The ground on which the church should be built

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the unbiblical term "oneness of the Body" is that it implies that there is a larger group that you need to make efforts to be one with. It focuses on being one with a group, rather that with God.

The Bible as far as I can tell does not send this message.

The Bible tells us to "keep the oneness of the Spirit." That is very different from keeping the so-called oneness of the Body.

Keeping the oneness of the Spirit means clinging to Jesus. It means majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors

Keeping the "oneness of the Body" means dropping your personal convictions and engaging in group-think. It means when the chips are down letting others do your thinking for you.

Perhaps the expression "keeping the oneness of the Body" would have that meaning.

I don't see how that is the only reasonable meaning of "the oneness of the Body". To me the "oneness of the Body" indicated that there could be an amazing coordination in service of different saints guided by the Lord's hand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps the expression "keeping the oneness of the Body" would have that meaning.

I don't see how that is the only reasonable meaning of "the oneness of the Body". To me the "oneness of the Body" indicated that there could be an amazing coordination in service of different saints guided by the Lord's hand.

Most Christians would probably view things as you just said, but the Blendeds did not use the expression like that.

Perhaps that is because you didn't stick around to see how the Blendeds used this expression to manipulate their followers. And let's make it clear that these Blendeds learned this from WL.

It is no different from how the media is manipulating public opinion. Behind the scenes the Blendeds sowed seeds of suspicion about TC and the GLA. At elders trainings they would make innuendos that those "in the know" would apply to TC. In trainings they would use code words like the "feeling of the body, the taste of the body, the sense of the body is such and such." Whistler was portrayed by the Blendeds as "the feeling of the body" is to reject the ministry of TC, so we as the "deputy authority of the body" must take action to quarantine TC to maintain the "oneness of the body."

As my old friend Paul Cox used to say, "the feeling of the bahhhhhhhdy."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most Christians would probably view things as you just said, but the Blendeds did not use the expression like that.

Perhaps that is because you didn't stick around to see how the Blendeds used this expression to manipulate their followers. And let's make it clear that these Blendeds learned this from WL.

It is no different from how the media is manipulating public opinion. Behind the scenes the Blendeds sowed seeds of suspicion about TC and the GLA. At elders trainings they would make innuendos that those "in the know" would apply to TC. In trainings they would use code words like the "feeling of the body, the taste of the body, the sense of the body is such and such." Whistler was portrayed by the Blendeds as "the feeling of the body" is to reject the ministry of TC, so we as the "deputy authority of the body" must take action to quarantine TC to maintain the "oneness of the body."

As my old friend Paul Cox used to say, "the feeling of the bahhhhhhhdy."

I knew a number of blendeds: EM, KR, RG, BP, JD, BC. etc. I had no respect for EM as a Bible teacher so if he shared something I would have ignored it. KR also is not a Bible teacher per se, he is a scribe. His modus operandi is to give the greek context and translation of the words. RG is a brother that I had respect for, but not as a Bible teacher. He was diligent and zealous, but a light weight when it came to the Bible and even he knew that. BP was also a gifted brother, not for his acumen in the Bible but for his ability to empathize and sympathize with others. I did not care too much for BC, he is an autocrat. However, since NYC had a very distinct rift down the middle between those who supported LSM and those who didn't and since this rift went all the way up to the elders BC never said anything outrageous that I can recall. JD is not a Bible teacher he is an office manager.

Perhaps what protected me is that I knew these brothers well enough to not accept their teaching as the gospel. Also, since I was in Taipei from 87 to 95 I might have missed a lot. When I did return it was to NYC which is a very special case due to their history.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, please. More OBW lecturing. Your logic here is the same as saying arsenic is not good for you and mudpies are not good for you, so therefore there is not much difference between arsenic and mudpies. Who would believe that? No one, except apparently you.

Unbiblical means teaching a principle that is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. There is nothing about cars or hamburgers that do that. But "oneness of the Body" distorts the biblical teaching of oneness.

John
15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
More
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Here is a Biblical teaching by Jesus that could be referred to as "the oneness of the Body". (This does not mean that this is or was the intended use by the Blendeds. But I am not familiar with this particular group. I guess my musical tastes never picked up on this group.)

The vine tree and branches can be viewed as the Body. We are to keep the oneness of the Spirit, ie Abide in Christ. If not we also lose the oneness of the Body, are separated from the vine, whither and are thrown into the fire.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It does not, despite ZNP's attempts to morph it in, insist upon oneness of the body.

That is a mischaracterization. I never "insist" on the oneness of the Body. That sounds more like "keeping the oneness of the Body".

What I have pointed out is that the Body is intended to be one. You cannot separate the finger from the hand and expect things to be fine. This same concept is portrayed in John 15 except the analogy is to a vine tree instead of the Body. It is also portrayed as amputation.

Now I understand that the way this expression is used by the Blendeds is the real issue. So the concept that a few people receive and then convey the "feeling of the Body" is what is not scriptural. There is no NT basis to follow the speaking of a few people who are short circuiting the Lord's speaking. However, it is scriptural. We saw false prophets do this all the time in the OT. Since this practice of usurping God's speaking to His people is recorded in the Bible it should therefore be considered "scriptural" even though it is clearly a condemned practice. Perhaps that is why you don't like the term.

[Cassidy]

"So the concept that a few people receive and then convey the "feeling of the Body" is what is not scriptural. There is no NT basis to follow the speaking of a few people who are short circuiting the Lord's speaking"

ZNP,

Unless the speaking of one of those few people is the Lord's speaking at that place and time.

Sometimes the Lord speaks directly and sometimes through gifted members and they may be few for the circumstance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Unless the speaking of one of those few people is the Lord's speaking at that place and time.

Sometimes the Lord speaks directly and sometimes through gifted members and they may be few for the circumstance.

The Bible says to prove all things, and we have proven that these so-called "gifted members" called Blendeds at LSM do not speak for the Lord or for the body of Christ. In fact, they regularly mis-represent the Lord by condemning the the greater body of Christ.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible says to prove all things, and we have proven that these so-called "gifted members" called Blendeds at LSM do not speak for the Lord or for the body of Christ. In fact, they regularly mis-represent the Lord by condemning the the greater body of Christ.

Ohio, I understand that you feel that way and take every opportunity to reiterate that stance.

Mine was a general observation about "few".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is a mischaracterization. I never "insist" on the oneness of the Body. That sounds more like "keeping the oneness of the Body".

You might be right. I did mostly say that you were trying to morph it in, not insist on it.

But the problem even there is that it is the stringing of metaphor after metaphor together to arrive at a construct that is not stated. In what is effectively a couple of places, the church is referred to as the body of Christ. And there is a lot of potential imagery that could be brought to bear based on that reference. But is the reference intended to suggest every aspect of being a literal body? The term "body" has been used of many corporate, non-single entities going back to before the NT era. In most of those cases, the constructs of organs, appendages, injury, etc., do not have the same meaning as they do for a human or other animal body.

That is not to say that it could not be implied or meaningful. But scripture does not go there. And bringing in the vine and the branches does not get you there. Honestly, in some aspect I'm sure that the body should be one. But is that oneness any different from the "unity of the Spirit"? And by saying that, I am not expanding the unity of the Spirit to be like everything that you could make out of a metaphorical human body. I am limiting the oneness of the body to the context that we are given — the unity of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that unifies. Yet we must endeavor to keep that unity. But it is not specified in terms of doctrines, meeting places, ground, etc., but just the Spirit. The Spirit is our unity. We are to strive to live like we know it is true. But no one can dictate what that "looks like." They can't ordain that it means certain things that scripture does not dictate.

And scripture dictates fairly little. Other than holding on to Christ/God/the Spirit. Even the verses about the vine and the branches say to hold on to the vine. Not to each other. Or that the fingers should hold onto the hand. Or the shoulder to the torso.

No. You didn't insist. But you are seriously not content to leave it as "unity of the Spirit." You seem to need more definition. A better-defined unity. And it all is speculative at best.

Somehow, I think that loving God and your neighbor will result in unity in the Spirit. Not many have actually tried that. Well, some have. And the largest majority of them are not even evangelical. They are Lutheran, Episcopal, and even (gasp) RCC. They live their faith. We so often do not (and I am including myself in that). We talk about how it should be. We argue over how to meet. We argue over doctrines as if they are crucial to salvation. They don't. Oh, they argue over doctrines, but more often they are clear that, right or wrong, the doctrines aren't our salvation. In the mean time, we (including me) are so focused on "getting it right" that we worry more about our doctrinal statement than obedience. To the extent that we aren't really very obedient.

Yeah, some of those old-line groups are not even sure whether all those miraculous things actually happened or are just part of the story. But they believe in the one the story was/is about. And they act like it. I'm not joining them. But I understand them a little more. And I think that we are too often mired in knowledge and think it will save us.

At some level, I believe that there is a recovery in progress. It is the recovery of God's people from the modern era of apologetics, pseudo-scientific method arguments, and head knowledge. I don't propose that the postmodern way is better. But they actually see the problem.

And this kind of discussion sometimes makes me wonder why I bother with the LRC. They are just another (and worse) version of what is wrong with our emphasis. But I always come back to the realization that I too often tend to just exchange one bad version of evangelicalism for another. Evangelicalism is not, per se, bad. But we have many bad versions of it. And one of the worst is the LRC. It is worse because it not only distracts us from the path, it puffs itself up in its certainty that it has found "THE WAY" and no one else has. That means that it is essentially closed to correction. The rest may not take correction easily, but they are not simply closed.

And for all my talk, I am still in the middle of it all. I think I see something faintly. But I don't know what to do with it and find myself stuck in the very thing that I'm fairly sure needs a serious course correction.

But that course correction is not toward better doctrines or better-defined oneness. Rather it is to a renewed realization of what the gospel is supposed to mean to this life rather than just the next life and the "church life."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You might be right. I did mostly say that you were trying to morph it in, not insist on it.

But the problem even there is that it is the stringing of metaphor after metaphor together to arrive at a construct that is not stated.

The church is the Body of Christ. This is not a metaphor. Amputation resulting in the amputated member withering and dying is stated several times in the NT.

Once you accept that the church is the Body of Christ there is no construct to refer to the "oneness of the Body". Again, the construct comes when you try to create practices like "keeping the oneness of the Body". I never morphed this or insisted this or defended this.