What is the structure of the assembly?

[aron]

Peter D. posted this question: "After we do the heavy lifting of finally letting go of the one-city-one-church doctrine, should there not be a follow-up question with the same level of scrutiny?" I thought it deserved its own thread, and I wanted to place it on the "David Canfield" section because I see this as a potential counterpoint to the Canfield/Lee one-city-one-church paradigm. I admit I only read an excerpt of Canfield's argument, but that was enough for me -- "If you would just honestly and humbly consider my selected verses, you would agree that this paradigm is right." I am not interested in having a lengthy discussion with someone who approaches me thus, so I will just post some thoughts here as an alternative to the Canfield/Lee universe.

What is the fixed structure of the assembly? (Please note, that I see "assembly" as both what we would call a "meeting" or "service", i.e. a temporary gathering together in one place at one time, as well as the "standing body", i.e. what we would call "the church". The NT term for both seems to be the same: "ekklesia").

1. You must be born again. This, I would argue, is a prerequisite. Those who come to the assembly, who have not yet believed into and received the Lord Jesus, should be presented with the gospel, the good news, and given the opportunity to be saved.

2. Those who attempt to continue to openly practice gross sin (theft, drunkenness, fornication, witchcraft, debauchery, fighting and/or violence) should be respectfully asked to re-consider their path, if they want to continue being gathered together with the assembly.

3. I take Matthew 18 as the opposite of what the LSM teaches. They say that there is a difference between 2 and 3 gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus, and "the church". I say no. Jesus goes from the particular (a sinning brother in v. 15) to the universal (vv. 19, 20); he equates the power of these 2 or 3, in agreement, with the very powers of heaven. So to me, the minimum quorum, or structural requirement, for Jesus' assembly is 2 or 3 gathered in His name (nothing in Matt. 18 on affiliation with a ministry, or "local ground"). You will have, perforce, multiple assemblies in any large metropolitan area. The LSM one-church-one-city paradigm dodges this bullet by re-labelling, and calling these as "meetings". My own interpretation of Matthew 18's "tell it to the church..." allows for "tell it to the other assemblies (of 2 or 3, or more, etc)..." Note the possibility of plural assemblies, varied in size.

4. Okay, now to the "heavy lifting" -- who is in charge? We can all say "Jesus is in charge", or "The Holy Spirit leads us", but how is that to play out in the meeting? First off, I categorically reject the LSM mantra that "we are all just small potatoes here". The LSM "small potato" mantra was code for "Lee is the big potato." I think that this is an affront to our Head, Christ. So we need a different way to sort ourselves out.

There clearly is differentiation in the Bible, both in heaven and on earth. Paul gives a great example in 1 Corinthians 15:41. Different heavenly bodies give varied light. We cannot say that the stars are undifferentiated. Nor can we say that the christian polity is just "small potatoes". No, that is Maoist theology: the drab, nameless and faceless proletariat, with a despot or supreme council overseeing all assemblies on behalf of "the Body".

So if we reject that model, what to replace it with? I propose the words of Jesus: "If you want to be great in the kingdom, be the least". He deliberately and specifically spoke those words to the disciples when they were arguing about which one of them was the greatest. That is my proposed structure in the assembly. If you go to the meeting, and someone has an 'Alexander Haig' moment, and declares, "I am in charge here", that person has disqualified themselves. We can just smile and say, "Thank you, brother/sister, for your opinion", and continue with our business.

Our meeting is about Jesus. It is not about local ground, or affiliation with someone's ministry. It is about Jesus Christ, who came to earth and made it out alive. And unlike Enoch or Elijah, when Jesus made it out alive He became the doorway for us all. Because Jesus of Nazareth went through death for us. The power of death has now been broken. We should no longer fear death. We no longer need to build death-avoidance mechanisms, all of which fail. One of the death-avoidance schemes is to attempt to be "great", and to gather around oneself a kingdom of material wealth, and/or servants, and/or influence. We must be clear that the assembly of Jesus can be corrupted by this kind of mechanism. I argue that the one-church-one-city model ultimately became a vehicle for such corruption, and should be rejected. It stands neither upon the scriptures nor upon hard human experience. Its history of schisms and spin-off sects, called variously "rebellions" and "quarantines", should be proof enough. "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." ~ Matt. 7:27

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

4. Okay, now to the "heavy lifting" -- who is in charge? We can all say "Jesus is in charge", or "The Holy Spirit leads us", but how is that to play out in the meeting? First off, I categorically reject the LSM mantra that "we are all just small potatoes here". The LSM "small potato" mantra was code for "Lee is the big potato." I think that this is an affront to our Head, Christ. So we need a different way to sort ourselves out.

Spiritually speaking the Lord is in charge, and every church would place that in its statement of faith, but practically speaking a church is going to look a lot like its leader(s), especially the gifted or dynamic ones. That's just the way it is. Kind of like the children in a family resembling their parents.

The reason we have these discussions is due to our background in an oppressive system. I spent decades under the rule of both Anaheim and Cleveland. Both often crossed the lines, those normal and healthy, yet established boundaries, into regions which became unacceptable. It's rare, however, to meet a believer who has problems with all established church authority, only when that authority is taken advantage of.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... practically speaking a church is going to look a lot like its leader(s), especially the gifted or dynamic ones. That's just the way it is. Kind of like the children in a family resembling their parents..

This speaks to my point that there is variation in the assembly. We are not a bland, faceless proletariat of "small potatos". Everyone has gifts, disposition, and personality. The one-church-one-city paradigm allowed certain personalities (WL, TC, DYL, BP) to dominate not only their respective assemblies, but even all "affiliated" (their word) assemblies.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's rare, however, to meet a believer who has problems with all established church authority, only when that authority is taken advantage of.

I like the word "authority". Jesus had authority to heal, to raise the dead. And by extension He had authority to forgive, to comfort. He certainly had authority to teach. What He refused, however, was authority over temporal affairs. "Who made me judge over your affairs?" ~Luke 12:14 He refused even to acknowledge Herod.

So the "authority" to tell people what to wear, what to sing, what to read, what to think, where to "migrate", or what is the "feeling of the Body", should be seen as counterfeit; as manipulations of human control. Such machinations, to me, testify rather to a lack of power and authority.

Jesus had the power to lay His life down, and to raise it up again. I respect that power, as it manifests itself in the assembly. We can rejoice when we see people being released from Satan's bondage. The meeting should be, I think, a celebration of release from captivity, by God sending His Only Begotten Son on our behalf. If we get stuck on "Who is first" discussions I think we miss the point of the exercise. The name of Jesus is a name of freedom.

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery."

[aron]

I don't see "elders" appointed by an apostle to be a requirement for the assembly(cf Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Trying to re-create, wholecloth, Paul's activities may necessitate one of us stepping forward as "today's Paul", which thus far hasn't turned out very well, from what I have seen.

Or we could vote in each assembly, which will probably lead to political machinations. No, I don't really see that "office" as a pressing need, any more than trying to re-create "12 apostles" to oversee the Body today.

Plus, John (pointedly?) does not address the elders in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3, instead using "messengers". Also, John's first epistle addresses "fathers", "children", and "young men", without the sense of outward appointment or office.

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

Let me give another example, of the peril of trying to re-create, wholecloth, the "normal church life" of the first century.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (NIV) That was written in the day when women did not have equal rights in society, and Paul was wary that the freedom in Christ might be used to upset the social order, and cause confusion and accusations against the faithful. Paul actually did let a woman teach: he let Prisca and Aquila straighten out Apollos.

For another example, Paul told slaves to obey their masters; again, that doesn't mean Paul was "pro-slavery", but was respecting the standing social order. So using Paul's words 2,000 years later to tell women to be "silent in the church" is about as anachronistic as drinking a little wine if you have a tummy ache (1 Timothy 5:23) or anointing the sick with oil (James 5:14). It may have been the rule at one time, but that does not make it the norm, or standard, for all times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This speaks to my point that there is variation in the assembly. We are not a bland, faceless proletariat of "small potatoes". Everyone has gifts, disposition, and personality. The one-church-one-city paradigm allowed certain personalities (WL, TC, DYL, BP) to dominate not only their respective assemblies, but even all "affiliated" (their word) assemblies.

I never came to this conclusion about the one-church-one-city paradigm, in fact, it should have had the opposite effect, that is, according to WN's teachings in the book TNCCL, the "highest authority" in the church are the local elders, and their "jurisdiction" never extends beyond their borders.

His conflicting teaching, which I think did the most to undo the concept of locality, was that of the "work," a para-church organization which "allowed certain personalities to dominate" their assemblies and whole regions. The authority of local elders, in the words of WL, was reduced to "deciding the time and day of meetings," that is, as long as they don't conflict with ministry meetings.

I have mentioned a couple times that lies to cover up this "dirty little secret" were the straw that broke this camel's back, and the last time I participated in "local" church fellowship. I finally ... I mean finally ... concluded that the whole "local" thing was nothing more than a farce.

Originally Posted by aron

So the "authority" to tell people what to wear, what to sing, what to read, what to think, where to "migrate", or what is the "feeling of the Body", should be seen as counterfeit; as manipulations of human control. Such machinations, to me, testify rather to a lack of power and authority.

Not to split hairs here, but I guess I would parse this list and evaluate individual instances according to context, though I do understand your point. For example, "what to sing" -- I have no problem with elders deciding beforehand which songs to sing, but when the only songs approved and qualified for singing are those written by WL, then we got problems. "Where to migrate" was a particularly egregious practice of "the work," since those who decided to serve full-time lost say in perhaps the most important decision of their life. And you know how I feel about that nonsensical manipulation called the "feeling of the Body."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't see "elders" appointed by an apostle to be a requirement for the assembly(cf Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Trying to re-create, wholecloth, Paul's activities may necessitate one of us stepping forward as "today's Paul", which thus far hasn't turned out very well, from what I have seen.

Or we could vote in each assembly, which will probably lead to political machinations. No, I don't really see that "office" as a pressing need, any more than trying to re-create "12 apostles" to oversee the Body today.

Plus, John (pointedly?) does not address the elders in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3, instead using "messengers". Also, John's first epistle addresses "fathers", "children", and "young men", without the sense of outward appointment or office.

Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.

Kind of like throwing the net on the other side of the boat and expecting a huge haul of fish. It happened to Peter, didn't it?

The appointment of elders by the so-called "Apostle" became a most valuable tool in the hands of dominant men, those lording it over the flock. First of all, who is the elder-appointing apostle? Supposedly, he was the one who directly established the church. Eventually the apostle was the one who supposedly "raised up brothers" who then were appointed the elders. That to me sounds like the job description of Bishops, which we were, of course, vehemently opposed to. Can someone please explain to me what was so bad with bishops, and how does our present system differ from them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me give another example, of the peril of trying to re-create, wholecloth, the "normal church life" of the first century.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (NIV) That was written in the day when women did not have equal rights in society, and Paul was wary that the freedom in Christ might be used to upset the social order, and cause confusion and accusations against the faithful. Paul actually did let a woman teach: he let Prisca and Aquila straighten out Apollos.

For another example, Paul told slaves to obey their masters; again, that doesn't mean Paul was "pro-slavery", but was respecting the standing social order. So using Paul's words 2,000 years later to tell women to be "silent in the church" is about as anachronistic as drinking a little wine if you have a tummy ache (1 Timothy 5:23) or anointing the sick with oil (James 5:14). It may have been the rule at one time, but that does not make it the norm, or standard, for all times.

aron, tell that to the pentecostal churches which provide vials of holy anointing oil at every service, or those snake-handling churches in West Virginia. (Mark 16.18) I just read about one preacher who died of a snake bite. His dad died the same way, and his active burden was to restore this "lost ministry" to the church.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's rare, however, to meet a believer who has problems with all established church authority, only when that authority is taken advantage of.

Hey Ohio! Its been a while...

This is the perfect thought to begin to discuss this problem.

For centuries now, believers have taken the default position that there is no problem at all with established church authority (as in offices held by human beings). And then, when the authority is taken advantage of, they have no tools with which to deal with it!

Its happened over and over and over and over again in church history, and it doesn't raise the question: maybe there's a problem with "having no problem at all with established church authority."

At every occasion of abuse by "established church authority" we seem capable of only looking at the immediate abuse and calling that specific issue the problem. And yet, when it happens over and over and over again in so many different ways and forms across church history - nobody asks "Wait, maybe the problem isn't this particular manifestation of abuse, but rather the structure we set up in the first place...."

That said, I don't necessarily have issue with an given "established church authority" as they exist in a particular iteration. But if our default is that there "should be" such mediators, then perhaps we leave ourselves vulnerable to the abuses when the do (inevitably) arise...

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Its happened over and over and over and over again in church history, and it doesn't raise the question: maybe there's a problem with "having no problem at all with established church authority."
nobody asks "Wait, maybe the problem isn't this particular manifestation of abuse, but rather the structure we set up in the first place...."

Greetings to you too! I see you have moved. Welcome to Ohio! Hope all is well with you and yours.

You are right about some established church authority. For centuries the believers have had no tools to deal with abusive church power. I grew up in Catholicism, and after entering the Recovery, I read all the church history I could find, arming myself with anti-Catholic venom. I read about inquisitions, tortures, corruptions, and the slaughters of innocents.

I was one of many who became enamored at the beautiful simplicity of "local" churches, shepherded by "local" elders, free from outside controls and interference. When Witness Lee and Titus Chu both boldly proclaimed that they "control no one, and control no churches," I took their promises at face value, and I believed their words. I had been in the Recovery for ~30 years before I began to investigate for myself what was really happening and what really happened in our recent past.

Peter, you definitely ask good questions. To be honest, I have been burnt enough times that I am understandably skeptical of all Christian leaders. There are probably two reasons that keep me from chucking the whole idea of "established church authority." One is the clear words of scripture, and the other is the many godly men in history who did place the care for God's children above even their own lives. It's too bad that the rotten ones get the most attention.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just read about one preacher who died of a snake bite. His dad died the same way, and his active burden was to restore this "lost ministry" to the church.

Some things are best left "un-recovered". I can imagine going into an assembly, and seeing a table by the door, and on the table a jug of poison and little Dixie cups, and a sign displaying that quote from Mark 16:18.

[aron]

So what are the essential features of our Lord's assembly? First, I see the recognition of Jesus as God's sent Messiah, the Christ. He is surely the Savior of the world. This is the rock. It is solid, and will endure.

But we must take heed with what we build. In Matthew 5 Jesus said, "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; anything else is of the evil one." I think that when we cooperate with Jesus' building His ekklesia, we should only use what are clearly His essentials; requiring "extras" to be placed in the ekklesia is arguably "of the evil one".

So no requirement of "local ground" that I can see, nor "affiliation with the ministry of the age". No requirement for "one publication" or "one trumpet". No "all ekklesia must be absolutely identical". No "seven feasts". No "trainings". Look at the minimal advice given by the Jerusalem saints in Acts 15:28,29, sent out to the new Gentile believers: it's very basic.

What I see: 1) faith in Jesus; 2) two or three (or more, obviously) gathered together. That is the structure of the ekklesia.

For advice to such gatherings I would perhaps give: 1) try to avoid sin; 2) try to love one another; and 3) if you are ambitious to be great in the heavenly kingdom, be the least here on earth.

But we must be cautious about requiring love, or humility, or even to some degree purity. All will be revealed "in that day." If the master of the field was willing to let tares and wheat grow together, so should we. If we try to root out tares today, we risk damage to the whole crop (Matt. ch. 13).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

For centuries now, believers have taken the default position that there is no problem at all with established church authority (as in offices held by human beings). And then, when the authority is taken advantage of, they have no tools with which to deal with it!

Its happened over and over and over and over again in church history, and it doesn't raise the question: maybe there's a problem with "having no problem at all with established church authority."

At every occasion of abuse by "established church authority" we seem capable of only looking at the immediate abuse and calling that specific issue the problem. And yet, when it happens over and over and over again in so many different ways and forms across church history - nobody asks "Wait, maybe the problem isn't this particular manifestation of abuse, but rather the structure we set up in the first place...."

That said, I don't necessarily have issue with an given "established church authority" as they exist in a particular iteration. But if our default is that there "should be" such mediators, then perhaps we leave ourselves vulnerable to the abuses when the do (inevitably) arise...

To me, a requirement for mediatorial offices between the flock and the Good Shepherd is a hazard. But likewise, a moratorium against mediatorial offices is also a hazard. In both, I think, our requirement puts an impingement upon the freedom of the Holy Spirit to guide us all home to the Father.

Let me give an example. One day I got a "bad feeling" about the whole scene in Acts 6. Some decided that they were above waiting on tables. While I don't see Jesus being above waiting on tables, I cannot forbid some who think they are. And while I don't see Jesus creating permanent offices like "table waiter" or "scripture searcher", I cannot see Him explicitly forbidding such either.

So while I currently believe that many of the problems we see in subsequent church history are found in seeds sown as early as Acts and the epistles, all I can say is "let them be." If I should try to re-make church in my image, what a disaster that would be! You think Watchman Nee's "normal church" was bad; wait till you see my solution(s)! No, best just to let it be.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To be honest, I have been burnt enough times that I am understandably skeptical of all Christian leaders. There are probably two reasons that keep me from chucking the whole idea of "established church authority." One is the clear words of scripture, and the other is the many godly men in history who did place the care for God's children above even their own lives.

As far as the clear words of scripture, I see authority in Jesus as not over man, but over the powers of darkness which have be-deviled (pun intended) mankind for so long. This is the benchmark. This is true authority. All authority should be measured against Jesus' authority (and I am not talking about television poseurs who knock people down -- I mean authority over death and Hades[Rev. 1:18]).

Second, the many godly men and women in history, caring for the flock, are found both in established offices, and not. Look at Dorcas in Acts 9. She needed no office, but rather was impelled by love. In this I see the true servant's power of Jesus displayed.

Conversely, look at what happens when we pay undue respect to the "established" position. For example, our local church "apostle" Witness Lee said that we should not be singing so much from the psalms, because they were too low, and full of men's concepts. He even publicly mocked the brothers and sisters who sang from the psalms. This flatly contradicted Paul's counsel in the NT. In fact, Lee recommended singing from Ephesians and Colossians, where Paul had written to sing the Psalms! We local churchers held the authority of Lee's "office" in such high regard, that where it clearly contravened scripture we still followed it.

This trend we see again and again in christian history. We create hierarchical structures, "like the nations" have done, and become so habituated to them as shortcuts through the vague and problematic commands of scriptures, that when these established structures lead us away from scripture, we still follow them anyway.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This trend we see again and again in christian history. We create hierarchical structures, "like the nations" have done, and become so habituated to them as shortcuts through the vague and problematic commands of scriptures, that when these established structures lead us away from scripture, we still follow them anyway.

This highlights the real difficulty we have as the sheep of God. The Head does give gifts to the body to help us navigate through the hazards of our journey. These gifts can render much benefit to the people of God. Then slowly, almost imperceptibly, the "need" to make known this great "gift" of God occurs. Somewhere on this "noble" excursion of spreading the word of God, the desire to serve God's people gets enveloped by the desires to build an "empire" or a lasting monument to this man's "marvelous accomplishments."

Years ago I remember reading something about the humble beginnings of brothers like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. They were both sincere and fruitful ministers of the Lord. Then this horrible transition occurred into celebrity status. All their initial safeguards were soon discarded as hindrances. Power and success soon corrupted them, and spoiled their ministry.

Today's TV culture makes it more dangerous than ever. Many Christians are pushing their leaders to the forefront. The collapses of other ministries does not seem to provide lessons for the rest of the body of Christ. The concerns expressed here about Christian authority, especially with our sad history in the recovery, are real indeed. In the end we will all discover that it was far better to be honored by God than by man.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago I remember reading something about the humble beginnings of brothers like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. They were both sincere and fruitful ministers of the Lord.

Exactly. When we see so many being led astray we begin to realize that it was not just a few "bad apples".

And it also helps puncture the myth that somehow we can be immune from all that, if we can just find "the proper ground"...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

What is the fixed structure of the assembly?
------------------------------
Okay, now to the "heavy lifting" -- who is in charge? We can all say "Jesus is in charge", or "The Holy Spirit leads us", but how is that to play out in the meeting?
------------------------------
So if we reject that model, what to replace it with? I propose the words of Jesus: "If you want to be great in the kingdom, be the least". He deliberately and specifically spoke those words to the disciples when they were arguing about which one of them was the greatest. That is my proposed structure in the assembly. If you go to the meeting, and someone has an 'Alexander Haig' moment, and declares, "I am in charge here", that person has disqualified themselves. We can just smile and say, "Thank you, brother/sister, for your opinion", and continue with our business.

Thanks aron for this thread, really fascinating subject. Well thought out questions.

I’m not quite sure I’ve ever heard something like “the fixed structure of the assembly”. It does certainly rub against what Lee (and others) have taught about the “organic” nature of the Church. Of course there is a lot of scriptural references that would indicate an organic element… “the Body of Christ”, “the bride”, etc, but let’s face it, these “spiritual” terms really don’t help us when it comes to some of the practical, nuts and bolts workings of the local church – the members of the Body that we are in direct contact with. And they most certainly don’t help us with the matter of leadership – local, regional or otherwise.

I think to avoid this matter of official, structural leadership within the Church, and just consider that “Jesus is our leader” is to invite all sorts of confusion, and history has proven that this kind of stance certainly does not prevent abuse. I think the best example of what I am talking about here would be the “house-church movement”. I have personal knowledge and experience of this. The general idea is that “Jesus is our leader” and “every member is as important as the next and so all should function”. But the practical outworking of this is usually confusion, with people just speaking out all sorts of nonsense. The end result is usually that everybody’s time is wasted, the Word is not properly preached or taught, and God is not glorified. Keep in mind, I am NOT talking about simple home gatherings, I am talking about “church meetings/services”.

I think others have mentioned something about “those with gifts” or “gifts to the Body”. This is the key in my view. I think we’re all familiar with these verses is Ephesians 4:.(7,8-10-12)
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."…And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
To deny that these were already known “positions” (for lack of better word..insert “fuctions” if that suits you better) in the early Church is to me to be quite naïve. The only term here that may have a totally foreign meaning to us in the 21st century may be “prophets”, the others can, and should have, biblical significance and weight for all Christians, I believe.

I’ve probably taken this in a different direction than aron intended. So I would leave it to him to steer us in a different direction if he wants.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I’m not quite sure I’ve ever heard something like “the fixed structure of the assembly”. It does certainly rub against what Lee (and others) have taught about the “organic” nature of the Church. Of course there is a lot of scriptural references that would indicate an organic element… “the Body of Christ”, “the bride”, etc, but let’s face it, these “spiritual” terms really don’t help us when it comes to some of the practical, nuts and bolts workings of the local church – the members of the Body that we are in direct contact with. And they most certainly don’t help us with the matter of leadership – local, regional or otherwise.

Lee's organic church was only as organic as he wanted it to be. And over time it grew decidedly less organic, from what I saw. The letter of the law superseded the spirit. I don't recall much talk of "one trumpet" or "one apostle per age" in the first couple of decades of the Lord's Recovery's U.S. experience. But these came to be seen as essential to maintaining unity, as time went on, and experiences accrued, and new rules for"maintaining order" arose.

Many here have made the point that the TNCCL attempt to reveal the biblical, practical, nuts-and-bolts workings of the local church leave much to be desired; that the proposed remedy led to something worse than the perceived disease. I myself am not an expert on TNCCL, but at least I have seen something in the Bible which seems to flatly refute Nee's "normal" one-city-one-church model: namely that the NT allows, even expects, multiple ekklesia in large metropolitan areas, if you interpret ekklesia as it was originally used (as a meeting, or assembly).

As far as leadership, that gets to the heart of my question. What do you see as the structure of leadership in the ekklesia, as presented by Jesus? And secondly, what of the later emendments in Acts and the epistles should we recognize as essential, and what are not?

I would argue that the basics, such as don't argue with one another, don't steal, get drunk and fornicate, and don't practice witchcraft, transfer pretty seamlessly from the gospels to the rest of the NT and thence beyond. Beyond that I don't see any essential fixed structure.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think to avoid this matter of official, structural leadership within the Church, and just consider that “Jesus is our leader” is to invite all sorts of confusion, and history has proven that this kind of stance certainly does not prevent abuse. I think the best example of what I am talking about here would be the “house-church movement”...The general idea is that “Jesus is our leader” and “every member is as important as the next and so all should function”. But the practical outworking of this is usually confusion, with people just speaking out all sorts of nonsense.

I could just as easily say (with more evidence, as it's been more prevalent) that history has proven that the use of official, structural leadership within the church hasn't prevented confusion and abuse, either.

So back to my question: what structural essentials do we clearly see in the text of the NT?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think others have mentioned something about “those with gifts” or “gifts to the Body”. This is the key in my view. I think we’re all familiar with Ephesians 4:7,8-10-12

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."…And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

To deny that these were already known “positions” (for lack of better word..insert “fuctions” if that suits you better) in the early Church is to me to be quite naïve. The only term here that may have a totally foreign meaning to us in the 21st century may be “prophets”, the others can, and should have, biblical significance and weight for all Christians, I believe.

Let me give a different perspective, on the practical, nuts-and-bolts working-out of functions within the ekklesia. Look at the "virtual" ekklesia, the gathering together on an internet forum. I am a veteran of both this forum and the old Bereans forum, having written several hundred posts on each, and having read several thousand more. Now, I would argue that the varied gifts were and have been made manifested. Some are more logical, some more emotional; some are more rigid, some more loose. Some quote scriptures, some use more history and/or common sense. Some are more pro-active, some more reactive. Some just seem to post to "shoot down", or at least prune, the self-assertive comments made by the more bold and/or dogmatic posters. Some are more "builders" and some are more "bashers". All of these varieties of gifts collectively create an on-line conversation.

In other words, structure organically emerges without the requirements of formal offices. Order arises out of chaos. The varied gifts make themselves manifest. I would argue that in an environment of mutual respect, and common concern for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the expression of His kingdom here on earth, that these "gifts to men" will become self-evident.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As far as leadership, that gets to the heart of my question. What do you see as the structure of leadership in the ekklesia, as presented by Jesus? And secondly, what of the later emendments in Acts and the epistles should we recognize as essential, and what are not?

I would argue that the basics, do not argue with one another, do not steal and kill, get drunk and fornicate and practice witchcraft, transfer seamlessly from the gospels to the rest of the NT and thence beyond. Beyond that I do not see any essential fixed structure.

Okay: we do not see the one-city-one-church framework in the NT. We do not see "one apostle per age" in the NT (or in subsequent church history). We do not see "one trumpet" in the NT -- I, for example, see "many waters (i.e. many blended, harmonious voices)" instead of "one trumpet (i.e. one voice)". We do not see "every local church must be absolutely identical" in the NT. All these are superfluous requirements and are arguably "from the evil one" (Matt 5:37).

We do see some behavioral recommendations, such as "Those who stole should steal no more" in Ephesians 4:28, which seem universally applicable. I would argue that "Women should be silent in church" is not universally applicable, now that women can vote and hold jobs and so forth. Society has changed, and Paul's wish to have church order harmonize with current society would probably allow women to function in the ekklesia, more than just "serving the brothers.":rollingeyes2: Likewise, with "slavery" now gone, different races and socioeconomic classes now have equal rights, both in secular company and in the church.

On the other hand, the vast majority of evangelical christians (including yours truly) are uncomfortable with allowing homosexuality, now widely accepted in society, to become equally pervasive in the ekklesia. My own argument is simply that one must place limits somewhere; I place "homosexuality" with "theft" and "drunkenness" as behaviors to avoid. So we do have structure. We have both "dos" and "don'ts".

As far as the emergence of "gifts to men", as I said I think these will spontaneously emerge. We do not require someone to be "today's Paul" and appoint elders (or prophets, or evangelists, or teachers) in each city. My sense is that if we make these offices formal requirements we risk repeating the mistake that James pointed out, that some get elevated in and unseemly way in the ekklesia (James 2:2-4).

For example, I have already noted hoe Mr. Lee over-rode Paul's recommendation (in epistles to Ephesus and Colossae) to sing with the Psalms. Lee's position allowed his counsel to suppress that of the apostle Paul. Also, when Lee suborned Benson Philips to do a hatchet-job on Jane Anderson, I think neither he nor Benson followed the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. There was no private counsel which was repeatedly refused; rather there was a public "show trial" followed by an "execution" (somebody correct me if I am wrong here). And lastly, when his profligate son Timothy Lee, an admittedly "unspiritual" person who Mr. Lee assigned as manager of LSM's business affairs, was repeatedly caught en flagrante delicto with local church sisters, this was hidden because suddenly Mr. Lee was our "Noah" whose drunken nakedness must not be revealed. Again, this clearly goes against both the letter and the spirit of Matthew ch. 18, but the position, or office, now had assumed paramount importance to maintain structural order. The structure of the ekklesia needed to be maintained, even if righteousness was to be abandoned.

I would rather have a nebulous, even confused situation where the ekklesia is not clear "who is in charge" than a situation where "who is in charge" has been so firmly settled, even to the detriment of the kingdom of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As far as the emergence of "gifts to men", as I said I think these will spontaneously emerge. We do not require someone to be "today's Paul" and appoint elders (or prophets, or evangelists, or teachers) in each city.

Please note that I don't think we should "avoid" these offices, as UntoHim seems to suspect. I certainly don't think that we can or should forbid them. My argument is simply that making them essential requirements for the ekklesia is neither substantiated by the text of the NT nor by the Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

[UntoHim]

I highly suspect that your suspicion regarding my alleged suspicions are auspiciously specious

Great responses this morning bro. I'll have time just a bit later to get back to you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Please note that I don't think we should "avoid" these offices, as UntoHim seems to suspect. I certainly don't think that we can or should forbid them. My argument is simply that making them essential requirements for the ekklesia is neither substantiated by the text of the NT nor by the Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

I agree with this. When the apostles went forth, churches sprung up when the gospel was announced. Apparently no attempts were made initially to organize, establish services, purchase real estate, etc. There was a desire to work together with the Spirit of God to create something new. As issues developed, the apostles would seek solutions from the Lord for the needs of the flock. Those who then were appointed elders or deacons were those already caring for others, possessing a certain degree of maturity, and also well-respected by their peers.

We all have left an environment which promoted a pure return to the "original" church, but which acted contrary to this, manifesting self-serving intentions disguised as the "God-ordained recovery of the N.T. churchlife." I too have mentioned WN's book TNCCL, not to show a more excellent way, but to expose WL/LSM's heavy-handed methods have violated the very principles they purport to be recovering. One of the "diseases" passed on to us, or especially me, is the urgency to have the "perfect" church. The end result was sheer hypocrisy -- we learned to condemn the faults of all others, and to excuse all of our own.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I highly suspect that your suspicion regarding my alleged suspicions are auspiciously specious.

Auspiciously specious?! Dude, I specialize in that! You are now in my wheelhouse (... and thank God for the assembly).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those who then were appointed elders or deacons were those already caring for others, possessing a certain degree of maturity, and also well-respected by their peers.

I think so. God knew what He was doing, and He certainly did give gifts to the assembly. If we are willing to have a bit of patience, and discernment, I think those gifts will be made evident. We don't require a "Paul" to come by and arrange the proper order. Secondly, if I do have a gift, and someone happens along as gifted or me, or even moreso, I can be preserved from thinking, "Sorry, that position has already been taken." God is bigger than our concepts, even our biblically-derived ones.

[OBW]

Interesting topic. Structure. Offices. Requirements. No requirements.

I am aware of a church that has grown to about 200 that does everything by community vote. No elders. Preacher can't just do what he wants.

And it is becoming a problem for them. They actually need to accept that there are some that are "gifted" in administrations. Some are shepherds. And so on.

At some level, we all need to defer to someone(s) on at least some things. No one should hold all the power. Neither should everyone be required to be everything or the whole thing stops.

But in deferring, we need a basis for determining qualifications. Such as when Paul gave some guidelines for selecting elders. Nothing is simply whoever puts his name in the running. Or volunteers for the job.

I recall some of the elders in Dallas saying something like "you see it, it's yours." It can't always work that way. And they know it. If what you see (or think you see) is that some elder needs to be dressed-down, it's not yours. Yeah. They wouldn't stand for that one. But the sort of "I have the Spirit so I need nothing else and no one else" is malarkey.

No simple answer. I don't really think that there is a single "structure" of the assembly. But there is a pattern within which it does fit. And the pattern has structure. It has responsibilities that are not simply shared among everyone.

And despite all the freedom we think we find in "all can prophesy" in 1 Cor 14, I really think that Paul was putting bounds and structure on an unfettered three-ring circus. While he never mentions the elders there, he does limit the activities of the meeting. 2 or 3 tongues, but only if an interpreter is present. 2 or 3 prophets who speak soberly in turn. Not a clashing of "gift" after "gift" after "gift." So in some way, there were those who were determined to be the 2 or 3. Given their proclivity for chaos, I doubt that this was determined by popular consensus. There almost had to be a structure that was simply standing aside for the animal acts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't really think that there is a single "structure" of the assembly. But there is a pattern within which it does fit. And the pattern has structure. It has responsibilities that are not simply shared among everyone..

I really like your use of the word 'pattern'. In my discussion, I think that was what I was attempting to reference with the teachings of Jesus, which don't preclude organizational structures from forming, but rather might provide patterns, or principles, without which the structure might ultimately distort the fellowship of the saints with each other, their consciences, and God.

Originally Posted by OBW

And despite all the freedom we think we find in "all can prophesy" in 1 Cor 14, I really think that Paul was putting bounds and structure on an unfettered three-ring circus.

Your comments on Corinth are interesting. It took me a long time, post-LC, to realize that Paul was not so much giving the saints the permission to function, with the phrase "you can all prophesy", as he was trying to bring their function into line, with the stress on the following "one by one".

Certainly we cannot use our freedom in Christ Jesus as an excuse for disorder in the church. As you say, there are no easy answers. Simply looking for cast-iron solutions from the first-century church experience can stretch both the Bible and common sense past their breaking points. The only true universals I see are ones like "believe into Jesus Christ" and "love and forgive one another" and "try to avoid sin" and "if you are ambitous to be great, be the least".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Your comments on Corinth are interesting. It took me a long time, post-LC, to realize that Paul was not so much giving the saints the permission to function, with the phrase "you can all prophesy", as he was trying to bring their function into line, with the stress on the following "one by one".

aron, we received lots of bad teaching in the Recovery from this epistle. Paul said he would show us a "more excellent way," but after listening to WL, most were persuaded that prophesying was this "more excellent way." We were basically taught that "all must prophecy one by one," when the scripture really says that all the prophets should should wait their turn and "prophecy one by one." As you said, Paul in this book endeavored to correct problems in Corinth, rather than mandate methods for all time. If there was a mandate, however, it would be love, which always seems to be the first thing discarded when zealots go searching for the right way to "play church."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As you said, Paul in this book endeavored to correct problems in Corinth, rather than mandate methods for all time. If there was a mandate, however, it would be love, which always seems to be the first thing discarded when zealots go searching for the right way to "play church."

Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul clearly got the message: love is the fulfillment of the heavenly command. If ecclesiastical structures at least do not interfere with love, fine. But if they in any way steal our attention, affection, or "affiliation", I am quite suspicious as to whether we are leading ourselves astray.

[alwayslearning]

I think the question of this thread suggests there is a universal answer. It assumes there is an ideal model that can be discovered and applied anywhere at anytime and actually work. IMHO this is wishful thinking. At best I think a group of believers can piece together a workable assembly arrangement and it can only remain workable if the willingness to be flexible and adjust is constantly present. Not on theological or moral issues but on practical "how to" issues.

Take the example of music - using drums electric guitars etc. For one assembly this might not be a problem at all. For another it might offend 2/3 of the congregation. Is there a universal answer? I don't think so. Each place has to find it's own way and solution.

What is the problem with a para-church work? Nothing until it interferes in such matters and makes statements on music as if they are an authority giving edicts on how individual assemblies should handle the situation. Or insisting that local assemblies attend 7 "feasts" a year as if this is some sort of requirement to be in good graces with the God of the universe.

Para-church work has it's place but it has to be kept in it's place and the character of each local assembly rigorously protected by the local shepherds and more mature believers who know what's what.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

. . .

Take the example of music - using drums electric guitars etc. For one assembly this might not be a problem at all. For another it might offend 2/3 of the congregation. Is there a universal answer? I don't think so. Each place has to find it's own way and solution.

And many assemblies discover that they need at least two different ways to do it. My son is attending a Bible church in Dallas that has a "traditional" (in the Bible church, Baptist, etc., sense) service that sings hymns and the people are heavily dressed in suits and ties, followed by a contemporary service with a band, no organ and little piano, jeans, few suits, etc. Both have the same sermon, but each is tailored to the taste of the group.

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste. So either the old folks have to put up with loud music, or the younger ones have to be put to sleep. And any who disagree are shown the door.

[Peter Debelak]

I certainly agree that, having debunked the "universal structure" of one-city-one-church, there is not necessarily some alternative "universal structure."

This question regarding the structure of the assembly, it seems to me, is all about how it is approached or "framed."

If one starts with reading all these versus in the NT about elders and deacons, and prophesying etc..., one might say, as many do, the burden is on those who say you don't have to be "under" a spiritual "office" in a cognizable and definable assembly.

If you approach it simply with the basic items of faith of the New Covenant, one might say - "sure, having gifts in the assembly are fine and even having leaders is fine - but these aren't necessarily Biblical prescriptions.

I don't disagree with those who point out that there are gifts to the assembly. But that is not a rebuttle to those who bristle at the notion of "offices" of authority.

Mike references an assembly that was trying NOT to have a "leader" but ran into problems once it got to the 200 member size. This is an interesting example.

The first comment I would make is, well, you are still presuming that you're "supposed" to meet in an ever-growing group that can be identified by outsiders. As opposed to say, a loose collection of believers that meet as circles of fellowship in a community shift, change, grow.

The second comment is to say, okay - that congregation attempted something and realized that it was experiencing problems. Natural leaders, if recognized, could add some stability. So be it. This is entirely different than placing folks into formal "offices" of the church, wherein "spiritual authority" necessarily resides in the office as opposed to between people thru Christ contextually.

The key push of this sort of thread, I think, is that most Christians - within and without the LC - take it as a given that you should be within a recognizable congregation which, again by assumption, there are recognized "offices of authority." If you've ever taken the position that that's NOT necessary - you'll know that most people look down on that view and see it as "immature."

I would contend, however, that if one takes the strong argument about all the "elder" versus - that they establish a prescription - then you'll have to answer all the questions about administration that the LC is unable to do regarding one-city-one-church. As an individual believer, if God has placed elders in an "office" He established, then it is my responsibility to align myself with that....

The push is NOT to say there shouldn't be congregations or that there shouldn't be various gifts manifest in an assembly. The "default" position is that there will be. The question is how open we are to those who don't fall into that mode?

Understandably there is skepticism about the spiritual health of those who are not "members" of a formal congregation. But the question in this thread, I think, is:

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

A big ramble.

Peter

[OBW]

Peter,

One of the blogs I follow is by a guy in the Orange county area who has had a small church in his home for several years. While he does not see this ending he has noted that, once the group is established, it does tend to want to grow. And then when you suggest splitting into two home groups, things are difficult. There are connections that they don't want being reduced to lesser connections or less frequent occurrences. While there is no preacher, per se, the guy with the blog (and the house) is their de facto leader. They aren't sure if any of the others among them are up to the task.

And so on. There is no magic in the home church. It is what it is. It has limitations, yet with connections to other home churches, some of those can be overcome.

Of course, the spread of the gospel is always an issue. If you expect new converts to join your group, then you will inevitably grow. If you are happy that they begin to meet with a group of Christians (where they meet is not an issue) then there are fewer issues.

The thing is that there is no special way to do it. Just do it. If going to the third service at a place that has 4,000 to 5,000 every Sunday is good for you, it is good. If being in Don Rutledge's living room is good for you, it is good.

And, as aron has said, while the thread suggests a way, he is more interested in finding ways, or patterns.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think the question of this thread suggests there is a universal answer. It assumes there is an ideal model that can be discovered and applied anywhere at anytime and actually work. IMHO this is wishful thinking.

Perhaps the question to start the thread should have been "Is there a structure of the assembly?" But my initial hypothesis was that there IS some required structure in the assembly, because that is the sense I get from most believers, and it seems to fit the church history that we read.

Since we've abandoned the LRC one-city-one-church structure (or model, or paradigm), what, if any, should follow? My own experience has led me towards "two or three" in Jesus' name, meeting at work, on the street, in a home, on the bus, wherever. It is fluid and free, although it occasionally does seem rather lonely. But I feel the presence of Christ sometimes.

Two of my paradigmatic meetings(ekklesia), as such, are found in Luke 24, with Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and Acts 8 with Philip, an angel, the Holy Spirit, and an Ethiopian eunuch. For example, I don't see Philip instructing the Ethiopian to return to Jerusalem for further training, and somehow to me that just feels right.

Anyway, I sort of started the thread with a premise, that there is some minimal structure to the assembly. The idea of no structure whatever seemed like, "...and the church was without form, and void", a la Genesis 1:2. But I also felt that any structure shouldn't go beyond what the Master has taught us. So as I saw structure emerge, in Acts and beyond, I compared it to the Master's teachings in the Gospels. The Acts chapter 6 bifurcation into "table servers" and "Bible scholars" is an example that got my interest.

So I more or less am in the same position as alwayslearning. Neither Nee's TNCCL nor any other that I am aware of presents us with a practical, idealized structure. Any attempts to shoehorn all the assemblies into being "absolutely identical", per Lee's footnote in Revelations, to some idealized construct of our fallen minds is about the furthest thing from new wineskins that I can possibly imagine. The comparison to Marx' communism healing the wounds of capitalism is quite apt. The cure is clearly worse than the sickness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste. So either the old folks have to put up with loud music, or the younger ones have to be put to sleep. And any who disagree are shown the door.

Lee's assertion is itself a taste. Shoehorning everyone into your idea of the Universal Plan is a taste. "There should be no opinions" is itself an opinion. Why can't they get this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

If one starts with reading all these versus in the NT about elders and deacons, and prophesying etc..., one might say, as many do, the burden is on those who say you don't have to be "under" a spiritual "office" in a recognizable and definable assembly...

The key push of this sort of thread, I think, is that most Christians - within and without the LC - take it as a given that you should be within a recognizable congregation which, again by assumption, there are recognized "offices of authority."

Most christians I meet ask what church I go to. It is taken as a given that one should find some defined assembling point, with a building and a website and a pastor. I understand that, and I also love fellowship. But beyond acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ to one another, I find myself asking, "Brothers, what should we do?" -- like the question to Peter in Acts 2:37. What wineskin will hold such precious wine?

As I watch the wineskin that emerges in the NT, I myself have deepening misgivings. The calls to repentance in Revelations 2 and 3 seem to me to be fully in line with the preceding "building" that I observe. But if you ask me for an alternative wineskin, I can only say, "I dunno. Love one another?" Too vague, perhaps... what do we do when the piano player plays too loudly? Who watches the watchers... who oversees the overseers? It's difficult to idealize in such complex situations.

But I enjoy asking such difficult questions. For me, it's part of the journey. Thank you all for bearing with me. Peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

When you find the answer to this, please let me know.

Personally, I "joined" a nearby community church several years ago, even going thru membership classes with my DW. My old LC alarms were set off, but the Lord was not so troubled. It was humbling to start from scratch again. We did connect with some families and joined 3 home meetings off-n-on. I continually focused on the positives.

Then the economy went sour, and the pastor with lofty goals, began to oppress the congregation with the need to be "sowing seeds." I became convinced that I could not afford to be a Christian there any more. Apparently half the congregation felt so too and also left, including our friends, who have gone separate ways. Why is it that gifted preachers feel the need to build their empire on the backs of God's people?

This brings me to your point about fellowshipping outside of organized churches. If you can, that's wonderful, but it may be hard to find active believers who are not in churches. It's even harder when older since most people have their lives and friendships established by then. Yet the Bible assumes that the believers are together in fellowship. Interactions between believers seem to fill every page of scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee and the LRC would assert that there can be only one taste.

This was one of the most pathetic forms of exclusive manipulation ever devised -- pompous leaders in Anaheim defining what each congregation in the body of Christ should look like, smell like, and taste like ... and who and what tasted differently.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... it may be hard to find active believers who are not in churches... [but] the Bible assumes that the believers are together in fellowship. Interactions between believers seem to fill every page of scripture.

I lucked out. I church-hopped for quite a few years post-LC, usually telling them about the superior theology I posessed, and passing along appropriate literature to demonstrate. Eventually, I stopped meeting anywhere, even wondering whether I was a christian anymore. God just seemed awfully remote to me.

When I eventually began to turn and seek God again, I found the most amazingly spiritual person at work. He was like a child: he was constantly astonished and amazed by God's goodness, kindness, wisdom, and blessings. From him I got no theology, just sincerity and joy. It affected me profoundly, and not long after I started seeing christians pop up everywhere. Today I am blessed with multiple "ekklesia", or meetings, or gatherings, or fellowships, or whatever you want to call them. I found that if you just honor the christians that God has placed near you; and feed them with whatever crumbs of food you have, God will also minister to you. The fields are truly white for the harvest.

If you don't have anyone, ask the Father. If necessary, demand it, loudly and repeatedly(Luke 18:1-8; also Matt. 11:12). Stamp your feet. Ask, where is our family? Where are Your people? He will give you someone.

One christian that I speak to regularly today, he goes to his church and tells them about things that have impressed him from our conversations. Once when his pastor asked him where he heard something, he said, "Oh, some guy I know." He's never told them my name, nor have I ever asked the name of his church. But when we speak together, often I sense God opening up for us the scriptures.

Whether this building work will endure "in that day", I do not know; but I do know that the sheep can hear their Master's voice. Nothing else matters, but to hear His voice. Then, I am satisfied. If anyone out there doesn't have satisfying interactions with other believers, ask God; He will surely give you that experience. Just let go of your concepts about what that is supposed to look like. Let God surprise you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Let God surprise you.

Good news brother aron!

Thanks for sharing.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The push is NOT to say there shouldn't be congregations or that there shouldn't be various gifts manifest in an assembly. The "default" position is that there will be. The question is how open we are to those who don't fall into that mode?

Understandably there is skepticism about the spiritual health of those who are not "members" of a formal congregation. But the question in this thread, I think, is:

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

IMHO I think the authors of the NT basically assume assemblies exist or are being brought into existence. And there is the admonishment in Hebrews not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together. It is assumed that community is part of the Christian experience and for good reason: it is harder to go it alone. But to my understanding the idea of formally joining a congregation as a member cannot be found anywhere in the NT. There is not even a formal official prescription of how an assembly should operate.

Personally I have no skepticism about those who don't belong as members of a congregation. If God is leading them down another path: Praise the Lord! Who am I to judge? If they go to a home meeting twice a week and once a month to a bigger church in their neighborhood what's wrong with that? If they meet in a basement with 10 believers on Tuesdays at 8 pm what's wrong with that?

Anyway IMHO American Christians need to wake up and snap out of our comfort zone. Millions of Christian in China meet in underground informal house churches. What's wrong with that? In Saudi Arabia Christians have to meet in secret with black curtains over the windows. Should we be skeptical about their experience? I'm not!

[Cal]

Someone might correct me, but I don't see anything in the NT about determining whether a certain gathering of Christians is "a true church" or not. The NT just assumes we are all part of the Church and that we will gather together. The NT refers to some of those gatherings as "churches." It refers to elders, deacons and pastors, etc., taking leadership roles. But it doesn't give us much else to go on.

The LRC gave us this idea of determining whether a particular assembly was a church or not, by certain specific and questionable criteria. But the NT doesn't tell us to be so discerning. It identifies false believers, but not false churches. There is no such concept of a false church in the NT as far as I can tell.

Even the idea that a sectarian group is not a church is something not so clear in the NT. We were trained to think "that's not a church, but rather a sect." But does the NT teach this idea? Not that I can tell. This thought of needing to decide which groups are churches and which aren't seems artificial. And in the case of the LRC it was clearly a pretext to claiming church-hood only for themselves.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Someone might correct me, but I don't see anything in the NT about determining whether a certain gathering of Christians is "a true church" or not... This thought of needing to decide which groups are churches and which aren't seems artificial.

The only discussion I remember was from the Matthew 18 story of a sinning brother; a delineation was presumed between "2 or 3" and "tell it to the church". I think that is possibly due to a mis-reading of the Greek. The singular/plural there is not so really so clear.

Of course my memory is poor, but in my time that was presented as a kind of linchpin verse. You could be "in a group" but not "in the church". There may well have been other verses used, but I don't recall.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We were trained to think "that's not a church, but rather a sect." But does the NT teach this idea? Not that I can tell.

In the NT, the risen and glorified Christ says that in the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) He will sing hymns of praise to the Father (Heb 2:12).

In the midst of which congregation is He singing? Only in a congregation sanctioned by a publishing house? Only in one "affiliated with the ministry of the age"? Or only in one "on the proper ground"? Or only in one with elders directed by "the apostle of the age"?

I don't see any of that in the NT. I do see the ekklesia in Ephesus threatened to have its lampstand removed (Rev 2:5), but the cause (loss of the first love) doesn't seem associated with any of the above. No, I think the Lord is bigger than our theology can realize.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

In the NT, the risen and glorified Christ says that in the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) He will sing hymns of praise to the Father (Heb 2:12).

In the midst of which congregation is He singing? Only in a congregation sanctioned by a publishing house? Only in one "affiliated with the ministry of the age"? Or only in one "on the proper ground"? Or only in one with elders directed by "the apostle of the age"?

I don't see any of that in the NT. I do see the ekklesia in Ephesus threatened to have its lampstand removed (Rev 2:5), but the cause (loss of the first love) doesn't seem associated with any of the above. No, I think the Lord is bigger than our theology can realize.

When you think about it, saying "That's a sect. That's not a sect. Hmm, yes, that's a sect, too." etc., is about as arrogant and inappropriate as saying, "That's a good Christian. That's a bad Christian. Hmm, yes, there's another bad one."

Yet the LRC taught us that judging groups as sects or non-sects was not only appropriate but required.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

The only discussion I remember was from the Matthew 18 story of a sinning brother; a delineation was presumed between "2 or 3" and "tell it to the church". I think that is possibly due to a mis-reading of the Greek. The singular/plural there is not so really so clear.

Of course my memory is poor, but in my time that was presented as a kind of linchpin verse. You could be "in a group" but not "in the church". There may well have been other verses used, but I don't recall.

To me, Matt 18 has nothing to with saying the two or three are not or cannot be a church. Obviously, if you lived in a small village with only three Christians then they were a church there.

What Matthew 18 is discussing is the progression of taking a complaint about a person to larger and larger groups of people, first just to the person, then to more, then to all. The point is to establish two things: (1) that a reliable representative of the church agrees that you are in the right, and (2) that the offender has been given fair warning to repent.

I can see an appropriate application of that principle to be take it to the person, then to two or three, then your small group, then the whole church. That's one more step than the Lord prescribed, but I still think it maintains the principle.

But if you ask me, using the passage to establish that two or three cannot be a church is a cockeyed misuse of scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The only discussion I remember was from the Matthew 18 story of a sinning brother; a delineation was presumed between "2 or 3" and "tell it to the church". I think that is possibly due to a mis-reading of the Greek. The singular/plural there is not so really so clear.

Of course my memory is poor, but in my time that was presented as a kind of linchpin verse. You could be "in a group" but not "in the church". There may well have been other verses used, but I don't recall.

Applying (or mis-applying) Rev. chap 2, we were taught that a church could lose their lampstand, thus implying that some churches were "proper testimonies" and some (most?) were not. The "right standing" was absolutely crucial to the church's success. Originally this meant not being divided, not being a denomination, not following a man (like the Lutherans,) not following pet doctrines (like the baptists,) not having closed fellowship, etc. Eventually the only requirement for having the "right standing" on the "proper ground" was to have a proper relationship with WL (or even TC.)

Years ago I was close to a brother who got shamed by TC. He left and started another local church in good relationship with LSM, participating in all their events. TC, however, refused to recognize them as a true local church. For years, TC battled with Anaheim concerning their status as a "proper" church in the Recovery. Early on, TC prevailed, but eventually Anaheim recognized them as a bona fide lampstand on the local ground.

Ahhhhh ... such was life in the recovery cave.

Another equally pernicious thought was this constant remark by WL saying "if the Lord leave us and move on to another people." Supposedly the Lord was only big enough to be with one MOTA at a time along with his adherents. For years I lived with thought that the Lord was truly only with us in the Recovery, and not with the rest of pitiful Christianity. We were constantly held in fear that if we "screwed up," then Lord would find another people to dwell with. Translated -- that means to maintain loyalties to Anaheim at all cost.

So simple, even a "cave" man can understand it.

[Cal]

I think "removing the lampstand" simply means the church ceases to be a good testimony. The group still exists as a church, but doesn't shine out to the world. It couldn't mean there would no longer be any church in the city. For that to happen all the Christians would have to leave the city. It is unlikely this is what the Lord meant.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Eventually the only requirement for having the "right standing" on the "proper ground" was to have a proper relationship with WL (or even TC.)

Years ago I was close to a brother who got shamed by TC. He left and started another local church in good relationship with LSM, participating in all their events. ... eventually Anaheim recognized them as a bona fide lampstand on the local ground..

To go back to my question from Hebrews 2:12, can we really say that the Spirit of the resurrected Son will only sing hymns of praise to the Father in the midst of a congregation recognized by, or "affiliated with" Anaheim? And if not, then why does Anaheim matter? What is so crucial about being "proper" with Anaheim?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another equally pernicious thought was this constant remark by WL saying "if the Lord leave us and move on to another people." Supposedly the Lord was only big enough to be with one MOTA at a time along with his adherents. ... We were constantly held in fear that if we "screwed up," then Lord would find another people to dwell with.

I remember once Mr. Lee got mad and said that he might stop speaking. Everybody got concerned: What if the MOTA stops ministering? Whatever shall we do? We shall lose "the blessing"! We will lose "the Lord's speaking among us"!

Jesus told us that whenever two or three (or more, obviously) met in His name, we would have His presence, with all the authority of heaven to bind and loose on earth. Somehow, in the Lord's Recovery, the Lord's presence got conflated with the speaking of one person. As someone here used to write: Scary.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What Matthew 18 is discussing is the progression of taking a complaint about a person to larger and larger groups of people, first just to the person, then to more, then to all. The point is to establish two things: (1) that a reliable representative of the church agrees that you are in the right, and (2) that the offender has been given fair warning to repent.

But if you ask me, using that passage [in Matthew 18] to establish that two or three cannot be a church is a cockeyed misuse of scripture.

Jesus is saying, "Once two or three of you are agreed that this person is opposed to My heavenly teachings and ways, then it is established. Tell it to the church(es).. tell it to all."

The establishment is clearly from the harmony of two or three in His name. The Lord's presence is with the two or three. The authority is clearly with the two or three. The publishing (to all, i.e. "to the church[es]"), is from the two or three. Yet the LSM dismisses the two or three by saying, "They are not the church"... see the RcV footnote in 18:20.

The more I look at it, the more I see a serious disconnect here. Someone clearly doesn't get it: either them or me. Because to me, what they are taking from that passage of scripture borders on the absolutely bizarre.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus is saying, "Once two or three of you are agreed that this person is opposed to My heavenly teachings and ways, then it is established."

The establishment is clearly from the harmony of two or three in His name. ... Yet the LSM dismisses the two or three by saying, "They are not the church".

The more I look at it, the more I see a serious disconnect here.

On the other hand, one cannot simply say that "two or three" is some kind of ironclad, one-size-fits-all formula for God's building work. We have the case in Acts 5 of Ananias and Sapphira, of whom Peter says in verse 9 that they "have agreed and conspired together to try to deceive the Spirit of the Lord" (AMP).

Or we might have two or three in Toronto or Mansfield who want to affiliate themselves with the ministry of TC, and a different two or three agree in the same city to affiliate themselves with the ministry of the BBs. What if you have one group agreeing to disagree with another group? How does one "tell it to the church"?

So my focus the two or three does not lead to some magical formula. But Jesus clearly is going from a particular to a universal in the case of the unrepentant sinner in Matthew 18, and he is not stressing the effectiveness of "the church" in carrying out God's will, but rather the two or three.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another equally pernicious thought was this constant remark by WL saying "if the Lord leave us and move on to another people." Supposedly the Lord was only big enough to be with one MOTA at a time along with his adherents. For years I lived with thought that the Lord was truly only with us in the Recovery, and not with the rest of pitiful Christianity. We were constantly held in fear that if we "screwed up," then Lord would find another people to dwell with. Translated -- that means to maintain loyalties to Anaheim at all cost.

This demonstrates the smallness of Witness Lee and many in the LC system. "Move on to another people"? Is there another people other than Christians? Doesn't God dwell in all Christians everywhere? Once Witness Lee and the LC system are put in proper perspective it becomes glaringly evident that the MOTA and his personal following are just that: self-proclaimed but largely ignored by the rest of the Body of Christ because their arrogance is insufferable.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Or we might have two or three in Toronto or Mansfield who want to affiliate themselves with the ministry of TC, and a different two or three agree in the same city to affiliate themselves with the ministry of the BBs. What if you have one group agreeing to disagree with another group? How does one "tell it to the church"?

Based on the context of Matt 18, a disagreement is not necessarily something that calls the force of the passage into action. This is one of the ways that the LRC escalated so many differences into excommunication.

There is a difference between being requested/required not to teach certain things, or even take your differences and go elsewhere, and telling the membership to have nothing to do with them. And it is also why there is often a less-than public telling even of sins in many cases in Christianity. Often, only those who would have reason to be in contact are told anything because the effect of the expulsion is complete without full public disclosure.

So the rest of Christianity understands that differing on doctrine is a rational basis for separating to meet but not outright excluding. Only a group that insists that only they are a true and proper church would (incorrectly) escalate such a difference to the level of a Matt 18 dispute. That is because they really do see disagreement as a form of sin no matter what they say about it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think others have mentioned something about “those with gifts” or “gifts to the Body”. This is the key in my view. I think we’re all familiar with these verses is Ephesians 4:
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
To deny that these were already known “positions” (for lack of better word..insert “fuctions” if that suits you better) in the early Church is to me to be quite naïve. The only term here that may have a totally foreign meaning to us in the 21st century may be “prophets”, the others can, and should have, biblical significance and weight for all Christians, I believe.

And what of these gifts given to men? What should they be recognized for? For what purpose? I submit it is for the purpose listed in these verses: “For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ”. I doubt that many would be opposed to “the equipping of the saints” or “the building up of the body of Christ”, but how is this PRACTICALLY accomplished? How is the “mission” of the Church (universally and locally) actually achieved? I would submit that the mission of the Church cannot be practically achieved without practical leadership. This was true 2,000 years ago, and it is true today.

On the local level, indisputably, the “equipping of the saints” starts with the elders (pastors) and teachers. This should be true whether it is two or three, two or three hundred or two or three thousand. This concept of eldership is not an invention of the apostle Paul. Don’t forget that the uneducated fisherman Peter referred to himself as “a fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). No doubt this term “elder” was carried over from the Jewish tradition of naming “elders” among the people, but to me this just confirms the wisdom of God in his dealings with his people.

Of course there has always been the tendency for man to hinder the equipping and building, especially with our man-made traditions, and thus we are always in constant danger of “invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down” (Mark 7:13). This is another very good reason for all Christians to study Church history. There is nothing new under the sun. All the mistakes have been made. There have been false teachers and wolves among the flock from the beginning. The early apostles were already giving strong warnings about this in the 1st century. To counteract against the false teachers and wolves, the early apostles were very strong about pointing out what should be the qualifications of a leader among God’s people. They also pointed them back to themselves – using themselves as “an example among the flock”. The standard for a leader among God’s people is no mystery, no secret. It is there in the pages of the New Testament for all to see.

My main point (if I really have one) is that “the structure of the assembly”, sooner or later, will be - must be - affected for better or for worse by the leadership that emerges. I use the word “emerges” advisedly, for in many instances leadership may come from a source outside the assembly itself. To me this is not the preferable natural order of things, but in the real world this is what happens more times than it should. In any event, the simple fact is that as the leadership goes, so goes the church. Furthermore, I would also suggest that one of the main missions of the Church, to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15) can hardly be fulfilled by “two or three gathered in my name”.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would also suggest that one of the main missions of the Church, to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15) can hardly be fulfilled by “two or three gathered in my name”.

When Jesus sent out the seventy, He sent them two by two, not all together. Each group of twho met the minimum standards for an ekklesia.

[UntoHim]

Forget minimum or maximum. There were NO "churches or assemblies" when Jesus gave the standard. You have ignored the standard. The standard is to Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. The fulfillment of this commandment cannot be practically fulfilled by two or three. You seem to forget the entire New Testament after the gospels. Even by the end of Acts the two or three had expanded to "the churches". By the time the apostle John wrote Revelation there were already seven (7) churches in Asia alone (at least what they called Asia then). By the time the apostle Paul penned his epistles there were already several group of apostles and workers, and some apparently had influence over a number of local churches that the apostle Paul called "another man's work".

If there were churches there was leadership. If there was leadership, then they were the ones steering the general direction of the local churches. This is all I am saying. Nothing more, nothing less. I am in no way attempting to nullify or even lessen the importance of "two or three" gathering in the Lord's name. (Like anything I could say or write could do such a thing!)

The "structure of the assembly" should (must) include leadership in my reading of the New Testament. This is all I am saying. Nothing more, nothing less (for now) Again, let us not act like we are in the year 50, or 100. This is 2012. We have thousands of years of Church history - the good, the bad and the ugly. We have all of this history to draw upon. Remember, this is "the information age". The world does not put it's head in the sand regarding history and neither should God's people.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

When Jesus sent out the seventy, He sent them two by two, not all together. Each group of two met the minimum standards for an ekklesia.

On what basis do you make this assertion? Is it that two or three gathered together has the presence of the Lord? I think that we are somewhat presumptuous to think that the mere fact of a one-time gathering of two or three constitutes church/assembly in the way that the term is used in both the gospels and the epistles.

I am not assuming that it necessarily takes more people. But I believe it takes something with some regularity. A meeting is not established. It happens. But a church is established. It has a lifespan of greater than that of a meeting. Not by definition, but by example. Otherwise, Paul and Barnabas would be a traveling church. I do not think that you will find anything in Paul's words that would suggest that as being true. They considered themselves emissaries from the church in Antioch, not the wandering church of two.

In this way, I believe that the simple use of the term ekklesia, which is the meeting, is not used to mean the fact of a meeting, but the interaction of those who do meet with some regularity.

The problem (as I see it) is that there is more than one aspect to the word that is used and that we call church. In at least one place, it is clear that the church is the people. Yet it is the meeting. If it is simply the people, then there is no requirement of a meeting. And while a meeting requires people, it is more about the group. Two sides. And I believe that when we think in terms of just having impromptu gatherings at the minimum, we are acknowledging the individual aspect. But if our "two or three" meetings are not somewhat regular, we are mocking the corporate. Now it could be that a larger group only occasionally meets together as one, but they meet in smaller groups within the larger group with regularity.

The thing that I am not getting out of the two or three focus is that the first example was meeting from house to house and in the temple. We like the house to house, but want to nit-pick at the temple because we have to listen to someone who has the training required to actually do the teaching. It was so from the beginning. Just because Gutenberg made the Bible generally available didn't make us all subject matter experts. We still need the temple. Even if it is only a house with 15 people meeting together.

If my only regular meeting is with one or two others, then I think that the examples in scripture would suggest that I/we should be among the more dedicated evangelists, like Paul. Otherwise, I should find myself as both breaking bread from house to house, and meeting in the temple.

The sending of the 70 was not the creation of churches, but the declaration of the kingdom. Those who respond will meet together as assemblies. The 70 will move on, two by two, to the next place to preach.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Forget minimum or maximum. There were NO "churches or assemblies" when Jesus gave the standard. You have ignored the standard. The standard is to Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. The fulfillment of this commandment cannot be practically fulfilled by two or three.

This thread started out of the "David Canfield" thread on "the ground of locality". Everyone on that thread flatly disagreed with Canfield's statement, that if we (honestly and humbly) considered his Bible verses, that the "local ground", with its one-city-one-church requirement, would become patently self-evident. Peter D then asked if there could be a follow-up question with the same level of scrutiny, and my version of that question was, "Assuming that one-city-one-church (with its attendant centralized authority structure), is not required, then what is the structure of the assembly?" My presumption was, what is the MINIMUM REQUIRED structure of the assembly. When I said "anything beyond that is of the evil one" I didn't mean that to have a meeting of more than 3 saints is somehow a falling away from the command of the Lord. And that includes a building, a web site, a pastor or elders, etc. My point is: those extra things are not required. I don't mean that they are in any way not indicated in the scriptures. They are clearly found in the scriptures, and beyond. But I don't see them as required from the scriptures, either.

Please forgive me if my arguments are not clearly stated. Also, in my rush to push my own personal "light from the Lord" I probably too selectively take from your discussion and thus distort it. It seemed in your statement that "The command of Mark 16:15 can hardly be fulfilled by a group of two or three" that 1) you assumed that I was limiting the ekklesia to two or three, and that 2) you were saying that a group of two or three could not be used to carry out the Lord's commmand. My point was that Jesus did use groups of two or three to carry out His command to proclaim the kingdom of God. But I am not saying that ONLY two or three can get the Lord's presence, or fulfill His purpose.

Sorry for my less than clear thinking and communicating. I am sure that somewhere in my writings there is a good and necessary point for the discussion. You just have to sift (shovel?) through a great mass to find it. I probably tend to overstress my points and thus distort the conversation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

On what basis do you make this assertion? Is it that two or three gathered together has the presence of the Lord? I think that we are somewhat presumptuous to think that the mere fact of a one-time gathering of two or three constitutes church/assembly in the way that the term is used in both the gospels and the epistles.

I am using the word ekklesia the way that it was used, and understood, in the day it was spoken. Gradually, over time, the word began to mean something different. Eventually, the meaning was so different that the first meaning -- "a meeting" -- simply didn't make sense. Moses didn't have a 'church' in the wilderness as spoken by Stephen in Acts 7:38. The magistrate didn't dismiss a 'church' in Acts 19:41. But in both cases the ekklesia was the word used. So I take ekklesia to mean, at least initially, "a meeting". But over time, it began to mean "a standing body".

Originally Posted by OBW

A meeting is not established. It happens. But a church is established. It has a lifespan of greater than that of a meeting. Not by definition, but by example.

I was using the tension between two aspects of one word (both "a meeting" and "a church") to examine the idea of a minimum required structure, proscribed by God, as revealed in the scripture. If one church per city (with its concomitant one set of elders, etc) is not required, then what is?

Originally Posted by OBW

In this way, I believe that the simple use of the term ekklesia, which is the meeting, is not used to mean the fact of a meeting, but the interaction of those who do meet with some regularity.

I like the word "assembly", which can mean both a temporary gathering which can be dismissed, as in Acts 19:41, and also a standing body (Like the New York State Assembly http://assembly.state.ny.us/) which meets together with regularity. Eventually, for we christians, ekklesia meant only the second ("a church"), and not the first. But if we try to see it as potentially overlapping both (admittedly not always easy), it might save us from the Canfield/Nee mistake of seeing in scriptures the prescription of one-city-one-church. Because you are clearly going to have more than one congregation/assembly/meeting (ekklesia) in one city. That was what I was trying to make as my contribution.

But in doing so I probably flogged my poor horse to exasperation, if not death, and took the point to some grand conclusion that was unnecessary. Such is the fate of many who try to think grandly.

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem (as I see it) is that there is more than one aspect to the word that is used and that we call church. In at least one place, it is clear that the church is the people. Yet it is the meeting. If it is simply the people, then there is no requirement of a meeting. And while a meeting requires people, it is more about the group. Two sides. And I believe that when we think in terms of just having impromptu gatherings at the minimum, we are acknowledging the individual aspect. But if our "two or three" meetings are not somewhat regular, we are mocking the corporate. Now it could be that a larger group only occasionally meets together as one, but they meet in smaller groups within the larger group with regularity.

Your discussion here, I think, mirrors my own. It was nice, for me, to see someone else restating my thoughts in their own terms. Not that that validates my conclusions, but at least some of my considerations.

Originally Posted by OBW

The thing that I am not getting out of the two or three focus is that the first example was meeting from house to house and in the temple. We like the house to house, but want to nit-pick at the temple because we have to listen to someone who has the training required to actually do the teaching...

The sending of the 70 was not the creation of churches, but the declaration of the kingdom. Those who respond will meet together as assemblies. The 70 will move on, two by two, to the next place to preach.

As I said to UntoHim, I probably overstressed the "two or three", and seemed as if I was dismissing anything else as irrelevant, or even wrong. I didn't mean to convey that. That is perhaps the same mistake LSM makes, when they dismiss "two or three" by simply saying, "They are not the church". My point was that they may not be the church, but they can still function as an effective assembly. The two or three can have the Lord's presence, His authority, His speaking. Requiring anything beyond that can be dangerous. We certainly see things beyond that in the scriptures. But I don't see them as required.

Certainly, though, if we forbid gatherings of larger than two or three we invite absurdity.

[OBW]

My understanding is that ekklesia is not simply "meeting." It has overtones of a community gathering, even of those who are the government of the community.

If that has any traction, then simply meeting is not truly ekklesia. It is the gathering of those called out (for whatever purpose — in ours the purpose is following Christ) and is centered around that purpose. The fact that several Christians get together to watch a basketball game is not "church." Yet I would separately argue that the fact that they are joining together for more than just "church" is an important part of the whole of their community within the greater community at large.

I think that "what is the structure of the church" is as varied as can be, yet is generally recognized by all but the most dogmatic for some particular formula. The LRC and the RCC come to mind as specific adherents to dogmatic views of the church. Two or three probably can be a meeting. Yet simply because of the joint time spent together by two Christians does not make their efforts separately "church" in the sense of "meeting" unless they are actually "doing church" as such.

I know we don't like the term "doing church." But I think that it is relevant when distinguishing between meeting which is "church" and meeting which is not. And while we are always part of the church in that universal sense, and members in particular — generally in a practical way with others to meet together — I do not think we become "church" in the meeting sense simply because of proximity. Gather to watch a baseball game and you are not participating in the "meeting" that is "church." But stop to pray together for a while and you are. And yet each one is always a member of the church.

I don't think that church comes about through adherence to a series of specifics like the LRC would like us to believe. It is more of a duck analysis. If it quacks, it's a church (or is church) (There used to be a brother in Dallas that was constantly mixing metaphors — could be hilarious). And the LRC is church. Just like the people down the street at the Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and even (gasp!) Catholic assemblies. And also the people in Don Rutledge's living room. And that of Keith Giles in Orange County (you won't know him — his blog is intriguing).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

As I said to UntoHim, I probably overstressed the "two or three", and seemed as if I was dismissing anything else as irrelevant, or even wrong. I didn't mean to convey that.

I did not think that you were. But there did seem to be the inference that the fact that two or three were gathered together made it church. I just don't have any clear basis to assert that so definitely. And when it is applied to the ones who were sent out two by two just because they are together, then I have some problem. I do not deny them the ability to "have church" with just the two. But if we presume that they were together virtually all the time, I would suggest that there was much time of their togetherness that would not be "church." In other words, church is not simply meeting. It is more than that. It is not simply doing a task together — even a religious one — although that task could be the thing that brings them into "meeting" (or into "church") in the sense spoken of in scripture.

And, of course, many of the references to "church" do not even require meeting. They simply exist because there are Christians. This is the universal sense, and the sense of the collection of members in any area.

But in all these ways of analyzing "church," it is what it is. It needs teaching. It needs the word (and the Word). It needs the Spirit. As it grows, it needs leadership. It needs to be open to revelation and keen to understand what is "from the beginning." In terms of leadership and organization, there are some that are nearly leaderless. Some have elders. Some operate strictly with the preacher as spiritual authority but the community as a whole as responsible for all other issues. The variety is nearly endless. And it is church. Of all the things that may be on the heart of God, I doubt that the structure of an assembly is far above the bottom of the list. Much higher are the lives of those who have chosen to follow to the best of their abilities. (And that sentence would be torn apart by the LRC because they do not acknowledge that they have abilities.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I did not think that you were. But there did seem to be the inference that the fact that two or three were gathered together made it church. I just don't have any clear basis to assert that so definitely. And when it is applied to the ones who were sent out two by two just because they are together, then I have some problem. I do not deny them the ability to "have church" with just the two. But if we presume that they were together virtually all the time, I would suggest that there was much time of their togetherness that would not be "church." In other words, church is not simply meeting. It is more than that.

Let's not forget that the Lord spoke of "2 or 3 gathering in My name." There never was the assumption by any of us, especially aron, that any two ole folks waiting for the bus was "church." Personally I have heard many Christians, after a rich time of fellowship in the Lord, gladly proclaim, "me and Dottie had church right there waiting in line," or something similar to that.

I think this was the Lord's intention in saying this. In John 4, Jesus said, "not here, not there, but in spirit." Here in Matt 18, the context was the prayer of agreement asking the Father to bind and to loose. The Lord promised to be there in their midst. To follow aron's thoughts on the ekklesia, think about how many so-called church meetings have existed in the past couple millennia where the Lord was not even present!

The ekklesia is an assembly which assembles in His name. Once we lose sight of the verb form to assemble, and forget the real location of the assembly, which is in spirit, in His name, then we are left with a noun form called church, which at best is a structured organization, and at worst is a gothic museum of sorts, where I spent the early part of my life.

[OBW]

I think that everyone is getting what I am saying. And in the context of a thread that is purported to be looking for the structure, my position is that there is structure but it is not so nearly definable. And I don't think aron is really saying anything different.

But he posited the thread in terms of seeking a rule. Not that he wants a rule, or thinks there really is one. But we need a premise to focus our discussion. We can either defend/prove a rule, or disprove it. What I am seeing is that there is structure. But that structure is not singular in "look and feel" yet those "in Spirit" will see it and feel it. It is there in the smallest and largest of assemblies. And sometimes man manages to mess it up. Yet there is still church in such a messed-up environment. Even a "true" church.

We need to have our eyes opened to discern. But at the same time, there is no formulaic rule that we can measure it by.

We've been visiting a different Bible church for a while (because our son and daughter-in-law — and now grandson — are there) and we find interesting differences in it and the one we have been part of for almost 25 years. The new one is actually better at the "community" aspects of church (which we discover is fairly recent) yet they are more dogmatic about some of what I would call "non essentials." Get one right and scare us a little on another. The short of it is that both are "church." Just like the Presbyterian church down the street. If the place on your journey needs deeper community, you might prefer the new place over the older one. If the need is to put your faith to work in a less para-church way, the first might be better.

In any case, it is about meeting together (hard to meet apart ).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The ekklesia is an assembly which assembles in His name. Once we lose sight of the verb form to assemble, and forget the real location of the assembly, which is in spirit, in His name, then we are left with a noun form called church, which at best is a structured organization, and at worst is a gothic museum of sorts, where I spent the early part of my life.

Yes; "to assemble" is a verb. The resultant form, structure, or pattern, is in the name of Jesus, and guided by His Holy Spirit and teachings. Beyond that, we should be wary of prescribing what it should, or should not, look like.

I noticed that ekklesia was a word found often in the OT, in the Septuagint version which was commonly used as a basis of the NT composition. See e.g. the Psalm 22:22 citation in Hebrews 2:12. Originally ekklesia didn't mean what we today think of when we use the word "church". Rather, it meant more like "meeting". Gradually over time ekklesia came to mean a standing body which assembles itself together, among other activities. But an assembly, or meeting, came to be seen as distinct from a church, i.e. the christian polity, though the Greek text used the same word.

I felt that Mr. Nee's one-city-one-church paradigm needed to expunge the first, original meaning, in order to get the NT text to line up with its doctrine. Obviously you can have more than one assembly, or meeting, in the name of Jesus in any geographical area. And this multiplicity of assemblies could be seen as a multiplication, rather than the dreaded "division", and it was also referenced positively by our Lord ("bearing much fruit", etc). So if we deal with the word ekklesia a little more nuanced than merely as "church", we might treat the text more carefully and not see the requirement of the kind of structure that Mr Nee et al thought was "normal".

Secondly, I stressed the "two or three" in Matthew 18 because it was dismissed out of hand by Mr. Lee with the words "They are not the church". I agree with Ohio that I would rather have two or three in the Lord's name, with His presence, than be in some "church" which is an empty shell; a museum to someone's preferred structure. But in making my point I may have overstated it, as if two or three gathered together were all that mattered.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Gather to watch a baseball game and you are not participating in the "meeting" that is "church." But stop to pray together for a while and you are. And yet each one is always a member of the church.

I disagree to an extent. If you are watching baseball with church members and doing it in a sanctified fashion in the Lord's name, that's church as far as I'm concerned.

But honestly, I think we are into speculation here about what is and isn't church.

Two things, however:

Although the church means the assembly, the church is the church whether it assembles or not. The universal church (assembly) never assembles. So it is not assembling that makes the assembly the assembly. I realize that sounds contradictory, but I think it is true.

We assemble because we are the assembly, we aren't the assembly because we assemble.

Said another way, we do church because we are the church. We aren't the church because we do church.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Although the church means the assembly, the church is the church whether it assembles or not. The universal church (assembly) never assembles. So it is not assembling that makes the assembly the assembly. I realize that sounds contradictory, but I think it is true.

But the universal church is being assembled, even as we speak. It is just operating at a level we can't see. But we can believe. My quibble is with those who think God needs some "wise master builder" to come along today and assemble the universal church. God said "Love your neighbor", not "Assemble my universal church". We would be wise to heed our boundaries.

Originally Posted by Igzy

We assemble because we are the assembly, we aren't the assembly because we assemble.

We are assembled because God assembles us ("...that which God puts together let no man break apart"). We are the assembly of God -- from God, of God, and unto God. God calls forth each one by name; our recognition and acceptance of each other in Christ Jesus is an affirmation of this fact. We allow God to assemble us because we love each other, not because we are the assembly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

But the universal church is being assembled, even as we speak. It is just operating at a level we can't see. But we can believe. My quibble is with those who think God needs some "wise master builder" to come along today and assemble the universal church. God said "Love your neighbor", not "Assemble my universal church". We would be wise to heed our boundaries.

But operating at a level we cannot see is different that gathering in the same physical area together. And I think we confuse these things. The first is the impetus for the second. But the lack of the second doesn't negate the first. However the second can and should demonstrate the first.

We allow God to assemble us because we love each other, not because we are the assembly.

My point was that being precedes doing, not the other way around; and being is not undone by not doing.

The word assembly can be confusing because it seems to imply you have to physically assemble to be the assembly. And some seem to have the view that if we don't assemble, there is no assembly.

In Hebrews we are asked not to forsake the assembling together (20:25). Why is that? I think it is because it damages the assembly. Certainly God has assembled and is still assembling His body. But, Igzy, there can be no assembly (noun/being) without God having first assembled (verb/doing) the believers. It seems most posts here are arguing semantics (perhaps I'm just as guilty). The Bible doesn't give clear criteria as to what does/does not constitute an assembly...why should we?

2 Corinthians 11:3 is always a sounding board in my mind. Paul says that there is simplicity in Christ, and he fears that we are being led astray from it just as the serpent led Eve away from God's clear word. Christ is the criteria. He is the assembler and the assembly. Our grappling with rules and their gray areas is only leads us away from Him and His simplicity.

Get together, assemble, meet with those who love Christ, who are truly trying to know and be known by Him. Something will come of it.

A brother in faith

[alwayslearning]

I think sometimes we may forget that the words used in the NT were used in common society before the NT was written and before the church was birthed. Assembly means what it means. People getting together.

What the apostles did in the NT (written) is theologically define and expound on what the church/assembly means in the Christian context. So a church literally per the language can be a group of secular philosophers meeting in the Areopagus in Athens, a meeting of civilians to take a vote, etc. But that's not what it is for Christians because Christians have a special connection by a new birth and all that entails.

[Peter Debelak]

There is a discussion on another thread about contemporary church "vetting" outside speakers. I didn't want to clog that discussion and my response is more fitting here:

This discussion seems to get at the core of questions about how to practice "church." In particular, it invokes "authority" of somekind - at least insofar as "leaders" have some authority to "shape" the message heard by the congregation - be it through vetting other messengers or through sermon choices etc...

But then, from where does that authority derive? And who does it preside over? Is it a spiritual authority? If so, is it over those in the congregation? To what extent? If it is, in fact, a spiritual - God-given - authority, does it only preside over me, a member of the congregation, to the extent that I chose to be a part of that congregation? Does it cease to be a spiritual authority, insofar as I'm concerned, if I don't attend that congregation?

The kinds of nuts and bolts questions we bring to the table in the "local ground" discussions, we also have to be willing to take forward to other contexts.

Why is it okay for "leaders" to "craft" different congregations? That sets up this scenario (and I'm not inherently opposed to it):

There's a set of "leaders" - so designated by God - who set up and "craft" different types of congregations. Sure, they're not opposed to meeting with other congregations or believers. So, they're not inherently divisive. So then, as an individual believer, I have a palate of "choices."

For me, then, it is either the case that God has a PARTICULAR congregation and "leader" he wants me to be "in" and "under," or He leaves it to my free will to choose and will work to transform me in whatever context I choose. (keep in mind, this is from the perspective of an indiviual - I'm not taking a position on whether God Himself has a "preferred" congregation writ large).

The thing with this scenario is it suddenly redefines the believers experience by placing the "group experience" first. Your personal faith is defined vis a vis the group you do or do not join and the leaders who craft them. "Groups" become the default measuring stick and sharpening stone of one's faith. Even if not the "point," they do become the starting point. I'm not sure if I'm communicating this concern accurately... Ugh!

In any case, what does this say about "spiritual authority"? What does it say about the Biblical examples of Paul appointing elders or instructing others on the same? Are these chalked up to being "one time deals" since there is no present day Paul? We either have to take these seriously or contextualize the Bibilical pattern. If we choose to contextualize this particular Biblical pattern, should we in the same light be more scrutinizing of the other ways in which we cling to Bibilical patterns as definitive?

There are a lot of Bibical ways to undermine the "ground of locality" teaching. But the alternative present state outside of the "ground" leaves a lot of unanswered Biblical questions as well.

Thoughts?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

...This discussion seems to get at the core of questions about how to practice "church." In particular, it invokes "authority" of somekind - at least insofar as "leaders" have some authority to "shape" the message heard by the congregation - be it through vetting other messengers or through sermon choices etc...

But then, from where does that authority derive? And who does it preside over? Is it a spiritual authority? If so, is it over those in the congregation? To what extent? If it is, in fact, a spiritual - God-given - authority, does it only preside over me, a member of the congregation, to the extent that I chose to be a part of that congregation? Does it cease to be a spiritual authority, insofar as I'm concerned, if I don't attend that congregation?

The kinds of nuts and bolts questions we bring to the table in the "local ground" discussions, we also have to be willing to take forward to other contexts.

Why is it okay for "leaders" to "craft" different congregations? That sets up this scenario (and I'm not inherently opposed to it):

There's a set of "leaders" - so designated by God - who set up and "craft" different types of congregations. Sure, they're not opposed to meeting with other congregations or believers. So, they're not inherently divisive. So then, as an individual believer, I have a palate of "choices."

For me, then, it is either the case that God has a PARTICULAR congregation and "leader" he wants me to be "in" and "under," or He leaves it to my free will to choose and will work to transform me in whatever context I choose. (keep in mind, this is from the perspective of an indiviual - I'm not taking a position on whether God Himself has a "preferred" congregation writ large).

The thing with this scenario is it suddenly redefines the believers experience by placing the "group experience" first. Your personal faith is defined vis a vis the group you do or do not join and the leaders who craft them. "Groups" become the default measuring stick and sharpening stone of one's faith. Even if not the "point," they do become the starting point. I'm not sure if I'm communicating this concern accurately... Ugh!

In any case, what does this say about "spiritual authority"? What does it say about the Biblical examples of Paul appointing elders or instructing others on the same? Are these chalked up to being "one time deals" since there is no present day Paul? We either have to take these seriously or contextualize the Bibilical pattern. If we choose to contextualize this particular Biblical pattern, should we in the same light be more scrutinizing of the other ways in which we cling to Bibilical patterns as definitive?

"When we believe into the Son/By His Spirit we are all made one". We are still a plurality, still different. But we are one. Just like the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Different, but not different.

"You shall all be one, even as I am one with the Father." Different names, designations, but one. Plurality but not bedlam.

Satan, on the other hand, is pure plurality. "We are many" says the crowd of demons in the man there by the Gadarene lake-shore. Satan is confusion.

I think of all this because I saw a discussion on the Wikipedia site of the International Churches of Christ. "We are a theocracy, with God at the top". That was the ICOC organizational line.

Which brings me back to the question, Okay God is at the top, but who is #2? The leader of your movement? Kip McKean? Witness Lee? The current Pope? Then who is #3, #4, etc? This is the way of the Gentiles, and the door to lording it over one another. They say that without this order, and then they quote Paul or some such ("apostles and prophets and teachers"), that there will be confusion. But I say that this "order" is confusion. It is the Babylon building and it will of necessity be rent with division after confusion after turmoil after schism after rebellion.

Jesus talked about this at some length, and repeatedly: the way of the Gentiles vs the way of the disciples. And they seemingly just never got it. All the theology and high peak visions were just built on organizational sand.

If you want to be great, be the least. This is central to the message of Jesus. Yes God wants to build. But here is how God wants to put order into the universe. "With these, the least of My brothers"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But I say that this "order" is confusion. It is the Babylon building and it will of necessity be rent with division after confusion after turmoil after schism after rebellion.

Jesus talked about this at some length, and repeatedly: the way of the Gentiles vs the way of the disciples.

Great observations.

This is a point that perhaps will never be clear to the disciples until they personally get "burnt" by the alternative. It's so easy to consider that if man does not "order" the assembly, then there will be chaos. Fallen man loves ordered structure, even in the assembly. I lived thru this with all of my LC contemporaries. We were naive to the blatant demands of "oneness with the ministry" even after literal wars erupted. We were trained to believe that the one accord could only be achieved when all the saints were "one with the Apostle, just as in the book of Acts."

It has been said that our conscience does not instruct us to do what is right, but to do the right thing. As such it becomes readily apparent that it can be incorrectly "trained," either by parents, or teachers, or ministers. This is why the Apostle Paul warned the elders to watch for those who will "rise up among yourselves speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." Perverted things are those distorted things which resemble the real thing, yet have been twisted or deviated for personal gains.

Consider what happened in the Recovery. Once Lee had persuaded the entire Recovery to buy into his brand of "oneness," he turned over the controls to his fleshly profligate son Phillip. This enforcer of the oneness exercised great license to dominate all the workers, elders, and churches. Supposedly this was to bring tremendous "order" and the restored blessing to the Recovery. The glorious days of "Elden Hall" would thus be duplicated, and the whole earth would be evangelized. Who could argue with such a "sales pitch?"

But, how in the world would God the Father bless such a system which violated every principle of His throne? One with a fallen man rather than one with His Only Begotten Son? Whose kingdom would this be on earth? Who would get all the glory, a sinner or His Beloved? Could our Heavenly Father allow "Phillip the Molester" to carry out His eternal plan rather than His own Spirit of reality?

It's no wonder that Lee's ordered plan produced such chaos.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It has been said that our conscience does not instruct us to do what is right, but to do the right thing. As such it becomes readily apparent that it can be incorrectly "trained," either by parents, or teachers, or ministers. This is why the Apostle Paul warned the elders to watch for those who will "rise up among yourselves speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." Perverted things are those distorted things which resemble the real thing, yet have been twisted or deviated for personal gains.

Gradually our conscience and our brain get coordinated by years of hard experience, as false copies continually lure us away from the original message, from "the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus."

The psalmist wrote, "I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness"... Jesus taught the disciples that it is better to take the least place, to be the "doorkeeper", than to try to sit in a prestigious place. Take the lowest place, Jesus advised, repeatedly. Instead, today we get endless wranglings about "who is of first": Dong Yu Lan, or Titus Chu, or Blended 1 or Blended 2?

And those who successfully champion "their man" as the Top Dog get to be in coveted slot #3, #4, #5, etc. Just like politics. Just like the Gentiles - push the Alpha Male and maybe you get to be the Beta; and get the choice leftovers. I don't care how many Bible verses you paper it over with, you are drawing people away from the simplicity of Christ Jesus, and are building a kingdom of this world, and this age.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"When we believe into the Son/By His Spirit we are all made one". We are still a plurality, still different. But we are one. Just like the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Different, but not different.

"You shall all be one, even as I am one with the Father." Different names, designations, but one. Plurality but not bedlam.

This is why the discussion of whether there are seven spirits before the throne or one Holy Spirit sevenfold intensified is moot. Because God is one and His kingdom is one.

There are "many mansions" in the Father's house but it is one. In Revelation John hears "many waters" but the sound is one. If we let go of our fallen ideas of order, and let your surroundings tell forth the glory of God, and simply raise your voice in harmony, it will manifest the glory of the sons of God. No need to require everybody else to be "absolutely identical" to your model.