just quoted above, seem to understand verse 19 "Go ye therefore and teach all nations" to indicate that this commission was a charge to the 11 to go to the far reaches of the Earth.

Here is where I differ.

Yes, it was spoken to the 11, and yes Matthew specifically noted that, so it is certainly relevant, and yes, that would therefore give us insight into the commission the Lord gave to the apostles.

However, I have a much broader understanding of the word "go ye therefore and teach all nations". No doubt, for some, and especially for the apostles that indicates evangelistic journeys. But I see this as a charge to all believers to become actively involved in the gospel. This is why I listed a variety of services someone could do that would, to my understanding, fulfill this commission. I have never read this, nor was I aware that anyone else had read this, to mean that every Christian is supposed to be another Billy Graham.

We have had a thorough discussion of the Apostles and I came to the conclusion that the apostolic gift was a gift to go into a land that was previously not evangelized and evangelize it. However, in doing so the church is established and so the land is no longer unevangelized and therefore this gift becomes dormant. But that merely means that the work of evangelizing that was commissioned by the Lord in these verses is carried out by the church. One individual's service in this gospel might be to make sure the meeting hall has the heat turned on an hour before the meeting starts, etc. So, if you look at an individual it might be difficult to see that this is a response to the commission, but if you look at the church it should be very clear. You should see on a weekly basis that the church as a corporate Body is doing the work of teaching the nations to observe all things commanded by the Lord. You should see evidence that all power has been given unto the Lord and that He is with you always.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that you throw out two promises that we can bank on and end the discussion. I did not say that none of the promises are to us. I said that not all of the promises are to us.

But we were talking about the commission in Matthew 28. I quoted the verses that we were referring to, I identified two promises, and I answered your question.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for your discussion of the qualification of elders, I start with the general premise that like the OT, where the Torah is God’s word and the rest is commentary (in the mind of the Jew), the gospels are God’s word and the rest is commentary. (Yes, it is all God’s word. And a lot of what is in the OT “commentary” is clearly quotes of God speaking.”) “Commentary” does not mean lower than the Word of God. Just that it is explanation. The core is in the Torah and the Gospels.

So when I read qualifications for elders written by Paul, I do not presume that it is God moving Paul’s hand (or his lips) to get some precise “this is it” list of qualifications. It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate. And so you trot out some pithy dichotomy as if how we would judge that one is proof of concept. There are many problems with it. First, if those are your choices, someone didn’t look very far for candidates. And they didn’t even bother to use the ultimate criteria to put them on the “list” in the first place. But assuming that we can get past that, the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot. Some of it may be about the ones who would leave. But some of it is about the one chosen as elder. If there is that little respect, then maybe you (whoever) have not looked at the parts of the qualifications about their stature in the community. If 10 percent of Christians have a problem, then what about the unbelievers. What do they think?

But the worst part of it all is that I was not talking about trying to select an elder. I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians. We do not reject from membership those who could not be elders. We do not declare that everyone who has divorced and now lives with a second spouse is simply continually living in sin. (There are some who take this kind of stance. And I was aware of your situation, although I did not think of it before I wrote what I did before.) So when you read the passage(s) where that seems to be indicated, it cannot be simply stated as true because we have reason to limit the applicability of that statement.

Let me respond to the three points in red

1. "It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate." This is why I said that they should be treated with the utmost respect, not followed blindly. Second, the reason i used examples is because there are always exceptions to the rule, but in my experience, people make exceptions because they want to, not because they need to. I believe the reason for this is that too few among Christians appreciate why Paul would make these criteria. There is no criteria that says a man who had been imprisoned for a felony before receiving the Lord, could not become an elder. It says the man has to be of good repute, but lets be real, Malcolm X, had he been a Christian, would have been a man of good repute. This is not a holier than thou, or being judged by a higher standard. It is a job description. One of the key jobs of an elder is in counseling and shepherding the married saints in the congregation. It undermines your ability to counsel others to not get divorced if you have been divorced. There is nothing in the qualifications of an elder that talk about being charismatic, or an electrifying preacher, yet in many congregations that is their first choice. What happens? They get thousands of people, TV and radio, and then the man's sinfulness is exposed, and just like Gideon, all the children are slain on one rock. You end up with 0.

2. "the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot." Which leads us to your second point. Yes, it does say a lot. We have many congregations that are concerned about filling pew seats, paying mortgages, etc. We have many superficial Christians who view meetings as entertainment. This sad story has repeated itself over and over again on the front pages of the newspaper to the shame of all Christians. If you choose the elder according to your flesh, then you will reap of the flesh destruction. The way of the Cross is a narrow way. If you choose the elder according to Paul's instructions you will have to crucify the flesh.

3. "I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians." What do I have to do to get my point across? You are complaining that I won't even countenance your position and yet it is you who refuse to countenance my position. My point is that Paul's criteria are not a matter of judging elders by a higher standard. My point is that it is a job description. Firemen need to be strong enough to carry a person out of burning building, does that mean that they are being judged by a higher standard than say a jockey who has won the triple crown? The fireman could not do the job of the jockey and the jockey cannot do the job of the fireman. This is common sense, not being judged by a higher standard.