"A House Divided", or "A House with Many Rooms"?

[aron]

A House Divided Cannot Stand

Mark 3:25 “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

I have noted aspects of various personalities and opinions being played out online. When it comes to points of view, and presenting them, I differ from others, as they do from each other.

I am probably to the “left” of brother Ohio in many views. I don’t consider President Obama to be a Muslim terrorist, because I don't see enough facts to come to that conclusion (nor, for the same reason, do I hold President Bush and Cheney to be part of a secret cabal behind the 9/11 attacks. Not enough facts to warrant that). But on the other hand, I am probably to the “right” of Awareness, or at least quite “different”.

I am probably not as logical as OBW, nor as ZNP. I am (being older) probably less likely to shoot from the hip than Mr. Liotta.

In short, I am different from all the posters here. But we are all one, to some degree. We all agree there is a subject worth commenting on, and exploring together (what that subject is, of course, is open to discussion).

I offer these comments as a microcosm, as it were, of the “Christian discussion”. All believers are, of course, different, and unique. But all believers are one. They believe there is One God who loves us and sent His only begotten Son. (Etc – I am not going to try to outline a “universal creed” here).

We are different, but not divided. That is the glory of the one faith. We are unique yet united. We are “one, even as Jesus and the Father are one” because of God’s unique shining glory, given to us in the person of Jesus Christ the Nazarene (cf Jo 17:22), and received by faith. Our faith makes us one.

Eventually, I came to feel that Mr. Nee’s ground of oneness doctrine was yet another divisive idea, pushing confusion into an already confusing landscape of doctrine and ideas. Please see my next post for discussion of this.

[aron]

“In My Father’s House are many Rooms” John 14:2

There are many rooms in the Father’s house. Primarily, I had considered this to be like individual hearts. See the previous verse, verse 1 of John 14. "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.” These dwelling places are within the believers.

See also the parable in Matthew 12.
“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.”

The house is arguably a human soul. But the Father’s house is one, and the many sub-dwellings are not just human hearts, but may also represent collective assemblies. What we might call churches. Meetings. Gatherings. As in, “Whenever there are two or three of you in My name, there I will be in the midst of you.” Matthew 18:20.

My point here is that the Father’s house has many sub-units, but still it is one. It is not divided, but rather composed, out of many. My thought is that there are many (different, or separate) assemblies, but because of the (common, or one) faith they are all part of the same Father’s house. Wherever we assemble in the Name of Jesus, we are one with each other, and are also (so I hold) connected in spirit with all those who also believe and receive each other in this one Name.

So Paul could write to one set of believers and tell them to greet the church in someone else’s house, even if that second church was in the same city, because that meeting was part of the Father’s house. (see the greetings in Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 16, and Colossians 4). I am not advocating house churches; I am merely saying that what we call “meetings” and “services” and what we call “churches” were designated by the same word: ecclesia.

So you can have multiple ecclesia in one city, or town, or on one street, or in one peninsula, or on one mountain (etc, etc: see the options in Mr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham for further details), yet all these “rooms” are part of the Father’s house.

There are many, but they all are one.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I am probably to the “left” of brother Ohio in many views. I don’t consider President Obama to be a Muslim terrorist, because I don't see enough facts to come to that conclusion (nor, for the same reason, do I hold President Bush and Cheney to be part of a secret cabal behind the 9/11 attacks. Not enough facts to warrant that). But on the other hand, I am probably to the “right” of Awareness, or at least quite “different”.

One quick comment. I remember Ohio presenting evidence that Obama is a Muslim. I do not recall any suggestion at all that he was "a Muslim terrorist". Perhaps you could edit that or else point me to the relevant post. Thanks.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One quick comment. I remember Ohio presenting evidence that Obama is a Muslim. I do not recall any suggestion at all that he was "a Muslim terrorist". Perhaps you could edit that or else point me to the relevant post. Thanks.

Sorry, I tried to do a "search" function but cannot seem to grasp the program. Or maybe Ohio never made that quote.

Sorry for the lack on my part. I was going by memory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

“In My Father’s House are many Rooms” John 14:2
There are many, but they all are one.

In other words, E pluribus unum ...

We can see early on, before even being called Christians, there was disagreement as to what Jesus meant.

Paul, James, and Peter disagreed. James and his following were practicing Jews. Peter had one foot into the circumcised and one in the uncircumcised, and Paul went to the uncircumcised, or gentiles, who weren't practicing Jews. And then there were the gnostics.

But still, in spirit all these followers of "The Way" were one. And it's been that way ever since. Outwardly Christians aren't ever gonna be one. That's too idealistic, and unrealistic. But inwardly, spiritually, we are all one as Jesus spoke of being one with the Father.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Sorry, I tried to do a "search" function but cannot seem to grasp the program. Or maybe Ohio never made that quote.

Sorry for the lack on my part. I was going by memory.

Search functions don't seem to operate very well after our beloved "Topiq Natzi" pulls out his remote deleter.

For the record I never said or implied that our President was an extremist. I stated a few facts based on an article I read. I can say with certainty, based on others' evaluations, that BHO is perhaps the most liberal leader America has ever had. Some think that's a good thing. Others think he is not liberal enough.

I think it is topics like this that enable us to know other Christians. Sitting around studying LSM books hours on end may appear like "oneness," but does little to actually cement believers together, contrary to popular opinion in the LC's. Sitting in untold meetings together does little to help ones really know each other. Bring up a presidential topic and watch how everyone reacts. Some are "armed" with facts and opinions. Some leave the room. Some could care less. Some would like to hear what's going on. Some are gov't employees, so they really can't get involved. Quite a diversity to say the least.

I recently spent a week vacation with my BIL, who is a liberal by trade. We had a few good conversations. We respect each others' views, so the time becomes valuable, learning how others' view the same events. We even had an "interesting" conversation about Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell.

Whether we are a "house divided" or a "house of many rooms," often depends simply on love. Do we love our views more than those who hold differing views. Sometimes that is real difficult, but it is something that should be remembered every time we "break bread" and remember the Lord.

[awareness]

That was both insightful and generous bro Ohio. Thanks for the reminder of love ... even considering that of differing political views. Now that's truly a Christian view.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some are gov't employees, so they really can't get involved.

As a government employee and a teacher I noted with interest (and alarm) that a new law in MO would make it illegal for a teacher to contact a student or past student on a social media site. Although you could see many obvious reasons for such a law, think of what a bind that would put the teacher in.

For example, is this forum a "social media site"? Likewise, how do you stop someone from seeking you out on Facebook, etc. So as a teacher you have to be extremely vigilant, careful, prudent, use aliases to prevent students from finding you, and then if in doubt, delete.

You also have to be very careful about what you say. I have lots of strong opinions about education, no doubt these would offend some, especially if they make a living from Govt contracts.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Search functions don't seem to operate very well after our beloved "Topiq Natzi" pulls out his remote deleter.

For zee rrrrecord zee "search funtions" are NOT effected whatzoeverrr by da deletion of oft topiq posts or da deletion of flaming

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For zee rrrrecord zee "search funtions" are NOT effected whatzoeverrr by da deletion of oft topiq posts or da deletion of flaming

But what about the word s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m? and all the asterisk replacement of characters in the word?....

[UntoHim]

Ok, that was interesting. Socialism was not one of the censored words. I went ahead and cleared the list, reset it and now it looks like it allows this word. I'm not really worried about having the censored words list activated anyway. I really had it activated so that guests could not post profane things, but anything a guest posts has to go through moderation anyway, so I think there is no need for such a list.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, that was interesting. Socialism was not one of the censored words. I went ahead and cleared the list, reset it and now it looks like it allows this word. I'm not really worried about having the censored words list activated anyway. I really had it activated so that guests could not post profane things, but anything a guest posts has to go through moderation anyway, so I think there is no need for such a list.

This is a test : socialism ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, that was interesting. Socialism was not one of the censored words. I went ahead and cleared the list, reset it and now it looks like it allows this word. I'm not really worried about having the censored words list activated anyway. I really had it activated so that guests could not post profane things, but anything a guest posts has to go through moderation anyway, so I think there is no need for such a list.

Can we place "cargo cult" on our list of censored words?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

I am probably not as logical as OBW, nor as ZNP. I am (being older) probably less likely to shoot from the hip than Mr. Liotta.

In short, I am different from all the posters here. But we are all one, to some degree. We all agree there is a subject worth commenting on, and exploring together (what that subject is, of course, is open to discussion).

So does that make you a house of a different color?

P.S. That's my hip talking...

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul, James, and Peter disagreed. James and his following were practicing Jews. Peter had one foot into the circumcised and one in the uncircumcised, and Paul went to the uncircumcised, or gentiles, who weren't practicing Jews. And then there were the gnostics.

But still, in spirit all these followers of "The Way" were one. And it's been that way ever since. Outwardly Christians aren't ever gonna be one. That's too idealistic, and unrealistic. But inwardly, spiritually, we are all one as Jesus spoke of being one with the Father.

This is what I was getting at (the bolded part). The only addendum is that I would say that in spite of our obvious differences we are all slowwwwwly becoming one as Jesus spoke of being one with the Father.

And the variety of experiences which you touched on in the first paragraph (gentiles & Jews of various stripes, mystics & zealots & whatnot) shows the power of the faith. All these seeming differences are subsumed by believing into Jesus the Nazarene.

There are truly many interesting "rooms" in the Father's house! The difference between this amazing display of all the varied grace of God, and "a house divided", is what Ohio alluded to. Do we receive one another? Or cast one another out as being "different"?

That is the acid test.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never said or implied that our President was an extremist. I stated a few facts based on an article I read. I can say with certainty, based on others' evaluations, that BHO is perhaps the most liberal leader America has ever had.

I probably mischaracterized your statement. I think, in hindsight, that you wrote the phrase "If Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya..." and didn't rebut it, so I assumed you agreed. And the citation you provided was, to me, less than compelling.

But I had the same problem with the ultra-liberal/libertarian "Bush & Cheney 9/11 conspiracy" theories I saw. No compelling evidence and LOTS of hearsay and speculation.

So I guess I'm somewhere in the vast, muddled, middle.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think it is topics like this that enable us to know other Christians. Sitting around studying LSM books hours on end may appear like "oneness," but does little to actually cement believers together, contrary to popular opinion in the LC's.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sitting in untold meetings together does little to help ones really know each other. Bring up a presidential topic and watch how everyone reacts. Some are "armed" with facts and opinions. Some leave the room. Some could care less. Some would like to hear what's going on. Some are gov't employees, so they really can't get involved. Quite a diversity to say the least.

Most church meetings I go to are either waaaay conservative or waaaaay liberal (and I consider myself a liberal!) so I just nod & smile and give them boilerplate. "Jesus is Lord! Amen!"

Kind of sad, but "it is what it is".

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whether we are a "house divided" or a "house of many rooms," often depends simply on love. Do we love our views more than those who hold differing views. Sometimes that is real difficult, but it is something that should be remembered every time we "break bread" and remember the Lord.

Yes! This is exactly what I was getting at! Do we receive one another, based on our mutual love of God, or do we find differences and collapse into squabbles?

The ground of oneness doctrine did nothing that I can see to resolve this dilemma. It just became yet another wedge to drive christians apart.

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So does that make you a house of a different color?

P.S. That's my hip talking...

A house of a decidedly different color. But of what color, is yet to be determined.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Most church meetings I go to are either waaaay conservative or waaaaay liberal (and I consider myself a liberal!) so I just nod & smile and give them boilerplate. "Jesus is Lord! Amen!"

I like Winston Churchill's comment here .... "If you are young, and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are old, and are not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

Yes! This is exactly what I was getting at! Do we receive one another, based on our mutual love of God, or do we find differences and collapse into squabbles?

The ground of oneness doctrine did nothing that I can see to resolve this dilemma. It just became yet another wedge to drive christians apart.

This is one of the Recovery's greatest contradictions.

Many years ago I was more idealistic and received "the ground of oneness" as a way to keep the oneness, and to be saved from all our differences. Eventually, I forsook "the ground of oneness" as one of the most divisive factors of all, because it was really based on whether we were "one with Anaheim" or not.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many years ago I was more idealistic and received "the ground of oneness" as a way to keep the oneness, and to be saved from all our differences.

There is an aspect of oneness to be found in the teachings and example of Jesus. It goes back to the core of what "is" and what "is not".

Think about how we initially organize the world, and what becomes the basis of our future cognition, feelings and behaviors. Every infant learns to determine what constitutes "me" and what is "not me". Then there is Mommy and Daddy et all (bro & sis & gemma & dog Spot) which forms the basis of "us", versus "not us", or "them". Like the Smiths down the street. The Smiths are "them", while "we" are the Joneses. Etc.

Now along comes Jesus. He speaks to and within a religious system built upon the foundation of separation. "Our God is holy, be ye separate from them"

There are all sorts of rules and by-laws to separate "clean" from "dirty", etc. What is pure and what is impure. All the unclean are carefully weeded out. All the impure, all the failures; the crippled, the blind, the lame, the sinners.

Now you can see where I am going with this. Jesus' example was connecting with "the outcasts"; He met with "them". The "Us/Them" dichotomy was over.

Next, consider the teachings of Jesus.
1. Jesus said, "As you do to THEM, so shall it be done to YOU." In other words, there is no separation between YOU and THEM.

2. Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive US our trespasses even as we forgive THEM who trespass against us." No difference between US and THEM. These 2 words are temporary aspects of the universal whole.

3. Jesus said, "Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU." YOU and the OTHERS are temporary distinctions between parts of the whole. The parts are transitory, ephemeral. The whole is eternal.

People who remove themselves from "others" will find themselves having a conversation with the Judge of all. Watchman Nee spoke a message called "What are We?" in January 1934 in Shanghai. My point is that Nee's useage of the word "We" in this context is suspect. A "special calling" to remove ourselves from "other christians" who don't have the proper "ground of oneness" creates a new "Us/Them" dichotomy. There is now a new "WE/NOT WE" image in people's minds.

Nee talks about a "recovered truth" being the basis of this separation, and new distinction. But I hold that the "recovered truth" of Jesus is that there is no longer any separation or distinction. So Nee's "We" seems to be an attempt to renew a derived construction.

In summary, my sense is that we fear and demonize "the other" because we try to hide from "self". It is always HIS fault, it is "THEIR" fault, etc. We fixate upon the "splinter" in OTHER while we ignore the "beam" in SELF; we try to ignore our true state before the Father of lights. We are like Adam and Eve, hiding with fig leaves. Our fig leaf is to focus on how bad the OTHER is. That is a mental construction which cannot stand before the throne. Its age is over.

So aron and Ohio (and all the rest) are "one even as Jesus and the Father are one". No "ground of oneness" will restore this. It is already there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Next, consider the teachings of Jesus.

1. Jesus said, "As you do to THEM, so shall it be done to YOU." In other words, there is no separation between YOU and THEM.

2. Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive US our trespasses even as we forgive THEM who trespass against us." No difference between US and THEM. These 2 words are temporary aspects of the universal whole.

3. Jesus said, "Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU." YOU and the OTHERS are temporary distinctions between parts of the whole. The parts are transitory, ephemeral. The whole is eternal.

4. Another verse that comes to mind has Jesus saying, "As you have done to the least of these my brothers, so have you done to Me." (Matt ch. 25). Jesus is holding forth a supposed THEM (the least of these My brothers) and saying it is really ME. So THEM and ME are one and the same reality.

Heavy, way heavy.....

Now I know, you are at this point expecting me to break out into some "Brother Sun/Sister Moon" poem a la Francis of Assisi. I know good orthodox christians can be a little threatened by the implications of my thoughts. "We are all children of God, blah, blah, blah. Don't worry, God loves everbody, etc."

Obviously as a believer I think it is rather important to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I think it rather beneficial to be translated out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of the Son of God's love.

But at least I would posit that Jesus was presenting to us a view of reality, which even if "we do not yet see all things subject to" (Heb. 2:8), kind of overturns the old, fallen "Us/Them" "Me/Not Me" "We/You" (ad nauseum) dichotomy, which is intrinsically both alienating and adversarial. That "old man" mindset opposes the reaching embrace, and the saving love, of God's Christ.

And, I argue, it is with that "old" mindset that the "ground of oneness" was constructed by Watchman Nee in China in the 1920s & 30s. It looked good; seemed biblical, was arguably logical, etc. But his argument was based on premises no longer valid.

Now, I myself (see how easy it is to use those words!!) often write and speak from "old premises", and thus many of my own arguments are also invalid. I think we all are short. So I may seem like some holier-than-thou Johnny-come-lately sashaying along and critiquing Nee, whom I do respect and appreciate. And come Judgment Day Mr. Nee might be rather higher up the "Banqueting Table" than I. But it's not about Nee, and certainly not about meee... or Brothers Weee.....

It is about Jesus; and it's about the new universe that Jesus is holding forth to us all. Nee's hypothetical "Normal Church" was merely a set of ideas and teachings, and don't necessarily encompass the whole of reality any more than Lee's "Economy" (and don't get me started on that one... [I need a "groanie" face here]). Nee's "Normal Church" was still somewhat in the old reality. That reality is gone.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Eventually, I came to feel that Mr. Nee’s ground of oneness doctrine was yet another divisive idea, pushing confusion into an already confusing landscape of doctrine and ideas. Please see my next post for discussion of this.

Something I have considered is many in the local churches came out of other denominations, sects, etc. Watchman Nee was no different. He came out of the Exclusive Brethren where he was excommunicated. Some of the EB teachings he kept and promoted. Just as the local churches has their vision, the EB has "seeing the one place". Just as the ground of oneness was promoted by WN and WL, so do the Exclusive brethren and Open Brethren.

In The Practical Expression of the Church, Witness Lee spoke of being general. One point in particular being general when it came to baptism. Not emphasizing how; sprinkling or immersion. Of course those in the local churches who came out of baptist backgrounds, baptism by sprinkling would be a bitter pill to take.

Another point what about those that came out of the JW? I'm sure there's practices for the JW that got carried over into the LC.

My point being the Christian backgrounds many have had were shaped by these varying backgrounds. Just as mine was based on the local churches, that's were my orientation is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In summary, my sense is that we fear and demonize "the other" because we try to hide from "self". It is always HIS fault, it is "THEIR" fault, etc. We fixate upon the "splinter" in OTHER while we ignore the "beam" in SELF; we try to ignore our true state before the Father of lights. We are like Adam and Eve, hiding with fig leaves. Our fig leaf is to focus on how bad the OTHER is. That is a mental construction which cannot stand before the throne. Its age is over.

So aron and Ohio (and all the rest) are "one even as Jesus and the Father are one". No "ground of oneness" will restore this. It is already there.

The so-called "ground of oneness" was a way to bring "us" and "them" back together again in love. We actually are one and should be one in fellowship, but men of old had erected walls between us, to separate "us" and "them." It was time to recognize the "walls" for what they were and remove them. They hindered the fellowship between "us" and "them." There were also those bad "clergy" that reinforced these "walls" so that "us" and "them" could not be together, so we had to eliminate them too.

Now that there were no "walls" and no "clergy," we were recovered back to the beginning, and "us" and "them" could dwell together in unity. "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." What a delightful song we were singing all the time together with "us" and "them" and Jesus.

As we were singing and singing, the song seemed to get a little old and stale and tasteless. The walls around "us" and "them" seemed to be reappearing and growing higher than ever. We thought there was no clergy any more, but then we found out that some brothers were more "brother" than the other brothers. One particular "brother" was more "brother" than all the rest of the "brothers" put together.

What had happened to us? Some of the old songs we tried to sing just seemed to be written in a foreign language. What were they ever talking about when they said "joy unspeakable and full of glory?" What did that mean? What happened to us? We thought it would be "us" and "them" and Jesus forever, but now it is only "us" and "them" and that "brother" who is more "brother" than all the other "brothers" put together.

[awareness]

Wow! bro Ohio, that was an ingenious post, and insightful.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The so-called "ground of oneness" was a way to bring "us" and "them" back together again in love...

Isn't that story "Animal Farm"?

Why did those animals feel they needed to let the pigs run the farm?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Isn't that story "Animal Farm"?

Human nature tends to have some constantly recurring themes.

The "brother being more 'brother' than other brothers" idea came from an account I read years ago of J.N.Darby visiting one assembly.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now that there were no "walls" and no "clergy," we were recovered back to the beginning, and "us" and "them" could dwell together in unity. "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." What a delightful song we were singing all the time together with "us" and "them" and Jesus.

I'll speak from my frame of reference. No walls and no clergy to me was appreciating the speaking of a gifted member while having the liberty to share the impact of Christ on your week. What where the trials and what were the tribulations. No walls meant having the freedom to invite your friends and peers to Lord's day meeting.
Can you say that today? As I mentioned to one brother, when the local churches has become based on the fellowship of a ministry. That means the generality of being a Christian is not enough to remain. You had to be one who gravitates toward the ministry. You had to have the vision (aka seeing of the one place).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Human nature tends to have some constantly recurring themes.

Ohio, your post made me think of these verses.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah ; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 1 Samuel 8:4-8

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

[The fellowship in] the local churches has become based on the fellowship of a ministry. That means the generality of being a Christian is not enough to remain. You had to be one who gravitates toward the ministry. You had to have the vision (aka seeing of the one place).

At some point it became clear to me that the "ground" of the local churches was "the ministry" of the LSM. First a vetted Nee, then a vetted Lee, now the vetting BBs. (If you don't know what vetting means, LSM-ites call it "polishing". As in the spoken messages were "polished" before publishing. All rough parts removed).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As we were singing and singing, the song seemed to get a little old and stale and tasteless. The walls around "us" and "them" seemed to be reappearing and growing higher than ever. We thought there was no clergy any more, but then we found out that some brothers were more "brother" than the other brothers. One particular "brother" was more "brother" than all the rest of the "brothers" put together.

What had happened to us? Some of the old songs we tried to sing just seemed to be written in a foreign language. What were they ever talking about when they said "joy unspeakable and full of glory?" What did that mean? What happened to us? We thought it would be "us" and "them" and Jesus forever, but now it is only "us" and "them" and that "brother" who is more "brother" than all the other "brothers" put together.

The walls arose and caused us to be narrow. It wasn't enough to be general, but to have the vision. As with several I meet with on Saturday nights, they've attended several Lord's day meetings. Being general believers as they are and lacking the vision (i.e. seeing the one place), this brother and this sister were not followed up on. It's these walls where being a general brother or sister is not inclusive enough for you to remain. Rather in order to remain and go on the local church, you need the vision, an aptititude for the ministry. Otherwise in the local churches, they won't pursue you for your participation in fellowship.
It's because of these walls that arose, how comfortable do those meeting in the local churches feel inviting their friends and peers? The "brother" who is more "brother" than all the other "brothers" may not grasp my point, but the general brother knows what I'm talking about.
What caused us to become narrow? Allow me to provide a picture. If you meet with a local church and go to home meetings within your locality, suppose you have Christians in your neighborhood who also host/attend home meetings outside LSM oriented fellowship. Does the sense of being a general Christian still exist where you can enter into any home meeting and participate with other brothers and sisters in Christ?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whether we are a "house divided" or a "house of many rooms," often depends simply on love. Do we love our views more than those who hold differing views.

Just wanted to give a shout out to a wise comment. One nice thing about being in a conversation is that you don't have to say anything intelligent. You just have to patiently wait around until someone else does. Voila! An intelligent conversation occurs!