Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?

[John]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

There there are a variety of ministries (1 Cor 12:5) serving many different churches. These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

Paul's attitude reflects that of one who understood that churches had the right to question his ministry (2 Cor 6:11-13; cf. Rev 2:2). Paul spends half of 2 Corinthians appealing to the Corinthians to consider his ministry trustworthy and worthwhile. But he stops short of commanding them to submit to him. This shows he knew they had the right to reject him if they viewed his ministry as damaging.

Igzy,

I was bothered by the quoted post from you. Let me try and get out the problems that I have with it, and maybe you can help me with some explanation or correction.

To begin, you move from the universal statement that [all] things done in “Christianity” are the healthiest and most biblical, which seems to be put in juxtaposition to the way that things were done in Witness Lee’s Local Church. I would agree that some things done in “Christianity” are better (more healthy and, possibly, more biblical) than some things done in the Local Church; but, I would not agree that all things are best.

I don’t want to go too far in my comments, since I don’t know how universally you really intended to go with your statement, even though your statement went all the way. For one thing, I don’t know for sure what you meant by “Christianity.” I know that you seemed to be playing off Witness Lee’s usage, and he applied it derogatorily to everything Christian that was not a part of his Local Church; but, I hope you do not believe that everything in all of established Christianity is healthier and more biblical than all things that were done in the Local Church.

After this all-encompassing opener, you presented us with a discussion of leaders. By your presentation, it seems that you feel that the way that Christianity “does leaders” falls into the category of being “the healthiest and most biblical.” The way that much of Christianity controls the way that leaders function is generally healthier, I would say, than the way that the Local Church does it; but, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s the healthiest. As to being the most biblical, that would be really difficult to prove, I would think, and I disagree that it’s the most biblical.

For myself, I admit that I do not know all about how Christianity does leaders. The Roman Catholics do it one way, and the Brethren do it another. There are surely unhealthy aspects to the Catholic way, as a number of abused Catholics have attested. There are leaders in other Christian groups that have been accused of abuses against their members. In fact, as one person recently wrote to my wife on this forum about The Thread of Gold, many Christians outside of the Local Church have experienced abusive churches (and these should be considered a part of the Christianity that you appear to be endorsing as a whole). After my experiences with the leaders in the Local Church and experiences with leaders in a large Bible church, I would state that it is the leaders and the leadership model that is a large part of the problem. In my opinion, these few examples refute your proposition that “the ways things are done in ‘Christianity’ are the healthiest.”

As to your claim that the ways Christianity does things are the most biblical, let me put forward a few comments about your statements regarding leaders. Before I do, however, I will state that I do not think that the Bible mandates that all churches must have leaders in a leadership structure like I have seen and heard about in Christianity. (Of course, I do not presume to know about all leaders and all leadership structures in all of Christianity.)

Now, on to what I disagree with in your presentation as regards it being biblical. First, I do not see that Hebrews 13:17 supports leaders having the obligation to vet ministries as you claim:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (KJV).

As I hope that you will agree, the verse does not address vetting ministries at all. Therefore, this claim, so far as you have tried to show, is lacking in biblical support.

Second, I noticed that you did not give a biblical reference for the following statement: “members are charged to obey and submit to leaders.” I could assume that you would use Hebrews 13:17 to support it, since maybe it was what you meant to do when you used it to try to support vetting. Reading what the King James translators did with it sure seems to authorize some kind of heavy-handed ruling and obedience. Unfortunately, this verse has been used, I think, by leaders in some Christian churches to force submission, producing an environment in which abuse can take root and grow. The problem with leaning on this verse is that the translation is grossly inaccurate and does not actually support rendering obedience to church leaders. The literal Greek goes like this:

be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring (scripture4all.org).

In the Greek, then, there is a whole different meaning than the one that had been told to me in the past. It is much less forceful of a statement and is about persuading and deferring, not about obedience and submission. Note that the Greek does not even recognize the permanency of leaders but uses “the ones leading you,” which could be interpreted as a fluid term (that is, I lead in this situation today, and you lead in that one tomorrow). Regardless of how you would interpret that phrase, the ones leading us are to be persuading us, not lording it over us, not insisting on their authority, not expecting us to agree with them, not thinking that they own the church and can dictate who can speak, etc. If you know of some other verse that clearly requires Christians to submit to church leaders, please share it with me. Until then, it seems that this claim, too, is not biblical.

My 1st Corinthians 14 has no vetting of speakers and no required submission of one brother to another, regardless of one’s giftedness or functioning, even if one happens to be one who is leading. Instead of one person determining what others are allowed to hear in a church meeting, the hearers are allowed to hear all who would speak and are to be those discriminating among what is spoken. No, I would definitely disagree with the idea that Christianity has it right with regard to leaders and their actions, especially in church meetings. In the large Bible church that I attended, I once heard the senior pastor say from the podium that he was very careful about whom he allowed to speak from his podium. This was directly after one from the congregation, during a Sunday-morning meeting, had given a testimony that had been pre-approved and scheduled. This was an example of absolute control by a pastor over his meeting. This is very far away from biblical, in my opinion; and, yes, the Local Church, at least in theory, had it much healthier and much more biblical as far as meeting theory goes, even if they didn’t usually practice what they preached.

To end on a less polemic note, I do agree with your last paragraph about Paul. What I would suggest is that he was acting in accordance with Hebrews 13:17 according to the literal Greek. He was trying to persuade the Corinthians. To sum up, this is the same way in which ones who are leading in a church should be acting, as those taking the time to persuade, just as any other brothers might do, rather than those who expect their words to hold absolute sway and effect obedience.

[Cal]

John,

Thanks for posting. You might have saved yourself some typing by asking me to clarify myself. We tend to write in shorthand around here and I assumed readers would know the context of my statement.

The "healthy and biblical way" I was referring to was how generally evangelical churches relate to Christians teachers who do not regularly meet with the church, but may be invited to speak or teach, as opposed to how the LC does it.

In the LC, extra-church teachers--those associated with the Living Stream ministry and part of the so-called "work"--are afforded an overarching authority, though often unspoken, yet still quite powerful. By and large, LC local leaders feel compelled to receive these teachers if they say they are passing through, give them a platform, and obey them. In short, there is little filtering of what guest LSM teachers say and little freedom to question it.

In the case of non-LC evangelical churches, the local leaders have full say of whether any teacher is invited, and there is little thought that obedience to whatever the teacher says is expected. Audiences listen and evaluate for themselves. In the LC, basically you are expected to submit and obey.

I feel the latter is more biblical. If we can try apostles (Rev 2:2), we can certainly try the teachings of latter day teachers.

So, yes, my statement had a definite context. I wasn't meant to be universal. When I said most biblical, I meant in comparison to the way the LC does it. It's one of those things where if you experienced the abuse of extra-local authority in the LC you would more easily know what I meant.

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

[John]

Originally Posted by Igzy

John,

Thanks for posting. You might have saved yourself some typing by asking me to clarify myself. We tend to write in shorthand around here and I assumed readers would know the context of my statement.

The "healthy and biblical way" I was referring to was how generally evangelical churches relate to Christians teachers who do not regularly meet with the church, but may be invited to speak or teach, as opposed to how the LC does it.

In the LC, extra-church teachers--those associated with the Living Stream ministry and part of the so-called "work"--are afforded an overarching authority, though often unspoken, yet still quite powerful. By and large, LC local leaders feel compelled to receive these teachers if they say they are passing through, give them a platform, and obey them. In short, there is little filtering of what guest LSM teachers say and little freedom to question it.

In the case of non-LC evangelical churches, the local leaders have full say of whether any teacher is invited, and there is little thought that obedience to whatever the teacher says is expected. Audiences listen and evaluate for themselves. In the LC, basically you are expected to submit and obey.

I feel the latter is more biblical. If we can try apostles (Rev 2:2), we can certainly try the teachings of latter day teachers.

So, yes, my statement had a definite context. I wasn't meant to be universal. When I said most biblical, I meant in comparison to the way the LC does it. It's one of those things where if you experienced the abuse of extra-local authority in the LC you would more easily know what I meant.

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Igzy,

Here is another post that is somewhat lengthy. Please do not be concerned about my typing. I don’t mind it if it means that I might be able to get my point across.

I do not want to appear overly pedantic with this further response, but it appears to me that you have missed my main points. I am simply seeking the truth, which is why I’m evaluating the biblical support you offered. I am asking you to evaluate the statements about leaders and members that you made while you were comparing “Christianity” to the Local Church; I am not asking about whether or not “Christianity” or the Local Church was better at inviting teachers to speak to churches and the expectations that accompanied those teachers and teachings. The statements I am questioning may not have been your main point, but I would like to have you take a look at the statements in the light of the verses you gave to support them.

Let me direct you to what I had hoped to be taken as the substance of my response to your post #64, which you did not fully address in your reply in post #74. To bring it into focus, here is what you wrote in post #64:

These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29).

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

• Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

• Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

• Acts 5:29 does not really address the matter of church members obeying and submitting to church leaders, does it?
  
  It is somewhat of a stretch in my mind to use Acts 5:29, where the apostles did not submit to Jewish leaders in the Council (those in a different religion, if you will) to apply to Christian church leaders not having absolute sway over the members in their churches.

In your #74, you added this clarification:

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Would you refer me to where you referenced submitting to one another in your previous post, because I can’t find it? The way I read your #64, you stated that leaders had the right to vet and then followed that with members being “charged to obey and submit to leaders” (strong words), as if submission by church leaders to other members was not a possibility. Rather than support those statements, or retract or alter them with an explanatin, you simply replied that Ephesians 5:21 was your reference for submitting to one another, which I did not understand to be your original claim. Using this verse does not support your original presentation that featured a one-sided obedience and submission. By referencing this verse, are you letting me know that all church members are to maintain a state of being in which all in the church are subject to one another? Where do you stand in relation to your original presentation (or did I misunderstand your shorthand and context)?

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship. This verse is often overlooked by husbands when they want to require obedience from their wives by quoting Ephesians 5:22 in isolation. Actually, Ephesians 5:21, in context, speaks of an attitude of submission by all parties rather than one person having a necessity to obey another:

And be not drunk with wine, in which is profligacy, but be filled full with spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing music in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to our God and Father, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (18–21, Concordant Literal)

I hope that we can agree that husbands should not be bullying their wives, demanding obedience, determining what they can read, vetting whom they can listen to, insisting on being the only one who gets to talk, etc. The marriage is to be a partnership, if you will. In the same way, if someone in a church actually does have the gift of leading, they should lead according to this portion in Ephesians, in an attitude of submission to all the members of the church—in the fear of Christ.

Because of the emphasis in your presentation (possibly unintended?), I brought up 1 Corinthians 14 because that passage depicts a meeting in which those who will, so to speak, can participate rather than a meeting in which a leader controls who gets to speak. This chapter stands in contrast to the way in which meetings are generally done in much of Christianity. I am happy that you brought up Ephesians 5:21, since it supports my view of how brothers and sisters in the church should relate to one another. This verse does not support, however, what is often the case in much of Christianity and is, I think, most noticeable in Christian meetings: an expected and accepted one-way obedience to leaders.

Can I get an amen to my comments (a retraction?) or some further clarification from you with appropriate verses if you still think that your presentation of leaders vetting who can speak and members being charged to obey those leaders (as long as it doesn’t offend their consciences) has biblical support? In my mind, you made statements in #64, claiming that they were biblical, and then used verses as references that don’t really support those statements. What do you think?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

[LIST]Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship. This verse is often overlooked by husbands when they want to require obedience from their wives by quoting Ephesians 5:22 in isolation. Actually, Ephesians 5:21, in context, speaks of an attitude of submission by all parties rather than one person having a necessity to obey another:

And be not drunk with wine, in which is profligacy, but be filled full with spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing music in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to our God and Father, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (18–21, Concordant Literal)

I hope that we can agree that husbands should not be bullying their wives, demanding obedience, determining what they can read, vetting whom they can listen to, insisting on being the only one who gets to talk, etc. The marriage is to be a partnership, if you will. In the same way, if someone in a church actually does have the gift of leading, they should lead according to this portion in Ephesians, in an attitude of submission to all the members of the church—in the fear of Christ.

Because of the emphasis in your presentation (possibly unintended?), I brought up 1 Corinthians 14 because that passage depicts a meeting in which those who will, so to speak, can participate rather than a meeting in which a leader controls who gets to speak. This chapter stands in contrast to the way in which meetings are generally done in much of Christianity. I am happy that you brought up Ephesians 5:21, since it supports my view of how brothers and sisters in the church should relate to one another. This verse does not support, however, what is often the case in much of Christianity and is, I think, most noticeable in Christian meetings: an expected and accepted one-way obedience to leaders.

What do you think?

A brother I knew in the local churches quoted Hebrews 13:17 when I brought out the concerns unveiled in Speaking the Truth in Love. Implied, submission is absolute. Wait a minute, these brothers were leaders too. If submission is absolute, submission to whom?
As for Ephesians 5:21, Amen John! Many have missed the mark on Ephesians 5:21. Given the husband bears the greater responsibility, that does not mean they lord over their wives. Rather as verse 25 says; "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Igzy: These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29).

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

• Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

• Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

I have to believe that Heb 13.17 does give healthy church leaders the responsibility to oversee and vet outside ministries which impact their congregation. The metaphor of sheep and a shepherd is apt here. Are not elders primarily shepherds caring for the feeding of the sheep? Should not they be watching also for false teachers disguised as wolves, ready to prey on their charge? This is not to say that the Recovery way of exclusively feeding on Lee is in any way healthy, but to go from one extreme to another, does not serve God's people very well either.

I have to believe that the elders in Ephesus took the lead to try these false apostles, but that does not indicate that only church leaders have such a responsibility. Perhaps it was some praying sister who first signaled the elders of problems with these outside ministries. Perhaps the Ephesian leaders sought out other church leaders for input. I do believe, however, that such a serious decision as proving evil men posing as apostles must include all the elders, deacons, or spiritual ones for prayer and fellowship.

It's hard to place this responsibility on the "whole body." Would that be the "whole body" in Ephesus, or the "whole body" of Christ? It's not possible to simply answer your true/false question. The first part is somewhat true, though misleading. The second part is only true with caveats and clarifications.

[Cal]

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

The verse says that leaders keep watch over the members. Would they be doing a good job of keeping watch if they did not vet the ministries they allowed to come teach the church?

Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

Well, the leaders are part of the body, so they are given that responsibility, too. Vetting guest speakers would be a legitimate fulfillment of that responsibility in the light of their position as leaders. Your statement implies that the leaders shouldn't take the lead in vetting apostles. If not, why not? And if they shouldn't take the lead in vetting apostles, what exactly should they take the lead in, given that they are leaders? Unless you want to suggest that leaders aren't really supposed to lead.

Acts 5:29 does not really address the matter of church members obeying and submitting to church leaders, does it?

Only if you think church leaders are not men, i.e. people. The verse says to obey God rather than men (people). Obviously the meaning is do not obey people when their words go against God's, since elsewhere the Bible does tell us to obey leaders (Rom 13:1; Heb 13:17). In other words, to obey leaders is not an absolute command, but to obey God is absolute and trumps the command to obey leaders.

In your #74, you added this clarification:

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Would you refer me to where you referenced submitting to one another in your previous post, because I can’t find it?

I mentioned submitting in general, e.g. "Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute." My point was that obedience to any other than God is never absolute. This connects to Eph 5:21 because clearly submitting to one another cannot be absolute in the sense of obeying. If you expect me to obey you and I expect you to obey me, who should do the submitting? Since submission cannot be absolute, then obedience cannot be absolute either.

The way I read your #64, you stated that leaders had the right to vet and then followed that with members being “charged to obey and submit to leaders” (strong words), as if submission by church leaders to other members was not a possibility.

Not at all. Church leaders should submit to members as well. We all should submit to one another in the sense of being willing to hear the Holy Spirit speaking from each other. That's the way I interpret it, anyway.

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship.

It is not necessary to deduce that Ephesians 5:21 applies only to the marriage relationship. I believe it is a general command to all of us about our relationship with every other member.

Can I get an amen to my comments (a retraction?) or some further clarification from you with appropriate verses if you still think that your presentation of leaders vetting who can speak and members being charged to obey those leaders (as long as it doesn’t offend their consciences) has biblical support? In my mind, you made statements in #64, claiming that they were biblical, and then used verses as references that don’t really support those statements. What do you think?

I stand by my interpretation. Nothing you have stated has refuted it. You've only shown you have a different interpretation, though what it is I'm not sure. That's your right, but shouldn't expect me to agree with you.

Then again, I'm only guessing at what your belief is because you never make it clear exactly what you believe about obedience and submission to leaders, only that you think I'm somehow wrong about it.

[John]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have to believe ....

I have to believe ....

It's hard to place this responsibility on the "whole body." Would that be the "whole body" in Ephesus, or the "whole body" of Christ? It's not possible to simply answer your true/false question. The first part is somewhat true, though misleading. The second part is only true with caveats and clarifications.

Ohio,

You began both of your first two paragraphs with “I have to believe ….” I would like to make it plain that my purpose in posting was this: “What does the Bible say?” That was and is my only concern in these posts.

You stated that it’s not possible to answer my true/false question. I will assume, looking at the context, that you were referring to this question: “Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?”

I would say that it is possible to answer the question in the affirmative, because that is what Rev 2:2 indicates when you consider the passage in which it occurs:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Further, you asked me if I was referring to the whole body in Ephesus or of Christ. I hope that the context of Rev 2:2 quoted above makes it clear. In the Revelation passage, we can see that the writing is addressed to the angel of the church in Ephesus and ends with the plea to any who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The passage, then, applies to all believers, not just leaders, since leaders are not even mentioned and whoever will is given the opportunity to overcome. As anyone can see, the passage does not even mention leaders, much less limit itself to them; therefore, it cannot support a claim about leaders as a separate class.

It’s one thing to state what one thinks, feels, or believes, which you are free to do; it’s quite another to state that the Bible supports a statement, or to give a reference as if it supports a statement, when the reference doesn’t fully address the statement or is taken out of context. All I am bringing out is what the Bible says and what it does not say.

[John]

Igzy,

After reading your last two paragraphs in #78, I feel that I should try once more to communicate. I hope that this abbreviated presentation will promote understanding:


Your claims

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

. . . These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

My comments about your verse references

• Heb 13:17 (from post #64):
  From the Greek, “be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring” (scripture4all.org). The language in this verse carries a much different sense than “obey and submit.”

• Rev 2:2 (from post #64):
  This verse applies to he whoever will and not just to someone who is leading.

• Acts 5:29 (from post #64):
  This verse applies to the apostles not yielding to clerical authority in the Jewish religion.

• Eph 5:21 (from post #74):
  This verse applies to one another and not just to someone who is leading.

• Rom 13:1 (from post #78):
  This verse applies to civil authorities and not to someone who is leading in a church.

My conclusion

In these verses, I find no injunction compelling a member of a church to obey anyone leading in a church. With the exception of Heb 13:17, the verses are taken out of context and, thus, do not support the claim. As to Heb 13:17, your claim is much more forceful (obey and submit) than is justified by the meaning of the Greek words or the intent of the language used in that verse.

These are not my interpretations, unless you want to discuss nuances of meanings between what’s in your head and in mine regarding any particular English word or phrase. I am just bringing out the plain text of the Bible, not adding or subtracting anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Ohio,

You began both of your first two paragraphs with “I have to believe ….” I would like to make it plain that my purpose in posting was this: “What does the Bible say?” That was and is my only concern in these posts.

You stated that it’s not possible to answer my true/false question. I will assume, looking at the context, that you were referring to this question: “Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?”

I would say that it is possible to answer the question in the affirmative, because that is what Rev 2:2 indicates when you consider the passage in which it occurs:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Further, you asked me if I was referring to the whole body in Ephesus or of Christ. I hope that the context of Rev 2:2 quoted above makes it clear. In the Revelation passage, we can see that the writing is addressed to the angel of the church in Ephesus and ends with the plea to any who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The passage, then, applies to all believers, not just leaders, since leaders are not even mentioned and whoever will is given the opportunity to overcome. As anyone can see, the passage does not even mention leaders, much less limit itself to them; therefore, it cannot support a claim about leaders as a separate class.

It’s one thing to state what one thinks, feels, or believes, which you are free to do; it’s quite another to state that the Bible supports a statement, or to give a reference as if it supports a statement, when the reference doesn’t fully address the statement or is taken out of context. All I am bringing out is what the Bible says and what it does not say.

John, you may think that you only desire to know “What does the Bible say?” but I found that it was really your own interpretation of what you thought the Bible said. That's fine with me, but since I tried to be as gentlemanly as possible, I used the expression “I have to believe ….” the scripture says such and such to indicate how I view these scriptures. Without arguing the validity of my expression “I have to believe ….”, suffice it to say that it is my own understanding of these verses.

I also found your questions to be manipulative. They force an answer which reinforces your own interpretation of scripture. Instead of dodging the obvious trap, I tried my best to answer the questions by explaining why they forced the reader into an unacceptable yes/no position.

For example, the letter was addressed to the messenger of the church. Who is this messenger? Do you really know that it was not some particular brother in the lead? The Lord speaks to them "I know your works ... and you have tried them." This sounds to me, not as a collective, but that the Son of Man was commending each one for their works, each one for their part in not bearing evil men, and each one for their part in trying the so-called apostles.

We don't know the details, but we cannot assume that this was done by a democratic committee of every single church member. Such a church as Ephesus surely had those more mature ones, those less mature but learning, and those young ones not sure what was going on, like John speaks of in his epistle -- the fathers, the young men, and the young children. (I John 2.13) John was active in Ephesus, so his first epistle was also directed to them in part and also read by them. Why would the church even judge these evil ones unless there were young ones and new believers in the church that were adversely affected by these evil men and false apostles. The Lord here is commending the older saints within the church for their works and their labor and their endurance which preserved the young ones and the future of the church and was a needed education to the "young men" who would one day lead the church of God.

Of course the charge to overcome applies to all the believers, "let him hear what the Spirit says." Peter instructs us that "no verse is of private interpretation," and that we need the scripture to interpret the scripture. You seem to want to discredit the place for leaders and the role they have in the church. The N.T. is filled with exhortations for both the leaders and the saints in general. I must take this in view when I approach a verse like Revelation 2.2.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

My comments

• Heb 13:17 (from post #64):
  From the Greek, “be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring” (scripture4all.org). The language in this verse carries a much different sense than “obey and submit.”

I can't find a decent Greek expositor who says that the real meaning here in Hebrews 13.17 is a "much different sense than “obey and submit.”"

James uses the same Greek word for "obey" in verse 3.3, "Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us."

Sounds to be quite a compelling case to obey the rider of the horse. But perhaps, like Witness Lee, you don't find the book of James to be a trustworthy source.

[Cal]

This thread represents the posts about obeying and submitting to church leaders. I'm going to leave it open for now, but if it becomes a tug-of-war, I will close it.

The spirit of this forum should be one of being willing to see the other posters' points of view.

Posters who simply hammer their point with no apparent willingness to consider other posters' points of view--i.e. who cannot tell the difference between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible--will be put on short leashes and given dry doggie treats from the Walmart clearance aisle.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have to believe that Heb 13.17 does give healthy church leaders the responsibility to oversee and vet outside ministries which impact their congregation. The metaphor of sheep and a shepherd is apt here. Are not elders primarily shepherds caring for the feeding of the sheep? Should not they be watching also for false teachers disguised as wolves, ready to prey on their charge?

I agree with this in the context of a congregation but I also think each individual (who is not a newborn Christian) is responsible to know enough of basic Christian truth to know whether a teacher is straying into unhealthy teachings that do more damage than good or worse are heresy.

Logistically for most congregations the leaders will be those who invite guest speakers and individuals will listen and evaluate the content for themselves and openly discuss around lunch or on the way home or in the courtyard what they liked and/or disliked about the message and delivery. But in addition to this many members will hear/read various ministries via radio, books, visiting other churches, etc.

In no instance outside the LC system have I ever seen church leaders adhere to one publisher's materials, guest speakers and events and expect their members to do likewise.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

Heb 13:17 (from post #64):
From the Greek, “be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring” (scripture4all.org). The language in this verse carries a much different sense than “obey and submit.”

In these verses, I find no injunction compelling a member of a church to obey anyone leading in a church. With the exception of Heb 13:17, the verses are taken out of context and, thus, do not support the claim. As to Heb 13:17, your claim is much more forceful (obey and submit) than is justified by the meaning of the Greek words or the intent of the language used in that verse.

John, what you've posted puts Hebrews 13:17 in a new light. No longer does it appear to be a verse of absolute submission and authority. Thank you.

[OBW]

Ohio has noted that he has an interpretation of the scripture and John has indicated another. I look at the passage quoted in one recent post and find uncertainty as to the answer to the question.

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Who is this written to? To the messenger (angel) of the church. We can argue till the cows come home what that means and you will not have a definitive answer. We could decide to go with one of those interpretations, but we should be prepared to give grace to others who might still think otherwise.

The "messenger" . . . . Are they the one to whom the letter is addressed? Or are they simply the one taking the message. The words as translated into English seem to indicate that the messenger is the recipient of the letter. And if that is the case, to what extent should the messenger take the letter as instructions directed at him/her (I'll be generous) or as something to deliver to the church at large? I can find reason to treat some of it like Paul's letters to Timothy — directed to a leader in his role — and some directed to the church as a whole. Since there is no stated break between the two, which is which is not absolutely clear. And it is not absolutely clear that it is not simply a directive to the leadership of a church, or simply a message to everyone. (Remember that only a few could read, so there was no hint that this would be posted online for everyone to read. It could have been directed to the leadership for their willful change in direction.)

I am not arguing for or against any particular point on the spectrum.

I am suggesting that the kind of certainty that is being displayed is actually no more certain that the interpretation of other verses that gave us the doctrine of dirt. It is not entirely ridiculous that there could be such a position taken. But there is entirely too little to support it to make it a centerpiece, definitive doctrine by which you exclude others.

These positions based on Revelation (and other passages) are about as solid as a Southern California hillside during torrential rains. It is probably a good idea to think about it. And possibly to have at least a tentative conclusion for yourself. But not to use it for judgment upon any others.

This seems to fall into a discussion about doctrinal statements that I once heard. You need a general statement for the membership that tells them what you believe. To become "members," they need to be OK with it. If they want to teach anything, like a Sunday School class, they need to agree to not teach contrary to it (although discussion of alternatives is OK). And to be part of the leadership, you need to be able to stand by it even where you might personally think differently. (Remember that even the Acts 15 council did not declare unanimous agreement, only that it seemed good to go that way.)

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't find a decent Greek expositor who says that the real meaning here in Hebrews 13.17 is a "much different sense than “obey and submit.”"

James uses the same Greek word for "obey" in verse 3.3, "Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us."

Sounds to be quite a compelling case to obey the rider of the horse. But perhaps, like Witness Lee, you don't find the book of James to be a trustworthy source.

I've read in this thread, essentially, we are to "obey leaders" until we decide not to, and then its okay not to obey. Of course, we'll say its a matter of conscience. But so will the "leader" who is requiring our obedience.

This notion of having spiritual authority residing in an identifiable person, indeed in an office, is logically contrary to the New Testament.

If someone can tell me how it comports with the New Covenant, I'm all ears.

I am not saying I don't see what is written in Scripture. I do. But I'm willing to say I don't know what it means, in light of the multitude of other verses and concepts that cut against a plain reading of the text.

This patent acceptance of a plain reading of "obey," while later adding caveats that comport with having Christ, the LORD, in our spirit, just don't jive.

Can someone help me here? This is not a rhetorical line of inquiry.

In Love,

Peter

Children obey your parents in the Lord is scriptural and logically not contrary to the New Covenant. I believe it is similar to this. Suppose you are a new believer, you were saved yesterday, you would need someone to shepherd you. The Lord Jesus and Apostle Peter referred to leaders "shepherding" the younger believers as though they were lambs and sheep.

Let me use an analogy. If you drive a car what do you have to obey? Do you obey the laws of the US? Yes. Do you obey the laws of physics? Yes. Do you obey the specifications for this particular car? Yes. Do you obey the Driver's Education Instructor in the passenger seat? Yes. Is there any good reason why obeying one should contradict another? No.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This notion of having spiritual authority residing in an identifiable person, indeed in an office, is logically contrary to the New Testament.

If someone can tell me how it comports with the New Covenant, I'm all ears.

I am not saying I don't see what is written in Scripture. I do. But I'm willing to say I don't know what it means, in light of the multitude of other verses and concepts that cut against a plain reading of the text.

This patent acceptance of a plain reading of "obey," while later adding caveats that comport with having Christ, the LORD, in our spirit, just don't jive.

The poor readers of this forum have seen me repeat, ad nauseum, Jesus' dictum that who wants to be great should be the least. But in light of our disposition to forget it, and try to be "first", combined with the world's unceasing push in this direction, it seems good to me to repeat this over and over. Otherwise I end up buying into schemes of external "authority" which are temporal, both in religious and secular spheres.

In light of Jesus' clear teaching and example, I read "Be subject to one another" as that each of us should strive to be the least, and give deference and respect to all that are around him or her. But we are to imitate those who are imitating Christ, no? We are to be subject to those who themselves are subject to the rest?

So someone who like Diotrophes tries to be "first" and who thinks that this idea of subjecting oneself refers to others but not them, should get the same disdain in the assembly that Herod got from Jesus. "You are a pretender. You have no power. Your desire to tell everyone else what to do reveals the weakness, the neediness, the lack of satisfaction from the Father's house. You are the proverbial 'waterless cloud' and I am not going to accompany you on your journey. Have a nice day."

When Peter tried to tell Jesus what to do, he got corrected immediately, and firmly. Should we not also do this with those who attempt to "lord it over us" (cf 1 Peter 5)? Or do we rather bear gladly with those who abuse us? I don't think Paul was congratulating those in Corinth when he wrote "In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. (2 Cor 11:20)". I don't think that is "being subject" in a proper way. That is rather being a "man-pleaser". Paul didn't bear with those who thought they were something, and who attempted to distort the flock. "We were not subject to them, even for one hour (Gal 2:5)".

Those who wish to lead should lead by example, not fiat. The apostle Peter was very clear about this in his first epistle. He learned this lesson from Jesus Himself, the chief Shepherd. The nice thing about Peter is that he was a simple fisherman. Peter's words of advice are so simple and clear that even the clever ones cannot subvert them. Thank You Lord for brother Peter's testimony!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I've read in this thread, essentially, we are to "obey leaders" until we decide not to, and then its okay not to obey. Of course, we'll say its a matter of conscience. But so will the "leader" who is requiring our obedience.

This notion of having spiritual authority residing in an identifiable person, indeed in an office, is logically contrary to the New Testament.

If someone can tell me how it comports with the New Covenant, I'm all ears.

I am not saying I don't see what is written in Scripture. I do. But I'm willing to say I don't know what it means, in light of the multitude of other verses and concepts that cut against a plain reading of the text.

This patent acceptance of a plain reading of "obey," while later adding caveats that comport with having Christ, the LORD, in our spirit, just don't jive.

Can someone help me here? This is not a rhetorical line of inquiry.

In Love,

Peter

Obeying church leaders (Heb 13.17) is similar to "obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." (Eph 6.1) The alternative is chaotic anarchy. I don't see this as contrary to the New Covenant or the scripture.

In both cases obeying God Himself supersedes these God-given authorities. Yes, there may be bad parents, and yes, there are bad christian leaders, but the exceptions do not negate these instructions in scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

When Peter tried to tell Jesus what to do, he got corrected immediately, and firmly. Should we not also do this with those who attempt to "lord it over us" (cf 1 Peter 5)? Or do we rather bear gladly with those who abuse us? I don't think Paul was congratulating those in Corinth when he wrote "In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. (2 Cor 11:20)". I don't think that is "being subject" in a proper way. That is rather being a "man-pleaser". Paul didn't bear with those who thought they were something, and who attempted to distort the flock. "We were not subject to them, even for one hour (Gal 2:5)".

Great points, aron.

In the context of LC discussions, I am not advocating that we should submit and obey any Christian leaders which have ruled over us in the likeness of both Anaheim and Cleveland. The lackeys in both of these ministries, who promote their own leaders, have become little more than enablers of abusive and controlling leaders. They are like Diotrophes of old, who not only loved to be first, but also demand that they alone are the first.

Many have thus become "man-pleasers." They were far more concerned about pleasing their leader, than they were in pleasing the Lord or serving His people. This disease of man-pleasing is a root sickness in the Recovery. Many have sacrificed their own conscience to abide there.

Of course, leaving the Recovery like we all did, I can understand the aversion in many posters to submitting and obeying any Christian leader. But I also see the dangers of substituting one extreme for another. Neither is healthy, and both go against the instructions of the scripture.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obeying church leaders (Heb 13.17) is similar to "obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." (Eph 6.1) The alternative is chaotic anarchy. I don't see this as contrary to the New Covenant or the scripture.

To say this would lead to anarchy presumes Christ isn't present within believers. So yes, it is contrary to the New Covenant.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

To say this would lead to anarchy presumes Christ isn't present within believers. So yes, it is contrary to the New Covenant.

Obviously the writer of Hebrews isn't speaking of obedience in anything close to absolute terms. Suppose the leaders tell you to sell your house and give the proceeds to the church? Or tell you to quit you job and go full time? Are you required to obey? I don't think so.

I think it means in reasonable matters directly related to being a member in the church. For example, when leaders exhort everyone to show up on time for the meeting, we should honor that request.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can understand the aversion in many posters to submitting and obeying any Christian leader. But I also see the dangers of substituting one extreme for another. Neither is healthy, and both go against the instructions of the scripture.

I would rather say that I try to obey every christian leader. Some of them are prominent in the world: Billy Graham is a great exemplar to me. Others are quite hidden: there was an elderly sister in a church I met with years ago who always greeted me with obvious delight, and one time she said, "I've been praying for you!" Her simple, unfettered joy was ample demonstration to me of the power of God. Should I not endeavor to emulate such a one?

And I have written this several times (the perils of being a serial poster), but the example of Dorcas(Tabitha) in Acts 9 has always impressed me as someone who was "great in the kingdom of God", per Jesus' teachings and example. No evidence of her speeches, just clear and unmistakeable evidence of her deeds. Should I not obey the clear hand of God, and "go, and do likewise"?

Of course, "I follow everyone" can be a ruse, a cover for "I follow no one". The Lord will judge in that day. But at least I will argue that those who use Paul's writings as a lever to pry obedience from others (re: what to read, what to think, with whom to associate) are far from the mark of Christian leadership, and in my estimation are probably near the "least in the kingdom".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I would rather say that I try to obey every christian leader. ... Of course, "I follow everyone" can be a ruse, a cover for "I follow no one". The Lord will judge in that day.

But at least I will argue that those who use Paul's writings as a lever to pry obedience from others (re: what to read, what to think, with whom to associate) are far from the mark of Christian leadership, and in my estimation are probably near the "least in the kingdom".

Good points. It irks me to see the teachings of scripture manipulated for personal gain, but there is no consensus here. That is why many Christian leaders can continue for years unchecked.

Believers must follow the voice of the Shepherd above all. There is, however, a learning curve here. Perhaps the failure experienced by following the directives of their leader becomes the best education in knowing the Lord's voice in the future. Sometimes without failures, as the Bible instructs us to "prove all things," we cannot be certain what is the Lord.

Leaders do need testing and proving. The pastoral epistles do speak of a vetting process. The Lord Himself trained the disciples (not just the twelve) to be future leaders in the churches of God. He even trained one who ended up being indwelt by the Devil, and the other eleven were clueless as to what was going on.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can understand the aversion in many posters to submitting and obeying any Christian leader. But I also see the dangers of substituting one extreme for another. Neither is healthy, and both go against the instructions of the scripture.

We like to go to extremes in our theoretical positions but in practice it's more difficult. Most organizations of any size have a natural leadership that emerges and a church is no different except...leaders in the church need to be servants and are vetted according to a different criteria.

Most mature Christians appreciate quality (not perfect) leadership in a church setting and work together with them for the common good. But they also know they can leave the church at anytime if the leaders' teachings or actions violate their conscience or the Scripture as they understand it.

In the LC setting this was not the case because you could not really comfortably leave the church and go elsewhere because elsewhere was Babylon which God hated. So you were stuck with poor leadership that was arrogant on the regional or national or global level and mostly weak at the local level. IMHO if there was strong healthy well vetted local leadership in the LC system it would not be what it has become today - LSM or Titus Chu or Dong Yu Lan focused church systems i.e. looking to an extra-local center, ministry and man for direction, content, etc.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...

Believers must follow the voice of the Shepherd above all. There is, however, a learning curve here. Perhaps the failure experienced by following the directives of their leader becomes the best education in knowing the Lord's voice in the future. Sometimes without failures, as the Bible instructs us to "prove all things," we cannot be certain what is the Lord.

...

This is interesting. Honestly, I really have had a problem comporting my understanding of the New Covenant with the obvious Scripture to "obey" leaders. Perhaps this is a sort of bridge between the two. Leaders should not become a replacement for the voice of the Shepherd. But perhaps they are like sharpening stones for our faith, even when (perhaps especially when) we sometime follow them errantly. We must be vigilant to listen to the Shepherd's voice, even as we submit to others. Perhaps, as you say, this interplay of submitting and listening for His voice is how we learn to know His voice better.

I will spend some more time on this thought, but it did speak to me.

Thanks!

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This is interesting. Honestly, I really have had a problem comporting my understanding of the New Covenant with the obvious Scripture to "obey" leaders. Perhaps this is a sort of bridge between the two. Leaders should not become a replacement for the voice of the Shepherd. But perhaps they are like sharpening stones for our faith, even when (perhaps especially when) we sometime follow them errantly. We must be vigilant to listen to the Shepherd's voice, even as we submit to others. Perhaps, as you say, this interplay of submitting and listening for His voice is how we learn to know His voice better.

I will spend some more time on this thought, but it did speak to me.

Thanks!

Peter

Talking about the New Covenant promise of knowing God, what has burnt me (and others) more than anything ... in a nutshell ... is abusive leaders playing God. My most difficult trials ... the ones I could never even discuss here publicly ... were all at the hands of LC leaders who did not know the boundaries of their own office, and instead usurped the role of the Great Shepherd to take advantage of the trusting heart of a young believer. They "played God" at my expense, thinking they were doing His will.

Yet within the LC's there were some leaders who challenged the young people to find the Lord's will on their own. They worked together with the Great Shepherd to help the young ones to grow properly. You mentioned one such brother CR who helped you. I also had some. How I wish they all were this way.

In another post, you mentioned how your father raised some eyebrows by not pressing the party line in Anaheim. He was not alone. This raises huge concerns about the health of the Recovery as a whole. Why is it that those who attempt to keep the Lord and His people first -- are the first to leave. What happens to the whole when only party zealots remain? How does this next generation ever get to find their own faith in God?

[MacDuff]

Igzy

My initial contact with the Recovery, at Elden Hall, was between 1970 and the move to Anaheim, whenever that was. Then I traveled from Christian Church to Christian Church for several years. A good way to learn about the true nature and character of Christianity.

About four months ago, I revisited a couple of Recovery churches after well over thirty years. Don’t know why other than it just came to my mind to do so for some reason. I stuck it out for a month in each location. The contrast between then and now is remarkable.

I first happened across the Public Square. A good place, or so I thought, to share that experience. I was able to register, but not to post. I asked about it with no response. So I figure that for some reason they didn’t want me there.

Then I happened across this forum and registered. No problem in that regard.

The spirit of this forum should be one of being willing to see the other posters' points of view.

Posters who simply hammer their point with no apparent willingness to consider other posters' points of view--i.e. who cannot tell the difference between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible--will be put on short leashes and given dry doggie treats from the Walmart clearance aisle.

From your post #11.

For all the complaining from former Recovery people I’ve seen on the two forums, the attitude between the Anaheim Recovery and the former members remains exactly the same. You say with one breath one should be ready to accept the opinions of others, then you turn around and automatically think that because someone has an opinion and doesn’t agree with you that this is true for them, “who cannot tell the difference between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible”. Among Christians, what the Bible says is very subjective and depends on the individual. Until the individual joins a denomination. Then the subjectivity of the denomination becomes the subjectivity of the individual. Denominations and denominational thinking is prevalent in Christianity. If everyone understood the Bible the same way, there would be no Christian denominations. All Christians would be as unified as Jesus and Paul desired. And believers would still be under the system, hated by former Recovery people for some reason, of one ekklesia one city. Where the name of the ekklesia corresponds to the name of the city, instead of to every other denotation that can be conceived by man.

Concerning, Heb 13:17, the Greek word often translated obey means to be persuaded in or to trust in. It’s related to the same Greek word that means to have faith in or to be convinced about. The Greek word often translated as ruler, refers to those who lead, not in the sense of rule. The Greek word often translated as submit just refers to yielding oneself to. Not as strong as the word submit would imply. So what is being said is “Trust those who lead you and yield to them.” The writer was referring to this situation alone, to this group of people alone. It is not the blanket statement that Christian rulers try to make it. But Christianity is determined to use this verse as one of the verses that show that a Church is to have an authoritative hierarchy. And they can’t even agree as to what constitutes that hierarchy.

And anarchy? Anarchy only implies that you have a group of people walking in the way non-believers walk, instead of walking by rule of the Spirit within. And thus need human rulers to prevent it.

But as with everything in Christianity, that’s just my opinion. What the reality is, is determined by those who determine their own version of reality. And Christians are about as good at agreeing with each other as to what that reality is, as any non-Christian. Even though they have a written account that plainly tells them what that reality is. Even though they supposedly have a Spirit within to guide them to understanding the Bible properly. But Christians are more apt to believe in their interpretations of the Bible than the Bible itself. And some, like the Catholics and Mormons, aren’t satisfied to have a Bible to tell them, but go about creating more writings that tell them more or explain more. Not that Protestants don’t with all their various ideas of what the Bible “is really saying”. Why Witness Lee is blamed for taking advantage of an already existing situation, is beyond my ability to understand.

In no instance outside the LC system have I ever seen church leaders adhere to one publisher's materials, guest speakers and events and expect their members to do likewise.

I would point to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as another example as extreme as the Recovery churches. All denominations will emphasize the writings of people in agreement with their own interpretations, even if they use some resources that are used in common among many denominations.


All I wanted to do was to share my own experience of the Recovery then and now, such as it has been. Naturally, I have opinions as to what went on, is going on today, and why. The initial experience, plus what I saw in Christianity that amounted to the same thing, each denomination wearing slightly different colored pants, led me to eventually become a non-Christian. But from what I have been reading on both forums, that would be something that you former Recovery people wouldn’t be interested in. Only those who have managed to keep their Christianity, such as it is, need apply. And then argue simply to argue. That isn’t really sharing. But I guess even that is a matter of my own opinion.

This thread is an example of why I am what I am. For all the claims of being somehow connected to the supernatural, when push comes to shove, one finds that Christians are just as earthly and human as is the rest of humanity. Even to having the need for human rulers, as if their God is dead. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Even though Peter clearly said there should be only one Lord and that elders should not be Lords. And if you think human rulership in Christianity is anything other than being a Lord, you’re living in an igloo without ever seeing the sun. I should think you would know that even in Christianity, you go against the human Lords, you’re out of that serfdom, out of that very human kingdom.

Fortunately, if you live in America, you can go find another kingdom or create your own. Just happens that Witness Lee was smart enough to create his own. And like any other free enterprise, it’s doing well for all concerned, each according to their own need. Those who need power, or need money, or need a religious crutch, it’s all available in the Recovery. Interesting it’s the ones who need the crutch that provide the rest with the power and the money.

I didn’t need any of those things, not from a Christian denomination. I have all the power I need at home, given to me by those who love me and whom I love. Love is an ethereal something that provides all the power I’ll ever need. I have all the money I or my progeny of the next generation will need.

As it happens, I didn’t become a non-Christian soon enough. Consequently, I’m not just an Agnostic, I’m a religious Agnostic. So I do attend a Christian Church that gives me all the religion I need. According to most of the pattern laid out to the ekklesia in Jerusalem, the first ekklesia (Acts 2:42). I hear the Bible (the Apostles doctrine) read there, pray verbally and by song, take communion (breaking of bread), talk to believers (fellowship, literally sharing) to the extent that I can without being subjected to the form of Closed Communion common to this particular denomination. In Christianity, as with any human society religious or not, about some things, silence is the better part of wisdom. Nevertheless, religiously too, I’m a happy man.

If what the Bible itself says is true, and the God it describes actually exists, as he is described, and if he has truly provided what man needs in his Son Jesus Christ, then I know that the God it describes will take me for what I am and not send me to hell for what Christianity has made me. Christianity, the man-made religion with the primarily denominational character. God knows, if he’s really there to know. And I live in hope that the God of the Bible does indeed exist. Not the interpreted Gods of Christianity, and there is more than one of those Gods. And mostly misunderstood.

I observe that many on the two forums have been on them a long time. Sorry you can’t get a life. There really is more to life than complaining about the foibles of this one Christian denomination. I find it intriguing that someone can claim to leave a denomination, and then spend their life scrutinizing it. Maybe out of a feeling of responsibility to those still within and to those who may become within. Isn’t there a God who led them in and will lead them out if need be? How will rehashing the obvious help them? Say it once and have over with. Humans aren’t so stupid that they can’t get the picture. And not all will agree with the picture anyway.

I want to thank you Igzy for that post. Very revealing. It together with what is going on in these two forums leads me to believe I wouldn’t last long here on your forum anyway. So I can have this little say and take my leave. Though I hate to post and run. I have opinions you wouldn’t be able to accept as anything more than interpretation, no matter how much Bible I quoted. And it is surprising how many fundamentalist types will say that a Biblical quote, no matter how much context is included, is just one’s own interpretation. I was just on a Catholic forum where a Catholic fundamentalist used that argument on me. Went much too well with his fellow fundamentalists and served to give them zero credibility in my eyes.

No doubt you’ll want to destroy this post, seeing as it isn’t much in accordance to what this forum really wants to hear.

Open your minds. Putting away the Recovery is actually a really simple thing. All you have to do is to want to. And if you still feel, like me, you need another form of religion, there are thousands of Christian denominations to choose from, or you can create a new one like Witness Lee did. And a whole slew of non-Christian religions, or you can create a new one like L Ron Hubbard who created Scientology did. The possibilities are endless. The Recovery churches are but a minute drop in a very large bucket.

MacDuff

[Truth]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Open your minds. Putting away the Recovery is actually a really simple thing. All you have to do is to want to. And if you still feel, like me, you need another form of religion, there are thousands of Christian denominations to choose from, or you can create a new one like Witness Lee did. And a whole slew of non-Christian religions, or you can create a new one like L Ron Hubbard who created Scientology did. The possibilities are endless. The Recovery churches are but a minute drop in a very large bucket.
MacDuff

Hi MacDuff,

You are putting everyone on this forum in the same bucket (ie. we all hate the Recovery and want to put it down and that is why we are on this forum).

This is an unfair assessment of the members here. We have all kinds of members here. For example, I am one here who does not wish that the Recovery would be destroyed. I love the LCs. I am still a current member. However, I do not agree with the history of the Recovery. And hope sometime in the future there will be a public confession by the leaders. I have no problem that the LCs follow only one man's teaching (of course I wished they would be more honest about it). I am here only to discover the real truth concerning our history. I have no bitterness or hatred toward the Recovery as you indicated. I am also here because I enjoy the various topical discussions with other current/former members (who have similar background as me).

So it is not nice that you just come here and put everyone in the same basket. Look at you - you are another member of this forum, with a competely different view. And that's fine. But I don't put you in the same basket as everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Concerning, Heb 13:17, the Greek word often translated obey means to be persuaded in or to trust in. It’s related to the same Greek word that means to have faith in or to be convinced about. The Greek word often translated as ruler, refers to those who lead, not in the sense of rule. The Greek word often translated as submit just refers to yielding oneself to. Not as strong as the word submit would imply. So what is being said is “Trust those who lead you and yield to them.” The writer was referring to this situation alone, to this group of people alone. It is not the blanket statement that Christian rulers try to make it. But Christianity is determined to use this verse as one of the verses that show that a Church is to have an authoritative hierarchy. And they can’t even agree as to what constitutes that hierarchy.

Hey MacDuff,

Welcome to the forum!

What you wrote here is of interest to me concerning Hebrews 13.17. Can you provide more source information about the Greek words for submit and obey? I did a little searching on my own and I could not find support for this view.

Also, not sure why you seemed to have a slightly antagonistic tone. Hopefully we can help one another in our journeys. Don't judge a book by its cover, or a forum by just one post!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

This is an unfair assessment of the members here. We have all kinds of members here. For example, I am one here who does not wish that the Recovery would be destroyed. I love the LCs. I am still a current member. However, I do not agree with the history of the Recovery. And hope sometime in the future there will be a public confession by the leaders. I have no problem that the LCs follow only one man's teaching (of course I wished they would be more honest about it). I am here only to discover the real truth concerning our history. I have no bitterness or hatred toward the Recovery as you indicated. I am also here because I enjoy the various topical discussions with other current/former members (who have similar background as me).

In much of Truth's post I am in agreement with. Especially on the followng points:

For example, I am one here who does not wish that the Recovery would be destroyed.
I love the LCs. (in my case the memory of what the local churches were prior to HWFMR)
I do not agree with the history of the Recovery.
And hope sometime in the future there will be a public confession by the leaders.
I have no problem that the LCs follow only one man's teaching (of course I wished they would be more honest about it). In my case I wish they would not pass one man's teaching as meeting on the proper ground.

Much of the issues which brings me back to this forum is not so much the orthodoxy, but practices (receiving, quarantines, and bearing of false witness towards former leading brothers).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Igzy

You say with one breath one should be ready to accept the opinions of others, then you turn around and automatically think that because someone has an opinion and doesn’t agree with you that this is true for them, “who cannot tell the difference between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible”.

Thanks for your comments, but it has nothing to do with someone not agreeing me. It had everything to do with the attitude of a person who wants to simply argue a point while not being willing to see the other person's point of view. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. But I'm not interested in a person chasing me around trying to prove I'm "wrong" for no other reason than to prove he is right. I'm a big boy and have been doing this a long time and can usually tell the difference. It all comes down to attitude.

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

And believers would still be under the system, hated by former Recovery people for some reason, of one ekklesia one city. Where the name of the ekklesia corresponds to the name of the city, instead of to every other denotation that can be conceived by man.

When Paul wrote to greet the ekklesia that met in the Jones' house, he didn't say greet the ekklesia in Venice, or Naples. He said to greet the ekklesia meeting in Jones' house; the name of that ekklesia was "the ekklesia that meets in Jones' house". There can be multiple houses, and/or gathering places, and therefore multiple ekklesia in any given urban area.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

...Christians are more apt to believe in their interpretations of the Bible than the Bible itself..

Which is why we have discussions... as the name of this forum (hopefully) conveys: "Local Church Discussions". Occasionally I learn something from having discussions... at least I learn that my opinion isn't considered as equivalent to "the truth" by all and sundry.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

And some, like the Catholics and Mormons, aren’t satisfied to have a Bible to tell them, but go about creating more writings that tell them more or explain more. Not that Protestants don’t with all their various ideas of what the Bible “is really saying”. Why Witness Lee is blamed for taking advantage of an already existing situation, is beyond my ability to understand...

Not sure what you think the Catholics created... the apocrypha? That the Mormons went beyond and "created more writings" most of us Christians would agree with. My beef with Lee is not that he had an opinion, or an idea of what the Bible was saying, but rather that he thought his opinion corresponded in a 1/1 match with reality. Thus no one else's opinion was needed, or allowed. In retrospect, the man was borderline delusional. At the very least, grandiose.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

The initial experience, plus what I saw in Christianity that amounted to the same thing, each denomination wearing slightly different colored pants, led me to eventually become a non-Christian. But from what I have been reading on both forums, that would be something that you former Recovery people wouldn’t be interested in. Only those who have managed to keep their Christianity, such as it is, need apply...

Bolded point one: Both myself and a few other writers here also went "non-Christian" as their post-LC religion of choice. After my sojourn in the void (agnosticism/science/philosopy) I eventually went back to Jesus Christ because 1) I decided I preferred a universe in which God existed, and 2) because Jesus still seemed to me to be the preferred way to approach God.

My preferences are why I do what I do. It's why I usually pick butterscotch pudding over vanilla. I choose something just because I like it better. My choices are neither innately morally superior to nor more rational than anyone else's. But it is my life and those are my choices. Now I try to live with them (not always easy).

Bolded point two: I have been greatly helped by non-Christian posters here, on the other forum, and elsewhere. Their opinions are just as valid as mine. I learn a lot from people who see differently; maybe more than from my Christian peers (and my fellow Christians are fairly diverse).

Originally Posted by MacDuff

when push comes to shove, one finds that Christians are just as earthly and human as is the rest of humanity. Even to having the need for human rulers, as if their God is dead...

I agree with this statement. Politics, to me, are superfluous to the Christian journey. I obey the laws, pay taxes, and vote. But doing so is not an intrinsically spiritual issue with me, any more than cleaning the windshield of my car.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

If what the Bible itself says is true, and the God it describes actually exists, as he is described, and if he has truly provided what man needs in his Son Jesus Christ, then I know that the God it describes will take me for what I am and not send me to hell for what Christianity has made me. ... And I live in hope that the God of the Bible does indeed exist. Not the interpreted Gods of Christianity, and there is more than one of those Gods. And mostly misunderstood....

Dear Macduff, I posit that you have something valuable to add to the conversation. Your hope may be as real as mine, or even more real (i.e. more grounded in actual truth as presented by the Bible). One of the great problems with ultra-orthodox groups like Lee's is that other voices are not welcomed; it causes too much confusion, they say. When really all they want to hear is their own voice, echoed back to them, which they think equals "the voice of God." I myself appreciate a little variety, and welcome your voice (not that you were anxiously waiting my approval). Proverbs says 3 times that "In many counselors there is safety." You can be someone else's voice of reason, just as they can be to you. Conversations are valuable this way: they are mutual explorations.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I observe that many on the two forums have been on them a long time. Sorry you can’t get a life. There really is more to life than complaining about the foibles of this one Christian denomination. I find it intriguing that someone can claim to leave a denomination, and then spend their life scrutinizing it. ....

I enjoy writing. And I like writing here on this forum because it is free. No money is exchanged. I think money distorts the flow of ideas. When we merchandise our ministry, eventually the market, the quest for lucre, supervenes and supercedes our quest for truth. Like the prophet said a long time ago, "come without money and without price"...

Offhand, I can't remember if any reader has had their mind changed by my writings. I get agreement from the ones who were predisposed to agree. It would be nice if someone wrote that when they read my post, something like scales fell from their eyes and suddenly they could see. But that's not likely to happen. So I write because I like to, and if it helps someone else that's a nice bonus.

Writing helps me clarify my thinking, and seeing others' opinions also helps me to think (I think). It's good therapy for a lot of us who were inured in a system where only one person is allowed to think (the Maximum Leader). Now we get challenged to think and to allow others to think as well. Being involved in a forum can be a healing balm in that regard.

The reason some of us are here for an extended period is that learning to think, and simultaneously becoming aware that others also think, and think differently from us, can be a long and slow process. You know, if you walk a mile into the woods you have to walk a mile to get back out!

Originally Posted by MacDuff

No doubt you’ll want to destroy this post, seeing as it isn’t much in accordance to what this forum really wants to hear.

Destroy!! Destroy!! MacDuff isn't writing according to the sacred codes of Groupthink!!

(A little humor)

Originally Posted by MacDuff

For all the complaining from former Recovery people I’ve seen on the two forums, the attitude between the Anaheim Recovery and the former members remains exactly the same... Sorry you can’t get a life. There really is more to life than complaining about the foibles of this one Christian denomination.

Yes, there is complaining. Regrettably so. Also there is quarreling, small-minded opinions masquerading as 'truth', judging one another, and so forth. But there is also celebration, gratitude, encouragement, hope, edification, community. Sounds a lot like... what did they call it... Oh, yeah -- church!!

[MacDuff]

Igzy

Thanks for your comments, but it has nothing to do with someone not agreeing me. It had everything to do with the attitude of a person who wants to simply argue a point while not being willing to see the other person's point of view. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. But I'm not interested in a person chasing me around trying to prove I'm "wrong" for no other reason than to prove he is right. I'm a big boy and have been doing this a long time and can usually tell the difference. It all comes down to attitude.

I apologize. I understand and agree with your clarification.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Truth

You are putting everyone on this forum in the same bucket (ie. we all hate the Recovery and want to put it down and that is why we are on this forum).

This is an unfair assessment of the members here. We have all kinds of members here.

My post was intentionally general and simultaneously directed toward a certain element in two forums that seem to be stuck in place.

Perhaps you can consider some of these matters in relation to the Recovery.

From my post,

My initial contact with the Recovery, at Elden Hall, was between 1970 and the move to Anaheim, whenever that was.

About four months ago, I revisited a couple of Recovery churches after well over thirty years. Don’t know why other than it just came to my mind to do so for some reason. I stuck it out for a month in each location. The contrast between then and now is remarkable.

Among Christians, what the Bible says is very subjective and depends on the individual. Until the individual joins a denomination. Then the subjectivity of the denomination becomes the subjectivity of the individual.

Anarchy only implies that you have a group of people walking in the way non-believers walk, instead of walking by the rule of the Spirit within. And thus need human rulers to prevent it.

For all the claims of being somehow connected to the supernatural, when push comes to shove, one finds that Christians are just as earthly and human as is the rest of humanity. Even to having the need for human rulers, as if their God is dead. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Just happens that Witness Lee was smart enough to create his own <kingdom>. And like any other free enterprise, it’s doing well for all concerned, each according to their own need. Those who need power, or need money, or need a religious crutch, it’s all available in the Recovery. Interesting it’s the ones who need the crutch that provide the rest with the power and the money.

I do attend a Christian Church that gives me all the religion I need. According to most of the pattern laid out to the ekklesia in Jerusalem, the first ekklesia (Acts 2:42). I hear the Bible (the Apostles doctrine) read there, pray verbally and by song, take communion (breaking of bread), talk to believers (fellowship, literally sharing) to the extent that I can without being subjected to the form of Closed Communion common to this particular denomination.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Ohio

Hebrews 13:17

I don’t know what resources in New Testament Greek are currently popular in Christianity.

I learned Greek because of certain problems I noted in the English translations. I haven’t had to deal with this particular verse in years. Peter’s teaching in 1Pet 5:1-7 has always been sufficient for me to disbelieve in the idea of an authoritative human leadership related to believers. Even when the subject of human authority came up on the Catholic forums, and of course it came up frequently in the form of the question “Who decides?”, I would just quote that verse and leave it at that. They always danced all around what Peter said without specifically dealing with it.

Perhaps the following will help to clarify my understanding of Hebrews 13:17.


Pistis refers to faith or conviction of the truth of something. Even Atheists have faith, that there is no God.

A word derived from peitho, the word translated as “obey” in the English translations of Hebrews 13:17. Peitho refers to confidence or trust in someone or something. Note how the word is translated in other verses in Hebrews.

In Heb 2:13 peitho is translated as “trust” in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB.

In Heb 6:9 it’s translated as “persuaded” in the KJV, “convinced” in NASB, “confident” in NIV & NKJV, “feel sure of” in RSV & ESV.

In Heb 11:13 it’s translated as “persuaded” in KJV, “assured” in NKJV, the word being absent altogether from the Alexandrian text and consequently translations based on that text.

In Heb 13:18 it’s translated as “trust” in the KJV, “confident” in NKJV, “sure” in NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV.

In Heb 13:17 the word is translated as “obey” in the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and HCSB. As well as in the Roman Catholic NAB, and in the NCV, NLT, NRSV, GNB.

Even the Recovery Version translates the word as obey in Heb 13:17. While in 2:13 it’s translated as trust, in 6:9 & 13:18 as persuaded.

There is another Greek word that means to obey, or literally to hear under. The word is used in Col 3:20 and 22, for example. It is also used in Heb 5:9. So the writer of Hebrews knew to use that more common word at least once.

What follows is my personal opinion as to why.

Tradition. Pure and simple.

A Tradition that began in the first centuries of Christianity. By the time of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, the idea of human authorities was part of the fabric of Christianity. The Council members felt they had the authority to dictate one particular point of view over another. In spite of the Catholics blaming Protestantism for the present state of denominationalism, it already existed through the 1st millennium Councils. The main body that dictated in the Councils was already one of several denominations before it divided into East and West. But don’t tell the Catholics. They think every Christian community but themselves is a denomination.

Also, not sure why you seemed to have a slightly antagonistic tone. Hopefully we can help one another in our journeys. Don't judge a book by its cover, or a forum by just one post!

Not so much a matter of the judgment of one post as it is a matter of a judgment of a post by an administrator. In my experience, forum Administrators have the power of life and death regarding posts and posters. I have apologized to Igzy for misunderstanding his intent. He has clarified where he’s coming from and I personally agree with his concern.

If I appear to be antagonistic, it may be because I just got off a forum infested with Catholic fundamentalists. Who, when I made the mistake of revealing too much about my personal beliefs, decided that I wasn’t Christian enough to suit them. In fact, that I wasn’t a Christian at all. And I’ve gotten the same authoritative judgments from fundamentalist Protestants that infest other Christian forums I’ve recently been on.

In reaction, I suppose, I come to this forum having already bowed to their conviction that doctrine is the basis of Christian being and I’m not a Christian due to doctrinal differences. Neither am I an Atheist. And I attend a Christian Church. So I call myself a religious Agnostic in relation to the doctrinal ideas of Christianity the religion.

In case some former Recovery members might surmise I’ve been ruined by the Recovery in some way.... Not true. I learned from that situation as it presented itself and moved on. My association with the Recovery was apparently only a matter of about five years. According to a Wikipedia article, The move to Anaheim was in 1974. And I didn’t associate with them that long after the move. If I’ve been ruined by anything, it’s been by Christianity the religion, of which the Recovery continues to be but a small part. Or more precisely, by fundamentalist Christians that infest Christianity the religion. It is they who convinced me that their religion isn’t true. I never found Atheist arguments to be persuasive. And I don’t equate the Bible with the religion based upon it in various ways. Being not yet convinced that the Catholics gave the Christians the Bible.

I remember meeting a few fundamentalist Christians in the Recovery just before I left. They were very staunch for some “new way” that was developing in the Recovery at the time. From what I know of the history of the Recovery, Lee took to shaking the box every now and then, just to keep things exiting. Or perhaps to awaken the sleepers. Hard to say since I didn’t know the man.


Personally, I’m a doctrinal realist. In that I acknowledge that not all Christians understand the Bible alike. A part of the denomination blues that has been a part of Christianity for centuries. And I’m a doctrinal relativist. In that I am tolerant of all Christian points of view without relinquishing my own view that is not necessarily Christian to them. This is in stark contrast with the common practice by Christian denominations of closed communion. For it reveals that the authorities of those Christian denominations are neither realistic nor relativistic in relation to doctrinal ideas that differ from their own. But then, that’s just another reason I’m not a Christian and another way I differ from most Christians of that sort.

I have chosen to not integrate into my own understanding of reality ideas from non-Christian religions and their writings. Not wanting to complicate things more than they already are. The Bible is sufficiently comprehensive for my average mind.

I know it would have been easier and simpler to just have picked a particular Christian denomination and then follow it to my death. But life is rarely easy, never simple.

I’ll work on my antagonism. Or at least my expression of it. My favorite comedian is a ventriloquist by the name of Jeff Dunham. One of his characters is Walter. Maybe I can learn to express my antagonism like he does. At least he makes people laugh. And I’m about old enough.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Aron

The ekklesia

In the Bible, I see no indication of a unit of the ekklesia that is larger than the city. Obviously those who believe in the validity of the universal Church idea, in whatever form, see such a unit. Since the ekklesia in the home is so rarely mentioned, it is easy for me to think that they were a sub unit of the ekklesia in the city. That there were as many home units as necessary in each city ekklesia.

To clarify my own position, I don’t believe in the view that is common in Christianity. A Church with two aspects. And that the universal aspect is synonymous with the Body of Christ. Witness Lee apparently taught this view. When I participated in the Recovery, He only emphasized the practical expression of the local church.

Further, in my view, there’s a difference between “Church” and “ekklesia”. Witness Lee had a view of the Church not unlike the general view in Christianity. Which has led to a universal denomination not unlike any other denomination of Christianity. The ekklesia as described in the New Testament is something much different.

In my view, verses such as in Matthew 16 & 18 and in 1Timothy 3 are understood in their context of a city ekklesia. In Matt., Jesus was referring to what was to come in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. Which is recorded in Acts 1-15. Peter was the rock in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. A man with a solid experience. Paul became that rock after Acts 15. And even became a rock for a sliding Peter as he recounted in Galatians 2. In my view, the lesson in the Matt references has nothing to do with Apostolic succession. It has to do with how we can at varying times be a rock to one another. A rock is someone who leads a weaker one to the ultimate rock who is God himself. In Christ, it is God who is the source of life and strength.

In 1Tim 3., Paul was speaking in the context of the ekklesia in Ephesus (1:3). As he was in Eph 5.

Each ekklesia is called out of a city to take care of the affairs of God in the city in which it exists. Each ekklesia is a local manifestation that is intended to express the universal Body of Christ (Eph 1) and the residence or temple of God (Eph 2) and the common life of the believers in Christ as connected to the supernatural in the heavens known to all principalities and powers (Eph 3).

Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff
...Christians are more apt to believe in their interpretations of the Bible than the Bible itself..
Posted by Aron
Which is why we have discussions... as the name of this forum (hopefully) conveys: "Local Church Discussions". Occasionally I learn something from having discussions... at least I learn that my opinion isn't considered as equivalent to "the truth" by all and sundry.

My original purpose for coming on the internet was two-fold. To find other Christians of like mind (I was yet Christian then), and to increase my faith. I have instead discovered that I think like no Christian denomination, and my faith in Christianity has become nil.

I’m a fan of certain Comic Strips. One being “Non Sequitur”. A couple of years ago he had a Strip that now makes a great deal of sense to me.

As the story goes,

a man climbs a mountain to speak to a wise man. When he reaches the top he says,

“I’ve traveled half way around the world to learn the secret of contentment.”

The wise man says, “Ah, that’s easy...Live each day with this in mind...Arguing with idiots makes you an idiot.”

“That’s it?”

“Yep.”

He returns home and his wife asks, “Well...? What did he say?”

To which the man replies, “To stay off the internet and don’t run for congress.”

In my experience, forums tend to be more debate than discussion. In a discussion there is a civil sharing of ideas, where all parties can grow in their own understanding of reality through that which has been mutually shared. In a debate especially between Christians, there is the pontification of ideas, that too often leads to one party telling another party that their pontifications prove they are not Christian or not as Christian as they are. For those who’s nature it is to debate, who argue simply to argue, who’s only purpose is to pontificate their own superiority, the debate will never end. They are the ones who are creating divisions centered in themselves and personally I avoid them like the plague. Yet in the end, it is they who will interpret Romans 16:17-20 as referring to anyone who doesn’t agree with their doctrine and community.

Not sure what you think the Catholics created...

Catholicism is its own creation and its own ending. Just like all Christian denominations.

the apocrypha?

The Deuterocanonical/apocryphal Old Testament writings were bound together in the Bible used by the believers in the first centuries. There is some question among Christians as to whether or not they should be considered part of the inspired Bible.

In my view, it doesn’t matter. Most of what they say is already in the Old Testament. There are also included some matters that could be considered local superstitions. Something also contained in the Old Testament. Such as in one place a record of some praying for the dead. Certainly not sufficient to be a basis for the idea of communion between the living and the dead as the Catholics claim. How these writings are understood depends on interpretation. As does the question as to whether the New Testament writers referred to them. I personally have read them without finding anything in them as offensive as some Protestants make them out to be.

Bolded point one: Both myself and a few other writers here also went "non-Christian" as their post-LC religion of choice. After my sojourn in the void (agnosticism/science/philosopy) I eventually went back to Jesus Christ because 1) I decided I preferred a universe in which God existed, and 2) because Jesus still seemed to me to be the preferred way to approach God.

My preferences are why I do what I do. It's why I usually pick butterscotch pudding over vanilla. I choose something just because I like it better. My choices are neither innately morally superior to nor more rational than anyone else's. But it is my life and those are my choices. Now I try to live with them (not always easy).

You misunderstand me. I never left Jesus Christ. I’m just not so certain about the reality in Christ as I once was. Not because of persuasive arguments by non-Christians against the faith, but because of persuasive arguments by Christians for the faith that devalues that which they are arguing for. Which is why I say that today I have more hope than faith.

What I did leave was Christianity, with its human nature and denominational character. Again it was Christians, not non-Christians, that were persuasive and persuaded me that Christianity is just a man-made religion. Not quite their intention, of course. Yet not completely since I continue to attend a Christian Church. A Christian Church only because it is what I was born into and am used to. Thus I’m religious because I still attend a Christian Church. I’m Agnostic because of being uncertain about what I believe to be true about supernatural reality in the positive sense. Hence, a religious Agnostic.

Bolded point two: I have been greatly helped by non-Christian posters here, on the other forum, and elsewhere. Their opinions are just as valid as mine. I learn a lot from people who see differently; maybe more than from my Christian peers (and my fellow Christians are fairly diverse).

While I acknowledge that non-Christians often have a better understanding of what the Bible actually says than most Christians (for example, the commentary on Matthew by the current Dalai Lama is very insightful, yet as a Buddhist, he doesn’t believe in God), I have never found their arguments against the Bible or Christianity sufficiently persuasive to change my mind about anything Christian. That has been totally the prerogative of Christians. With the exception of one doctrine.

One of the great problems with ultra-orthodox groups like Lee's is that other voices are not welcomed; it causes too much confusion, they say. When really all they want to hear is their own voice, echoed back to them, which they think equals "the voice of God."..... Conversations are valuable this way: they are mutual explorations.

I would agree if I thought the Recovery was an ultra-orthodox group. Unfortunately, it is not when compared with mainline churches such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinistic Churches, Protestant Evangelical Churches, etc., etc., etc. All of which have the same exclusiveness in their doctrinal attitude that you call ultra-orthodox.

I enjoy writing. And I like writing here on this forum because it is free. No money is exchanged. I think money distorts the flow of ideas. When we merchandise our ministry, eventually the market, the quest for lucre, supervenes and supercedes our quest for truth. Like the prophet said a long time ago, "come without money and without price"...

I’m with you there.

Offhand, I can't remember if any reader has had their mind changed by my writings. I get agreement from the ones who were predisposed to agree. It would be nice if someone wrote that when they read my post, something like scales fell from their eyes and suddenly they could see. But that's not likely to happen. So I write because I like to, and if it helps someone else that's a nice bonus.

The changing of a person’s mind seems to have little to do with objective truth. It has everything to do with the charisma of the one who speaks and/or the rhetorical ability of the person who writes. According to the New Testament record, it took the Spirit to convince people that Jesus Christ was actually the Christ. With all the miracles it is said that Jesus did, that still did not persuade most people to believe in the truth that he presented.

I hate to break it to you, but based on the fact that neither of us has started our own denomination, apparently you and I aren’t very good writers, nor do we have much charisma to speak of. We are among those who must laugh in the face of adversity. LOL

Writing helps me clarify my thinking, and seeing others' opinions also helps me to think (I think).

I think so too.

The reason some of us are here for an extended period is that learning to think, and simultaneously becoming aware that others also think, and think differently from us, can be a long and slow process. You know, if you walk a mile into the woods you have to walk a mile to get back out!

Good point. Guess I didn’t walk so far into the woods that I forgot how to think.

Destroy!! Destroy!! MacDuff isn't writing according to the sacred codes of Groupthink!!

(A little humor)

LOL Red Alert.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Comfy

Yes, there is complaining. Regrettably so. Also there is quarreling, small-minded opinions masquerading as 'truth', judging one another, and so forth. But there is also celebration, gratitude, encouragement, hope, edification, community. Sounds a lot like... what did they call it... Oh, yeah -- church!!

So that’s Church. You make it sound like every other community endeavor of natural men. Where’s the supernatural in that?

MacDuff

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio

Peter’s teaching in 1Pet 5:1-7 has always been sufficient for me to disbelieve in the idea of an authoritative human leadership related to believers.

Perhaps the following will help to clarify my understanding of Hebrews 13:17.

Pistis refers to faith or conviction of the truth of something. Even Atheists have faith, that there is no God. A word derived from peitho, the word translated as “obey” in the English translations of Hebrews 13:17. Peitho refers to confidence or trust in someone or something. Note how the word is translated in other verses in Hebrews.

There is another Greek word that means to obey, or literally to hear under. The word is used in Col 3:20 and 22, for example. It is also used in Heb 5:9. So the writer of Hebrews knew to use that more common word at least once.

Thanks MacDuff,

My meager study does not exactly conclude as you have done. The New Test. uses three words for the word "obey." Two are similar, and one is different. Here they are:

• peithomai (Strong's #3982) in Hebrews 13.17 is derived from the root word peitho, which means to convince, to persuade, to seduce, to corrupt dpending on the context. peithomai has the sense to trust, to convince, to follow, and even to obey, depending on the context
• peitharcheo (Strong's #3980) is similar in that it is derived from the same greek root, and it means to obey, to pay heed
• hypakoe (Strongs #5218) and hypakouo (Strongs #5219) literally mean to "hear under" as a subordinate, i.e. to listen attentively, and by implication to heed, to obey, to hearken

To diminish the force of peithomai-obeying simply because it is derived from the root word for persuasion or trusting is no different than diminishing the force of hypakouo-obeying because it is derived from the root word for hearing or listening. This is the very reasoning that both John and MacDuff have used. To me it seems flawed, but, of course, I am no Greek scholar.

G. Kittel makes an interesting comment about hypakouo-obeying, "Except in Phlm 21, this word always implies religious decision. What is obeyed may be the truth (I Pt. 1.22) or Christ (2 Cor 10.5). The denotation is not the ethical attitude but the religious act from which it derives. The obedience of faith (Rom 1.5) implies that the message of faith issues in obedience."

I found this to be an important distinction between peithomai-obeying and hypakouo-obeying. Otherwise it is hard to distinguish which is the "real word" for obeying, since the writers of the New Test. apparently use both, seemingly interchangeably. Perhaps a notable scholar could assist us in distinguishing how each of these words is used.

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Each ekklesia is called out of a city to take care of the affairs of God in the city in which it exists. Each ekklesia is a local manifestation that is intended to express the universal Body of Christ (Eph 1) and the residence or temple of God (Eph 2) and the common life of the believers in Christ as connected to the supernatural in the heavens known to all principalities and powers (Eph 3).

Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

I like this statement. My only modification is the word "city". I don't see an ekklesia as being limited to an urban conflux. It can be in the wilderness, as described by Stephen in Acts 7:38. It can be in a variety of forms. Typically, it was associated with a city. But that was, I believe, in the formative years when there were not many Christians yet and there was typically (but not exclusively) only "one church in one city". Today in Moscow, 2,000 years later, due to growth in numbers there may a number of churches (the LCs play with words to get around this, and call them "meeting halls" instead of churches. But each one, still, is an "ekklesia"). I see plural ekklesia as multiplication rather than division. Or, conversely, in Bumper's Corner, Iowa, which is merely a crossroads in a vast agricultural expanse, one may gather in a church which is as genuine as the big city. Jesus said "Gather in My name". He didn't specify geographical constraints.

Anyway, that is the way I see it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

My original purpose for coming on the internet was two-fold. To find other Christians of like mind (I was yet Christian then), and to increase my faith. I have instead discovered that I think like no Christian denomination, and my faith in Christianity has become nil.

I also. My faith, or "emotional investment", in Christianity (i.e. organized religion) has basically shrunk to nothing. Fortunately, I still love God (or try to, anyway), and love my neighbor as myself (or try to). I think differently than others but respect that others have had different experiences than I, and I believe that their experiences of God's love are just as real to them as mine are to me. And since my ideas about the nature of the universe are constantly changing, I don't see the need to distinguish myself, based on the uniqueness of my ideas. Ideas change over time.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my experience, forums tend to be more debate than discussion. In a discussion there is a civil sharing of ideas, where all parties can grow in their own understanding of reality through that which has been mutually shared. In a debate especially between Christians, there is the pontification of ideas, that too often leads to one party telling another party that their pontifications prove they are not Christian or not as Christian as they are.

I try to be merciful to others, and God will be merciful to me. Psalm 18:25 says, "with the merciful you show Yourself merciful"... Jesus amplified this theme in His teachings. I consider it to be a cornerstone of the faith. What you do unto others is what you will in return receive from God.

From those who already have it all figured out I can learn almost nothing, except "don't be like that." I am, rather, interested in mutual exploration. The scene in Luke 24 is great: two guys are walking along, "talking about everything that has happened" (v.14) and suddenly they both get taken to a new place. "Were not our hearts burning when He opened to us the scriptures?" (v.32). Both of them got to see something new. Occasionally on the forum I get that sense. It is worth filtering through the "posing" (mine included) to find a mutual celebration of discovery.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I never left Jesus Christ. I’m just not so certain about the reality in Christ as I once was. Not because of persuasive arguments by non-Christians against the faith, but because of persuasive arguments by Christians for the faith that devalues that which they are arguing for. Which is why I say that today I have more hope than faith.

As I said, your hope may be more grounded, in both in scripture and actual human experience, than mine is. I am comfortable with my theology, but how "real" are my experiences? Usually I try to "let go" and "start again", and find that the good stuff ("Love your neighbor, etc") comes along, and the rest can just lay there forgotten. Paul said, "What once was valuable to me I have let go on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord." In other words: Don't get stuck; let go and keep moving.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I would agree if I thought the Recovery was an ultra-orthodox group. Unfortunately, it is not when compared with mainline churches such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinistic Churches, Protestant Evangelical Churches, etc., etc., etc. All of which have the same exclusiveness in their doctrinal attitude that you call ultra-orthodox..

By ultra-orthodox I meant ultra-rigid, or very inflexible, as to what constitutes truth. I find you can't really have a discussion with such people. They just want you to see things their way. It is hard to have a conversation with someone who already has all the answers.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I hate to break it to you, but based on the fact that neither of us has started our own denomination, apparently you and I aren’t very good writers, nor do we have much charisma to speak of.

In spite of my repeated attempts, I have not been able to convert anyone to the church of aron

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter’s teaching in 1Pet 5:1-7 has always been sufficient for me to disbelieve in the idea of an authoritative human leadership related to believers. Even when the subject of human authority came up on the Catholic forums, and of course it came up frequently in the form of the question “Who decides?”, I would just quote that verse and leave it at that. They always danced all around what Peter said without specifically dealing with it.

I agree. Peter's counsel to the elders is a saving word. With authoritative human leadership you get the chance of abuse ("lording it over the saints"), but Peter's word terminates that possibility.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Not so much a matter of the judgment of one post as it is a matter of a judgment of a post by an administrator. In my experience, forum Administrators have the power of life and death regarding posts and posters. I have apologized to Igzy for misunderstanding his intent. He has clarified where he’s coming from and I personally agree with his concern.

I'm so glad you and Igzy have worked out your differences. He's really a great guy. Everybody likes him. The last moderator we had :verysad: was another story. He had the power of life and death in his keypad. People around here used to call him the Topiq Natzi.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Personally, I’m a doctrinal realist. In that I acknowledge that not all Christians understand the Bible alike. A part of the denomination blues that has been a part of Christianity for centuries. And I’m a doctrinal relativist. In that I am tolerant of all Christian points of view without relinquishing my own view that is not necessarily Christian to them. This is in stark contrast with the common practice by Christian denominations of closed communion. For it reveals that the authorities of those Christian denominations are neither realistic nor relativistic in relation to doctrinal ideas that differ from their own. But then, that’s just another reason I’m not a Christian and another way I differ from most Christians of that sort.

MacDuff, I have never heard of these descriptions "doctrinal realist" and "doctrinal relativist," but if they accommodate the fact that "not all Christians understand the Bible alike," and that you have become "tolerant of all Christian points of view without relinquishing my own view," then it sounds like we all should aspire to these. They almost sound like Paul's admonition to the Philippians, "Let your forbearance be known to all. The Lord is near." This is sometimes contrasted by my own impressions as a "practical realist" looking at Christianity, "Let your intolerance be made known to all, The Lord has left."

But, then, I don't understand your conclusion saying, "I'm not a Christian." If intolerant Christians were sufficient reason to quit, then the Lord Jesus would have done so right away. His "select" apostles were constantly fighting with each other over who was the greatest and who should be President and VP of their new enterprise. (Mt 20.20) John and James even got mommy involved, surreptitiously "worshiping" Him. Many believe that their mom was Jesus' auntie, so you can imagine what a nightmare that was when the morning news hit the streets: "Jesus accused of nepotism, Succumbs to family pressures."

It has been said that the church is the battleground between God and His enemy. I'd like to think that I have seen some of the best and some of the worst in church history. I have been betrayed by loved ones much the same as Jesus was betrayed by Judas (except for the dieing part.) Perhaps you have some "burns" and "scars" also from your journeys. You are not alone. The worst of them usually come from your "brothers and sisters" in Christ.

King David, while composing a Psalm, (#116.11) apparently after he was burnt again for the umpteenth time, cried out in haste, "All men are liars!" The amazing thing is what followed. He began to take stock in all the good things the Lord had done for him. David had a change in heart. His appreciation for the "lone honest man" in the universe was to consider what he could do for Him. His response was to take the cup of salvation. Then he began to call on the name of His God and Savior.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm so glad you and Igzy have worked out your differences. He's really a great guy. Everybody likes him. The last moderator we had :verysad: was another story. He had the power of life and death in his keypad. People around here used to call him the Topiq Natzi.

lol

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Igzy



I apologize. I understand and agree with your clarification.

MacDuff

Thanks, MacDuff. No hard feelings. Misunderstandings are all too easy on forums. I may have misunderstood you, too. Happy posting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio

Peter’s teaching in 1Pet 5:1-7 has always been sufficient for me to disbelieve in the idea of an authoritative human leadership related to believers.

MacDuff

I agree. Human leaders in the church of God should not be "authoritative," rather they should be servants, just as both the Lord and His disciples have instructed us. The leadership in the Recovery willfully neglected this point, therefore they should pray-read these verses every day at their International Training of Elders and Responsible Ones (ITERO)

Here in these verses, Peter does not negate the need for elders and shepherds, rather he instructs them with the Great Shepherd in view, and this has been my point from the beginning of this thread. There must be elders, proper in every sense, and the rest of the saints should be "subject" to them. It is the same as in a family. Just because some parents are cruelly abusive, we don't annul the institution of the family. We still must exhort children to honor their parents, and to obey them.

[MacDuff]

Aron

As I said, your hope may be more grounded, in both in scripture and actual human experience, than mine is.

My hope is grounded in hope. Hope that what is described in the Bible is actually true. Sometimes I live according to that hope. Sometimes not. Depends on how I feel at the moment. How one acts is determined by faith more than hope. If one believes a chair is solid enough to sit on, one will sit on the chair. But if one only hopes the chair is solid enough, it then becomes a matter of how one feels at the moment. The variableness of which depends on the person.

By ultra-orthodox I meant ultra-rigid, or very inflexible, as to what constitutes truth. I find you can't really have a discussion with such people. They just want you to see things their way. It is hard to have a conversation with someone who already has all the answers.

I understand, and rather than call them ultra-orthodox, I call them fundamentalists. Different terms denoting the same thing. We all would prefer that everyone sees things the same way we do. Numbers makes us feel better about what we believe. It’s like believing the sun will come up tomorrow. If everybody believes it, it makes it easier for us to believe it. It’s like Paul said,

1Co 14:8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?

The unclear sound of the trumpet of Christianity is not conducive to faith, at least it isn’t to mine. It’s why I think that those who do end up believing in Jesus Christ, do not have Christianity to blame for it. Tradition (cradle Christians), a particular need fulfilled by a belief, maybe. Even Lee Stroble’s supposedly open minded account ended in his becoming a part of denominational thinking, Evangelical Protestantism.

In spite of my repeated attempts, I have not been able to convert anyone to the church of aron

LOL I haven’t had any luck with the MacDuffian Church either. For which my thankfulness abounds. Do you know how much a Church costs these days? I rather like having others with more affluence than I foot that bill.

I agree. Peter's counsel to the elders is a saving word. With authoritative human leadership you get the chance of abuse ("lording it over the saints"), but Peter's word terminates that possibility.

In Christianity, authoritative human leadership is seen more as a necessity than an abuse. Where natural leadership replaces supernatural leadership which it’s intended to represent. Like the Pope being the Vicar or representative of Jesus Christ on the earth. Which all seems pretty natural to me. A rather blatant denial that the Spirit indwells all believers alike. Something that may be a misunderstanding of Spiritual functions, which are different expressions through those who are indwelled by the same Spirit. That together with the common idea that Overseers rule, that has been the common idea in Christianity for so long, would naturally result in some sort of hierarchy. Even the Protestants couldn’t get away from it.

And I’m sure that someone will eventually point out that the common view is that elders and overseers are not the same. So that Episcopal authority will be different from what Peter said about the Elders. I don’t remember the argument for authoritative Elders in Presbyterianism.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Ohio

If intolerant Christians were sufficient reason to quit

Bowing to the conviction of Christians that I’m not a Christian is not quitting anything. It’s acknowledging the point of view of the majority of Christians. Fundamentalist Christians aren’t the only ones to claim I’m not a Christian simply because I disagree with doctrines they think are considered universally essential. It’s an acknowledgment of a personal view that the term Christian was never intended to be a self-denotation of believers. The term is used only three times in the New Testament. The first use of the term doesn’t say “they called themselves Christians”, but rather “they were called Christians”. No New Testament writer referred to himself as a Christian. Though Peter’s reference is interpreted as such. It’s acknowledging a personal view that the term Christian is associated with what is a man-made religion, overtly manifested by its denominational character. It’s acknowledging that if there were believers truly gathering as the ekklesia in this city (as most denominations already think they are, including the Recovery), I would no longer have anything whatever to do with Christianity the religion. As it is, I have no choice but to attend a Church of Christianity, if I want to have a semblance of communal living that resembles even slightly what is described in the New Testament.

It’s not so uncommon to think I’m an Apostate quitter of the faith once given to the saints. I’ve had more than one Christian tell me to go back to mommy if I can’t take the heat. Which reveals, to me at least, a lot about how they understand their own religion. An understanding that becomes their witness to Christianity. A witness to a Christianity I would prefer to have nothing to do with. Which even more makes me not a Christian and outside of the Christ that is the Christ to those in that venue.

In my view, there should be something better than Christianity. Better than a natural religion that calls itself Christian and is what is commonly seen by men. Better than a religion considered just a part of a Judeo/Christian religious Tradition the essence of which can be taught in a secular university.

Where is the expression of Christ where believers actually express something supernatural, expressing humanity in Christ that expresses something like the Christ described in the Bible? Instead of expressing humanity in Adam as if there is no difference and expressing the nature of Cain as if it was the normal thing to do. A question I would no doubt not be asking if it weren’t for what I thought I experienced at Elden Hall almost forty years ago, that is not the same as the experience of the Recovery that I have experienced recently.

It has been said that the church is the battleground between God and His enemy.

Onward Christian soldiers, ehya? I left the military when my tour was up for a reason. Not my thing. Maybe that’s another reason why I’m not a Christian. Still not my thing.

If it is true (according to one thread) that Lee had a militaristic idea for the youth of the Recovery with headquarters in Anaheim, I side with those who disapprove. Smacks of Communism or Naziism. American ROTC? Besides, if it’s a Christian military one wants, the Salvation Army existed long before the Recovery and continues to exist.

Regarding 1Peter 5

By Ohio
I agree. Human leaders in the church of God should not be "authoritative," rather they should be servants, just as both the Lord and His disciples have instructed us.

One does not, indeed should not, obey servants. But if all are servants, then there is the freedom to place oneself in service under those who are more experienced than oneself, and under one another so that there is a serving of one another. Which is my understanding of Peter.

Then it’s no longer a matter of imitating the hierarchies of human kingdoms/nations, or human societies. It’s no longer a matter of obedience to a human authority, which is the common understanding of Hebrews 13:17. It’s a matter of living a common life in Christ. Where eyes, hands, and feet work together, each with a part to play, under a common head. If there is truly a connection to the supernatural, that head would be Jesus Christ and ultimately God. Through the Holy Spirit. It all depends on whether walking by the Spirit has a supernatural meaning through the human spirit or a natural meaning through the human mind.

If I hadn’t experienced, or thought I experienced, what I did at Elden Hall, I would have the same opinion of Hebrews 13:17 as the majority in Christianity. Obedience to a hierarchy created by or connected to Jesus Christ in some way. And since it’s also my view that the Roman Catholic Church is the epitomization of Christianity, kind of like Lee’s view of Christianity as Catholicism and her Protestant daughters, I would now be a Catholic.

There must be elders, proper in every sense, and the rest of the saints should be "subject" to them. It is the same as in a family. Just because some parents are cruelly abusive, we don't annul the institution of the family. We still must exhort children to honor their parents, and to obey them.

1Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

In this translation (KJV), “office of Bishop” translates the Greek word episcope. It is the translation of the RSV, NRSV, and the two Catholic Bibles, the Douay and the NAB. The ESV translates it as “office of overseer”. The NKJV translates it as “position of bishop”. The NIV translates it as “overseer”. The NLT translates it as “elder” (revealing the view of the translator of a synonymy of terms). The GNB translates it as what the majority in Christianity are thinking, “church leader”. The majority in Christianity think in terms of hierarchy in connection with the Greek word episcope. In my view, the NIV gives the best translation of the word.

The translation of the Greek word proistemi as rule in 1Tim 3:4 in the KJV and Douay. That was the view of family at the time. Since the RSV, the majority of translations translate the word as manage. Closer to the meaning, but still not quite correct in my view. The word literally means to stand before or in front of. Neither ruling nor managing. Rather, leading. The Overseer should be proficient in leading his own family in the right direction. As evidence he will do the same thing in the ekklesia. In my view, in Christianity, the emphasis is on the wrong thing, leading to a wrong idea.

In my view, there does NOT have to be elders. It’s a natural result of a growth in life. I know, I know. The matter of laying on of hands on those who apparently haven’t even been in an ekklesia long enough for growth to take place. Yet look at the time of education necessary to become a simple Priest or a Protestant Pastor. Time is surely involved before the laying on of hands occurs in Christianity. I think that what is not being considered is that the New Testament writings, though all were written prior to the end of the first century, they weren’t written immediately after the first ekklesia was called out. Luke wrote his writings just prior to the death of Paul in Rome. Paul accomplished a great deal, that required the passing of some time, prior to his death. Not only does Luke write after a passage of time, but Paul himself writes about things as if he already has some experience of what he’s writing about.

Life is what the ekklesia is all about in my view. The life of God in Christ expressed on earth for all the world to see, and even heavenly beings to see. Why would God want to continue a war when it is said that Christ already won the war. Satan still wars. That is true. But the Bible says all it takes is a little resistance and he will flee. The war on the flesh? The Bible says that is a war that can be won simply by walking by the Spirit. In Christianity, that is the war that is being lost because of faith being in the wrong thing. And Satan doesn’t have to lift a finger.

A Bishop or overseer is NOT intended to be an institutional authority as it is in Christianity. Nor are elders. Yet that is the Traditional view. Including as it has become in the Recovery, according to what I’ve read here, and seen with my own eyes. If one wishes to honestly follow Christian Tradition, it must be in the historic sense, historic Christian Tradition being the most viable form of Tradition. And it is a road that will eventually lead to Rome. Certainly not to the Recovery, nor any other Protestant influenced Christian denomination.

In my view, there is a difference between reality as Tradition interprets it and reality as the Bible describes it. Innovative interpretations, common in Protestantism, just creates different Traditions each with their own history that are all connected to Protestant history beginning with Martin Luther, that is in turn connected to the history of the Western Church, and ultimately to an overt history that includes the idea of hierarchy with an authoritative leadership going back to the 4th century. The Recovery of Witness Lee being just one of the more recent innovative Protestant interpretative Traditions. And remarkably, Lee admitted the denominational character of the Recovery when he acknowledged the historic connection between the Recovery and the Reformation of Martin Luther.

PS:

I have never heard of these descriptions "doctrinal realist" and "doctrinal relativist,"

It’s hard to tell how much of my personal terminology is due to personal innovation, personal adaptation to my own situation through many of years of personal experience, and terminology a dictionary might describe. I’ve never heard of the term “topiq Natzi” before. But I can imagine what kind of experience might lead to the use of the terminology having had some experience in more than one Christian forum.

MacDuff

[Cal]

MacDuff,

I don't mean to be critical, but I have a real hard time seeing what your overall point is. You state a lot of theory, but practically how to do see a church operating?

Are you saying that leaders of a church have no authority in the church? If so, how are problems handled? Who takes the lead and who has the authority to execute action, ultimately? This is a very practical question. The problem I have with what you say is it's just you and your theory. I don't see any practical realization of what you are talking about. Just you saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

What's your practical answer? How are churches to operate practically? Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

MacDuff,

I don't mean to be critical, but I have a real hard time seeing what your overall point is. You state a lot of theory, but practically how to do see a church operating?

Are you saying that leaders of a church have no authority in the church? If so, how are problems handled? Who takes the lead and who has the authority to execute action, ultimately? This is a very practical question. The problem I have with what you say is it's just you and your theory. I don't see any practical realization of what you are talking about. Just you saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

What's your practical answer? How are churches to operate practically? Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

Igzy:

I don't want to put words in MacDuff's mouth, but I follow his argument. He is arguing a LOT of "Christianity" is the product of the creation of human norms and mores wrapped in the language of the Bible. Yet this sort of "faith" doesn't actually require "faith."

You ask very practical questions. These sorts of questions were spot on when the people you were debating were attempting to advance a "practical expression of the church" (i.e. "local ground"). In such a case, practical questions are poignant and revealing.

But if someone is arguing that the "practical expression" of believers coming together should perhaps be left to the Holy Spirit, then "practical questions" might not have a place or at least as much force. In such a situation, "practical questions" about "Well, what do we do then? Who resolves disputes?" leans toward needing human mores and norms, rather than faith. Every religion has their version. "Leaders" who have an "office" and are thus to be respected regardless of spirituality, are a good practical solution to this human social problem.

I understand that this is a bold way to argue what "church" should look like - since the argument is "I don't know - and maybe God wants it that way, which requires us to depend on Him rather than human social structures" - and is not practical in any sort of way. But what part of God's multifarious wisdom and varied grace is "practical" in the way we mean that term in our limited minds?

I don't think Macduff's argument's can get shirked off that simply. You stand in the position of insisting a particular structure (even if not entirely defined) is dictated by the Bible. In terms of conversational dynamics, this puts you in the similar position as those who argue for "the local ground."

It's a conversation that requires Biblical study.

I have noticed that when it comes to challenges to how mainstream Christianity operates, you sometimes revert to "that's overly-spiritual," which absolves you of having to argue anything with any rigor.

In THIS discussion (as opposed to the local ground discussion) it is YOU who is arguing for the more "practical expression" (of leaders, in this case). That is, you contend that leadership manifests in OFFICES rather than situationally and/or according to growth in life. Your argument seems to be "follow leaders until it violates your conscience." My response would be, "why not just follow my conscience?" If it is God's will, that may well entail following leaders. When they go to far, I'm still doing the same thing I was doing from the start, following my conscience. A doctrine of "leadership" and "offices in the church" seems to add an additional level of unneeded complexity and ground for error. Apply Occum's Razor.

To be clear, this does not mean there isn't submission and authority among believers. Indeed, except for a healthy back-and-forth with some whom I respect, I sometimes don't know what "follow my conscience" should be. It's just that those to whom I submit isn't doctrinally set up to manifest in human-created organizational arrangements.

I don't know that I agree with Macduff, and I agree that his thoughts are "radical." But I don't think it's him that should be in the hot seat.

The very history of Christianity (and its divisions and abuses) which has clung to the very presmises that you defend in this conversation is reason enough to pause and listen to new ways of thinking.

(Have I reached 200 words yet? I was pointedly trying to write more...) That's an attempt at humor, but my barometer is messed up.

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. A few of us - some two years ago - did a very extensive and Bible-based examinatin of leadership in the church. It is under the Eldership thread. I don't think this conversation can be shirked by broad/abstract arguments meant to "move on". It has to be confronted rigorously - with the same rigor posters here have approached their own personal doctrinal pet-peeves...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But if someone is arguing that the "practical expression" of believers coming together should perhaps be left to the Holy Spirit, then "practical questions" might not have a place or at least as much force. In such a situation, "practical questions" about "Well, what do we do then? Who resolves disputes?" leans toward needing human mores and norms, rather than faith. Every religion has their version. "Leaders" who have an "office" and are thus to be respected regardless of spirituality, are a good practical solution to this human social problem.

I understand that this is a bold way to argue what "church" should look like - since the argument is "I don't know - and maybe God wants it that way, which requires us to depend on Him rather than human social structures" - and is not practical in any sort of way. But what part of God's multifarious wisdom and varied grace is "practical" in the way we mean that term in our limited minds?

I admit to being biased (probably only God is "fair and balanced" -- see Jesus' retort in Matthew 19: "Only God is good"). So I will lay my bias out front. I think that we should organize ourselves only as much as is absolutely necessary, and leave the practical stuff to God.

So while I admit to leaning toward the arguments of MacDuff and Peter D, I will offer four sections, chosen with the aforementioned bias, and perhaps only helpful to me. But chosen and presented nonetheless, with an idea to "amen" the last sentence of Peter D, above.

First, the part where Jesus tells them to go into the city, and they will see a man walking with a water jug; they are to follow him, and they will find a room prepared (Matt 26, Mark 14). Now, what organizational leadership is going to arrange that, I ask? Where did the man come from? The room; how was it arranged?

Second, where Jesus says to go into Bethany and get the donkey's colt (Matt 21, Luke 18, Mark 11). He said, "If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’” (Mk 11.3) Same as above. We can only trust God to give us such "crazy" (i.e. non-rational) commands. Any human leadership here will really be crazy.

Third, Jesus' command to gain funds for tax-paying purposes by throwing an empty hook into the ocean, and you'll get a fish with a coin in its mouth (Matt 17). Nutty, no? Where did the coin come from? How was the fish directed? But if Jesus says so, then you do it. Only the Spirit today can give such "nutty" commands. No human agent is capable. The humans who think they are such expressions of the flow of the Spirit are variously named Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon...

No, it must be the Holy Spirit. This will often be revealed through the more mature ones (note how 1 John chapter 2 addresses maturity in life versus organizational position), but it cannot be limited to them, unless we want to limit the Holy Spirit's move.

Fourth, on the restrictive side, (Acts 1:4)... On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

Do not do anything until you get "evidence" of the Holy Spirit. Only then will God reveal His move to you. I argue that the preaching on Pentecost was led by the Holy Spirit, not by Peter or any human leadership. Organizational structure will only fence in the Spirit. Any human leadership would have gotten antsy before the ten days was up (notice how the command was open-ended) and tried to "move" before the Spirit arrived. But Jesus was clear: "do not".

Leaders, i.e. vectors of the Holy Spirit, will surely emerge. But we should let this occur as the Lord sees fit. The only thing that matters is the move of the Spirit. Creating vested leadership positions will lead only to vested interests, contrary to the Spirit. Eventually our vested interests will lead us to serve the creation, not the Creator. Because, as I mentioned at the start, we are biased.

[UntoHim]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

In reading over the last number of posts this quote by Gandhi came to mind. I'm not quite sure how so many Christians seem to have this idea that the Church is going to be "perfect, without any spot or wrinkle" in this age. This is a not what the Bible says, and this is not reality. Nee & Lee especially went way off in this respect. Before you know it you have a bunch of young people - teens and young adults - all being cooped up in some austere, colorless "meeting hall" - slap a white shirt and skinny tie on em and away you go. Oh, and whatever you don't let them get exposed to the real world out there (you know, that world that we're supposed to share the good news to)

Thank God there are many Christian leaders, visionaries and church planters out there who have actually paid attention to the world around them, got themselves a diverse and comprehensive Christian education, and have started to make a real difference. If it sounds like I am encouraged about the future of poor, poor Christianity...you're right, I am. Thankfully God has made sure that small, insignificant groups like the Local Church of Witness Lee stay that way...small and insignificant.

So MacDuff, while I can’t fault you for your cynicism, you don’t seem like a guy who gives up so easily. Keep digging, keep looking. Have faith in your fellow man (pun intended)….more important, have faith in God….that he has not left himself without a true testimony. Remember what Martin Luther wrote: "And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us; We will not fear, for God hath willed. His truth to triumph through us." I’m sure you know very well who the “devils” were….he was not referring to the heathens. He was referring to the Christian leaders at the time. Nevertheless, Luther was able to lead a number of other “protestants” out of the darkness around them, and he did this mostly with THE TRUTH. The truth, the truth, the truth. God has willed for the truth to triumph. Never give up your search until you find the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I admit to being biased (probably only God is "fair and balanced" -- see Jesus' retort in Matthew 19: "Only God is good"). So I will lay my bias out front. I think that we should organize ourselves only as much as is absolutely necessary, and leave the practical stuff to God.

Leaders, i.e. vectors of the Holy Spirit, will surely emerge. But we should let this occur as the Lord sees fit. The only thing that matters is the move of the Spirit. Creating vested leadership positions will lead only to vested interests, contrary to the Spirit. Eventually our vested interests will lead us to serve the creation, not the Creator. Because, as I mentioned at the start, we are biased.

aron, while your 4 examples all sound so exciting (MacDuff no doubt will cheer the accent on the supernatural), the fact is that the Bible, old and new, honestly records it all. It has good leaders and bad, and good leaders who do bad. It has enthralling stories of individual heroes (eg Hebrews 11) and stories of the mundane in structured environments (eg busybodies going house to house.) I frankly think that our Christian walk is much the same. We each need wonderful testimonies of spectacular times with Jesus alone as we plod along the routine drudgery of church.

Our God is much bigger than any structured format, and, of course, that is the background we have emerged from. Witness Lee had his vision of a "glorious church" and, according to his own words, did little more than to replicate Laodicea. God can meet us where we are at, whether all alone or just another dumb sheep in the herd.

Regardless of how we now view "the church," and I know as well as any how badly this can turn out, still the breath of God wrote of and to assemblies of believers with their elders and deacons. The writings, however, gave little instruction on exactly how do we "do church." Where are salaried clergy, where are mortgages, where are political rallies, where are weekly bulletins? The list is endless, and if our walk is wrapped up in these "extras" then we might miss it all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Igzy:

I don't want to put words in MacDuff's mouth, but I follow his argument. He is arguing a LOT of "Christianity" is the product of the creation of human norms and mores wrapped in the language of the Bible. Yet this sort of "faith" doesn't actually require "faith."

Okay, that's true sometimes. But I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing the fact that his theorizing never reaches a practical conclusion. He offers no solution.

I'm not "shirking" anything. All I'm doing is asking people to present a positive alternative of Christian groups, aka churches, that actually works.

I don't believe in making the good the enemy of the best. Idealists often do that. They wax theoretical about perfect church, but never seem to get around to actually rolling up their sleeves and jumping in and being part of a church with all its imperfections and working to somehow make the thing work.

For all our theorizing about how church is supposed to look, the fact of the matter is the structure of church has always been manifested pretty much the same. Some are recognized as leaders and some follow those leaders. That's not going to change. All that will change is the spiritual awareness of everyone and of how God uses the realities of human group dynamics to further his plan.

We can argue all day about what the church should look like, how much authority leaders have, and how much liberty members have. But at the end of the day all we are probably going to be able to say is that they all have "some." Leaders' authority is not absolute. And followers' freedom is not absolute, at least in the immediate context of the group they happen to be in. They can leave the group, but they don't have the authority to stage a coup. Leaders can't micromanage members, but they do have certain authority in the context of the group. A simple example might be the leaders have the authority to call a meeting of the entire church, but it would be inappropriate for an individual member to do that without checking with the leaders.

We should try to be cooperative group members as much as possible. Obviously there are going to be times that we have to do others things. For example, the leader of your church asks everyone to help clean the grounds of the property the group owns. But you decide you can't make it. That's your discretion. But suppose you never help and your attitude is: I don't think church leaders have any authority over me. I don't have to help if I don't want to. You could back that attitude up with verses, I guess. But in the end, what kind of attitude is it?

We have to cooperate in a group. We have to recognize who the leaders are and respect that. Arguing endlessly that the Bible never tells us to obey church leaders is to me just wrong-headed. Of course at some level they have authority. Otherwise, how could they be leaders?

To me it's pretty simple. Everyone should submit to each other. In that context, the gifts of leadership will be manifested. At some point, because that's just the way things happen, certain more human protocols come into play. The bigger and more complex a group becomes, the more human protocols are important. Division of labor takes place. Rules, schedules, definitions, and positions are put into place. That's simply necessary as the thing grows. The Bible never says those things are in themselves bad. God can and does use those things.

Those who pine for the "genuine" NT church often lose sight of that. They make the good the enemy of the best, the best at least in their minds.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In THIS discussion (as opposed to the local ground discussion) it is YOU who is arguing for the more "practical expression" (of leaders, in this case). That is, you contend that leadership manifests in OFFICES rather than situationally and/or according to growth in life. [B]Your argument seems to be "follow leaders until it violates your conscience." My response would be, "why not just follow my conscience?"

My point is you can't have a group without leadership. (Anyone have an example of a church of any appreciable size working for any appreciable time without leaders?)

Yes, you can cite exceptions, but generally speaking the only groups without recognized leaders are either very small, informal groups, or mobs.

I never said follow leaders until it violates your conscience. Obviously, you always need to follow your conscience. But many times your conscience is going to tell you to follow your leaders. We verbalize respecting leadership because the Bible verbalizes it.

Most of our problems with leadership are not matters of right and wrong (conscience), but matters of judgment and opinion. For example, our leader wants to focus more on discipleship. We think we should focus more on evangelism. Our leader likes slow music. We like peppy music. Our leader wants to fund overseas missions. We want to build a new children's center.

That's where the problems with leadership usually arise. Problems of conscience are actually simple compared to problems of differing opinion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Those who pine for the "genuine" NT church often lose sight of that. They make the good the enemy of the best, the best at least in their minds.

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's where the problems with leadership usually arise. Problems of conscience are actually simple compared to problems of differing opinion.

Well said. At least for me.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, you can cite exceptions, but generally speaking the only groups without recognized leaders are either very small, informal groups, or mobs.

Exactly. And this is why it is virtually impossible for such groups to even begin to fulfill the mission of the Church. They can impact the people around them (family, neighbors, friends) but again, the mission of the Church is much larger than this. To fulfill the mission we need direction, and to have direction we need leadership.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regardless of how we now view "the church," and I know as well as any how badly this can turn out, still the breath of God wrote of and to assemblies of believers with their elders and deacons...

In critically examining the issue of "the church", I may lean further away from formal organization than is warranted by either the Bible or christian history. So I felt that identifying my leaning might mitigate that somewhat. I have to be critical of my thinking as well, or at least allow others that freedom.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Leaders, i.e. vectors of the Holy Spirit, will surely emerge. But we should let this occur as the Lord sees fit. The only thing that matters is the move of the Spirit. Creating vested leadership positions will lead only to vested interests, contrary to the Spirit. Eventually our vested interests will lead us to serve the creation, not the Creator. Because, as I mentioned at the start, we are biased.

Oh boy. Yes, and wearing nice clothes will make us vain. Receiving compliments will make us prideful. Making money will make us materialistic. Enjoying good food and sex will make us hedonistic. So I guess we should just get rid of everything.

There are pitfalls everywhere. Yet, we must deal with them. God doesn't call us to austerity. The fact that someone could abuse a position does not make position invalid or bad. It's just means we are fallen. God is looking for those who can handle position, because in the end, he needs leaders.

Leaders are not a necessary evil, any more than government is. They are God's way of organizing groups.

Do you know why the Libertarians can't get anywhere as a party? It isn't because they aren't smart, or don't have a message that can resonate. It's because they are so suspicious of organized leadership that they cannot sustain any kind of organized effort to get anything done. They are hamstrung from implementing their ideology by their ideology itself.

In other words, they are like a herd of cats. God can't do much with a herd of cats.

What do you think the New Jerusalem is going to be like? Do you think there will be no groups with leaders? Do you think we all are going to be floating around with no human organization at all? There are ranks even among the angels.

I think some of you might have a shock in store in the next age if God sends you out on some work detail with brother So-and-so in charge. What are you going to say? That it isn't spiritual enough?

'Course I don't know for sure. But it's something to consider.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...

Leaders are not a necessary evil, any more than government is. They are God's way of organizing groups.

Do you know why the Libertarians can't get anywhere as a party? It isn't because they aren't smart, or don't have a message that can resonate. It's because they are so suspicious of organized leadership that they cannot sustain any kind of organized effort to get anything done. They are hamstrung from implementing their ideology by their ideology itself.

In other words, they are like a herd of cats. God can't do much with a herd of cats.

....

I get the analogy, but there is a fundamental difference. In terms of human group - especially a democracy - the populace is the sovereign. Thus, if you don't have a way to organize that populace into a cohesive direction, you will never get anything done. In the body of Christ, Christ is sovereign AND indwells each and every believer.

Simply because humans didn't set up formal organizational structures does not mean the resultant "product" won't have organization. It's just that God will have masterfully orchestrated it.


What sorts of functions do you think the "office" of leadership should play, which can't get accomplished through, say, deferring to the fellow believer who has the particular skill-set/portion that can fill the situational need, but which might be a different person each time depending on the situation?

Example:

Two brothers have a dispute with one another.

Your version: Regardless of who these brothers are or their past relations, go to the pre-identified office of the leader and have him mediate it

My version: The two brothers approach an older, wiser believer, for whom each has respect or a spiritual history, and have him shepherd them through.

In my version, the two brothers might have "wise believer Bob" in common. Another two brothers might have "wise believer Ed" in common.

Just because there isn't a formal "office," doesn't mean their won't be submitting, even a submitting based on the gifts and mutual relationships of the believers.

Apart from teaching, shepherding and mutual fellowship - what sorts of functions do you envision churches doing which would require a structured leadership?

Let me be clear: if an individual is lead by the Lord to develop a ministry and others chose to join that work than the initiator of that work is an identifiable leader to whom the others should submit with regard to the specific burden.

That is different than the church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I get the analogy, but there is a fundamental difference. In terms of human group - especially a democracy - the populace is the sovereign. Thus, if you don't have a way to organize that populace into a cohesive direction, you will never get anything done. In the body of Christ, Christ is sovereign AND indwells each and every believer.

I didn't say that God did everything by the means of the formal organization of leadership. I just meant there are some things he does that way. More on this below.

Simply because humans didn't set up formal organizational structures does not mean the resultant "product" won't have organization. It's just that God will have masterfully orchestrated it.

Well, how do you know if people set it up or God set it up? I'm mean, really. The point is it exists and is needed. What are you going to do? Accuse a church leadership of not being orchestrated by God? How would you know it wasn't?

What sorts of functions do you think the "office" of leadership should play, which can't get accomplished through, say, deferring to the fellow believer who has the particular skill-set/portion that can fill the situational need, but which might be a different person each time depending on the situation?

Example:

Two brothers have a dispute with one another.

Your version: Regardless of who these brothers are or their past relations, go to the pre-identified office of the leader and have him mediate it


My version: The two brothers approach an older, wiser believer, for whom each has respect or a spiritual history, and have him shepherd them through.
In my version, the two brothers might have "wise believer Bob" in common. Another two brothers might have "wise believer Ed" in common.

Just because there isn't a formal "office," doesn't mean their won't be submitting, even a submitting based on the gifts and mutual relationships of the believers.

Again, I never said things couldn't be accomplished in this less formal way. If they can, that's even better. Everything shouldn't need to be taken to the lead pastor or eldership. I know my pastor loves it when the church is mature enough to handle problems without taking them to him. But that doesn't mean some things aren't going to be pushed up to him. In the long run someone with final authority (for the group) is going to have to make a decision about something. This is unavoidable. Therefore, formal leadership is unavoidable.

Apart from teaching, shepherding and mutual fellowship - what sorts of functions do you envision churches doing which would require a structured leadership?

Let me be clear: if an individual is lead by the Lord to develop a ministry and others chose to join that work than the initiator of that work is an identifiable leader to whom the others should submit with regard to the specific burden.

That is different than the church.

The church needs to be able to make decisions about mission, message, and allocation of time, energy, funds; and about problems that couldn't be resolved at a less formal level.

In the end, someone has to make these decisions. Either you have some kind of majority rule, either by council or the entire body, or it rests with one leader.

It's a dream to think that the church can pray and everyone is going to be on the same page about everything. There is going to be disagreement. That is why someone has to decide for the group.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Apart from teaching, shepherding and mutual fellowship - what sorts of functions do you envision churches doing which would require a structured leadership?

Let me be clear: if an individual is lead by the Lord to develop a ministry and others chose to join that work than the initiator of that work is an identifiable leader to whom the others should submit with regard to the specific burden.

That is different than the church.

Peter,
Could you please try to clarify here for us. I can't seem to get a grasp on what problems you might have with leadership as it is practiced by much (most?) of orthodox, evangelical Christianity.

The great majority of churches have one or two pastors, ministers or elders. For the most part the function of these leaders is teaching and shepherding. The Lord Jesus commanded us to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations", and this is what the teaching and shepherding and gospel preaching is all about. (or should be about). Again, I will mention the mention "mission of the church". To fulfill a mission we need direction and instruction, and for this we need leadership.

I'm probably missing something out of your argument. (my life story)

[Cal]

Let me try to make this practical. A church desires to allocate funds. There are three opinions about how these funds should be allocated.

1) Build a new children's center.
2) Fund overseas missions.
3) Plant a new church across town.

The church has prayed and asked older brothers and sisters what to do and there is still no consensus.

How does the church decide what to do? Who makes the final decision?

In the model of informal church leadership, the debate is potentially endless because there is no final authority for a decision outside of a complete consensus.

So let me call you on your claim, Peter. Everyone is indwelt by the Spirit, but they still don't agree. What to do now? Reasonable people can disagree. The point is not to find out who's right and who's wrong. The point is there has to be some clear way to make a final decision. In most churches this comes down to either some kind of majority, or the decision of one person.

Are you saying you have a better way of handling this type of situation?

[Cal]

Like I said, to me it's pretty simple:

1. If you join a group, you should honor the group and respect its leaders and mission. You should try your best to cooperate and be a team player.
   
   
2. If you can't do that, then politely leave the group with no animosity and find a group that suits you better.
   
   
3. If you simply cannot find a group that suits you, consider that the problem may be you and not the groups.
   
   
4. If you determine the problem is you and your attitude, make adjustments, go to #1 and repeat.
   
   
5. If you decide that the problem is everyone else but you, consider yourself excused from having to assemble with others or cooperate with anyone to accomplish the mission of the church.*

* Obviously, this last item is tongue-in-cheek.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I get the analogy, but there is a fundamental difference. In terms of human group - especially a democracy - the populace is the sovereign. Thus, if you don't have a way to organize that populace into a cohesive direction, you will never get anything done. In the body of Christ, Christ is sovereign AND indwells each and every believer.

Yes. But the idea that Christ is expressing his sovereignty by simply moving in everyone there is not supported even by the scripture. The very passages that we like to claim give us the most freedom in meetings (1 Corinthians 12 - 14) is actually giving us differing functions, not amorphously everything. It defines "prophesying" as for some, not all. Even suggests only 2 or 3 prophets be set up to speak. And how big was this group? It might have been large. But many of these churches were not much bigger than a large home meeting. (The inference is somewhat larger for Corinth due to the amount of disagreement going on.)

Paul also took great pains to direct certain persons (not the whole congregation) to consider certain qualities when selecting elders. He wrote some letters to the churches. But others to specific people who were to take action to deal with issues. Doesn't sound like this American democracy that we like to think it is.

Remember, the whole church having multiple copies of the Bible is a very new thing. Just a few generations ago, most didn't even have one. And if they did, they couldn't read it. And I'm not sure that the full access by everyone to scripture on demand has been as truly helpful as we often like to think. The number of divisions was vastly smaller before we could all read. The result of general private reading of scripture by everyone has been anarchy.

I'm not suggesting taking the scripture away again. But we need a different approach. The idea that I can just access the Spirit within me and be everything I need is balderdash. But we buy it out of the "dented and returns" surplus store every day.

I am happy to read scripture and see that I disagree with some writers/teachers. (especially Lee and Nee) But I am quick to pass my fantasy thoughts through others who know more. And groups who will consider but weigh it. There is something to be said for what has already been said. The fact that we think we see something truly new should be scary, not encouraging. We should cherish being covered and found deep in the known paths of truth. Treading on new ground suggests that we have gotten off the "straight and narrow."

All of this coming from a guy who is always taking note of the new stuff and asking questions.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me try to make this practical. A church desires to allocate funds. There are three opinions about how these funds should be allocated.

1) Build a new children's center.
2) Fund overseas missions.
3) Plant a new church across town.

The church has prayed and asked older brothers and sisters what to do and there is still no consensus.

How does the church decide what to do? Who makes the final decision?

In the model of informal church leadership, the debate is potentially endless because there is no final authority for a decision outside of a complete consensus.

So let me call you on your claim, Peter. Everyone is indwelt by the Spirit, but they still don't agree. What to do now? Reasonable people can disagree. The point is not to find out who's right and who's wrong. The point is there has to be some clear way to make a final decision. In most churches this comes down to either some kind of majority, or the decision of one person.

Are you saying you have a better way of handling this type of situation?

First, I guarantee you that a big piece of the problem here is me.

I am acutely aware that, even as I believe myself to have valid points born from experience, I am also damaged and can lean toward jaded. But that’s at least a bit of why I’m on these boards and discussing similar matters with those around me. Before when I’ve had an issue, I would either bottle it up, put on my happy face and glad-hand you…. or I would go find a hole to hide in - resentful as can be. Instead, I’m doing the only honest thing I can – speak my piece where I’m at (both in experience and understanding) and subject it to the scrutiny of fellow believers in prayer, so that my arguments are under the light and my motives are too.

That said, the existence of my own issues is not an argument why the arguments I am bringing forth are wrong. It may give me pause to pray and consider my heart/motives, but it isn’t a rebuttal. (As an aside, you all definately DO give me pause. It hasn't escaped me that somehow I keep getting into this antagonizing role... That comes from somewhere. I'm aware.)

Okay, to the substance of you post. To some extent, we may be talking past eachother. Your practical questions reveal a deeper difference in assumptions between you and I. Your questions presume certain things that I don’t necessarily disagree with, but I don’t think are absolutes.

At core, you seem to believe in this notion of group “agency”. That is - decisions related to the gospel, to church planting, to ministry work – can (or even should) be made by a group, an identifiable group. Groups as groups have missions. Groups as groups have a will. Groups as groups have feelings (the "feeling of the Body is do a door-knocking campaign to get our number up" anyone?)

So, as an individual Christian, if want to assemble, it requires the extra step of becoming a member of a group of a subset of Christians and signing on to that group’s agency. If I don’t like it, I go find another group who’s “mission” I prefer.

Your unspoken premise is that Christians should say “I am a member of X church” or “I belong to X church”. Of course, once you have a membership-based community with its own mission, agency, will - then the very natural next step is to build structure and direction. To “accomplish” this, you need standards and plans. To accomplish that, you need people in particular roles (i.e. this or that “member” to step up for “our group”). And then, of course it seems natural and fitting that “our group” has an office of “leaders.”

Your group “agency” assumption, then, necessarily requires a group decision-making structure.

Once you agree with the notion that groups as identifiable organizations have an “agency” separate from that of each individual believer and separate from God’s will for all Christians, then I agree with you that you’ll need a set, human decision-making structure.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, it’s not that obvious from the Bible that groups (that is, subsets of Christians) have agency – and certainly not obvious it is a prescription.

What I do see is that God commissions individuals with particular ministries, which are related to but definitely distinct from assembly. Sure, others might join that ministry – in which case they do need to submit to the one to whom the ministry was commissioned.

That’s not the same as the assembly. Honestly, I'm not sure what "decisions" an assembly - as distinct from ministry - needs to make other than time and content of meetings. And these are hardly the impasse-causing sorts of subjects (that is, unless members of the assembly believe in group agency - "why are we doing a study of Galations? The feeling of the body is to read HWMR").

So, before I get any deeper, are you at least following my argument about agency (whether or not you agree with it)?

Thanks for your patience,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes. But the idea that Christ is expressing his sovereignty by simply moving in everyone there is not supported even by the scripture. The very passages that we like to claim give us the most freedom in meetings (1 Corinthians 12 - 14) is actually giving us differing functions, not amorphously everything. It defines "prophesying" as for some, not all. Even suggests only 2 or 3 prophets be set up to speak. And how big was this group? It might have been large. But many of these churches were not much bigger than a large home meeting. (The inference is somewhat larger for Corinth due to the amount of disagreement going on.)

Paul also took great pains to direct certain persons (not the whole congregation) to consider certain qualities when selecting elders. He wrote some letters to the churches. But others to specific people who were to take action to deal with issues. Doesn't sound like this American democracy that we like to think it is.

Remember, the whole church having multiple copies of the Bible is a very new thing. Just a few generations ago, most didn't even have one. And if they did, they couldn't read it. And I'm not sure that the full access by everyone to scripture on demand has been as truly helpful as we often like to think. The number of divisions was vastly smaller before we could all read. The result of general private reading of scripture by everyone has been anarchy.

I'm not suggesting taking the scripture away again. But we need a different approach. The idea that I can just access the Spirit within me and be everything I need is balderdash. But we buy it out of the "dented and returns" surplus store every day.

I am happy to read scripture and see that I disagree with some writers/teachers. (especially Lee and Nee) But I am quick to pass my fantasy thoughts through others who know more. And groups who will consider but weigh it. There is something to be said for what has already been said. The fact that we think we see something truly new should be scary, not encouraging. We should cherish being covered and found deep in the known paths of truth. Treading on new ground suggests that we have gotten off the "straight and narrow."

All of this coming from a guy who is always taking note of the new stuff and asking questions.

I am not arguing that we forsake the gathering of ourselves together and not subject our thoughts or idea or emotion or supposed "leadings" to eachother.

Indeed, it may well be true objectively that all I have to do is "follow the Spirit." But the reality is that I don't know how!!! I need my brothers and sister to learn how to do that. I need sharpening stones and shepherds. I need them to learn how to submit as well as to learn to develop the talents He has given me.

No piece of what I am arguing is that we don't need to assemble and God will just work everything out. His working out is most often thru others. But that is different than having "offices" and "formal structure."

And yes, it is obvious that at the time described in the Bible their were identifiable congregations, as a decriptive matter. And yes, in that context, Paul even gave some prescriptions about appointing elders and how to have meetings.

It is not, however, automatically the case that these are then prescriptions for all time, rather than situational ones. That would require closer study of the Word. Which I am always in for!

In Love,

Peter

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What I do see is that God commissions individuals with particular ministries, which are related to but definitely distinct from assembly. Sure, others might join that ministry – in which case they do need to submit to the one to whom the ministry was commissioned. That’s not the same as the assembly.

So, before I get any deeper, are you at least following my argument about agency (whether or not you agree with it)?

Thanks for your patience,

Peter

I don't believe the group is an entity, but there are dynamics in groups which make them seem like they are entities. That's just a fact of group dynamics. Regardless, God created corporateness and expects us to participate in it in some fashion. And if that means dealing with these confusing ideas then that's just what we are going to have to deal with.

I disagree that dealing with an assembly as opposed to a ministry is that different. I think the principles are the same. You are dealing with God's people. That means if you join in you should be a team player. By that I mean you shouldn't join any group of Christians, church or ministry, thinking "What's in this for me?" You should be thinking, "How can I fulfill God's commission while I'm associated with this group?" This doesn't mean that we don't put God's call on our lives first. Just that I think the way God works is that his call on any of us usually meshes easily with cooperating with groups of Christians.

As to "joining" a church in order to sign onto its mission, I don't think that is necessary. I just think wherever you find yourself with other Christians you find a way to contribute. When we are associated long-term with a group we tend to become identified with that group. But I don't there's anything wrong with that. It's just human nature. So long-term it seems like we've "joined" and "signed-on." Whether we have or haven't really doesn't matter in the sense of defining it as such.

At the same time, I think holding back in order to preserve your independence is artificial, and a little sad. It seems to spring from fear. Though for many it's understandable. There's nothing wrong with participating in some local team spirit. It's normal to want to feel a part of things. Again, it's human nature. If that means "joining" in the mind of someone, what wrong with that?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

At the same time, I think holding back in order to preserve your independence is artificial, and a little sad. It seems to spring from fear. There's nothing wrong with participating in some local team spirit. It's normal to want to feel a part of things. Again, it's human nature. If that means "joining" in the mind of someone, what wrong with that?

No one here is claiming a need for "independance." You deeply misunderstand my argument if you think that.

That said, you make two arguments, conflated as one here. One is an encouraging one that allows liberty to a believer to "join in." The other is a disparagement argument to the Christian who may have robust fellowship but not in a "formal group."

Is the latter Christian "sad" and unhealthy in some way? If so, based on what?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't believe the group is an entity, but there are dynamics in groups which make them seem like they are entities. That's just a fact of group dynamics. Regardless, God created corporateness and expects us to participate in it in some fashion. And if that means dealing with these confusing ideas then that's just what we are going to have to deal with.

Then why is the "group" deciding whether to plant a church across town and pay for it?

If individuals are led to do so - they can present the idea to others and whoever wants to can join, giving time and money.

Once the "group" makes such a decision, there is a LOT of subtle group manipulation going on, conscious or not. That is ALSO "human nature".

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I disagree that dealing with an assembly as opposed to a ministry is that different. I think the principles are the same. You are dealing with God's people. That means if you join in you should be a team player.

To be a "team player" means the "group" has its own independant goals.

I will ask again, what sorts of decisions does an assembly need to make other than time and content of meetings (and perhaps place)? I don't mean in current practice - where their are already huge congregations with funds and ministries tied up with the assembly. I mean quite simply an assemblage of Christians who come together for mutual edification, but not with a "mission" or to do "a work".

I'm not saying issues won't arise among God's people in assemblies. But "the group" doesn't need to make decisions about that. Humans with relationship with eachother and with God work those out.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

To be a "team player" means the "group" has its own independant goals.

I will ask again, what sorts of decisions does an assembly need to make other than time and content of meetings (and perhaps place)? I don't mean in current practice - where their are already huge congregations with funds and ministries tied up with the assembly. I mean quite simply an assemblage of Christians.

I'm not saying issues won't arise among God's people in assemblies. But "the group" doesn't need to make decisions about that.

Where does it say all the church is supposed to do is provide a time and place to meet? Are you saying the church as a group cannot have an agenda of mission work. Why not?

Why the arbitrary delineation? You sound like someone who's been burnt by group cooperation and so are hunting for a reason to de-legitimize it.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't believe the group is an entity,

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where does it say all the church is supposed to do is provide a time and place to meet? Are you saying the church as a group cannot have an agenda of mission work. Why not?

Why the arbitrary delineation? You sound like someone who's been burnt by group cooperation and so are hunting for a reason to de-legitimize it.

You said that group isn't an entity and then imply it can have an agenda of mission work. Which is it? Should "groups" have agency or not?

Is there an example in the NT of an assemply having a "mission work agenda" as opposed to individuals who are joined by others?

I'm not making the argument that if it's not present in the NT that it's prohibited. But an example would sure help if there is one.

Also, can we stay away from arguments about motives? I could say, "You sound like you've been burned by a group that decried 'poor, poor Christianity,' and now are hunting for any way to legitimize it." NEITHER argument is helpful.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why the arbitrary delineation? You sound like someone who's been burnt by group cooperation and so are hunting for a reason to de-legitimize it.

One doesn't need to hunt, by the way. Human history - especially of groups that claim to "do God's will" is chalk full of them.

And yet, after each occasion of emerging from abuses of "group think", we never challenge the underlying assumptions. We just try again, thinking we can "do better" with with same set of unexamined assumptions. Division after division. Abuse after abuse.

Even if I'm wrong - human history should at least provide a reason to be more open to the arguments I'm making. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm asking if we can examine assumptions that historically have not been examined and yet have cause a lot of turmoil.

Instead of openness, I get - those who don't "join in" are "sad."

I'm not trying to describe a fellowship-less world. I'm not trying to describe a mission-less world. I'm trying to advocate for these things while having a picture that relies a little more on Him and a little less on the human-created structures that have so often been at the core of scores of historical "wars."

And if you don't think they are human-created structures, then you are arguing that they are ordained by God. And then you get into the same argument you get with "local ground-ers", except now you're in their shoes.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you simply cannot find a group that suits you, consider that the problem may be you and not the groups.

I don't think the issue is finding a group that suits me. Rather it is the question of what group suits God? What pleases Him? What fulfills His purpose in Christ?

The idea of the discussion was submission and obedience to group/church leaders. What is God's idea of leadership? And when leadership is displayed in the group, how does one imitate/follow/disciple oneself/obey/submit?

Obviously, as a Christian, I believe that God's idea of leadership is found in Jesus Christ. Christ was fully submissive to the Father, and thus was able (empowered) to carry out God's will on earth. We as his disciples should do likewise.

While this is found in the group setting (where I also find myself), this leadership of submitting to the Father's will and being empowered to carry out His purpose is also, Christ-like, being displayed. I try to see it and follow/obey/submit. But I don't find leadership exclusively by human position (deacon/elder/bishop/apostle/etc), and believe that looking to these positions can lead to manipulation and abuse.

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you determine the problem is you and your attitude, make adjustments,

I take as a given that the problem lies with me and my attitude. I am a sinner. Thus I try to constantly make adjustments. If Paul said, "I do not consider myself to have yet laid hold", then how much more have I not?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure that the full access by everyone to scripture on demand has been as truly helpful as we often like to think. The number of divisions was vastly smaller before we could all read. The result of general private reading of scripture by everyone has been anarchy.

This forum could be called anarchy as well. But the Bible is here, faith is here, and human minds are here, reasoning together. So I prefer to call it a "discussion". Certainly a discussion (versus a lecture) has the unknown, but God knows all, and if the discussions are about God we can have hope that some divine form will slowly emerge. Jesus will come alongside in our display of mutual foolishness and ignorance. The scene on the road to Emmaus in Acts 24 is for me one of the signal events in the NT. Jesus has been crucified, yes; but the journey continues. The discussion goes on.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is something to be said for what has already been said. The fact that we think we see something truly new should be scary, not encouraging. We should cherish being covered and found deep in the known paths of truth. Treading on new ground suggests that we have gotten off the "straight and narrow."

One of the great accusations against the new religion, as the NT was being written, was that they had departed from the "straight and narrow". That it was new ground, not ordained by God. If you look at all the citations of "that the scripture might be fulfilled" or "as the scriptures said" or "as Moses and the prophets taught" you realize the speakers/writers were not so much composing a "new" testament as demonstrating the reality of "the" testament. Jesus was the reality of all the types, forms, figures, shadows of the scripture. Jesus was God's speaking to man. Old Testament/New Testament; irrelevant.

I believe that this speaking goes on, to man, today. And it goes on in the scriptures. And we bring this speaking into the assembly. Not Lee's speaking, or OBW's speaking, or aron's speaking. But God's speaking to us in His Son. Thus we carefully and judiciously vet all speaking (i.e. scriptural exposition), to see what is what. I don't shrink from this: I enjoy it! I celebrate that I can be part of the discussion! If from all my lines of writing one or two phrases might have helped someone see the Christ revealed to us in the scriptures, I celebrate. The rest I am willing to let go of.

I guess my point (if I have one) is that I see this process of mutual discovery of "the new" to be not truly new, but rather a continuation of what we see in the written record.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think some of you might have a shock in store in the next age if God sends you out on some work detail with brother So-and-so in charge. What are you going to say? That it isn't spiritual enough?

'Course I don't know for sure. But it's something to consider.

Of course this is something to consider. But also something to consider is that the one you've been following, because "He/she is the leader" is really leading you into a ditch.

Both are hazards. The way is not called the narrow way for nothing. If I have been pointing out the hazards of one way it doesn't mean there are not other hazards as well.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think the issue is finding a group that suits me. Rather it is the question of what group suits God? What pleases Him? What fulfills His purpose in Christ?

Obviously, that was included in "suits you." It's not my place to decide for other people whether the reason they don't like a group comes from God or themselves. (But I can say that someone who finds so much fault with Christianity that he can't even find a church home probably is the problem himself.)

Also, someone who thinks he is autonomous to the point of arguing that group leaders have no authority is someone who by necessity places a lot of stock in his own judgment, thus in what suits him.

I take as a given that the problem lies with me and my attitude. I am a sinner. Thus I try to constantly make adjustments. If Paul said, "I do not consider myself to have yet laid hold", then how much more have I not?

That whole post was a little tongue in cheek. I was trying to make a point through humor.

Someone who goes from church to church and finally decides everyone is doing it wrong and that Christianity is hopeless and that only he and few other insightful ones get it is NOT taking it as a given that the problem lies with him.

I'm not talking about you or Peter, just so you know.

But Witness Lee was this type of person. His solution was to create "the perfect church." Look what happened.

Others just forever stand on the sideline sneering. I don't think the Lord is happy with that. I think the Lord is much happier with someone who finds somewhere (anywhere!) to jump in and engage in the mission of the church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Of course this is something to consider. But also something to consider is that the one you've been following, because "He/she is the leader" is really leading you into a ditch.

Both are hazards. The way is not called the narrow way for nothing. If I have been pointing out the hazards of one way it doesn't mean there are not other hazards as well.

Right. There are errors with being too independent and there are errors with being too "groupy." There is a balance.

The LC tried to eliminate the independent side and put all their chips on the group side. That's an error.

The other error is to grow so suspicious of groups that you cannot cooperate with others to engage in the mission of the church and you (sadly) miss out on the family/relational/team aspect of the church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Also, can we stay away from arguments about motives? I could say, "You sound like you've been burned by a group that decried 'poor, poor Christianity,' and now are hunting for any way to legitimize it." NEITHER argument is helpful.

I will try, yes. Sorry. In my defense I was just trying understand where you are coming from.

You said that group isn't an entity and then imply it can have an agenda of mission work. Which is it? Should "groups" have agency or not?

When I said a group is not an entity, I meant it doesn't have a consciousness apart from the sum of the members. It can seem to, but it doesn't.

Obviously the members can decide to have an agenda as a group. This can be through consensus, through majority, or through the decision of a leading body or person. Groups do it all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

I'm not making the argument that if it's not present in the NT that it's prohibited. But an example would sure help if there is one. Is there an example in the NT of an assembly having a "mission work agenda" as opposed to individuals who are joined by others?

As for an example of group dynamics in the church, Paul addresses the churches as groups. He says "you" again and again meaning the whole church. He thanks churches for their gifts given as a group (that's a work). Also, Paul's exhortation to be of one mind does not seem to reflect the reservation about groups that you have.

I'm not trying to describe a fellowship-less world. I'm not trying to describe a mission-less world. I'm trying to advocate for these things while having a picture that relies a little more on Him and a little less on the human-created structures that have so often been at the core of scores of historical "wars."

A little more than what and a little less than what? Certainly a general push toward more faith in God and less faith in our devices is a good thing. But other than that are you wanting to get rid of anything specific?

Now, I understand your caution about groups and agree with it generally. There is a danger. But I don't think the solution is to hamstring groups. I think the solution is to limit their scope.

That said I'll address this comment of yours.

And if you don't think they are human-created structures, then you are arguing that they are ordained by God. And then you get into the same argument you get with "local ground-ers", except now you're in their shoes.

Regarding me doing that same the the local-grounders are doing: That comment is just mistaken. Saying that God can and does use human devices is not the same thing as trying to leverage a human device to bring everyone under one's rule.

LCers are right that cities are ordained by God. They are wrong to say that means everyone needs to submit to the city eldership their movement designates. I'm not saying anything approaching that. Please be careful about specious conclusions.

Instead of openness, I get - those who don't "join in" are "sad."

When I said sad, it wasn't a put down. I was just saying it's sad when someone has trouble connecting with others and cooperating with others because of group fear. It's the same thing as saying it's sad that someone can't enjoy a healthy sex life because of sexual abuse. It isn't a put down, it's just an observation. Trust me, I speak from experience.

The LC messed up a lot of people in regards to having healthy, balanced relationships with the Body of Christ. I understand that because I've been through it. I'm just pushing for a healthy reaction to that. I don't think completely draining groups of any group identity or team spirit is the answer. I think the answer is realizing that no group is perfect or unlimited in scope. You can leave if you want. But if you decide to stay, it's nice to be able to jump in and enjoy it, and not always feel you need to be emotionally insulated because of fear of exploitation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember, the whole church having multiple copies of the Bible is a very new thing. Just a few generations ago, most didn't even have one. And if they did, they couldn't read it. And I'm not sure that the full access by everyone to scripture on demand has been as truly helpful as we often like to think. The number of divisions was vastly smaller before we could all read. The result of general private reading of scripture by everyone has been anarchy.

Whoa talk about skewed history, there bro OBW.

Yes indeed, the famed church of the dark ages, did produce a semblance of oneness, enforced by the removal of the scriptures and reinforced by the tip of the sword. That's like a couple of old diehard commies bemoaning the splintering of their great empire into multiple nations after Gorbechev and perestroika and glasnost ruined everything. How nice it must be to chug vodka and reminisce the unanimous elections of all their public officials. "Thems vere the dayz comrade." :rollingeyes2:

You might want to retract your comment about anarchy. Are the freedoms of the masses in some way less desirable than the totalitarian brutality of Rome, all under the "reasonable" mandate of preventing division in the body of Christ? Is not perhaps your thoughts of the "number of divisions" a holdover from LC days? Could we perhaps view the many gatherings as multiple "opportunities" for God's children to prosper?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's nothing wrong with participating in some local team spirit. It's normal to want to feel a part of things. Again, it's human nature. If that means "joining" in the mind of someone, what wrong with that?

I thought I'd throw something into the mix ...

John Myer wrote an interesting little e-booklet called The Momentum of Togetherness after the recent turmoil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

This forum could be called anarchy as well.

Well, not exactly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought I'd throw something into the mix ...

John Myer wrote an interesting little e-booklet called The Momentum of Togetherness after the recent turmoil.

Right, and it's a good book. John had seen first hand the dark side of groupism. Yet, he still realized that laboring as part of a group was a legitimate and needed Christian experience.

Let me say I completely understand the trepidation about groups felt by Peter and others. I felt the same thing myself. But when I try to write off groups, I run smack dab into the commandments to assemble together and to be of one mind. Those commandments are arguments for groups, like it or not.

Peter's idea, to divest from the group all works and place them on individuals is artificial and against the way groups naturally work. I'm not saying there should not be freedom for individuals to be creative and work as the Lord leads, or that members need to get permission from leaders for every little thing. I'm saying that it is not wrong in principle for there to be some group efforts. Much of the Lord's work that is getting done these days springs from these.

Is the argument that churches can meet together but not labor together? Or if they labor together it can't be on an effort the church as a group decided on? I'm sorry, I just don't understand that conclusion at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Peter's idea, to divest from the group all works and place them on individuals is artificial and against the way groups naturally work. I'm not saying there should not be freedom for individuals to be creative and work as the Lord leads, or that members need to get permission from leaders for every little thing. I'm saying that it is not wrong in principle for there to be some group efforts. Much of the Lord's work that is getting done these days springs from these.

Peter only desires to know and serve the Lord. He sees group dynamics as a frustration to his personal walk with the Lord. In this regard he is not alone.

Ideally, the group should encourage and reinforce the personal walk. Unfortunately, other things happen along the way. I understand that too. There was a time when I felt like an old mule being run into the ground, being whipped for moving too slow, and trying to encourage myself by all those vain promises like, "whenever the church is blessed, you are blessed too."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter only desires to know and serve the Lord. He sees group dynamics as a frustration to his personal walk with the Lord. In this regard he is not alone.

Ideally, the group should encourage and reinforce the personal walk. Unfortunately, other things happen along the way. I understand that too. There was a time when I felt like an old mule being run into the ground, being whipped for moving too slow, and trying to encourage myself by all those vain promises like, "whenever the church is blessed, you are blessed too."

I don't doubt Peter's heart a bit. I just think one growth item the Lord has in store for us is to be able to negotiate these dealings with others and groups, to be good team players and servants of others, while still maintaining in one's heart a sole devotion to the Lord. Or maybe it's better to say it the other way around: to maintain sole devotion to the Lord, but to also be a good team player and serve others.

In my experience it comes down to being loyal to Christ alone, yet still realizing he wants us to serve others. To have the attitude that, no matter what, the Lord will not let me be exploited, but will bless my genuine service to him that is expressed in serving others.

If you are truly given to the Lord then you can give yourself to others without worrying about being taken advantage of, because you know the Lord is your defender. I think this is the way to approach the pitfalls of group involvement.

One key is just to not worry what others think.

Trust me, I'm still a work in progress. But I'm happier and freer than I've ever been, though I care for my agenda and reputation less. At the same time (as you guys have probably noticed) I don't get pushed around much.

Kind of paradoxical.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Trust me, I'm still a work in progress. But I'm happier and freer than I've ever been, though I care for my agenda and reputation less. At the same time (as you guys have probably noticed) I don't get pushed around much.

I have very much appreciated our give and take. We need fixed points in discussions, in order to measure where we are, and where we are, and are not, going. And if you have more fixed points than I, or they are more fixed than mine are, I take it as from the Lord.

At the same time, I equally appreciate people like Peter asking hard (seemingly unanswerable, even) questions, and "pushing" us to at least consider and examine previously unquestioned tenets and assumptions. I think that the tension produced by both positions ("pushing" and "resistance")can lead to healthy discussions. As long as the respect is there: that is where, to me, Jesus' "Love one another" is an immutable aspect of fellowship. We don't love one another equivalent to the degree of mutual agreement. We simply love one another because God loves us.

I have long appreciated OBW batting away my perhaps frivolous speculations. At the end of the day, whether or not anyone agrees with my present positions (which are evolving) matters no where near as much to me as "hey, someone out there is listening to my voice". And that is why the assembly of the faithful remains so attractive to me as a believer.

[Peter Debelak]

First, I want to emphasize how much I appreciate this forum - particularly this set of posters who manage to maintain civility and love, even while debating things that are so personally meaningful and fraught with disagreement. Its speaks a lot. And do forgive me when I get lit up on something.... there are some topics I've spent so much time wrestling with, its hard to maintain an even keel... So, thanks for your patience (especially since I think this might be a little long....)

Originally Posted by Igzy

I will try, yes. Sorry. In my defense I was just trying understand where you are coming from.

We're good. I'll give it another go to try to lay out how this contorted head of mine works....

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I said a group is not an entity, I meant it doesn't have a consciousness apart from the sum of the members. It can seem to, but it doesn't.

Obviously the members can decide to have an agenda as a group. This can be through consensus, through majority, or through the decision of a leading body or person. Groups do it all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

Well, sometimes there's nothing wrong with it and there other times when there's a LOT wrong with it.

It's similar to when philosophers think about politics (this is an analogy to a principle, not an analogy about the place of leaders - keep this in mind). The ideal form of government is a benevelant despot. Its efficient, its good for the people etc.... The problems is, if you set up your model based on a single ruler, sure the first guy might be benevelant (early Americans wanted George Washington to be king - and he would have been a good one), the next guy might not be, but you didn't build in any protections into the model against abuse. So the founders set up principles and procedures to cabin in abuse nto the model.

You are right that there exist a lot of groups with agendas doing great things and not hurting anyone (though I'll expound on that later.... not all may be what it seems). But if the foundational principles you teach about church don't build in the cautions or protections, then it becomes all too easy for humans to replace reliance on God with "Their concept of God" and impose it - (most) often subconsciously - upon their members, quelching individual believers' spirits, though of course never intending to. Again, human sociology is pretty robust on this. Its what humans do.

Living by faith is HARD. Going with the group isn't all that hard. The two are NOT mutually exclusive - but the latter makes it more difficult to do the former, while the former often leads you to do the latter.

It's a matter of entailment.

Originally Posted by Igzy

As for an example of group dynamics in the church, Paul addresses the churches as groups. He says "you" again and again meaning the whole church. He thanks churches for their gifts given as a group (that's a work). Also, Paul's exhortation to be of one mind does not seem to reflect the reservation about groups that you have.

Yes, I noticed this. Also in Revelation 2-3, the Spirit says "to the churches" and calls the entity "you" as in "I know your works" etc...

Here's the thing on that: Groups who simply meet regularly, are involved in eachother's families and generally spend a lot of time together - will develop a group identity and there can even develop group behavior. I flavor etc.... In that sense, I think it makes sense one would reference the whole group which discussing a characteristic of the group or behavior which occurred within the group.

But notice in Rev. 2-3: While the Spirit addresses a plural "you" in describing the situation in that church, the call to action, that is the call to agency is to the individual, "to him who overcomes" or "he who has an ear."

"Identity" and "agency" are two different things. Groups are shown to have "identity" (characteristics) in the Bible, but I don't see any examples of group "agency."

Agency seems to be initiated by God to individuals - who then may be joing by others under the original individual or in cooperation since they were independantly commissioned for the same. But parting ways regarding "work" (such as Paul and Barnabas) is entirely appropriate, since each individual has to answer to the Lord regarding how he was commissioned. Group's parting ways because of differing "agendas" is called division.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, I understand your caution about groups and agree with it generally. There is a danger. But I don't think the solution is to hamstring groups. I think the solution is to limit their scope.

(I'd be interested to know what you mean by "scope.")

I want to address your question regarding my distinction between assembly and "work" or "ministry."

This is born out of study, experience (both my own and those, much older and experienced than I).

First, an anecdote from my experience: not long after I had stopped meeting with the LC, I met a great group of Christians while in grad school. It turned out that they all went to the same church - kind of a "House Church" sort of movement. The theology and practice were very orthodox in my view, with a side of "good energy" (though I admit my radar for "orthodox" was pretty warped by the LC). That said, it was Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus, OH - they have a LOT of info on their site - so I'd welcome anyone's "orthodox" assessment....

In any event, I spent a lot of time with these believers, in and out of "church-related" activities. Some of them had started creative writing workshops and "poetry slams". There was a lot of positive energy and positive engagement with the world.

There was a weekly leader-led Bible study, with a time for comments at the end. There were large young-people meetings and a diverse congregation on Sunday. Then after a while, I keep asking a few of the guys if they wanted to get together to do a more "intense" and mutual study of the Bible. They invited me to the "cell group" meeting.

The "cell group" Bible study was GREAT! After a few weeks, however, the tone got more serious. The brothers I was spending a lot of time with wanted "more comittment" to the cell group. The church had its own "mission," and if I wanted to continue going to the cell group Bible study, I had to commit to the mission of Xenos.

I, as you can imagine, balked at this.

Now, there was good reason for their request for heightened committment. The "cell group" was actually their forum for discipling leaders to plant the next house church. Once a gathering got bigger than a certain amount and they had 3 leaders trained, they would "split."

Given that the "cell group" had a ministry component - its purpose was "the work," it made sense that if you wanted to be part of it, you had to commit.

I just wanted a mutual Bible study. I didn't feel comfortable "signing" the "mission" of a subset of Christians.

I thought I was just assembling with fellow believers, requiring nothing of me but my love of the Lord and desire for mutual edification. Instead, I was sitting in the midst of "the work," which does require "soldiers."

Igzy, I actually think their requirement of "more committment" in order to be part of "the work" was entirely appropriate. Those brothers felt personally commissioned by the Lord to pursue that work. If some other schmoe like me wanted to join their personal comission it is appropriate that it is on their terms and that I submit to their terms.

The problem was that this "work" was mixed in with what I thought was just "assembly." A coupla brothers of varying experience and study, getting together - assembling - to study God's word. It turned out, unless you were committed to "the work" - the "agenda" - of the group, there wasn't much mutually "just" to fellowship, study and mutually encourage one another. You were "second class."

I was going to share another example from the life of someone much more experienced than I, but I think I've rambled enough for one post....

Originally Posted by Igzy

Regarding me doing that same the the local-grounders are doing: That comment is just mistaken. Saying that God can and does use human devices is not the same thing as trying to leverage a human device to bring everyone under one's rule.

LCers are right that cities are ordained by God. They are wrong to say that means everyone needs to submit to the city eldership their movement designates. I'm not saying anything approaching that. Please be careful about specious conclusions.

I do want to address this, but perhaps another post (do remind me). But to be clear, I wasn't saying you were, in fact, in the shoes of the "local-grounders." It was an "if-then" argument. If the "if" isn't true, than the analogy isn't valid.....

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I said sad, it wasn't a put down. I was just saying it's sad when someone has trouble connecting with others and cooperating with others because of group fear. It's the same thing as saying it's sad that someone can't enjoy a healthy sex life because of sexual abuse. It isn't a put down, it's just an observation. Trust me, I speak from experience.

The LC messed up a lot of people in regards to having healthy, balanced relationships with the Body of Christ. I understand that because I've been through it. I'm just pushing for a healthy reaction to that. I don't think completely draining groups of any group identity or team spirit is the answer. I think the answer is realizing that no group is perfect or unlimited in scope. You can leave if you want. But if you decide to stay, it's nice to be able to jump in and enjoy it, and not always feel you need to be emotionally insulated because of fear of exploitation.

Well said. I'm just perhaps suggesting a middle ground between "jump in" versus "just leave." There's no making it better? Where does contrary input come in?

Too much for one post....

In Love,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't doubt Peter's heart a bit. I just think one growth item the Lord has in store for us is to be able to negotiate these dealings with others and groups, to be good team players and servants of others, while still maintaining in one's heart a sole devotion to the Lord. Or maybe it's better to say it the other way around: to maintain sole devotion to the Lord, but to also be a good team player and serve others.

In my experience it comes down to being loyal to Christ alone, yet still realizing he wants us to serve others. To have the attitude that, no matter what, the Lord will not let me be exploited, but will bless my genuine service to him that is expressed in serving others.

If you are truly given to the Lord then you can give yourself to others without worrying about being taken advantage of, because you know the Lord is your defender. I think this is the way to approach the pitfalls of group involvement.

One key is just to not worry what others think.

Trust me, I'm still a work in progress. But I'm happier and freer than I've ever been, though I care for my agenda and reputation less. At the same time (as you guys have probably noticed) I don't get pushed around much.

Kind of paradoxical.

Igzy,

Wonderfully encouraging. This tracks the intense, but liberating process I've been in the midst of (not sure it will end in this life) over the last few years. Thanks for this.

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

I always forget the order in which people will read things. This is post 3 of 3 (this one, a little more testimonial, to let you know where I'm coming from - the first one, more a response to your specific points).

Originally Posted by Igzy

Peter's idea, to divest from the group all works and place them on individuals is artificial and against the way groups naturally work.

[my emphasis]

I'll be honest that I don't entirely understand where you are coming from either.

Statement's like "that's how groups naturally work" and others, supports the suspicion that contemporary Christianity could just as well be any other organization, just with a different "mission statement."

There is talk of God and the Spirit, but I really don't know how you think He and faith in Him plays into a group dynamic.

I know that on the extreme, you consider such talk "overly spiritual." But there is another side that I'd consider "altogether too human."

I've shared my testimony, but I rejected God entirely for a few years there because when I reflected on my childhood - and how good I was at being a Christian - I realized that I had just mastered a set of cultural norms and mores.

There I was, at 18. "Notable people" praised me and my "spirituality" and "committement to Christ." And I know that I was a farse, a master of the culture - I would be the same if I was raised a Buddhist. And yet they thought I was genuine and spiritual - which spoke to their spirituality as well. So, keep in mind in this discussion: I do "groups" really well. Too well. Put me in a group of Christians and I don't need faith at all to feel good about myself, to do good things for the group, and indeed, for others to think, and praise me for, how "spirtual I am." I singed on to their agendas and accomplised them! That agenda didn't originate from my faith. It didn't originate, as far as I personally was concerned, with God. Yet I "succeed" at it. And that faith-less accomplishment was lauded as being a good "member of the church." That is very damaging to one's faith and speaks to theirs as well.

I abandoned the whole things as a joke.

If "faith" was really just reduced to human culture, albeit with a different vocabulary, there were a lot less boring humans, human pursuits and human cultures to engage with... That's what I thought. So I left.

So I do bristle a bit at arguments like "that's just what group's do." Or "that's just human nature." Exactly my point: there's nothing Christian about it, except that its cloaked in "God's will"-type language, with everyone patting each other on the back.

This is the side that is different than a critique just on the LC. My problem with "group culture" is not just the abuses that can take place (which are many) but also because of how easy it is to be "good at it," simply by mastering cultural norms, as one might in any other human organizations. There's nothing "spiritual" or faith-based about it. This is human tendency, to establish "a way" of doing things and "a way" of thinking, so that we can learn it and master it. God's multifarious wisdom and varied grace isn't so limited. They merge often, but when they don't, they really don't. It is too easy precisely because of "human nature" for people - especially in groups - to replace "faith" with human culture and mores while calling it "faith."

I do realize I'm treading on this ground:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't mind someone being a Christian skeptic if he does it honorably. Unfortunately, the two are often mutually exclusive. Funny how that works.

[that's from one of your understandably exhausting discussion with Harold]

But I actually belive I'm attemting to pursue Christian goals while challenging what often seem like human "proxies" for faith-based ways of being.

Sorry, channeling my 18-year-old self there for a second. I did regain a faith... that was mine. Its been a journey, which continues.... (much less co-dependant!). BUt I do care and focus on the fact that my faith is spiritual. I have also had to learn the hard way that "spiritual" often happens in human terms and through other human beings and relationships. But it is still spiritual. "super" natural.

In Love,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

I have very much appreciated our give and take. We need fixed points in discussions, in order to measure where we are, and where we are, and are not, going. And if you have more fixed points than I, or they are more fixed than mine are, I take it as from the Lord.

At the same time, I equally appreciate people like Peter asking hard (seemingly unanswerable, even) questions, and "pushing" us to at least consider and examine previously unquestioned tenets and assumptions. I think that the tension produced by both positions ("pushing" and "resistance")can lead to healthy discussions. As long as the respect is there: that is where, to me, Jesus' "Love one another" is an immutable aspect of fellowship. We don't love one another equivalent to the degree of mutual agreement. We simply love one another because God loves us.

I have long appreciated OBW batting away my perhaps frivolous speculations. At the end of the day, whether or not anyone agrees with my present positions (which are evolving) matters no where near as much to me as "hey, someone out there is listening to my voice". And that is why the assembly of the faithful remains so attractive to me as a believer.

Sorry, but aron, you're a rockstar. No matter the position you're advancing in a post, it pours out as earnest and seeking - and willing to be sharpened, even shot down. Thanks.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

One of the great accusations against the new religion, as the NT was being written, was that they had departed from the "straight and narrow". That it was new ground, not ordained by God. If you look at all the citations of "that the scripture might be fulfilled" or "as the scriptures said" or "as Moses and the prophets taught" you realize the speakers/writers were not so much composing a "new" testament as demonstrating the reality of "the" testament. Jesus was the reality of all the types, forms, figures, shadows of the scripture.

True.

But it was not a free-for-all creating various types. As so many have indicated, you can devise a lot of stuff from scripture if you don't have any boundaries. The boundaries are what the scripture itself reveals.

I can see over and over the types that are consistent with, and provide more evidence of the types that have already been revealed. Those that reduce the commandments to what flows naturally from "love God and love your fellow man." Those that are about the restoration of man from his fallen state to what was "from the beginning."

And what was from the beginning? Represent God as his image-bearer on the earth.

Somehow being declarative about what is the most perfect "church life" does not appear in that. But there is a pattern of leadership from the very beginning. Lee declared that there was not going to be certain ones as priests until that golden calf thing. But does scripture actually declare that in the manner Lee did?

There was already a leader — or two. Moses and Aaron. And while the bulk of what was going to be the Pentateuch was either written on stone by God, or told by mouth from generation to generation, the people weren't rising up to make private interpretation. Yet we find that by the time of Jesus, the questions of the people were put to the rabbis and to the Sanhedrin who considered together and ruled — sort of. Seems there were at least two major schools of thought on many things. And while Jesus is seen as taking sides on one issue, he never really spoke against the process. Or the idea that there was not unanimity in thought.

I really think that we are so used to Lee's way of finding definitive prescriptions for everything or dismissing it altogether. So he went about patching together disparate ideas, even misapplying some, for the purpose of creating prescriptions that were not really there. Or if he didn't like one that was there, he declared that some overarching prescription trumped the reading and it had to mean something else.

But the pattern for the leadership in the NT was already there. Elders was not a new concept. Having those whose livelihood, or at least a large part of it, was in studying and preaching from scripture was not a new concept. The only thing new was the message.

But we need to see it spelled-out. And if it is not, we seek something else spelled-out.

We all submit to everyone. To each other. Just like the examples given of husbands to wives and wives to husbands. In this way, there is no clear-cut "I'm over you" like a deputy authority, yet we are quick to defer to those who have knowledge, experience, etc., and not just demand our own thing.

We are many posts into this topic and we are no closer to finding a prescription than was the bare question at the top. We try to dismiss the way it was in the first century by using phrases like "that may have been appropriate for that time." As if we are so much more enlightened.

As I write this, I cannot recall if this is in an earlier post here or in another thread. But there is something that our modern (and even postmodern) thinking has done to the church and scripture. We think that it has been subject to change because our knowledge and enlightenment has changed. It may be true that our understanding has changed. But it should continue to ring true with the very thing written almost 2,000 years ago. Something that was true then and is true now. Something that does not change just because society does. Something that influences our culture (we hope), not something that is shaped by our culture.

And if we are seeking an answer in absolute terms to whether we should obey or submit to church leaders, we should expect disappointment because it is both true and not true. It is true in principle, but not true in absolutes. And our history in the LRC demanded absolutes. We need to get over it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes indeed, the famed church of the dark ages, did produce a semblance of oneness, enforced by the removal of the scriptures and reinforced by the tip of the sword. That's like a couple of old diehard commies bemoaning the splintering of their great empire into multiple nations after Gorbechev and perestroika and glasnost ruined everything. How nice it must be to chug vodka and reminisce the unanimous elections of all their public officials. "Thems vere the dayz comrade."

While there were problems within both the RCC and the Eastern tradition, that can be said of every one of our modern splinters. Yet despite the apparent loss of emphasis on salvation through faith, I'm not sure that faith was even lost. Just the emphasis in preaching. The RCC really was just on a diversion. A recent edict had created these indulgences during one of the more egregious popes to raise money. And Martin Luther was rightly confused when he put it up against scripture.

But the "dark" picture that we have had painted for us may have been altered by intentionally leaving a dark filter on the lens. We in Protestantism, and especially those who have gone through a "superior" group like the LRC, are taught that everything before them is just plain wrong. We like to think we get over it. But do we? Or do we just continue to believe parts of it without really looking into it?

Yes, you have experience from the RCC. But do you think that you would not have stood before Christ as a Christian if you had remained there and listened, learned, etc.? Do you believe that you wound not have had faith in Christ? Did you have to have a definition of "by faith alone" for it to have been faith that would save?

Are we dismissing the process just because it is not lined up in the way that a different process is? There is more than one way to get form here to there. But they both have to, and do, pass through faith. One majors on it and the other brings you to have it without hardly mentioning it. Does the lack of mention make the latter one wrong? Maybe a little deficient. But our Protestant lens, altered by the LRC lens, declares "fallen!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

While there were problems within both the RCC and the Eastern tradition, that can be said of every one of our modern splinters. Yet despite the apparent loss of emphasis on salvation through faith, I'm not sure that faith was even lost. Just the emphasis in preaching. The RCC really was just on a diversion. A recent edict had created these indulgences during one of the more egregious popes to raise money. And Martin Luther was rightly confused when he put it up against scripture.

But the "dark" picture that we have had painted for us may have been altered by intentionally leaving a dark filter on the lens. We in Protestantism, and especially those who have gone through a "superior" group like the LRC, are taught that everything before them is just plain wrong. We like to think we get over it. But do we? Or do we just continue to believe parts of it without really looking into it?

Yes, you have experience from the RCC. But do you think that you would not have stood before Christ as a Christian if you had remained there and listened, learned, etc.? Do you believe that you wound not have had faith in Christ? Did you have to have a definition of "by faith alone" for it to have been faith that would save?

Are we dismissing the process just because it is not lined up in the way that a different process is? There is more than one way to get form here to there. But they both have to, and do, pass through faith. One majors on it and the other brings you to have it without hardly mentioning it. Does the lack of mention make the latter one wrong? Maybe a little deficient. But our Protestant lens, altered by the LRC lens, declares "fallen!"

That's like saying there were "problems" on the Penn State coaching staff.

And, yes, OBW, there was "faith" during the times of medieval Romanism -- it was a faith in the Virgin Mary -- our so-called Redeemer and Queen.

Now be a good "Christian" and let me see you "prove your faith" by bowing down before "Our Lady" and kissing her feet. If not, then you will have a very long "time out" in the basement of the nearby castle.

Do you get the picture? I think you are missing all the wonderful "incentives" that existed during the dark ages in order to prove how very obedient and submissive the common man was to his Church leaders -- from the ravenous local priests to the Holy See in Rome.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Well, sometimes there's nothing wrong with [group dynamics] and there other times when there's a LOT wrong with it.

But you mean that group dynamics can be distorted and misused. My point was that group dynamics are valid in principle, i.e. something God created. We were meant to work together and live together with others. We have to learn how to do it right. Just because this is challenging does not mean we devalue groups or place our "personal walk" as being more important.

Our personal walk is not totally an end in itself. God is ours and we are his, yet to some extent he blesses us for the sake of others. He expects us to be willing to maintain our personal walk while also jumping in the fray with those troublesome "others."

Almost all productive Christian works require some group cooperation. I'm sure even Hudson Taylor had to cooperate with others to fulfill his calling. We shouldn't look at this as a necessary evil, but as a blessing.

Group's parting ways because of differing "agendas" is called division.

Not necessarily. Groups parting ways with animosity is division. But if you want to minister to students and I want to minister to retired people, we probably aren't going to work together. But that doesn't mean we are divided. If you feel to minister in a city thirty miles north and I want to stay here that's a different agenda, but it's not division. Sometimes it's better to part ways for expediency. Don't make oneness out to be something it is not supposed to be.

(I'd be interested to know what you mean by "scope.")

Scope simply means the group's authority does not extend past the group. It means you can leave in peace and are then not under it. Membership is voluntary, but once you join certain protocols are in order.

(More in next post.)

[Cal]

Igzy, I actually think their requirement of "more committment" in order to be part of "the work" was entirely appropriate. Those brothers felt personally commissioned by the Lord to pursue that work. If some other schmoe like me wanted to join their personal comission it is appropriate that it is on their terms and that I submit to their terms.

The problem was that this "work" was mixed in with what I thought was just "assembly." A coupla brothers of varying experience and study, getting together - assembling - to study God's word. It turned out, unless you were committed to "the work" - the "agenda" - of the group, there wasn't much mutually "just" to fellowship, study and mutually encourage one another. You were "second class."

This is where not caring about what others think comes in. If you don't feel to get involved with ministries, then that's your business. But you have to get past worrying what others think about it. And the others, of course, aren't entitled to judge you.

Obviously, maturity is needed. This was big problem with the LC. We had a bunch of zealous young people, probably most of which were eager to please others, be seen as spiritual and who were somewhat insecure. That just plays right into the hands of groupism.

But again, that doesn't mean groups are bad or are less important than "individual walks," it just means we need to learn the skills to be in groups.

Ironically, being able to negotiate being a group member requires some self-confidence--a healthy sense of one's individual worth. Religious groups tend to undermine this. We tell people to not trust themselves, to not be proud, to not be opinionated, to be "nothing." What you can end up with is people who are ripe for manipulation.

So some self-confidence and sense of self-worth before the Lord is needed. You cannot buck the group when you feel it's wrong if you don't have a strong sense of your individual purpose and worth in the Lord. Again this takes maturity.

Radical groups like the LC do not encourage this type of sense of self. "Self" to them is a bad word. You have to get past that kind of unhealthy teaching. Once you see that you yourself have God-given value and purpose in yourself, ironically only then can you really be of value to others, because you can become vulnerable for their sake, because at your core you are quite confident.

I'll be honest that I don't entirely understand where you are coming from either.

Statement's like "that's how groups naturally work" and others, supports the suspicion that contemporary Christianity could just as well be any other organization, just with a different "mission statement."

There is talk of God and the Spirit, but I really don't know how you think He and faith in Him plays into a group dynamic.

Peter, obviously I'm talking about these things in a Christian context and so it's assumed the Spirit and prayer are completely involved. (Give me some credit here, bro.) But even with those things present, everything isn't cut-and-dried. We still need to deal with disagreement and other matters of the group dynamic even with the Spirit and prayer involved.

So I do bristle a bit at arguments like "that's just what group's do." Or "that's just human nature." Exactly my point: there's nothing Christian about it, except that its cloaked in "God's will"-type language, with everyone patting each other on the back.

I disagree. Group behavior, just like any God-created behavior, can be distorted because of sin. But that doesn't mean that group dynamics are in principle un-Christian.

God created us with the view that we would form groups. Surely he knew we would. We are social beings. We need to learn to cooperate with others while maintaining the integrity our own sense of self-value and purpose.

Dealing with others is the major challenge and major reward of life. God asks us to be fully faithful to him and yet express that in service to others. That requires faith, wisdom, skill, grace, aplomb, humor, confidence, humility, strength, love...

In short, it's what we were made to do.

Not Christian? I believe it's what's going on at the core of the Trinity! So it's challenging for you? Jump in the game, bro. This is what it's all about.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Once you see that you yourself have God-given value and purpose in yourself, ironically only then can you really be of value to others, because you can become vulnerable for their sake, because at your core you are quite confident.

Amen from me.

Four supporting notions come to mind: First is that only when you have clear boundaries (this is who I am) can you be vulnerable and open, and still function according to God's specific purpose for you. If your only boundary, or core directive, is "whatever the group/leader wants", then you will get dragged hither and yon, blown about by every fresh "move of the Lord" and wind of teaching. You end up looking like the hole in a donut. There is nothing there. By contrast, someone who is "grounded" in "self" can allow themselves to be exposed to the "wind and rain" and still remain firm unto the end. If you try to "remain steadfast" to a group, a movement, a teaching, a philosophy, a ministry or a work, and try to make that a kind of "substitute self", you become like that "fixer" in a dysfunctional family who stretches and contorts themselves trying to balance and cover everyone else's sickness and distortion. You end up distorted yourself. You are no longer you.

Second, I remember the day that I was thinking about "Love your neighbor as yourself", and I realized that my self-loathing was not going to aid me in loving anyone else. If I don't love myself, how can I love someone else? Jesus said love them "as you love yourself". In order to reach out to "others", you have to have a firm base in "you". Until I (slooooowly, with many fits and starts) began to have some clear sense of "self", I really couldn't be "there" for anyone.

Third, it can be hard to guage one's progress in this journey (especially when you start out with really really really really low self-esteem), but I hazard that one's progress has some milestones, some markers. For me in the boundary-creation process, I found out that saying "no" was necessary for me to be truly able to say "yes". If I just say "yes" to whatever the group/leader/teaching/philosophy/move/organization is doing, then my yes is really meaningless. It has no value. It has to balance against a very real "no" or else it really means nothing at all.

Fourth, Jesus said (Matt 16:26), "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?" The value of your soul is incalculable. You can put the stock of Exxon/Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, and Walmart, on one side of the scale, and your soul on the other, and your soul will weigh more, in worth. Some may retort that in order to gain your soul you have to lose it: they will refer you to the preceding verses in Matthew 16 "Take up your cross and follow Me" and "Who wants to save his life (soul, self) will lose it, and who loses it for My sake will find it". So they stress "deny the soul". But again, I argue: if you don't have a clear sense of self, what are you going to deny? If you don't know who "you" is, what are you going to put on the cross?

[Cal]

Good post, aron.

This thread brought to mind something I posted awhile back in another thread. It was a reference to an article in Christianity Today addressing (yet another) declaration that the Church has failed and needed to be replaced with something else.

(Click the image to read the article)

"But here's the deal. Whenever you bring people together, religious or not, to get something done together, history demonstrates what you are going to get. First you'll get something done: you'll start a tutoring program or build a community center or form a soccer league or whatever. But this is what you'll also get: politics, bureaucracy, legalism, pettiness, backstabbing, greed, dishonesty, conformism, self-interest—and that's on the good days! Now add religion to the mix, so that the people involved do politics, bureaucracy, legalism, backstabbing, and so forth with a pious smile on their faces. That's the church many days.

"Yes, the church is also the institution that created the university, built hospitals, and is a major contributor to the social welfare of the poor and needy. It's also a place where many find healing and love and forgiveness of sin. But take my church, which has a deserved reputation for its effective healing ministry and dynamic spiritual life. It's also a place where I've witnessed leaders become self-righteous, where members hurt one another, where insecurity becomes manifest, where the cause of the poor is sometimes neglected—and I would include myself in all these sins. And this in what is widely considered a very effective and spiritual church!

"So the charge stands: the church is in crisis, and organized Christianity is in trouble.

"As it has been since day one."

....

"All signs of a failing and dying institution, no? But here's the thing. This supposedly failed institution has yet to fail. This organized religion on the verge of collapse still stands. This faith that is in crisis, well, it's still in crisis—and still upheld and loved and used by a gracious God."

[Cal]

'And then [Jesus] goes on: "And if you join up with [the church], you're going to discover something extraordinary. Not unity of theology or ethics, not a like-minded politics or life-style, and certainly not agreement about what songs to sing in worship! But you will find grace and mercy in time of need. Always from me, and more and more from these people. No particular church of mine can last unless my forgiveness permeates it; it is out of business within a generation otherwise; I insist on that. But a lot of my churches are still learning how to forgive, so they don't do it immediately. Not all at once. There are still many of my followers in these churches who are bitter and angry—but I'm working with them. Why don't you work with them as well, and learn something of my grace and mercy?"

'When put in this light, it becomes apparent that if we give up on the church, we are giving up on humanity. Because the church is the promise and presence of a redeemed humanity in Christ.

'And there is no other way to learn love except by plunging in with people like this.'

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are still many of my followers in these churches who are bitter and angry—but I'm working with them. Why don't you work with them as well, and learn something of my grace and mercy?"

'When put in this light, it becomes apparent that if we give up on the church, we are giving up on humanity. Because the church is the promise and presence of a redeemed humanity in Christ.

'And there is no other way to learn love except by plunging in with people like this.'

I easily agree with all the aforementioned, both because it instinctively "feels right" and because it makes logical sense.

However, this for me subsequently calls into question the legitimacy of the whole Protestant Reformation, with its "come out of her, my people"... and I have been a card-carrying protestant from day one (not to mention re-evaluating Nee's secession from the "daughters of the harlot" Protestant fold).

And on this one, know-it-all aron has no answer. Just a fall-back to the vague and tenuous position of "love your neighbor".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

My problem with "group culture" is not just the abuses that can take place (which are many) but also because of how easy it is to be "good at it," simply by mastering cultural norms, as one might in any other human organizations. There's nothing "spiritual" or faith-based about it. ... It is too easy precisely because of "human nature" for people - especially in groups - to replace "faith" with human culture and mores while calling it "faith."

What I think balances the tendencies noted above by Peter, is that being in a group which is "affiliated with" the chrisitian faith (using LSM terms tongue-in-cheek), one also trying to find God while there. One is ostensibly "following in the footsteps of the flock", and consciously or unconsiously absorbing the group culture, trying to fit in. But in the Christian assembly one is also listening for the voice of the Shepherd. "My sheep hear My voice"... and here is the rub- what if the Shepherd says something different than what is coming from the podium? What then?

I think in a flock with healthy, balanced and humble leadership, those other voices will rise from within the group and they will be heard as from the Lord. In a group with unhealthy leadership issues, anyone fielding an inconvenient truth will find oneself like Jeremiah, being lowered into a pit.

I recall when I began to hear from the Shepherd apart from the "interpreted Word" and openly questioned the word from the Maximum Brother, and was told, variously, "You just need to pray about it more, until you get it", and "your heart is dark", and "you have ambition and are trying to draw others away after yourself". And those were the polite counsel! I tell you, I had no idea I was so evil! And just for thinking differently from the group.

But I knew it was the Shepherd's voice. I could say that "My heart was burning while He opened to me the scriptures" (Luke 24:44) and "My heart trembles before Your word" (Psalm 119:161). It was the Word, it was the Spirit, so I had to listen.

Now, I must hasten to add, I have not always been obedient to the heavenly vision. Seeing something and obeying it are two different things. "Blessed is he who hears; more blessed is he who obeys" (Luke chap 11). So I am not pretending to have laid hold. I just am saying that even while I am within the flock, I don't always hear the Shepherd's voice from within the flock. Sometimes it comes from the wilderness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying there were "problems" on the Penn State coaching staff.

And, yes, OBW, there was "faith" during the times of medieval Romanism -- it was a faith in the Virgin Mary -- our so-called Redeemer and Queen.

Now be a good "Christian" and let me see you "prove your faith" by bowing down before "Our Lady" and kissing her feet. If not, then you will have a very long "time out" in the basement of the nearby castle.

Do you get the picture? I think you are missing all the wonderful "incentives" that existed during the dark ages in order to prove how very obedient and submissive the common man was to his Church leaders -- from the ravenous local priests to the Holy See in Rome.

I have attended one RCC mass in my life. It was recently. And I will admit that I would not generally repeat it.

But it was not as advertised by Lee and so many others. Declare that the method of communion "re-crucifies" Jesus every week. Declare that Mary is their savior. But that is not what they said. Yes, I heard the Hail Mary! But I also heard the priest clearly declare, in English, before communion, that it was the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that saves us.

It was just one mass. It was in a heavily Hispanic city (San Antonio) in a somewhat unusual parish (downtown). But it leads me to believe that much of what we have declared about it is based on a redefinition of "what it means" when certain things are said or done. Probably not all. And it doesn't make it all simply OK. But you can make that statement about every congregation in the world, including every LRC assembly of every type there is.

Do we glorify our common Father by simply denigrating any one of them so severely? Surely there are things to "discuss." But remember, even the Protestant revolution was as much about politics as religion. Martin Luther was not intending to revolt. Just to discuss. It was a German government willing to stand up to the political pressure of the RCC that started Protestantism, not just the religious disagreements.

In fact, with that one step, we ceased discussing among ourselves and began splintering and throwing bombs at each other. I'm not suggesting that the RCC was any better for that fact. That they were the one people were leaving is not a star in their crown.

It all stinks when we speak of it in this manner. We all need to return to an agreement of oneness in which we can have differences, and will continue to discuss them, even for years on end. The RCC didn't get where it was over night. And neither did Protestantism's splinters. But unlike the days before the Protestants, rather than moving the church together, slowly, we now declare new ways are it and just leave the others behind and throw bombs at them.

Some improvement. I'm not going back to the origins of any kind. I just would like to see a return to spiritual civility. And misrepresenting the less evangelical practices and teachings of the more liturgical groups is not civility. And it is a misrepresentation of what they are doing and teaching. Why do you think that the RCC is so nearly demonic? Because Protestantism said it was so. And more specifically, the LRC (although they are not alone in it).

I do not suggest that you return to the RCC. I think it is a poor choice. But it is not simply a rejection of faith. That is what you are sounding like.

And I don't believe that it is true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I do "groups" really well. Too well. Put me in a group of Christians and I don't need faith at all to feel good about myself, to do good things for the group, and indeed, for others to think, and praise me for, how "spiritual I am."

This is the side that is different than a critique just on the LC. My problem with "group culture" is not just the abuses that can take place (which are many) but also because of how easy it is to be "good at it," simply by mastering cultural norms, as one might in any other human organizations. There's nothing "spiritual" or faith-based about it.

Peter's testimony here speaks volumes as to why he leans in the direction he does ... and why someone like me might have the slightest of difficulty relating to his views.

My testimony was that I never did groups well. I never wore that sweatshirt, "plays well with others." No one ever noticed how well I did church, neither commented on how spiritual I was. I was the awkward guy who just showed up one day, and never required the brothers to "labor" on me. It was like I had left planet earth, and was now surrounded by Jesus and "god-men." I had left an environment where I trusted no one, having been betrayed at times by even my best "friends," and was now surrounded by trustworthy brothers in Christ. Consequently I was a sponge to both the best and the worst of group dynamics. For the first time in my life, I really trusted the "men" in my life. The Lord was so real in all these contacts, whether privately or in public meetings.

On the positive side, nearly all that happened in my new group life, would enable me to be filled in spirit, and to know the love of Jesus. My conscience became alive for the first time in my life. I was no longer under condemnation living a life in darkness, and every one could see it on my face. On the flip side, the brothers who shepherded me, often exploited my vulnerable nature. I had assumed that all their guidance must be from Jesus directly, and in some cases it took me years to realize how I was taken advantage of.

Others have mentioned in their posts how proper boundaries and personal self worth are absolutely essential for healthy group dynamics. I could not agree more. Humanly speaking, that was one of our greatest needs in the LC's. Rare was a LC leader who was ever willing to be limited by boundaries, and that is why so many saints have been hurt. Without boundaries, we surely are ripe for abuse. Sorry to say, I was close to 40 years old before I even realized how "vital" these interpersonal boundaries are. Today I know LC brothers closer to 60 years old, who are just becoming aware of what should have been learned decades ago.

[OBW]

I think that "forget the church, follow Jesus" is about as misguided a statement as we can come up with.

It would seem that following Jesus involves the church. That does not mean simply follow the church without reference to Jesus. But if you think you are following Jesus without a group of support (which is, pretty much by definition, church), then you are seriously deluded. That is how you get back to Nee's "intuition."

Just me and my Bible and Jesus is most likely doomed. A group of us has a chance.

And being a disjointed, unaffiliated, non-group of Christians all doing their own version of what they think is Jesus is more confusing to the world than the multitude of splinters of Christianity that we already have. I don't buy one church per city based on dirt and political boundaries. But just as bad is 1,000,000 churches of one in a city that is only 2,000,000, of which half are Christian.

Seems that the Army quickly figured out that it is not a collection of individuals, but a team. And it quickly dumped its "Army of One" advertising. But we are taking the church of one all the way to the end because we like "rugged individualism." Have at it.

In a few years, the best question will be "how's that workin' for ya?"

[Cal]

Life is like a game. Without obstacles and challenges it becomes boring and pointless. Every day holds new challenges and we are not to rest on our laurels, but are to step up to meet those challenges with the Lord's help. Through this process we learn, grow and have impact on those around us.

But we never "arrive." It's not about the destination, it's about the process. I'm regularly bemused by the challenges of leading a family. Just when you think you've got your ducks in a row, another crisis appears. Just when you think you have your kids figured out, they move to a different level.

So it goes. That's life and it's not an accident. It is an everyday, ever-evolving affair. There is no beginning and no end. Just the process.

Likewise, there is no arriving at the perfect church, or even the perfect understanding of the church, there is just being the church, day-in and day-out.

As I said earlier, the ultimate challenge of life is to be faithful to God while at the same time serving and cooperating with others--to maintain one's integrity while getting down in the trenches with flawed, fallen people. Jesus was the perfect model for this. We never get a hint in the Gospels of Jesus acting like anyone was too unholy for him to be around. He was always willing to engage with others. He wasn't afraid of getting dirty. He had that confidence we talked about.

Now, I know the Bible warns us about the company we keep. That's the other side of it. But to me, it's the exception to the larger rule that we are not to view others as a general hindrance to our spirituality. To have that attitude shows that you miss what being truly spiritual is. I understand going through the phase of being suspicious of groups, but what's the alternative? The Lord didn't give us one.

He had a reason. Emmanuel means "God with us." To manifest the incarnate God, you eventually need to be with someone.

[Peter Debelak]

Igzy,

I appreciate your reply quite a bit. A HUGE issue for me was my sense of self-worth and growing out of my co-dependence (deriving my identity from how others viewed me.). Your words are very encouraging on this...

But we still have a core disconnect...

Here's where I think it lies:

It’s a difference in our default position on groups, not necessarily a disagreement on outcome.

I am approaching groups with a skepticism – one born from experience and, I think, one that has it’s roots in Scripture (I’ll explain). I see the default of human groups to be one that hinders spirituality. They can, in fact, be great and nurturing of spirituality – but that is not by default. You have to build that into the group dynamic and it has to be an outflow of a focus on individual’s knowing the indwelling Spirit.

You approach groups as good by default and that abuse enters in only as some sort of mutation.

You said that since we were discussion groups in a Christian context, that it should be presumed that we’re contemplating the role of the Spirit. I say, the Bible itself doesn’t support such a view.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

These are Christians who were attempting to do good things for God, and doing them in His name. Think about it. If there was a Christian group who was doing good works "in His name" etc.... you would think they're all good to go. Christ doesn't see it that way. So what's missing? It's not assumed that groups doing "Christian things" is what God wants.

In Galatians, Paul describes how groups can foster zealotry – indeed, in the service of their faith – and steal believers away from “the way they began”, that is “in spirit.” Even Peter and Barnabas were susceptible to group pressure.

I agree with you that in terms of outcomes, Christians will and should work together. God made us social creatures and He has a corporate goal.

But natural groups and fallen humanity have built in faults. They are not anomalies. They are inherent. Thus, I am arguing, you need to build in protections. And I don’t think these are out of thin air. I think they have Biblical foundation.

The protection I am suggesting is two-fold:

1) a matter of emphasis: focus on believers learning their spirit and getting rooted in the Word – rather than focusing on the group assuming the individuals will fair just fine; The practical result of this may well entail Christians working together, but each individual has had to go through the process of checking with their indwelling Lord – rather than going along with the group, which is often too easy to do.

2) While Christians will work together and in groups, the initiation of “agendas” or any other “agency” is through direct commission from God to an individual (or several people, but to each one individually). That is, leave “the work” out of the assembly – though they may reinforce eachother. If no individuals have such a direct commission – that’s a good red flag that perhaps it isn’t something that should be done. Often, “workers” who are “full-time” end up manufacturing projects...

Any closer to making sense?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Sticking to my guns on this is a bit of result of finally finding a modicum of self-worth and having "ownership" over my faith.... Even though I may be wrong, I never would have been able to have this sort of discussion 10 years ago.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that "forget the church, follow Jesus" is about as misguided a statement as we can come up with.

It would seem that following Jesus involves the church. That does not mean simply follow the church without reference to Jesus. But if you think you are following Jesus without a group of support (which is, pretty much by definition, church), then you are seriously deluded. That is how you get back to Nee's "intuition."

Just me and my Bible and Jesus is most likely doomed. A group of us has a chance.

And being a disjointed, unaffiliated, non-group of Christians all doing their own version of what they think is Jesus is more confusing to the world than the multitude of splinters of Christianity that we already have. I don't buy one church per city based on dirt and political boundaries. But just as bad is 1,000,000 churches of one in a city that is only 2,000,000, of which half are Christian.

Seems that the Army quickly figured out that it is not a collection of individuals, but a team. And it quickly dumped its "Army of One" advertising. But we are taking the church of one all the way to the end because we like "rugged individualism." Have at it.

In a few years, the best question will be "how's that workin' for ya?"

I don't know if it's been clear - but this is an important point.

I am not advocating "individual Christianity." The result of our individual Christian walk should be group engagement. That's how God made us and what He is after.

But that does NOT change the fact that my focus is on God's leading in my life - first and only. But then there are barameters of whether that individual walk is healthy.

If I claim to be "following Jesus" and yet my life is devoid of works, then there's something unhealthy in my walk.

If I claim to be "following Jesus" and yet I have isolated myself from other Christians, then there is something unhealthy in my walk.

If we are, in fact, following Jesus, it will always result in working with others and fellowshiping with others. ANd if it doesn't, then that's a red flag to question how healthy my walk with Him is.

That is different than seeing "the group" as an end to itself and then "trying to achieve it." The outcome may look the same, "but you shall know it by its fruits."

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

'And then [Jesus] goes on: "And if you join up with [the church], you're going to discover something extraordinary. Not unity of theology or ethics, not a like-minded politics or life-style, and certainly not agreement about what songs to sing in worship! But you will find grace and mercy in time of need. Always from me, and more and more from these people. No particular church of mine can last unless my forgiveness permeates it; it is out of business within a generation otherwise; I insist on that. But a lot of my churches are still learning how to forgive, so they don't do it immediately. Not all at once. There are still many of my followers in these churches who are bitter and angry—but I'm working with them. Why don't you work with them as well, and learn something of my grace and mercy?"

'When put in this light, it becomes apparent that if we give up on the church, we are giving up on humanity. Because the church is the promise and presence of a redeemed humanity in Christ.

'And there is no other way to learn love except by plunging in with people like this.'

Amen. Truly, I am not arguing anything that disagrees with this. I'm arguing the difference between genuingly seeking this, versus being content with a "proxy" for this.

I see groups as an natural outflow of genuine seeking and spirituality. You see groups as an end to themselves, which you then "try to make sure" has spirituality in it. Very similar appearing outcomes. My position entails yours (see my post below on "barameters" for a healthy individual walk), yours doesn't necessarily entail mine.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter's testimony here speaks volumes as to why he leans in the direction he does ... and why someone like me might have the slightest of difficulty relating to his views.

My testimony was that I never did groups well. I never wore that sweatshirt, "plays well with others." No one ever noticed how well I did church, neither commented on how spiritual I was. I was the awkward guy who just showed up one day, and never required the brothers to "labor" on me. It was like I had left planet earth, and was now surrounded by Jesus and "god-men." I had left an environment where I trusted no one, having been betrayed at times by even my best "friends," and was now surrounded by trustworthy brothers in Christ. Consequently I was a sponge to both the best and the worst of group dynamics. For the first time in my life, I really trusted the "men" in my life. The Lord was so real in all these contacts, whether privately or in public meetings.

On the positive side, nearly all that happened in my new group life, would enable me to be filled in spirit, and to know the love of Jesus. My conscience became alive for the first time in my life. I was no longer under condemnation living a life in darkness, and every one could see it on my face. On the flip side, the brothers who shepherded me, often exploited my vulnerable nature. I had assumed that all their guidance must be from Jesus directly, and in some cases it took me years to realize how I was taken advantage of.

Others have mentioned in their posts how proper boundaries and personal self worth are absolutely essential for healthy group dynamics. I could not agree more. Humanly speaking, that was one of our greatest needs in the LC's. Rare was a LC leader who was ever willing to be limited by boundaries, and that is why so many saints have been hurt. Without boundaries, we surely are ripe for abuse. Sorry to say, I was close to 40 years old before I even realized how "vital" these interpersonal boundaries are. Today I know LC brothers closer to 60 years old, who are just becoming aware of what should have been learned decades ago.

Ohio:

This raises a very important point in this whole discussion. You found your Christian faith in a dynamic way (though, yes, I know you were raised in the RCC). Second generation are raised in the culture of their faith and may or may not find the spirituality.

For second generation - really in any group, but its highlighted in a faith-based group - the default is "faith as cultural norms," and it requires a lot to find a genuine faith, if ever. It is not hard to spend a life involved with, pursuing, preaching and working for a "faith" that is just based on cultural norms (albeit Christian and well-intentioned).

But, as you note, it is hard even as a "first generation" - in large part precisely because the group dymanic can be such a respite from the harsher, unloving world from which you emerged. Presicely because of how nurturing and loving a group can be, it makes one even more susceptible to abuse, if and when it enters...

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's what I hear from this post. Always willing to be corrected...

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The protection I am suggesting is two-fold:

1) a matter of emphasis: focus on believers learning their spirit and getting rooted in the Word – rather than focusing on the group assuming the individuals will fair just fine; The practical result of this may well entail Christians working together, but each individual has had to go through the process of checking with their indwelling Lord – rather than going along with the group, which is often too easy to do.

2) While Christians will work together and in groups, the initiation of “agendas” or any other “agency” is through direct commission from God to an individual (or several people, but to each one individually). That is, leave “the work” out of the assembly – though they may reinforce each other. If no individuals have such a direct commission – that’s a good red flag that perhaps it isn’t something that should be done. Often, “workers” who are “full-time” end up manufacturing projects...

Peter, I definitely agree with the dangers you have cited. They are very real. Whereas you seem to identify the source in some "group agency," I like to place the responsibility on leaders, especially those who become abusive, placing their own empires above the needs of the "littlest of My brethren."

Your "protections" constantly place the group focus on the care and well-being of the individual believers, rather than assuming that all personal needs will automatically be met by "clocking in" to ministry service. We exited from a program of top-down management, always looking for new ways to keep the rank and file occupied lest they slow down and think about their relationship with Jesus. There never was the thought, "what is the Lord doing in the saints?" How is the Great Shepherd leading the flock?

We boasted how we were the true church of Jesus, when actually we existed only to support a man's ministry. Having aggressive workers ruling the church is incompatible with Jesus' pattern to leave the 99, and seek the lost one. When did the saints have the liberty to follow the Lord within? We were constantly warned of the dangers of "mis-interpretting" the Shepherd's voice. But how great is that danger compared to that of not ever learning to know His voice? How can the the believers learn to follow the Lord when leaders train them to only trust "maximum" brother?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter, I definitely agree with the dangers you have cited. They are very real. Whereas you seem to identify the source in some "group agency," I like to place the responsibility on leaders, especially those who become abusive, placing their own empires above the needs of the "littlest of My brethren."

I agree, Ohio that when the abuses come, they come through leaders. But they have "accomplices," in believers who don't know their own spirit and/or conscience. This is often because learning one's spirit, one's own "ownership" of their faith, wasn't an emphasis by the "leaders" in the first place. When the "group" is an entity unto itself, abuse seems much easier...

If leaders are led to "start a work" because they are commissioned from God, a teaching that empahsizes individual responsibility to the indwelling Spirit will require Christians to seek, to determine if its God's will to get involved - rather than getting involved simply beacuse they are a "member" of the "leader's assembly."

The alternative is: "Our 'church' has decided to pursue X." If I'm a "member" of church X, it is quite possible, even likely, that I defer the "is the Spirit please with this?" question to the fact that my "leaders" suggested it. In my "membership", I have a certain level of defering my spiritual seeking to the group's decisions.

It's a subtle difference in practice. But it is EVERYTHING, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Ohio:

This raises a very important point in this whole discussion. You found your Christian faith in a dynamic way (though, yes, I know you were raised in the RCC). Second generation are raised in the culture of their faith and may or may not find the spirituality.

For second generation - really in any group, but its highlighted in a faith-based group - the default is "faith as cultural norms," and it requires a lot to find a genuine faith, if ever. It is not hard to spend a life involved with, pursuing, preaching and working for a "faith" that is just based on cultural norms (albeit Christian and well-intentioned).

But, as you note, it is hard even as a "first generation" - in large part precisely because the group dymanic can be such a respite from the harsher, unloving world from which you emerged. Presicely because of how nurturing and loving a group can be, it makes one even more susceptible to abuse, if and when it enters...

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's what I hear from this post. Always willing to be corrected...

In Love,

Peter

Peter, your "rewording" highlights the dilemma of "good" kids raised in a good home. I never was a "good" kid, so it's hard for me to relate. I was reputedly the black sheep of the family. They still tell stories about me.

Still God was so merciful to expose your phony Christian performances even when others were cheering you on. What if you had learned to be content with a Christ-less life? I do think it takes more maturity to see through our own hypocrisy, shrouded in good performance, than just a dark life of sin.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree, Ohio that when the abuses come, they come through leaders. But they have "accomplices," in believers who don't know their own spirit and/or conscience. This is often because learning one's spirit, one's own "ownership" of their faith, wasn't an emphasis by the "leaders" in the first place. When the "group" is an entity unto itself, abuse seems much easier...

If leaders are led to "start a work" because they are commissioned from God, a teaching that empahsizes individual responsibility to the indwelling Spirit will require Christians to seek, to determine if its God's will to get involved - rather than getting involved simply beacuse they are a "member" of the "leader's assembly."

The alternative is: "Our 'church' has decided to pursue X." If I'm a "member" of church X, it is quite possible, even likely, that I defer the "is the Spirit please with this?" question to the fact that my "leaders" suggested it. In my "membership", I have a certain level of deferring my spiritual seeking to the group's decisions.

It's a subtle difference in practice. But it is EVERYTHING, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps we are identifying the same dangers from different vantages. As I read this post, I question whether the members "defer" to leader's new work because of a group culture which inhibits personal freedoms, reinforced by lieutenants who constantly sing the praises of their leader. Perhaps certain spiritual men in the group have effectively been "silenced." Young believers are much like young children. They learn much through positive feedback. When a group culture has been so shaped by worker agendas and personalities, it becomes almost impossible to follow the Lord sincerely from a pure heart.

My wife did not spend her early Christian life in the GLA. One day she commented to me on Titus' ministry, asking "why does he never say anything good about the church in Cleveland?" Her question caught me off guard, because growing up in the GLA, that's all I knew, thinking that was normal. I never realized how deformed I had become. Like others, I was trained never to trust myself, rather I was just "Mr. Zero" and "Brother Nothing" as I had heard for years. See how the group dynamic is shaped by bad teaching?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I see groups as an natural outflow of genuine seeking and spirituality. You see groups as an end to themselves, which you then "try to make sure" has spirituality in it. Very similar appearing outcomes. My position entails yours (see my post below on "barameters" for a healthy individual walk), yours doesn't necessarily entail mine.

No, I don't see groups as ends in themselves. The end is always the glory of God. I see groups as a normal result of being the social creatures God created us to be.

Think of it like sex. Sex is natural and normal. The problem isn't sex. The problem is how we approach it. People need to learn how to handle sex correctly. The key is not to be suspicious of sex in itself, the key is to understand the pitfalls.

Likewise groups. The answer isn't to teach people to be suspicious of groups in themselves (anymore than the solution is to make people suspicious of sex in itself). The key is to become skilled enough to handle groups (and sex) in a healthy manner.

Running away from or becoming suspicious of something in our created nature is not an answer. Because, as the article said, that is the same as giving up on humanity.

The problem I had with your original position was not outcome, but approach and attitude. I understand being in groups has pitfalls, and I'm not arguing that groups should be permanent. I'm saying we shouldn't be looking for excuses to bail on groups because they hinder our "spirituality." I'm saying we that maybe, just maybe, we need to become more spiritual so that we can negotiate groups better.

The point is the point is not solely our own spirituality. It is not the bottom line anymore than our own personal wealth is. Yes, we seek to gain wealth, but it's not all for us. It's to share with others, too. Part of the reason we have Christ is to share him with others.

The point is not groups, the point is others. We just often need to form groups to help others.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I don't see groups as ends in themselves. The end is always the glory of God. I see groups as a normal result of being the social creatures God created us to be.

Think of it like sex. Sex is natural and normal. The problem isn't sex. The problem is how we approach it. People need to learn how to handle sex correctly. The key is not to be suspicious of sex in itself, the key is to understand the pitfalls.

Likewise groups. The answer isn't to teach people to be suspicious of groups in themselves (anymore than the solution is to make people suspicious of sex in itself). The key is to become skilled enough to handle groups (and sex) in a healthy manner.

Running away from or becoming suspicious of something in our created nature is not an answer. Because, as the article said, that is the same as giving up on humanity.

The problem I had with your original position was not outcome, but approach and attitude. I understand being in groups has pitfalls, and I'm not arguing that groups should be permanent. I'm saying we shouldn't be looking for excuses to bail on groups because they hinder our "spirituality." I'm saying we that maybe, just maybe, we need to become more spiritual so that we can negotiate groups better.

The point is the point is not solely our own spirituality. It is not the bottom line anymore than our own personal wealth is. Yes, we seek to gain wealth, but it's not all for us. It's to share with others, too. Part of the reason we have Christ is to share him with others.

The point is not groups, the point is others. We just often need to form groups to help others.

Igzy,

The post you quoted was a very truncated version of my argument - laid out more fully in post #106, below, posted here (I have a habit of writing my "thorough" post first, and then tacking on shorter posts, which causes the original one to get lost...).

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Igzy,

I appreciate your reply quite a bit. A HUGE issue for me was my sense of self-worth and growing out of my co-dependence (deriving my identity from how others viewed me.). Your words are very encouraging on this...

But we still have a core disconnect...

Here's where I think it lies:

It’s a difference in our default position on groups, not necessarily a disagreement on outcome.

I am approaching groups with a skepticism – one born from experience and, I think, one that has it’s roots in Scripture (I’ll explain). I see the default of human groups to be one that hinders spirituality. They can, in fact, be great and nurturing of spirituality – but that is not by default. You have to build that into the group dynamic and it has to be an outflow of a focus on individual’s knowing the indwelling Spirit.

You approach groups as good by default and that abuse enters in only as some sort of mutation.

You said that since we were discussing groups in a Christian context, that it should be presumed that we’re contemplating the role of the Spirit. I say, the Bible itself doesn’t support such a view.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

These are Christians who were attempting to do good things for God, and doing them in His name. Think about it. If there was a Christian group who was doing good works "in His name" etc.... you would think they're all good to go. Christ doesn't see it that way. So what's missing? It's not assumed that groups doing "Christian things" is what God wants.

In Galatians, Paul describes how groups can foster zealotry – indeed, in the service of their faith – and steal believers away from “the way they began”, that is “in spirit.” Even Peter and Barnabas were susceptible to group pressure.

I agree with you that in terms of outcomes, Christians will and should work together. God made us social creatures and He has a corporate goal.

But natural groups and fallen humanity have built in faults. They are not anomalies. They are inherent. Thus, I am arguing, you need to build in protections. And I don’t think these are out of thin air. I think they have Biblical foundation.

The protection I am suggesting is two-fold:

1) a matter of emphasis: focus on believers learning their spirit and getting rooted in the Word – rather than focusing on the group assuming the individuals will fair just fine; The practical result of this may well entail Christians working together, but each individual has had to go through the process of checking with their indwelling Lord – rather than going along with the group, which is often too easy to do.

2) While Christians will work together and in groups, the initiation of “agendas” or any other “agency” is through direct commission from God to an individual (or several people, but to each one individually). That is, leave “the work” out of the assembly – though they may reinforce eachother. If no individuals have such a direct commission – that’s a good red flag that perhaps it isn’t something that should be done. Often, “workers” who are “full-time” end up manufacturing projects...

Any closer to making sense?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Sticking to my guns on this is a bit of result of finally finding a modicum of self-worth and having "ownership" over my faith.... Even though I may be wrong, I never would have been able to have this sort of discussion 10 years ago.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Christians will and should work together. God made us social creatures and He has a corporate goal.

But natural groups and fallen humanity have built in faults. They are not anomalies. They are inherent. Thus, I am arguing, you need to build in protections. And I don’t think these are out of thin air. I think they have Biblical foundation.

The protection I am suggesting is two-fold:

1) a matter of emphasis: focus on believers learning their spirit and getting rooted in the Word – rather than focusing on the group assuming the individuals will fair just fine; The practical result of this may well entail Christians working together, but each individual has had to go through the process of checking with their indwelling Lord – rather than going along with the group, which is often too easy to do.

2) While Christians will work together and in groups, the initiation of “agendas” or any other “agency” is through direct commission from God to an individual (or several people, but to each one individually). That is, leave “the work” out of the assembly – though they may reinforce eachother. If no individuals have such a direct commission – that’s a good red flag that perhaps it isn’t something that should be done. Often, “workers” who are “full-time” end up manufacturing projects...

I am interested in the group dynamics in the Bible. Sometimes they are referred to as "the multitude" or "a great crowd". They seem to behave, en masse, like extended individuals. Sometimes they surge toward God, and express Him (at least somewhat), and sometimes they get caught by a "bad spirit" and do quite the opposite.

Because of this tendency to fail, and because the multiplication of souls seems to multiply (intensify) the tendencies found within the crowd, there probably should be some safeguards, some "checks and balances". Because if the power of the mob gets harnessed by those who themselves are (at least temporarily) harnessed by Satan, surely no good can result.

And I don't think that on the day of Pentecost, or some time thereafter, "the church" became immune to this. Jesus did not trust the crowd, knowing full well what lay within the human heart (see John 2:24). I don't think this tendency ended after Acts chapter 2.

As a perhaps connected aside, related to the idea of us being pushed by whims, I notice how many of us got "caught" in the local churches of Lee under what might be called Shot-gun Wedding dynamics. One minute you are alone and adrift, and the next minute you are in the front row of a meeting yelling your lungs out. You get caught in the Group Pressure Dynamic to conform, and suddenly you are "in" (contrasted, perhaps, to the more cautious "do not lay hands quickly on anyone" in 1 Timothy 5:22).

A great example of group dynamics is the crowd in the gospels that wants to make Jesus king, then some of them start to argue with Him, then they try to tear him apart and he has to withdraw. Or the crowd that chants, "We have no king but Caesar"; 50 days later they are repentant in front of Peter, asking, "What should we do, brothers?" And if you think this crowd on Penecost was somehow a different group, read verse 23: "This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

[Cal]

Peter,

We are not that far apart, if at all. I think we are on the same page, we are just emphasizing different sides of the equation.

You are warning that the group dynamic should not become a substitute for genuinely getting to know the Lord and that the group itself must be driven by the individual genuine God experiences of the members. I completely agree.

I'm arguing that all aspects of human life contain pitfalls and so groups should not be singled out as some kind of greater evil, or something to be avoided. To me that is a cynical response. Not that I'm saying you are having that response. But it seems that MacDuff and others I've seen (our old buddy Harold) lean that way.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

As a perhaps connected aside, related to the idea of us being pushed by whims, I notice how many of us got "caught" in the local churches of Lee under what might be called Shot-gun Wedding dynamics. One minute you are alone and adrift, and the next minute you are in the front row of a meeting yelling your lungs out. You get caught in the Group Pressure Dynamic to conform, and suddenly you are "in" (contrasted, perhaps, to the more cautious "do not lay hands quickly on anyone" in 1 Timothy 5:22).

Right, aron. But can this happen without the group claiming to be superior to others? Even worse claiming to be the "unique" group.

One thing I appreciate about where I meet now is that the leaders regularly tell us that other groups are legitimate and we are not in competition, but in cooperation with them.

[MacDuff]

Igzy

One thing I appreciate about where I meet now is that the leaders regularly tell us that other groups are legitimate and we are not in competition, but in cooperation with them.

I’m glad you’ve found a place you feel comfortable with. Anymore, it’s about all that one can hope for. And then hope that either one agrees with their authorities sufficiently, or that one can be sufficiently silent about one’s beliefs, so as not to be subjected to the common practice of closed communion. One thing I appreciated about Elden Hall. They didn’t practice closed communion against anyone due to differences of doctrine. Whether that’s still the case I don’t know. The idea of quarantine I keep reading about leads me to think things are different now.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Igzy

Post #49

I don't mean to be critical, but I have a real hard time seeing what your overall point is. You state a lot of theory, but practically how to do see a church operating?

Are you saying that leaders of a church have no authority in the church? If so, how are problems handled? Who takes the lead and who has the authority to execute action, ultimately? This is a very practical question. The problem I have with what you say is it's just you and your theory. I don't see any practical realization of what you are talking about. Just you saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

What's your practical answer? How are churches to operate practically? Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

This is not only insulting to me, it gives the impression that this forum concerns the trivial.

The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is for people who have nothing important to say. It’s for people just talking and not really saying anything. What I say may be unimportant to others. That doesn’t mean it’s also unimportant to me. If I thought what I said was unimportant, I wouldn’t bother to say it.

I use as many words as I deem necessary to get what I’m saying across. I see no reason to count the number of words I’ve used. Those who are only here for entertainment, and prefer not to read long posts with meaningful content, don’t have to read my posts. In fact, I would rather they didn’t. Anything I might say wouldn’t have any meaning to them.

I don't mean to be critical, but I have a real hard time seeing what your overall point is.

Just a minute. Let me put away this red flag. It just popped up when I read “I don’t mean to be critical”.

I can talk to non-Christians about any subject. Whether or not they agree with me, they can always understand what I’m saying. But with Christians, I do have a problem with them understanding me. I’m not sure why. I just know the problem isn’t with me. Or the non-Christians wouldn’t be able to understand me either. Out here in real life, I’ve learned to just walk away from Christians who still can’t understand me after two tries.

The problem I have with what you say is it's just you and your theory. I don't see any practical realization of what you are talking about. Just you saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

When I state something that I believe to be true, and everyone else disagrees, you bet your sweet bippy that I think I’m right and they are wrong. Do you think I’m going to bother saying something I think is wrong just to be agreeable? You can think that what you think is just an opinion, if that’s your wish. Opinions don’t amount to much.

My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.
Rodney Dangerfield

If you’re expecting me to practice some sort of sham humility, then I’m sorry, but that’s not me.

You state a lot of theory, but practically how to do see a church operating?

Do you think being led by the Holy Spirit and following the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is just a theory? According to the New Testament, practicality for those who are in Christ has everything to do with the supernatural, not the natural. To think that the Spirit isn’t up to dealing with any problem that might come up in a gathering of those who are in Christ is a practical denial of the existence of supernatural reality.

1Corinthians 12-14 gives plenty of practicality as to how that works. Overseers and Elders as rulers aren’t even mentioned. Rather, the Spirit works through certain functions choosing people according to his own will to deal with matters in a gathering. Men choosing men to be rulers in that context, is an abuse of a system set in place by God himself. God calls the ekklesia out of cities. The Churches of Christianity are created by men. They are different in that they have two different lives as their source. When Paul refers to planting and watering earlier in 1Corinthians, he wasn’t referring to planting Churches. He was referring to something happening in the context of a single ekklesia. The foundation of which is Jesus Christ, not men.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it being what it is, a creation of human nature, there is a definite necessity for human rulers that must be obeyed by subjects in the gatherings of the various Christian denominations. So in that sense we agree. In your thread “Everyone Interested in the Church Should Read This”, you bring up a writer in Christianity Today who makes a good case for thinking that Christians aren’t any different than anyone else. And with that I agree. And for them it won’t be any difference either regarding their need for human rule. But for those who are in Christ, there should be a difference that shows that they are following something supernatural, not natural men.

I see a distinct difference between the ekklesia spoken of in the New Testament and the Churches of Christianity. This is a distinction that Christians can’t see. It’s pretty obvious that Witness Lee didn’t see the distinction. Seeing as all he did was to create another Christian denomination, with human rulers and all.

In order for ekklesia to be expressions of the Life of God and the Body of Christ, they must be a lot different than the world or they will just end up being expressions of the world. Both Paul and John speak specifically to cases where ekklesia weren’t living up to the standard of their own intended nature. They were following men, or worse, in one case at least, Satan was involved.

I had the experience once in a Pentecostal meeting where I left hurriedly having had the crap scared out of me because I felt the presence of something I shouldn’t have felt in a Christian meeting. Something not human. Thank God at least that in all the other Churches I attended, I have experienced nothing more than something human. And in rare cases, something of the Holy Spirit.

One can certainly take the view that 21st century Christianity is the result of a historic development that began with the ekklesia in the 1st century. And that is the reason why 21st century Christianity is different from the ekklesia of the 1st century. But taken to its ultimate conclusion, such an idea also must include an ongoing system of rulership throughout Christian history. And the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that even comes close to making that claim appear valid. Eastern Orthodoxy fills the bill to a lesser degree. Protestant Churches certainly wouldn’t, indeed couldn’t, fit that bill. Seeing as it is simply a rebellion against history and the system of rulership already in place in the 16th century.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

UntoHim

I have only this to say about Martin Luther. Martin Luther was perhaps one of the greatest heretics of the past two millennia. When considered in the context of Christian history. When considered in the context of the ekklesia as portrayed in the New Testament, he totally missed the point. He was too immersed in the thinking of his day.

Martin Luther wasn’t a reformer of “the Church”. “The Church” as it existed in Luther’s day, the 16th century, was the Western church. Luther was excommunicated by the designated human ruler of the Western Church. At the point of excommunication he became a rebel, who rebelled against the authority of the designated human authority of “the Church”.

You quoted Martin Luther as if he were an authority. And indeed he was. Among those who rebelled against the human authorities in the Western Church. His rebellion resulted in a multitude of Protestant and Protestant like Churches. Each a denomination in itself when considered in the context of all other Protestant Churches. Each a denomination in itself when considered in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. The Church that has continued most closely to be the same as “the Church” as it existed in the 16th century. The Western Church itself being one of two denominations when considered in context with the Eastern Church.

Now, if “the Church” as it existed in the 16th century wasn’t actually the Church at all, then perhaps you might think you have a semblance of a case for the authority of Martin Luther. But not really. Seeing as no one gave him that authority, other than his own followers. And by that thinking, Witness Lee is just as much an authority, his authority having been given to him by his followers.

How many people here realize that, if they are operating under the principles of Protestant thinking, they are part of a rebellion against the principle of authority? None I would venture to say. Even Witness Lee, claimed to be the authority for today by his followers, never realized how unreasonable his own self-acknowledged association with Protestantism really was. Is it really any wonder that the Recovery is just another Protestant denomination?

Are you defending a Protestant scheme of authority? A scheme of authority that can easily be rebelled against for any personal reason? That does seem to be the consensus here. Christianity needs human authorities. But they are to only be obeyed as far as the individual deems necessary. Having an array of excuses where such authorities are not to be obeyed. Conscience is especially popular. Something as variable as personal opinion.

MacDuff

[UntoHim]

MacDuff,
Thanks for hangin around for a while, I knew you had it in ya (glutton for punishment….anybody who stuck around the Local Church for any length of time has a little of that in him). Speaking of the Local Church, no wonder you ended up blowing out of there…you seem to be quite the deep thinker, philosopher, anthropologist, church historian….gee did I miss anything yet? Anyway, if you’re any one of these, well we all know that that dog won’t hunt around the parts of the Local Church.

Sorry if you got the impression that my little quip to you was focusing in any way around Martin Luther, and your points about him are well taken, but I think you dodged my point about the “truth”. “The truth will triumph through us”…that was the catchphrase.

Don’t know if you remember or not, but Witness Lee was real big on emphasizing that he was bringing “recovered truth” to us poor, poor Christians in America. In fact, more than once, he told his followers that if even he deviated from this “recovered truth” we should stop following him. Of course many of us found out that this was all bunk. He only cared about “truth” if it put his person and his work in a good light.(and sometimes his family) When push came to shove, when the going got tough, we found out that to Witness Lee “truth” was a moving target – truth was what he wanted it to be depending on the situation.

This is NOT “the truth” that I was referring to in my post. The truth I was referring to is not a moving target. The earth is round. This is truth. It was truth even when there were people running around saying it was flat. If I jump off of a tall building (with no parachute or other assistance) I will face “the truth” of gravity. The “truth” of gravity will remain truth, even if somebody tells me not to worry and that I will have a happy landing.

If there is a God of the Universe, surely he has the last say in what is and what is not truth. If the Judeo-Christian scriptures are the Word of God, and if Jesus Christ was God’s son, then it makes a lot of sense why, in his last prayer to the Father, he prayed “sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth”. What can “sanctify” us…what can make us holy…what can bring us as close to God as we can be? Truth. And what is truth? “Your word is truth”. So really there is no way to get around it. If you do not want to accept the Bible as God’s word, then all the talk and fuss about religion, Christianity, the Church, Martin Luther, Protestants, authority, etc, etc, is just much ado about nothing. Just sayin…

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Igzy,

This is not only insulting to me, it gives the impression that this forum concerns the trivial.

I was just asking you to be a little more succinct and to summarize better. You don't have to be so sensitive and defensive.

The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is for people who have nothing important to say. It’s for people just talking and not really saying anything.

What I say may be unimportant to others. That doesn’t mean it’s also unimportant to me. If I thought what I said was unimportant, I wouldn’t bother to say it.

This whole rant was unnecessary. I just asked you to try to summarize so I could understand your main point. You didn't have to waste time with chest thumping.

I can talk to non-Christians about any subject. Whether or not they agree with me, they can always understand what I’m saying. But with Christians, I do have a problem with them understanding me. I’m not sure why. I just know the problem isn’t with me.

Right, the problem is everyone else. It couldn't be you.

If you’re expecting me to practice some sort of sham humility, then I’m sorry, but that’s not me.

No, genuine humility will do, if it's not too much to ask.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Do you think being led by the Holy Spirit and following the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is just a theory? According to the New Testament, practicality for those who are in Christ has everything to do with the supernatural, not the natural. To think that the Spirit isn’t up to dealing with any problem that might come up in a gathering of those who are in Christ is a practical denial of the existence of supernatural reality.

I think the Spirit is totally capable. The problem comes is when even reasonable, well-meaning people disagree on what the Spirit is doing and how he is leading.

That's really the whole issue, and why in some circumstances human organization is needed. Someone has to decide for the group. Even if the Spirit is totally leading, you are still going to have disagreement, because people are imperfect. Any decision, Spirit-led or not, is going to come down to one of four kinds of processes:

1. Consensus/Everyone agrees. (The spiritual ideal the LC tried to manufacture.)
2. Majority rule.
3. Decision by leader(s).
4. Every man for himself.

There are really no other options. My point is that even with the Spirit, you are going to have to fall back on one of those processes. When I ask you to be practical, I'm asking you to recognize this fact and make provision for it.

Now, in the Church at large, in a sense #4 is the way things are done. People ultimately decide for themselves about what they are going to do, where they are going to meet, how they are going to serve, and so forth. That's not a bad thing.

But in more organized groups, there has to be a little more cohesiveness. I don't see that the Bible precludes this. This why, I think, the Bible mentions obeying leaders.

Men choosing men to be rulers in that context, is an abuse of a system set in place by God himself.

So Paul appointing elders was an abuse? One man's appointing might be another's recognizing God's appointing.

What's the difference between appointing a leader and expecting everyone to recognize God's appointing?

As far as Christianity is concerned, it being what it is, a creation of human nature, there is a definite necessity for human rulers that must be obeyed by subjects in the gatherings of the various Christian denominations. So in that sense we agree.

Here's the problem. You talk about "Christianity" as if everyone agrees what it is. But where, exactly, does the ekklesia leave off and Christianity begin? You seem to think you know, but some might not agree with your assessment.

Where and how the Spirit is working is mysterious. I got into a habit in the LC of dismissing every Christian effort that I thought was not "genuine ekklesia." But I've come to realize I do not have the wisdom and discernment to decide that for everyone else. Nor do I think God wants me to have it.

I remember some Christians once talking about their "puppet ministry" to children. They toured with a puppet show to teach Christian principles to children. I scoffed inside at their ignorance. "Puppet ministry," I laughed. "God would never truly associate himself with such a thing."

But how did I know? The Spirit may have been using that mightily to touch little kids.

I understand the need for certain discernment. I just think we need to be really careful about what we categorically dismiss. We need to be careful we are just not making the good the enemy of the best (the best in our own minds.)

[Cal]

I understand the whole "leaders should be servants" idea, and agree with it.

But the fact is many times decisions have to be made in an authoritative manner. One example is, How to use money collected from the assembly? How do you decide? Obviously you pray and seek the leading of the Spirit. But at some point someone with authority has to decide. Who is that?

The Spirit-led ideal hopes that everyone will agree. When they don't--and they usually don't--you've reached an impasse. What does the group do then?

That's why you have leaders and you submit to them. You trust that they have the Lord's leading.

But you don't let their leading become a tyranny to you. Like I said, if you feel they are abusing their leadership, you are free to seek an assembly elsewhere. But there is no doubt when it gets down to practical decisions, authoritative leadership is needed.

Throughout history, some groups have tried to be directly led by the Spirit with no authoritative leaders. They never endure. It's a wonderful ideal, but it doesn't work. Sooner or later there is going to be disagreement. And the question is, Who decides what to do then?

The LC talked out of both sides of its mouth on this. Its stance was that the leader's decision was the Spirit's decision and if you fought it you were outside the Lord's will. In other words, they wanted everyone to believe they had total Spirit-leading AND total human leadership because the two were one in the same there. In hindsight we see the error in that thinking. It leads to tyranny.

My personal view on how it should work is that if you join a group you should generally trust and follow the leaders. (If you can't, why did you join in the first place?) This doesn't mean you don't offer suggestions, just that you don't become a trouble-maker. But if you begin to think they've gone off the rails, you are free to leave and seek an assembly elsewhere.

But as I said, if you find that no place works for you, you may want to consider that the problem is with yourself.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christianity needs human authorities. But they are to only be obeyed as far as the individual deems necessary. Having an array of excuses where such authorities are not to be obeyed. Conscience is especially popular. Something as variable as personal opinion.

The LC appealed to human authority and denied that conscience was a good reason to disobey authority. That was blatant madness because the appeal to human authority, like any moral appeal, is ultimately an appeal to conscience. So the LC was essentially saying that sometimes you need to obey your conscience and sometimes you don't, and they would tell you when those times were. That's plainly untenable.

So the LC was not making a moral appeal at all, it was asking the saints to be mindless and senseless. Does that sound like any "economy" God would associate himself with?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's why you have leaders and you submit to them. You trust that they have the Lord's leading.

I think that it is right here that Igzy says what's right about the leadership model he is talking about without really saying it.

If we all are in submission to each other, and we recognize those who are the "gifts given" to us with function to lead, and know that they are in submission to everyone as well, then we should be willing to submit to their leadership. I know that someone will suggest that the leaders cannot be in submission to everyone if there is not consensus, but if they are in submission to God and, in general, to everyone, then the group is in a reasonably proper place. That does not mean that everybody agrees in total. But if they understand the kind of leading that caused James to declare something like "it seemed good to to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ." then they will know that this does not mean that everyone was simply in total agreement, but rather that everyone was jointly in submission.

The ones who stand up to assert their preference over what "seemed good to . . . " are pretty much, by definition, not in submission. And they are the kind that will eventually just go their own way if they continue to be at odds with the direction of the group.

And all of this does not mean that there are not ever reasons to move on without accusation against a group, or to discern that there is something seriously wrong in the dynamic at play in a group. I would suggest that there is every reason to suggest that there is a seriously dysfunctional dynamic in the kind of agreement/submission that goes in the LRC much of the time. And every reason to move on, with or without accusation, from them to something else.

We just spent a week in the NW and the last thing we did before getting on a plane in Seattle to go home was eat lunch with my aunt and uncle. He is a retired Assemblies of God (AOG) preacher. While he definitely has his doctrinal preferences, he understands the difference between core and peripheral. His kids, grandkids, and great grandkids are all over the place in terms of theology at this time and he is OK with it. But he had a few questions concerning the LRC since it was sort of a big thing when my family just up and move out of the AOG in 73. There is too little time to cover everything. But a system the requires "fellowship" to move to another city does not understand submission. That is generally not a matter of submission. But in the LRC, it really is even though they won't say it out loud. They just comment behind the curtains about who is and isn't "marginal."

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that it is right here that Igzy says what's right about the leadership model he is talking about without really saying it.

If we all are in submission to each other, and we recognize those who are the "gifts given" to us with function to lead, and know that they are in submission to everyone as well, then we should be willing to submit to their leadership. I know that someone will suggest that the leaders cannot be in submission to everyone if there is not consensus, but if they are in submission to God and, in general, to everyone, then the group is in a reasonably proper place. That does not mean that everybody agrees in total. But if they understand the kind of leading that caused James to declare something like "it seemed good to to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ." then they will know that this does not mean that everyone was simply in total agreement, but rather that everyone was jointly in submission.

The ones who stand up to assert their preference over what "seemed good to . . . " are pretty much, by definition, not in submission. And they are the kind that will eventually just go their own way if they continue to be at odds with the direction of the group.

And all of this does not mean that there are not ever reasons to move on without accusation against a group, or to discern that there is something seriously wrong in the dynamic at play in a group. I would suggest that there is every reason to suggest that there is a seriously dysfunctional dynamic in the kind of agreement/submission that goes in the LRC much of the time. And every reason to move on, with or without accusation, from them to something else.

We just spent a week in the NW and the last thing we did before getting on a plane in Seattle to go home was eat lunch with my aunt and uncle. He is a retired Assemblies of God (AOG) preacher. While he definitely has his doctrinal preferences, he understands the difference between core and peripheral. His kids, grandkids, and great grandkids are all over the place in terms of theology at this time and he is OK with it. But he had a few questions concerning the LRC since it was sort of a big thing when my family just up and move out of the AOG in 73. There is too little time to cover everything. But a system the requires "fellowship" to move to another city does not understand submission. That is generally not a matter of submission. But in the LRC, it really is even though they won't say it out loud. They just comment behind the curtains about who is and isn't "marginal."

I don't think you are responding to the question. Should members obey or submit to church leaders, in my understanding, must be different from "submit one to another".

The only verse I can see that is applicable is "submit to those that have rule over you". So the question would be in what situations do "church leaders" have rule over you? Again, I don't think this thread is referring to the Bible having rule over you. There is no example of the exercise of NT authority that requires a "church leader" that I am aware of. Anyone can expose and condemn sin, you are not required to first be a "church leader". Therefore, if we exclude the authority of the New Testament, is there any situation in which a "church leader" has authority over you where you need to submit.

Obviously, within the confines of the church building a leader will have the authority to lock doors, open meetings, forbid eating in the sanctuary, etc. But then if the church leader visited your home they would also need to respect your authority.

So I understand this thread to be asking, does a church leader have "special" authority over you in addition to the requirement to "submit one to another". Does being appointed a leader of the congregation you meet with confer special authority to you other than the obvious authority over the building and assets.

If the question is defined as this, then I say No. Being a church "leader" does not give you any special authority over another believer. Church "leaders" have authority over the assets of the church, not over the members.

The Lord Jesus, the New Testament, and the Body of Christ all have authority over the believers. But there is nothing in the New Testament that says any individual has a special authority over other believers. Perhaps the best example is in 1Cor where Paul is talking about the sins of the brother. He says that he will deal with the situation when he arrives according to the authority given to him. However, he urges the church to exercise the exact same authority. So yes, the authority that was given to him was also given to all the believers, it just takes growth and maturity to exercise it.

[OBW]

I understand your thoughts on the subject. And they are not without merit. When you say . . .

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

So I understand this thread to be asking, does a church leader have "special" authority over you in addition to the requirement to "submit one to another". Does being appointed a leader of the congregation you meet with confer special authority to you other than the obvious authority over the building and assets.

. . . I believe that the answer is both "yes" and "no." And that makes it about as clear as mud. I'm convinced that this is one of those areas in which we can take certain snippets like fortune cookies, and while ignoring everything else that may weigh in on the subject and boldly declare "Yes!" And we can take a different selection of fortune-cookie snippets, ignore everything else and boldly declare "No!"

The answer is not in position and declarations. It is not in authority (although there may be some authority granted). It is in submission, responsibility, gifts (and their proper exercise), and recognition of those gifts that we are willing to submit ourselves. We don't submit because someone says we should submit to them. We submit because we recognize their part — their gifting — in the grand scheme of the church.

We don't submit because someone declares themself to be an elder, pastor, MOTA, or whatever. We submit because we have a sense of connectedness. A recognition of someone who actually is an elder. One who is faithfully shepherding the flock.

And while I do not think you will find something saying that you simply submit to them as leaders, you will recognize them for what they are and will respect their word and leading. And even when you do not completely agree, you will find yourself compelled from within to be in submission. Not in a way that is contrary to what you know to be right. But in a way that is part of "be in submission to one another."

Does this make everyone with outward status as a "leader" worthy of submission to? Absolutely not.

And that is why I answered as I did before. I sense this thread as seeking a definitive answer to stand against the teaching of the LRC that makes leaders into a ranking of deputy authorities with which you cannot disagree and cannot refrain from submitting to. That is the thing that needs to be taken down. Not the possibility that we may actually be asked by scripture to submit to everyone in the church, including those we would recognize as leaders.

If you want a simple "yes" or "no" to the question posed by the thread title, then the answer is not simply either. And it is not simply neither.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

UntoHim

Are you defending a Protestant scheme of authority? A scheme of authority that can easily be rebelled against for any personal reason? That does seem to be the consensus here. Christianity needs human authorities. But they are to only be obeyed as far as the individual deems necessary. Having an array of excuses where such authorities are not to be obeyed. Conscience is especially popular. Something as variable as personal opinion.

MacDuff

MacDuff,

I thought I followed your argument. But I don't understand this paragraph. Are you suggesting that a "rebelling against authority in the Church" is a sham, easily justified with any sort of "excuse," or are you saying there should be "authority in the church" in the first place?

Just trying to follow, here. Thanks.

Peter

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand your thoughts on the subject. And they are not without merit. When you say . . .. . . I believe that the answer is both "yes" and "no." And that makes it about as clear as mud. I'm convinced that this is one of those areas in which we can take certain snippets like fortune cookies, and while ignoring everything else that may weigh in on the subject and boldly declare "Yes!" And we can take a different selection of fortune-cookie snippets, ignore everything else and boldly declare "No!"

The answer is not in position and declarations. It is not in authority (although there may be some authority granted). It is in submission, responsibility, gifts (and their proper exercise), and recognition of those gifts that we are willing to submit ourselves. We don't submit because someone says we should submit to them. We submit because we recognize their part — their gifting — in the grand scheme of the church.

We don't submit because someone declares themself to be an elder, pastor, MOTA, or whatever. We submit because we have a sense of connectedness. A recognition of someone who actually is an elder. One who is faithfully shepherding the flock.

And while I do not think you will find something saying that you simply submit to them as leaders, you will recognize them for what they are and will respect their word and leading. And even when you do not completely agree, you will find yourself compelled from within to be in submission. Not in a way that is contrary to what you know to be right. But in a way that is part of "be in submission to one another."

Does this make everyone with outward status as a "leader" worthy of submission to? Absolutely not.

And that is why I answered as I did before. I sense this thread as seeking a definitive answer to stand against the teaching of the LRC that makes leaders into a ranking of deputy authorities with which you cannot disagree and cannot refrain from submitting to. That is the thing that needs to be taken down. Not the possibility that we may actually be asked by scripture to submit to everyone in the church, including those we would recognize as leaders.

If you want a simple "yes" or "no" to the question posed by the thread title, then the answer is not simply either. And it is not simply neither.

Yes, there are verses that make it very clear we should submit one to another, so I don't think that is what the question on the thread is. It is also obvious that we must submit to those who have "rule" over us, so if a church leader was responsible for church assets like the building then of course you must submit to any rules set out for the use of the building. Likewise it is obvious that we must submit to the Holy Spirit, and to the New Testament.

So the way I read this question and thread is "are church leaders given special authority over the members that non leaders are not given?" If that is the question I would say it is clearly no. If that is not the question then what is the question?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, there are verses that make it very clear we should submit one to another, so I don't think that is what the question on the thread is. It is also obvious that we must submit to those who have "rule" over us, so if a church leader was responsible for church assets like the building then of course you must submit to any rules set out for the use of the building. Likewise it is obvious that we must submit to the Holy Spirit, and to the New Testament.

So the way I read this question and thread is "are church leaders given special authority over the members that non leaders are not given?" If that is the question I would say it is clearly no. If that is not the question then what is the question?

Guest, I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group.

But when it comes to the personal lives of members, there is no special authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Guest, I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group.

But when it comes to the personal lives of members, there is no special authority.

The LC system of "the work," most of which was inherited from W. Nee, provides senior workers with much "special authority" over the other workers. This perhaps is the root teaching that justifies their system of abuses. Senior workers, such as Witness Lee when it pertained to global administrations, or Titus Chu when it came to regional operations, have the presumed authority to decide where all other junior workers will serve and how they will serve. In this regard all LC workers forfeit two of the most important areas of their Christian walk. Senior workers thus yield tremendous power over the lives of those under them.

It is human nature to treat others as you have been treated, especially when it is believed that the abuser is your "spiritual father." Senior workers have less control over working elders, but, of course, the lines tend to become blurred over time. With such a system in place, reinforced by distorted notions of spiritual authority, it is easy to understand how beloved brothers become bully brothers, and why we are having this thread discussion in the first place.

Personally, I left the LC after Titus Chu transferred a new worker to our struggling church. He had to leave greater Chicago since their leaders JR and BB were no longer supportive of TC. My church and its elders were publicly instructed to "labor" with this new leader by a TC surrogate from Cleveland who showed up one Sunday morning. In LC-speak, to "labor with the brother" is to submit to his authoritative controls, some of which are received directly from Cleveland.

One particularly memorable exchange with our new maximum leader is telling. I addressed some of his radical changes which were tearing at the fabric of our churchlife. He responded, "sometimes we need to shock the saints." Shock the saints?!? Is that like "shock the monkey?!?" Since the church is now a small fraction of her former self, I wonder if he has successfully electrocuted the church. This is the kind of "shepherding" which too many LC leaders are familiar with.

This particular leader has also taken over the leadership of the church work in Uganda which was initiated in part by Keith Miller of Cincinnati. At one point this brother even made the comment that he is now the "leading brother in Africa." Imagine that! The "leading brother in Africa" is now ruling my former LC. Should I have stayed in my LC to submit and to obey him, since he has become so distinguished?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is human nature to treat others as you have been treated, especially when it is believed that the abuser is your "spiritual father." Senior workers have less control over working elders, but, of course, the lines tend to become blurred over time. With such a system in place, reinforced by distorted notions of spiritual authority, it is easy to understand how beloved brothers become bully brothers, and why we are having this thread discussion in the first place.

And, Ohio, this dominance and abuse all depends on the idea that there should be "one work" and "we are it." So the thought is if you don't obey the senior workers, you have no place on earth to labor for the Lord. Only by believing such a lie would anyone tolerate the abuse the LRC movement dishes out.

This sick lie must be exposed and eradicated. In fact, doing so is probably my top reason for posting here. It's what keeps bringing me back again and again to this board. I just cannot stomach the idea that these guys are circulating this abominable idea and that people are being manipulated by it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This particular leader has also taken over the leadership of the church work in Uganda which was initiated in part by Keith Miller of Cincinnati. At one point this brother even made the comment that he is now the "leading brother in Africa." Imagine that! The "leading brother in Africa" is now ruling my former LC. Should I have stayed in my LC to submit and to obey him, since he has become so distinguished?

Maybe you should organize a parade for him.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I left the LC after Titus Chu transferred a new worker to our struggling church. He had to leave greater Chicago since their leaders JR and BB were no longer supportive of TC. My church and its elders were publicly instructed to "labor" with this new leader by a TC surrogate from Cleveland who showed up one Sunday morning. In LC-speak, to "labor with the brother" is to submit to his authoritative controls, some of which are received directly from Cleveland.

This is what I think the question and thread are about. You see this in denominations as well (Southern Baptist are run by directives from headquarters whereas independent or non denominational decide they don't want to be under that control). There are advantages to a "franchise" but the disadvantage is you have to submit to their rules.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is what I think the question and thread are about. You see this in denominations as well (Southern Baptist are run by directives from headquarters whereas independent or non denominational decide they don't want to be under that control). There are advantages to a "franchise" but the disadvantage is you have to submit to their rules.

Which is why I see churches that cater to a specific ministry as a denomination.
Whereas local churches as in community churches may be open to a variety of ministries.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is what I think the question and thread are about. You see this in denominations as well (Southern Baptist are run by directives from headquarters whereas independent or non denominational decide they don't want to be under that control). There are advantages to a "franchise" but the disadvantage is you have to submit to their rules.

We prided ourselves on the doctrine of the local ground. The ministry of WL constantly boasted of local autonomous elderships without the plague of hierarchies and constantly critiqued the denominations for their controls and divisive ways. In the early days, these features attracted many a brother.

Fast forward from the 60's to the 80's. We had become a far worse system than what we had condemned for decades. Oh the hypocrisy!

Originally Posted by Ohio

We prided ourselves on the doctrine of the local ground. The ministry of WL constantly boasted of local autonomous elderships without the plague of hierarchies and constantly critiqued the denominations for their controls and divisive ways. In the early days, these features attracted many a brother.

Fast forward from the 60's to the 80's. We had become a far worse system than what we had condemned for decades. Oh the hypocrisy!

Ohio, Igzy said "I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group."

So then, the "leaders" of the LRC have chosen that the direction and mission of the group is to coordinate and support the LSM mission. They invite speakers accordingly. I don't think that Igzy sees this as hypocrisy but rather practicality. Also, based on the context he feels they have this authority and if you don't like it leave. Unless I misunderstood.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ohio, Igzy said "I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group."

So then, the "leaders" of the LRC have chosen that the direction and mission of the group is to coordinate and support the LSM mission. They invite speakers accordingly. I don't think that Igzy sees this as hypocrisy but rather practicality. Also, based on the context he feels they have this authority and if you don't like it leave. Unless I misunderstood.

Yes, exactly. There is nothing wrong with having leaders who set the direction of the group.

The mistake the LRC made was to say that they were the only legitimate group and so it was them (and their leaders) or nothing. This led to abusive leadership practices and a bevy of other errors.

Members have the right to leave a group if they feel led to. No group has the authority to insist everyone must join them. No group has the right to declare themselves the unique manifestation of the Church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ohio, Igzy said "I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group."

So then, the "leaders" of the LRC have chosen that the direction and mission of the group is to coordinate and support the LSM mission. They invite speakers accordingly. I don't think that Igzy sees this as hypocrisy but rather practicality. Also, based on the context he feels they have this authority and if you don't like it leave. Unless I misunderstood.

First problem is "who are the leaders?" Officially, the local elders are the leaders. Unofficially, the Blendeds are the leaders. That's hypocrisy.

Denominations don't hide the fact that they oversee their member churches. With that oversight comes numerous inherent controls and consequent loss of local freedom.

You can't have it both ways. Are you "local" churches or are you a denomination called Recovery.

Originally Posted by Ohio

First problem is "who are the leaders?" Officially, the local elders are the leaders. Unofficially, the Blendeds are the leaders. That's hypocrisy.

Denominations don't hide the fact that they oversee their member churches. With that oversight comes numerous inherent controls and consequent loss of local freedom.

You can't have it both ways. Are you "local" churches or are you a denomination called Recovery.

Funny you should say that. This is a true story, I once knew a teenager who said that he wasn't going to be like his father and then 30 years later he was! It was hard for him to realize this and he was in denial for a few years, but eventually he realized that he and his father had a lot more in common than he wanted to admit. No names though, I want to protect his identity.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nonames

Funny you should say that. This is a true story, I once knew a teenager who said that he wasn't going to be like his father and then 30 years later he was! It was hard for him to realize this and he was in denial for a few years, but eventually he realized that he and his father had a lot more in common than he wanted to admit. No names though, I want to protect his identity.

Judging from the moniker you picked, you've given us some idea.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nonames

Funny you should say that. This is a true story, I once knew a teenager who said that he wasn't going to be like his father and then 30 years later he was! It was hard for him to realize this and he was in denial for a few years, but eventually he realized that he and his father had a lot more in common than he wanted to admit. No names though, I want to protect his identity.

This story is repeated every day around the world. Perhaps you were referring to yours truly.

But back to the topic at hand, the Recovery presents another perplexing dilemma, especially during the recent quarantine -- do we obey/submit to our local elders, or do we obey/submit to the regional Bishop Titus Chu who appointed your elders, or do we obey/submit to the Blended leaders of a publishing house 2,500 miles away? This was the very decision that was thrust upon every GLA brother and sister.

Who are the real "leaders" in the Recovery? Is it the local elders, or is it TC in Cleveland, or is it Brother Blended in Anaheim? Anaheim would like to convince us that "all the LC's are the fruit of this ministry." Cleveland says, "not so fast, it was Titus Chu who raised you all up." Hebrews 13.17 says, "obey the ones leading you and submit to them, for they watch over your souls."

I personally reached the point where I knew that the local elders were not "watching over my soul," and had become nothing more than loyal employees of the boss in Cleveland.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So then, the "leaders" of the LRC have chosen that the direction and mission of the group is to coordinate and support the LSM mission. They invite speakers accordingly. I don't think that Igzy sees this as hypocrisy but rather practicality. Also, based on the context he feels they have this authority and if you don't like it leave.

This is I understand the practice of LSM-supporting churches. By this, Local Churches are in name only, but in application LSM churches. Nothing wrong with it. If the ministry publications doesn't appeal to you go somewhere else to meet. If you're a Christian needing something more in generality, go meet with a Community Church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who are the real "leaders" in the Recovery?

I know you meant who really is in charge. But in order to answer who should be in charge you have to be able to define a "Recovery" according to the Bible. But unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "Recovery" is. So upon reflection we should realize we cannot know how such a thing is supposed to be organized.

The LRC plods along like everyone involved should know what a "Recovery" is and what its rules of operation are. But that in fact is not true. No one knows. That's why there is so much confusion. Is it a church? Is it a denomination? Is it a movement? Is it God's unique move on the Earth? Who knows? God never meant for us to be organized as a "Recovery."

But the least they could do is admit it's just a movement--a movement God may have used, but nothing but a movement nonetheless. All the other stuff is self-delusional hype. The sooner you realize that the quicker you'll get to 20-20 clarity and moving on in a healthy way.

The whole "we are not a movement, we are God's move" was a bold thought. But saying it don't make it so, and verifying it is impossible. Therefore it was a stupid thing to say.

[Cal]

I mean to say I don't really care who is in charge of the "Recovery" because the "Recovery" is not a genuine thing in the Lord's eyes. It's a creation of men's imaginations. It's like asking regarding the comic page character Calvin who Spaceman Spiff's commander is.

It doesn't matter who is in charge and it doesn't matter who we think should be in charge.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I know you meant who really is in charge. But in order to answer who should be in charge you have to be able to define a "Recovery" according to the Bible. But unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "Recovery" is. So upon reflection we should realize we cannot know how such a thing is supposed to be organized.

The LRC plods along like everyone involved should know what a "Recovery" is and what its rules of operation are. But that in fact is not true. No one knows. That's why there is so much confusion. Is it a church? Is it a denomination? Is it a movement? Is it God's unique move on the Earth? Who knows? God never meant for us to be organized as a "Recovery."

But the least they could do is admit it's just a movement--a movement God may have used, but nothing but a movement nonetheless. All the other stuff is self-delusional hype. The sooner you realize that the quicker you'll get to 20-20 clarity and moving on in a healthy way.

The whole "we are not a movement, we are God's move" was a bold thought. But saying it don't make it so, and verifying it is impossible. Therefore it was a stupid thing to say.

Stupid thing to say? Perhaps, but I bought into the whole program completely. For many years. I was not alone either. I can still vividly remember Witness Lee forcefully declaring, "my ministry is not another piece of Christian work."

Who are the real "leaders" in the Recovery? I think that is the question every saint was confronted with. When the GLA went back to read Nee's book TNCCL prior to the quarantine, I was shocked to read that Nee's thought that the local elders were the "highest court in the land," and there is "no organization to which the church must submit," since each church is "under the immediate control of Christ the Head, and is directly responsible to Him alone." Nee's entire book, page after page, repudiates LSM on every front. Whether anyone agrees with TNCCL is another matter, but one thing was for sure, what was going on in Anaheim had absolutely nothing to do with what Nee initially taught.

Though Titus Chu recommended that all the GLA leaders read that book, he actually was shooting himself in the foot. Nearly everything in Nee's book also contradicted TC's practices. Like I said, whether anyone agrees with TNCCL is another matter, but after reading Nee's book I was convinced that the "local ground" as I knew it, was just a farce. What we were practicing neither matched Nee's book nor the Bible, and the whole conflict between Anaheim and Cleveland was just a power struggle, and we were simply the spoils of war.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I mean to say I don't really care who is in charge of the "Recovery" because the "Recovery" is not a genuine thing in the Lord's eyes. It's a creation of men's imaginations. It's like asking regarding the comic page character Calvin who Spaceman Spiff's commander is.

It doesn't matter who is in charge and it doesn't matter who we think should be in charge.

Since this thread asks "Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?" in the context of the Recovery, I think it is a valid question to ask "Who are the real leaders of the Recovery?" Who should be obeyed if anyone at all? Whether we are discussing the Recovery or another church setting, how do we understand Hebrews 13.17?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Denominations don't hide the fact that they oversee their member churches. With that oversight comes numerous inherent controls and consequent loss of local freedom.

And with the granting of that reduction in freedom, you have a covering of spiritual wisdom that reaches far beyond the whole that any one assembly can muster. There is always a trade-off.

If I want my assembly to be entirely independent in all ways, I now am at the mercy of our own limited resources to sift through what external input, if any, we think is worthy of consideration, or must create it all ourselves.

And looking at the results of most entirely independent groups, or very small denominations like the LRC, I actually think there are benefits to being part of a larger group that might outweigh the loss of freedom. And in many cases, what is the actual freedom lost? Is it real and meaningful? Or is it marginal and/or a strawman to beat on? (Not saying you, but our thoughts in general, and those of the serious "leave me alone" mindset in particular.)

[OBW]

A tack-on to that last post. I remember George Whittington complaining about how he had to sign-off on a list of a few topics that, as an Assemblies of God preacher, he was required to preach on each year. Was that really so onerous? Or just an annoyance? Is it really bad that someone suggests, or even requires, that we cover some topics regularly?

I might agree that always including "stewardship" could be seen a self-serving. But even that is something that is beneficial to those who hear the message. It is not a topic just because systems want and need money. It is so because Jesus spoke a lot about it.

So what are the limitations that you get from being part of a denomination? Don't just say they exist and complain about them. Let's enumerate them and analyze them. I don't expect that we will like everything. But is there really this huge limitation placed on the assemblies? Or is it a strawman for the next denominational leader to beat on?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

A tack-on to that last post. I remember George Whittington complaining about how he had to sign-off on a list of a few topics that, as an Assemblies of God preacher, he was required to preach on each year. Was that really so onerous? Or just an annoyance? Is it really bad that someone suggests, or even requires, that we cover some topics regularly?

I might agree that always including "stewardship" could be seen a self-serving. But even that is something that is beneficial to those who hear the message. It is not a topic just because systems want and need money. It is so because Jesus spoke a lot about it.

So what are the limitations that you get from being part of a denomination? Don't just say they exist and complain about them. Let's enumerate them and analyze them. I don't expect that we will like everything. But is there really this huge limitation placed on the assemblies? Or is it a strawman for the next denominational leader to beat on?

My denomination just held their annual meeting and decided that gay clergy were an asset to the denomination. The elders say there is nothing they can do about it. Unless I have a problem with gay ministers, is there really a "limitation" placed upon our assembly?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since this thread asks "Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?" in the context of the Recovery, I think it is a valid question to ask "Who are the real leaders of the Recovery?" Who should be obeyed if anyone at all? Whether we are discussing the Recovery or another church setting, how do we understand Hebrews 13.17?

Right. Church leaders. Not Recovery leaders. The Bible doesn't have anything to say about Recovery leaders. I'm not saying saints don't want to know who the leaders are. I'm saying that the question can't really be answered from a Biblical standpoint because the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of Recoveries.

See my point? That's why it's so insidious. Because the thing itself is never really defined accurately. What is it? They purposely keep it vague so they can make up their own rules as they go.

Now, what the recovery actually is is a movement. But again, the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of movements. So you are barking up the wrong tree trying to pin down the rules. A movement is simply a semi-cohesive cooperation of human beings towards a general common goal. A movement and a church aren't the same thing. The Bible has a lot to say about cooperation and submission in a church, not in a movement.

However, Recovery stalwarts would deny it is a movement. So they can't even define what it is correctly! So how could they ever come up with a biblical definition of the leadership structure?!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My denomination just held their annual meeting and decided that gay clergy were an asset to the denomination. The elders say there is nothing they can do about it. Unless I have a problem with gay ministers, is there really a "limitation" placed upon our assembly?

And it is true that at some parts of the spectrum there have been some particularly disturbing things like that one come up.

But even on that one there is a certain level unclarity in what that statement means. In earlier days of the "coming out of the closet" craze, there was at least some discussion of having the desires for the immoral aspects but refraining. If it means that people who have a propensity toward such things but are struggling against it, then I might have qualms, but not be entirely closed to the idea. If it means openly participating, then I would suggest that you have stumbled into Corinthian before Paul set them straight.

And there is something to be said for the kind of "cover" or help that the affiliations of groups like the Baptists, or the even looser affiliation of Bible churches provides without directing in the way that some of the older groups do. And where the denomination simply provides the preacher, there is a different level of control than just those that direct the doctrinal positions.

And we can nit-pick over particular items in particular groups and discover how we think that a broad acceptance of denominations does not deal with specific things in specific cases. But, while you can surely point to where the following statement is not all-encompassing, the groups in which you find the kind of positions and requirements that you mention tend to be at the older end of the spectrum (like Anglican) or there has been or will soon be a separation within the group over such a thing.

Yes, that means one more separation. But if you feel the need to be as strong on open, continuing sin of the kind that Paul spoke to Corinth about, you may have to consider the separation necessary for the purity of the assembly. If there are theological problems, including the morals reflected in the theology, we were never asked to simply go with the flow. And if that means that Corinth had, as a whole, ignored Paul, then I have a hard time thinking that Paul would have chastised any who separated from that and assembled together in exclusion of the sinful brother. But not in exclusion of those in the other assembly that simply did not exclude him.

It's not as simple as we like to think. As an assembly in a group that can do as you have suggested (and since I have no point of reference, I cannot say that they are allowing open homosexual lifestyle, or just those who will remain single but still struggle with the desires) should others who would disagree simply separate in all ways from you (generically)? Should they shun the group? How about the local assembly within that group? If there is no such pastor locally? If there is? With or without a denominational wrapper, are they something worse than any of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3? Not saying that I would make them my regular assembly of choice, but how do we deal with that?

Is the kind of rhetoric that we employ in discussing the issue evidence of a lack of loving neighbor as self? Are we convinced that it is important enough to "fight" about rather than take it down at least one level to debate and convince? Or down another to discuss?

Note that I am not suggesting agreement with the position of this denomination. But how we deal with it is important. It might be that the better choice of action is to remove to a different group. But maybe not. It also might be that the "position" of the group is more of a misguided olive branch to entice certain among the unsaved to take the stoppers out of their ears, and not so much a statement that they have a bunch of gay pastors ready to be deployed. I do say misguided. There are better ways to be loving to sinners of any kind than making their sin seem to have been removed from the list of sins.

OK. You have pointed to something distasteful. It is not trivial. But how prevalent is this one? And is that it? I'm sure it is not. I didn't throw out the challenge expecting to hear crickets. And I have not argued this one away. Still, even while this position remains in effect, is your local assembly benefited by the group. And does this potential really affect you? And if so, why do you remain? Is it because you are weighing the totality of factors and not just one?

Or are we going to get out tar and feathers for every group with a flaw. (I can see it now, every denomination and independent assembly will soon be seen covered with black tar and chicken feathers. Wouldn't that be an eye opener. Get rid of the denominational label and you still get dinged.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. Church leaders. Not Recovery leaders. The Bible doesn't have anything to say about Recovery leaders. I'm not saying saints don't want to know who the leaders are. I'm saying that the question can't really be answered from a Biblical standpoint because the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of Recoveries.

See my point? That's why it's so insidious. Because the thing itself is never really defined accurately. What is it? They purposely keep it vague so they can make up their own rules as they go.

I'm not understanding why you are differentiating Recovery leaders from so-called "church" leaders on this thread. If the differences are so "insidious," then we should discuss it. And who are these "church" leaders? Are you referring to the parish priest where I grew up? Perhaps the guy running for POTUS? They are both considered "church" leaders. Of course, the Bible says nothing about "Recovery" leaders, but neither does it mention "Baptist" leaders either.

I'm not trying to be funny here. The thread title mentions "Church Leaders" on a LC forum, and I thought that's what was being discussed. Perhaps a few lurkers out there have had the same issues that I have faced.

I have said repeatedly that we should submit and obey church leaders based on Hebrew 13.17. Paul's instruction was pretty straightforward. After 30 years in the Recovery, I reached the point where I could not, in all good conscience, continue submitting to these leaders. I faced serious issues on a local, regional, and national level.

I was hoping for healthy feedback, that's all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not understanding why you are differentiating Recovery leaders from so-called "church" leaders on this thread. If the differences are so "insidious," then we should discuss it. And who are these "church" leaders? Are you referring to the parish priest where I grew up? Perhaps the guy running for POTUS? They are both considered "church" leaders. Of course, the Bible says nothing about "Recovery" leaders, but neither does it mention "Baptist" leaders either.

I'm not trying to be funny here. The thread title mentions "Church Leaders" on a LC forum, and I thought that's what was being discussed. Perhaps a few lurkers out there have had the same issues that I have faced.

I have said repeatedly that we should submit and obey church leaders based on Hebrew 13.17. Paul's instruction was pretty straightforward. After 30 years in the Recovery, I reached the point where I could not, in all good conscience, continue submitting to these leaders. I faced serious issues on a local, regional, and national level.

I was hoping for healthy feedback, that's all.

I think you are completely misunderstanding my point.

I am not discouraging you from discussing it. Go ahead. My point was NOT that we shouldn't discuss it. My point was that the Recovery is not a church. It's a movement. So the rules of church leadership may or may not apply. And since the Bible doesn't speak to the organization of movements, any search for some kind of defining biblical word on how the leadership of that movement should lay will be futile.

It's not that I think movements are invalid. It's that the Bible does not speak to their organization. That's why I said "I don't care." I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be discussed. Just that I don't think it can be defined biblically.

I've watched these discussions go round and round before. Everyone's trying to figure out how "the Recovery" should have been organized. My point is to take a step back and ask, "Whoever said it was ever supposed to have been organized in the first place?"

We can search the Bible all we want. We are not going to find commandments having to do with movement leadership. The best we can do is make some big assumptions. But that's not what the Recovery believes. They seem to think that the lines of authority in their movement should be biblically definable. My point is they can't know because the Church is not supposed to be organized as a movement in the first place.

[Cal]

On the other hand, someone might argue that the "Recovery" is too cohesive to be a movement, and so would be more properly defined as a denomination. That would be a legitimate argument.

So what are the biblical mandates about how denominations should be organized? The answer, again, is there aren't any. The Bible doesn't speak about the organization of denominations. So, again as with movements, discussion of how the "Recovery" should be properly and biblically organized as a denomination is futile. It's like asking how a cat should be trained to be a dog.

The Bible shows autonomous churches in fellowship and receiving traveling ministers as they see fit. It shows those with the gifts of leadership leading and others submitting to them, while the leaders also submit in a general way and serve rather than lord. In that general organization, churches are to carry out the Lord's commission of outreach and building up. It's pretty simple really.

Any attempt to organize churches as movements or denominations is on its own. The Bible doesn't speak specifically to how those things should be carried out, or even if they should.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

On the other hand, someone might argue that the "Recovery" is too cohesive to be a movement, and so would be more properly defined as a denomination. That would be a legitimate argument.

So what are the biblical mandates about how denominations should be organized? The answer, again, is there aren't any. The Bible doesn't speak about the organization of denominations. So, again as with movements, discussion of how the "Recovery" should be properly and biblically organized as a denomination is futile. It's like asking how a cat should be trained to be a dog.

The Bible shows autonomous churches in fellowship and receiving traveling ministers as they see fit. It shows those with the gifts of leadership leading and others submitting to them, while the leaders also submit in a general way and serve rather than lord. In that general organization, churches are to carry out the Lord's commission of outreach and building up. It's pretty simple really.

Any attempt to organize churches as movements or denominations is on its own. The Bible doesn't speak specifically to how those things should be carried out, or even if they should.

I'm still trying to ascertain the relevance of your recent points to this thread, but I'll go along with you.

I'm still struggling with the church autonomy/denomination debate because the N.T. also presents the same struggle, i.e. the influences of a headquarters in Jerusalem attempting to mandate faith and practices upon all churches. Except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the central and original church located there, truth-wise the verdict is still out. The N.T. has strong tendencies towards autonomy, and it has strong tendencies towards "federation." (I just introduced an alternate word for denomination, rather than saying "oneness" or "one body," knowing that neither of those words is in the N.T.)

If both tendencies were not seen in scripture, then we would not be having this discussion. W. Nee made his attempts at a workable solution, but it backfired because his para-church structure called "the work" eventually destroyed any semblance of church autonomy. I believe the Lord has provided a better solution in the past quarter century with the introduction of community churches. I happen to know one nearby church, generally under the auspices of Presbyterian Church of America denomination, which has decided to become So-n-so Community Church.

Once we depart from the stringent demands of "the one true church," which in church history has always led us aground, then I suppose that both federations of churches under a central leadership (Jerusalem model) as OBW prefers, and autonomous churches as you prefer (Antioch model) each have benefits, and both will have necessary leaders, and members will be instructed to submit/obey based on Hebrews 13.17.

So we come full circle back to the thread at hand.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, what the recovery actually is is a movement. But again, the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of movements. So you are barking up the wrong tree trying to pin down the rules. A movement is simply a semi-cohesive cooperation of human beings towards a general common goal. A movement and a church aren't the same thing. The Bible has a lot to say about cooperation and submission in a church, not in a movement.

However, Recovery stalwarts would deny it is a movement. So they can't even define what it is correctly! So how could they ever come up with a biblical definition of the leadership structure?!

Here's a counterpoint Igzy.
SOme would say the recovery is not a movement, but at the minimum organically part of the Body of Christ.
I suppose the word I'd expect to hear if you're a Christian or an assembly of Christian who view themselves as part of the Body of Christ, you would need to submit locally to the leaders who are already meeting practically on the proper ground.
What does this say about such places such as Toronto, Chicago, Moses Lake, etc where you choose not to meet is not about locality, but about ministry? In a round-a-bout way agreeing with Igzy, it is the emphasis of a ministry where the recovery becomes a movement.

[OBW]

Just an aside. No need to respond.

I have said repeatedly that we should submit and obey church leaders based on Hebrew 13.17. Paul's instruction was pretty straightforward.

I note that the discussion about who wrote Hebrews is always out there. And there are differing opinions. There are clues that it could be Paul. And yet, according to some scholars, there are things that tend to suggest almost anyone but Paul. I've decided to return to "the writer(s) of Hebrews" rather than get people in a tizzy over saying "Paul" or some other specific name.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm still trying to ascertain the relevance of your recent points to this thread, but I'll go along with you.

I'm still struggling with the church autonomy/denomination debate because the N.T. also presents the same struggle, i.e. the influences of a headquarters in Jerusalem attempting to mandate faith and practices upon all churches. Except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the central and original church located there, truth-wise the verdict is still out. The N.T. has strong tendencies towards autonomy, and it has strong tendencies towards "federation." (I just introduced an alternate word for denomination, rather than saying "oneness" or "one body," knowing that neither of those words is in the N.T.)

If both tendencies were not seen in scripture, then we would not be having this discussion. W. Nee made his attempts at a workable solution, but it backfired because his para-church structure called "the work" eventually destroyed any semblance of church autonomy. I believe the Lord has provided a better solution in the past quarter century with the introduction of community churches. I happen to know one nearby church, generally under the auspices of Presbyterian Church of America denomination, which has decided to become So-n-so Community Church.

Once we depart from the stringent demands of "the one true church," which in church history has always led us aground, then I suppose that both federations of churches under a central leadership (Jerusalem model) as OBW prefers, and autonomous churches as you prefer (Antioch model) each have benefits, and both will have necessary leaders, and members will be instructed to submit/obey based on Hebrews 13.17.

So we come full circle back to the thread at hand.

The NT shows the model of the entire Church on earth being led by the Apostles who were hand-selected by Jesus.

It does not show the model of a subset of the church (a movement) being led as if it were the entire church on the Earth by some Johnny-come-latelys who want to be looked upon as the equivalent of the early Apostles.

I for one am satisfied that the level of authority that extra-local ministers had in the NT was due to the fact that they were special Apostles with the same authority as the word of God, and that those types of Apostles don't exist anymore.

Most Christians are satisfied with this. It's only those of us who have been steeped in the LRC stew of extra-local workers having so much authority who seem to have issues.

I don't see how one can determine which workers to recognize such authority in anyway. The BBs or Titus? Who decides? It's just a prescription for a mess. Even the NT notes all kinds of people claiming to be apostles, but the real ones knew who they were and were vindicated by history.

How much more now will you have people claiming apostleship (and people believing their claims) if you lower the standard to include every Johnny-come-lately with a teaching and leadership gift. What history is vindicating Nee or Lee? I don't see it. They were Christian teachers and leaders. But Apostles with the rank to order churches around? I don't see it. I don't see anyone since the first century with that kind of authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just an aside. No need to respond. I note that the discussion about who wrote Hebrews is always out there. And there are differing opinions. There are clues that it could be Paul. And yet, according to some scholars, there are things that tend to suggest almost anyone but Paul. I've decided to return to "the writer(s) of Hebrews" rather than get people in a tizzy over saying "Paul" or some other specific name.

Oh yeah, I suppose I should be "more correct" about the authorship.

But, otoh, I thought that dilemma of Hebrews' authorship had a simple solution which apparently all the "scholars" had missed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

What does this say about such places such as Toronto, Chicago, Moses Lake, etc where you choose not to meet is not about locality, but about ministry? In a round-a-bout way agreeing with Igzy, it is the emphasis of a ministry where the recovery becomes a movement.

And at the same time, that there is a group-wide issue about that ministry could also be viewed as the evidence that, for those whose determination is to follow it, you have a denomination that is willing to take the (marginally) normal leadership of its headquarters. They even decide whether to attend this group in Toronto or that group based on whether you are willing to follow the lead set forth by those at the LSM.

And while it is often argued that the LSM is "just a ministry," it actually is the thing around which the various leaders from disparate locations who call themselves "blended brothers" (or something like that) congregate. Leaders who may be, in part, local elders in various places, are jointly exercising authority over the way local assemblies operate through their joint efforts that center on the LSM. In fact, it would appear that, as far as most LRC members are concerned, the BBs operate through the LSM. And the BBs/LSM are the source of the edicts to set aside certain meetings to do what the LSM commands rather than just having another meeting. The LSM will get involved to wrestle local meeting halls aways from any who would deny even a very few the right to use the hall in the way the LSM wants rather than in some other way.

I see waddling and hear quacking. By golly!! It's a duck!!

They are a denomination. They may also be a movement. (Or they mare prefer the moniker "conversation.") But they have joined the ranks of the denominations. Might have been true by the end of the 70s, if not much earlier. There just wasn't as much evidence available. (And we were too gullible at the time to accept Lee's declaration that we were not despite any evidence to the contrary.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, otoh, I thought that dilemma of Hebrews' authorship had a simple solution which apparently all the "scholars" had missed.

If there is such a thing, I don't remember it now. Can you clue me into what I have forgotten after 25 years?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Here's a counterpoint Igzy.
SOme would say the recovery is not a movement, but at the minimum organically part of the Body of Christ.
I suppose the word I'd expect to hear if you're a Christian or an assembly of Christian who view themselves as part of the Body of Christ, you would need to submit locally to the leaders who are already meeting practically on the proper ground.

Every Christian group is a part of the Body of Christ. That goes without saying. The recovery is also a movement, as well as probably a denomination.

Again, being a movement is not necessarily a bad thing. God uses movements.

The LRC tried to make the claim that everything about them was heavenly. Everyone else was a movement, but they were God's move. See that's just wishful thinking. You don't make yourself not a movement by saying you aren't one. You do it by not taking on the characteristics of one.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once we depart from the stringent demands of "the one true church," which in church history has always led us aground, then I suppose that both federations of churches under a central leadership (Jerusalem model) as OBW prefers, and autonomous churches as you prefer (Antioch model) each have benefits, and both will have necessary leaders, and members will be instructed to submit/obey based on Hebrews 13.17.

I think that this probably misrepresents both positions. I know it does mine.

(And I'm not trying to pick on you for not getting where I am coming from.)

I have for many years attend a church that is independent. Yet it has affiliations that are not controlling. No one from afar can say "get in line." And yet there are many that still do just that. They can't come take our affiliation away. Or remove the pastor or elders and install alternates. But they are heard and considered. And those of similar leanings are listened to more strongly than others.

You may not recall that someone pointed out that Irving Bible Church was the center of national attention a few years ago when they declared openly that they had undertaken a roughly 18-month study in which they ultimately said (in effect) "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that we not disallow women to 'preach' in our assembly." It wasn't that much of an outburst when they made the declaration (late Spring or early Summer of 2009, I believe) but it went ballistic when it was announced that a certain woman would be the first to actually take the pulpit (there isn't actually a pulpit) that August or September. There were even some threats on her life. (Hard to believe within the totality of the body of believers.)

A couple of nationally-known pastors in the area spoke out against it. One called it a "slippery slope." (Oh no!! The dreaded slippery slope argument!)

And after all of that, none of them consider our assembly heretical. Our pastor has spoken in some of those other churches. And in at least one case, while he was doing that, the Women's pastor from the other church (that won't allow a woman to speak from their "pulpit") was speaking at ours. Without repercussion.

Once upon a time, this was the way it went among churches. They spoke out about what they believed and disagreed about. Then went back to "everyone is OK."

I know that the edict about a potentially gay preacher might be hard to swallow — even for me. No matter how you may have ready my comments on that topic, I was never simply giving it the thumbs up. But despite the choices I might determine that I have to make concerning continued participation in that group, especially if the edict actually results in an openly gay lifestyle preacher being in the assembly I attend, I'm not sure that even that is a basis for generally dismissing denominations as simply a burden on freedom. (And I don't recall that you ever said that.)

Surely we will be faced with issues that range from loss of first love, to allowing "that woman, Jezebel to . . ." whatever, and to heady discussions about unpracticed theology (Laodicea). Even without denominations.

I personally like the Bible church model. There is a commonality but no literal connection. Not even as connected as the Baptists. But I still see the benefits of affiliation at some level. Allowing the joint scholarship of a group like Dallas Theological Seminary (or other similar school) to be a lightening rod around which most of my theology centers gives me some certainty and confidence that it is being thought out by better minds than just mine. (Lord help us if it is just mine. And despite the kind of positions I seem to take here, I am very serious about this. I don't think that I have thought it all through. I am just trying to diligently think through what I have in front of me so far. And after I raise all my questions, I will probably defer to the "experts." At some level, that is beginning to include my own son.)

That doesn't mean that I simply agree with everything. DTS doesn't agree with the Irving Bible Church position on women preaching. But I think I do. But I'm OK with those who disagree. And for about a year now, I have been attending a place that would probably erupt like a volcano if the idea was even thrown out as a possibility. Their loss (IMHO). And mine for the time being. I didn't move to get away from IBC. Just to see my son, daughter-in-law, and now grandson a little more often. (That would be frowned upon in the LRC.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

If there is such a thing, I don't remember it now. Can you clue me into what I have forgotten after 25 years?

IIRC, the arguments centered on these: can't be Paul because the Greek writing was too different from his, and too "perfect," from his other writings; can't not be Paul because no other N.T. writer was qualified to write it. Schaaf notes that the book has Paul's "genius and influence."

The Greek writing of the book of Hebrews was very similar to Luke's writing, but he could never have authored it. Other speculations concerning Barnabas, Apollos, Silvanus, Timothy, are easily dismissed. The one scenario that can not be dismissed is Paul providing the rough draft and Luke writing the final draft.

But, of course, the writer's burden was that "the Spirit was speaking."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that this probably misrepresents both positions. I know it does mine.
(And I'm not trying to pick on you for not getting where I am coming from.)

OBW, I knew in advance that characterizing you in my post would be protested. Oh well.

That gay preacher thing was a hypothetical to unnerve your apparent endorsement of denominations. Sorry.

The Bible church model sounds interesting. Is that the same as Bible Baptist?

I'm all for connecting with family in churches. With all their talk about "oneness," LRC has done its fair share to divide even families and marriages.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible church model sounds interesting. Is that the same as Bible Baptist?

I think all it takes to declare yourself a Bible church is to do it. Now if you are really off from the primarily calvinist, dispensational, pre-trib rapture, and evangelical, bent; and if your sermons are not close enough to being seminary-lecture quality (being a little facetious on that point), then you might be laughed at for trying to suggest that you are really the same thing. But no one owns the name. There is no association to apply to.

Strong enough affiliation that they are never entirely independent. But the dependence is entirely by choice. A couple of steps less than Baptists in general. I really don't know about Bible Baptists. I would have figured them as another in the general genre of Baptists.

I have a cousin that is a deacon or elder (not sure which) in what is common referred to as a "hard shell Baptist" church. They are really something different. Closed communion. Very hard stands on several points we would call peripheral. Very few members. Makes some home meetings seem large. Yet they have a strong affiliation within their region with other similarly-named groups. Other regions are similar, but with less affiliation between the groups than between the assemblies within any one group.

Bible churches clearly differ among themselves. All open communion (probably). But the level of holding to doctrines differs. IBC has clear positions that are almost irrelevant when it comes to participating, or (at some level) even becoming a member. They sure don't require you to toe their line to preach (at least as a guest). We had a very prominent preacher/theologian from Chicago here several years ago. I do not know his actual affiliation, but his theology is Arminian. This stands in contrast to the typical Calvinist position of Bible churches in general. Methodists and Assemblies of God follow an Arminian teaching (among others). (I'm not sure but what it is a mix of the two anyway.) (And when you think Arminian, think Troy Brooks. Not crazed like him, but still of that leaning.) He not only spoke, he openly made reference to the difference in opinion on the issue. The point was that many are seeing the differences as of little real consequence. And while there were probably some in attendance that did not agree with that thought, they were a small minority.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all their talk about "oneness," LRC has done its fair share to divide even families and marriages.

What's fair about it?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, of course, the writer's burden was that "the Spirit was speaking."

And for some, that means that every word with all of its nuances is extremely important while others view the passage as a thought, or narrative, with slack in wording allowable.

And since there is a huge difference in the vocabulary and style of the different writers, you either have to assume that God just allows his word to be diminished, or "bumpkinized" if it is, say, Peter writing. Then gives the really important stuff to Paul.

Or maybe it is the sentence, paragraph, or even letter that says obvious things as a whole rather than mining through each word with a detailed lexicon trying to find anything you can force into it.

Probably somewhere in between. Surely there are words and phrases that are important in themselves. But even then, they are not (or seldom) important for reversing or seriously altering meaning, but typically for enhancing.

I like the end of the sentence I quoted. Maybe the words are not always simply thoughts from God flowing through "my" limited vocabulary. Maybe, just maybe, God can actually lead someone — as in a vision concerning lampstands, beasts, seals, and bowls — to write something profoundly beyond their experience. Or he spoke through someone who we just don't see as being one of the expected writers. Yet the church still concluded that it was substantial, coherent within the whole of scripture, and meaningful and/or useful to the church so they kept it in "the book."

And the arguments that note Paul always identified himself can be overcome by the fact that its direction to the "Hebrews" might not be as acceptable to them if they knew the source.

In any case, I find the writer unimportant, especially since his identification was not considered important when written. Unless we have been seriously mistaken, the writer is clearly God. Whose hand was involved is of lesser importance.

[MacDuff]

Peter Debelak

Originally Posted by MacDuff
UntoHim

Are you defending a Protestant scheme of authority? A scheme of authority that can easily be rebelled against for any personal reason? That does seem to be the consensus here. Christianity needs human authorities. But they are to only be obeyed as far as the individual deems necessary. Having an array of excuses where such authorities are not to be obeyed. Conscience is especially popular. Something as variable as personal opinion.

MacDuff
By Peter

I thought I followed your argument. But I don't understand this paragraph. Are you suggesting that a "rebelling against authority in the Church" is a sham, easily justified with any sort of "excuse," or are you saying there should be "authority in the church" in the first place?

In my view, there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things.

In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ.

Since this thread is called “Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders”, it is talking about Christianity and the Churches of Christianity, the human institutions of Christianity. I really should have just agreed that in the Churches of Christianity, there is a definite necessity for human rulers. That human rulers in Christianity are as apropos as in any other human institutional endeavor or human gatherings. Wherein the supernatural does NOT have a part in any practical sense where the rubber meets the road.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

UntoHim

Thanks for hangin around for a while, I knew you had it in ya (glutton for punishment….anybody who stuck around the Local Church for any length of time has a little of that in him). Speaking of the Local Church, no wonder you ended up blowing out of there…you seem to be quite the deep thinker, philosopher, anthropologist, church historian….gee did I miss anything yet? Anyway, if you’re any one of these, well we all know that that dog won’t hunt around the parts of the Local Church.

Here’s the thing. Now that I understand where this forum is coming from, I really can’t identify with the gist of this forum because I suffered zero abuse at the hands of the Recovery. They talk about things that happened before I came and after I left. And I see no reason to discuss their problems with the Recovery that I have no practical experience of. And my view of reality is obviously not the same as their views. I’m not really much for pontification, as some would surmise. This place feels about as foreign to me as a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to a cradle Catholic. Can you give me a good reason to hang around?

Nothing personal to anyone here. No one here has abused me in any way. In fact for the most part they’ve been quite civil. Which shows more character than what I would have initially expected.

I’m not a Christian. While I still have some hope, and maybe a little faith, that what the Bible says is true, I have absolutely zero faith in Christianity. To most Christians and those who leave it, the Bible and Christianity are basically synonymous. And Christians would say that what the Bible says to me, when it differs from their own view, or when it differs from some predetermined understanding of a Historic Christian Faith or Biblical Christian Faith, is my own interpretation. Meaning my own opinion. Which if true, that the only way I can understand the Bible is through my own imagination, it would mean that I should have absolutely zero faith in the Bible as well, or at least my own understanding of it.

Which means what? That I should just go ahead and be an Atheist? Or that I should just put my trust in a particular denomination of Christianity?

I’m not given to deep thinking, philosophizing, or any of the other things you mentioned. I have no formal “Christian” education. My education has been in a totally natural endeavor. I just see things in a different light than Christians do. And have more faith that the supernatural, if it indeed exists, should be real and practical where the rubber meets the road than most Christians think it is. Ergo, the difference in thinking between the common consensus and I where human rulers related to believers are concerned. We are agreed that non-believers need human rulers to guide them. Where we disagree is in thinking that the same thing applies to believers. A practical denial of the reality of the supernatural relating to Christianity in my view.

Sorry if you got the impression that my little quip to you was focusing in any way around Martin Luther, and your points about him are well taken, but I think you dodged my point about the “truth”. “The truth will triumph through us”…that was the catchphrase.

No need to dodge something that went that far over my head.

More on objective truth below.

Don’t know if you remember or not, but Witness Lee was real big on emphasizing that he was bringing “recovered truth” to us poor, poor Christians in America. In fact, more than once, he told his followers that if even he deviated from this “recovered truth” we should stop following him. Of course many of us found out that this was all bunk. He only cared about “truth” if it put his person and his work in a good light.(and sometimes his family) When push came to shove, when the going got tough, we found out that to Witness Lee “truth” was a moving target – truth was what he wanted it to be depending on the situation.

My question would be “recovered truth” in relation to what? Lee acknowledged his relationship to Protestantism. Protestantism has all kinds of “recovered truth”. One such truth is called reformation truth. The ideas of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides are considered recovered truth by Protestants who follow the thinking of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Seems to me, in typical Protestant fashion, Lee needed a banner term and “Recovery” became that term. Like “Restoration” became the banner term for an earlier idea of Reversionism.

I remember that in what little I actually read and heard of Lee’s messages in the early 70’s, he had a tendency of saying one thing then saying something else later on. That didn’t set well with me. So I really didn’t pay much mind to what he said. Not knowing he was the ruling elder, I didn’t think I had to. And as I recall, there was a denial he was some kind of Recovery Messiah. The amalgamation of the Ministry and the churches wasn’t apparent in Elden Hall. At least not to me. It seemed to me that down in the trenches we were experiencing something much simpler, more real, and more practical in Elden Hall than anything Lee was talking about. But I was young and dumb at the time. I may have only experienced exactly what they wanted me to experience. And looking back, there was a lot of emotionalism that was thought to be an expression of Spirit in Elden Hall.

I do remember Lee referring to “poor Christianity”. And to Catholicism and her Protestant daughters. I also remember that Lee was given to a lot of allegorical interpretations that meant nothing to me. I was only interested in allegory presented in the Bible. Lee’s interpretive allegorization went way beyond the Bible.

I’ve been opposed to the practice of Biblical interpretation for some time. One can interpret the Bible to say or not to say just about anything. And Christians tend to take full advantage of the practice. A consequence of denominational thinking. It’s as if Christians don’t really want to know what the Biblical writers themselves have said. So they interpret the Bible to say something more to their liking. And humanity being a study in diversity, what the Bible says to Christians tends to be diverse.

This is NOT “the truth” that I was referring to in my post. The truth I was referring to is not a moving target. The earth is round. This is truth. It was truth even when there were people running around saying it was flat. If I jump off of a tall building (with no parachute or other assistance) I will face “the truth” of gravity. The “truth” of gravity will remain truth, even if somebody tells me not to worry and that I will have a happy landing.

I’m with you there. If only more Christians would relate that to their understanding of the Bible. The Bible isn’t 1+1+1+1 + interpretation = a well thought out doctrine of objective truth. It just = 4 + an interpretation. And then it’s the interpretation that’s believed, not the Bible.

More to follow.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

UntoHim

If there is a God of the Universe, surely he has the last say in what is and what is not truth. If the Judeo-Christian scriptures are the Word of God, and if Jesus Christ was God’s son, then it makes a lot of sense why, in his last prayer to the Father, he prayed “sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth”. What can “sanctify” us…what can make us holy…what can bring us as close to God as we can be? Truth. And what is truth? “Your word is truth”. So really there is no way to get around it. If you do not want to accept the Bible as God’s word, then all the talk and fuss about religion, Christianity, the Church, Martin Luther, Protestants, authority, etc, etc, is just much ado about nothing. Just sayin…

In my view, the Bible is nothing apart from the purpose for which it was created. It was NOT created to be a tool of men so that they can create their own interpretive fantasies. And Christianity is full of teachings of an imaginary nature. Surely even Christians can see that not all of this fantasizing has hit upon objective truth.

I think you’ve guessed I’m in no way a Protestant (nor Orthodox/Catholic). I don’t believe in the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. The Bible is nothing in and of itself. Apart from the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, the Bible is just another compilation of writings written by men. And when Christians interpret the Bible, that’s exactly how they’re treating the Bible. As if it’s only the writings of men. I don’t believe that of the Bible. Not yet.

The purpose of the Bible is to be a tool of Jesus Christ, not an interpretive tool of man. Jesus Christ uses the Bible to teach those who are his own, those who are in Christ. Through the Holy Spirit. Very much a supernatural experience. Just as is walking by and being led by the Holy Spirit. When Jesus teaches, if one interprets what they’ve been taught, the benefit of the teaching is lost. Simply because the teaching has been replaced by the interpretation. What is real has been replaced by the imaginary.

Regarding objective truth, I don’t really like to discuss the matter with Christians, especially Protestant Christians. First, because so many variations of objective truth exists in Christianity. And second, because I believe that for the one who is in Christ, a person is objective truth, not a writing or an idea. And Jesus Christ is that person, not a human ruler of a particular Church. And I believe there is only one way to experience that person. Through the Holy Spirit who indwells all who are in Christ. Through walking according to the Holy Spirit who indwells.

The only reason I doubt what I believe is not because of Atheists. I’ve never found Atheist arguments persuasive. Christian arguments is another matter. But not in the way they intend. Christianity as it exists today is the most persuasive argument for the non-existence of the supernatural. You needn’t say it. I realize that’s something that Christians can’t acknowledge.

When Protestants look at “sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth”, they see the Bible. When Catholics look at that phrase, they see “the Church”. When an Eastern Orthodox looks at that phrase, they see Tradition. When I look at that phrase, I see Jesus Christ, and what he is saying through the Holy Spirit. John in Revelation makes it clear that what Jesus is saying and what the Spirit is saying is one and the same.

Hearing what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia – is far different from understanding the Bible through the lens of some method of interpretation. The practice of Biblical interpretation is bad enough. It replaces objective truth with something out of the imagination. But when that practice involves the allegorization of the Bible, as with Witness Lee, a whole mythology is created. Then the most that can be said is that most myths have some basis in truth. Either way, the practice, which is of the mind alone, not having a thing to do with the Spirit as some Christians seem to think (showing more than one spirit is involved), leaves the supernatural behind for something natural. And under those circumstances, human rulers are indeed necessary. For a human endeavor is all it is.

And here is where I have to question the Christians. Do they believe in the existence of God? Do they believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected and is alive today? Do they believe the Holy Spirit is real and indwelling them today? Most Christians would answer without a doubt in the affirmative. While simultaneously, their thoughts and actions would answer in the negative. Christians considering human authority necessary to those who are in Christ is just one example of not believing in the supernatural where the rubber meets the road. Their practice of Biblical interpretation is another. Such are a practical denial of supernatural reality in their lives. And that is their witness to the world. The world doesn’t even have to interpret anything so as to disagree with Christians. They can see what is really real to Christians for themselves.

I attend a Christian denominational Church because it’s the only thing available in my area. And then only because I believe that I’ve been taught by Jesus Christ that the reality that is in Christ is a community endeavor and only individual in that context. But I’m not affiliated with any Christian denominational Church in any formal sense. Other than having been born into one.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Igzy

By Igzy
Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.

by MacDuff
This is not only insulting to me, it gives the impression that this forum concerns the trivial.

By Igzy
I was just asking you to be a little more succinct and to summarize better. You don't have to be so sensitive and defensive.

Sorry that’s all you can see in my statement. That’s what happens when I try to be succinct.

It’s insulting to me because it gives the impression you think the content of my posts is composed of mere verbosity. It gives the impression of triviality relating to this forum because short posts are usually trivial and about trivial things. Containing little content of worth when they do contain something not so trivial. I can engage in trivial pursuits out here in real life. I don’t need a forum for that.

I think the Spirit is totally capable. The problem comes is when even reasonable, well-meaning people disagree on what the Spirit is doing and how he is leading.
That's really the whole issue, and why in some circumstances human organization is needed.

Human organization is necessary in human endeavors. What one has to decide is whether the community in question is simply a human endeavor or something else, something more. The necessity for human rule shows the community is merely a human endeavor. No different than any other human endeavor.

Here's the problem. You talk about "Christianity" as if everyone agrees what it is. But where, exactly, does the ekklesia leave off and Christianity begin? You seem to think you know, but some might not agree with your assessment.

No Christian agrees with my assessment of Christianity so far as I know. You seem to think that should bother me. Christians can’t even agree among themselves as to the nature of Christianity as you suggested. Nor the reality that goes with it. Except in a denominational sense. Nothing to imply my view of Christianity is the one that is wrong.

In answer to your question, in my view the ekklesia doesn’t leave off where Christianity begins. The two have existed side by side for two millennia and are two different things. Christianity began in the 1st century. It was what the New Testament writers were writing against. Of course, Christianity wasn’t called Christianity at that time.

I understand the whole "leaders should be servants" idea, and agree with it.

Don’t know why you would want to say that and then argue for the necessity for human rulers. Decision makers rule those for whom they make decisions.

The Spirit-led ideal hopes that everyone will agree. When they don't--and they usually don't--you've reached an impasse. What does the group do then?

Spirit-led ideal? Either it’s a reality or it’s not. And from what you said, it’s usually not. Which is just more evidence for my view of Christianity.

Throughout history, some groups have tried to be directly led by the Spirit with no authoritative leaders. They never endure. It's a wonderful ideal, but it doesn't work. Sooner or later there is going to be disagreement. And the question is, Who decides what to do then?

Why not just acknowledge outright that being led by the Spirit is NOT a tenable idea? That a big discrepancy exists in the Bible thereby? You who would accuse the Recovery of equivocating.

When Paul was writing to Rome and to the Galatians concerning walking according to the Spirit, he was not writing to individuals.

When he asked the Galatians “who has bewitched you?...... Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”, to what was he referring? A Spirit-led ideal? Is there something there between the lines these old eyes can’t see that says we really don’t have to take Paul seriously in this matter?

To whom was Paul referring? Protestants, who are individualistically minded to begin with, interpret what he says to conform with their own individualism. But Paul was writing to groups, to communities. His whole point was that believing communities were to be led by the Spirit. And only was referring to individuals as individual members of the community

1Corinthians comes after Romans for a reason. 1Corinthians shows what happens when believing men rule, or more specifically in this case, when believing men choose to follow specific believing men. Instead of the Spirit. Having seen first-hand what human rule amounts to in Christianity, the bad with the good, through your experience with the Recovery, I find it hard to believe you would advocate more of the same.

It’s my view that Christianity started when the idea of being led by the Spirit was to certain believers no longer tenable, and it’s been untenable to their followers ever sense.

It appears that many Protestant groups started by following the Spirit and then slid into following men. Lutheranism began to follow Martin Luther, Restoration Movement began to follow Alexander Campbell, Plymouth Brethren began to follow several men and divided accordingly. Quakers, when they left of following the Spirit, just began to follow themselves individually. From what I understand, the Recovery began in America with a human leader already in place.

Failure of men is no reason to discount or interpret differently the reality that is portrayed in the Bible.

When I realized the human nature of Christianity:

I could have said, “let’s start again to try to bring into being the true expression of the Body of Christ”. Reversionism in action.

Or I could have said, “so much for Christianity and its Bible”. Christians and non-Christians alike lump Christianity and the Bible together as one thing.

Or I could have just chosen a Christian denomination (probably the one I was born into seeing as I’m a cradle Christian) and conformed my own thinking to it and lived the rest of my life in the blessed bliss of thinking all is well with my soul.

If I did the first, like Witness Lee, I would have created a new Christian denomination with new ideas derived from personal interpretation. Which certainly is pointless, if being led by the Spirit has any reality to it at all.

If I did the second, I wouldn’t be here in the first place. I would agree with Richard Dawkins in one thing at least. Christians are sick in the head to believe such an obvious fabrication. Or I might think that the tendency to believe in a religion is due to a genetic defect.

If I did the third, I probably wouldn’t be here either. Or if I was, it would only be for the reason of pontification in the sense of an apology for my chosen denomination. One thing is certain. I would no longer read the Bible. Not for what it says in and of itself. I might read a lot of books about what the Bible says from the perspective of my chosen denomination. And I would only look at Bible verses through the lens of the interpretations of my chosen denomination. Sound familiar? It should. It’s pretty much a common practice in Christianity.

The LC appealed to human authority and denied that conscience was a good reason to disobey authority. That was blatant madness because the appeal to human authority, like any moral appeal, is ultimately an appeal to conscience.

So the LC was not making a moral appeal at all, it was asking the saints to be mindless and senseless. Does that sound like any "economy" God would associate himself with?

I really haven’t a clue as to your point here.

Guest, I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group.

But when it comes to the personal lives of members, there is no special authority.

This is the kind of thing I don’t understand. All the special circumstances under which a person is to submit to a ruler. If Hebrews 13:17 says “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you”, I fail to see the point of all the bickering about under what circumstances the rule of rulership applies. If they are watching out for you souls in the sense of rule, then they certainly do have authority over your private lives. Over anything that applies to you. How will they watch over your souls otherwise? And what of the verses in Timothy where the example is “ruling” over the home? Do the children obey their parents only under special circumstances?

In typical Protestant fashion, there is rebellion fomenting in the Churches. And you are the rebels. Where the rule of the human rulers is being as rebelled against as is the rule of the Spirit. Where the typical bedlam will continue to be typical.

Either obey or not, but don’t try to comply somewhere in the middle and say you’re obeying those who have the rule over you. The foolishness would be apparent to everyone but you.

Members have the right to leave a group if they feel led to. No group has the authority to insist everyone must join them. No group has the right to declare themselves the unique manifestation of the Church.

And why wouldn’t they, if they feel that God has chosen them to a special function or calling?

The only thing the Recovery missed is that it was already done before in the Catholic Church millennia before they were born, and they were trampling on territory already taken. Again in typical Protestant fashion. Why do you think the Catholics are insisting the only true unity is to be through them, through submission to the Pope who they believe is the direct descendent of the specially chosen Peter through the laying on of hands? The Pope they believe is the Vicar of the Christ who is the only true shepherd of our souls? Lee (and perhaps Nee) attempted to recreate the wheel, and did a poor job of it being practical descendents through influence of rebellion themselves. The Protestant Rebellion.

But unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "Recovery" is.....

Right. Church leaders. Not Recovery leaders. The Bible doesn't have anything to say about Recovery leaders. I'm not saying saints don't want to know who the leaders are. I'm saying that the question can't really be answered from a Biblical standpoint because the Bible has nothing to say about the leadership of Recoveries.

Apparently, you never did listen to “Brother” Lee, who constantly revealed the Recovery in the Bible through his allegorical interpretations. And what of the fact that Recovery communities are called Churches? I take it you’re denying that they even deserve to be called Churches? That’s quite a bias. Am I understanding you correctly that because they don’t hold to what you understand as the “Historic or Biblical Christian Faith”, they aren’t even a part of Christianity? And not to be numbered among the Churches of Christianity on that account?

By Ohio
Since this thread asks "Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?" in the context of the Recovery, I think it is a valid question to ask "Who are the real leaders of the Recovery?" Who should be obeyed if anyone at all? Whether we are discussing the Recovery or another church setting, how do we understand Hebrews 13.17?

There you go.


MacDuff

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I personally like the Bible church model. There is a commonality but no literal connection. Not even as connected as the Baptists. But I still see the benefits of affiliation at some level. Allowing the joint scholarship of a group like Dallas Theological Seminary (or other similar school) to be a lightening rod around which most of my theology centers gives me some certainty and confidence that it is being thought out by better minds than just mine. (Lord help us if it is just mine. And despite the kind of positions I seem to take here, I am very serious about this. I don't think that I have thought it all through. I am just trying to diligently think through what I have in front of me so far. And after I raise all my questions, I will probably defer to the "experts." At some level, that is beginning to include my own son.)

My view on what's "proper" has softened over the years. I have come to believe that the whole attempt to strictly define the "proper church" as the LRC did was misguided.

For example, we were led to believe that a proper church meets on the local ground, is not controlled by or even affiliated with an extra-local organization, does not have a name, yet is in fellowship with other local churches, etc.

As some LCs separated from LSM, members and ex-members posting here have wondered aloud what to do next and these rigid ideas about what is and isn't a church have come out in discussion in the form of presumptions.

But what is truly wrong with a church being affiliated with an external organization or leaning toward certain ministries? We've seen the dangers, but there are also dangers with too much autonomy and too little focus.

The LRC got divisiveness all wrong. It defined external characteristics of a non-divisive church and then within the form of those characteristics become very divisive! But true divisiveness is a heart and attitude matter. It does not consist in having differing beliefs and priorities than others. It's how those affect your attitude toward and relationship with others.

I think the Lord is much more flexible than we give him credit for. He is most interested in love and holiness. The outward form of expression is much less important. So if the community church down the street notes on it's sign that it is affiliated with SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), or even if it calls itself Baptist, I cannot consider that in itself divisive, or that they are not a genuine church.

Likewise, the LRC is not divisive simply for being affiliated with LSM. But they are hypocritical for claiming groups associated with ministries are divisive while exempting themselves.

It's interesting that the NT gives us clear parameters for defining a Christian (belief in Jesus, having Christ in us) but does not gives us a plain definition of what is a church and what isn't. Nowhere does the NT say "this type of group is not a church." God's wisdom on display once again, I think.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my view, there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things.

In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ.

In my view, MacDuff has a fairy tale view of the New Testament. I'm not saying that I don't like this point of view since I also have been burnt by bad leaders who placed personal gains above the needs of the flock, but I see the same issues in the Bible. MacDuff's view of the early church is tainted by the desire to have something "perfect" as a starting point. There was nothing perfect in the book of Acts! Unfortunately for both of us, we were jaded by Lee's Recovery paradigm which begins the age with a "perfect" church and ends the age with a "perfected recovered" church.

I personally believe that MacDuff's assessment of the Christian life and the church in general would be vastly improved by regularly reading the New Testament. Read it for the facts. Read it afresh like the first time you ever saw the book. Try to read yourself into every scripture. Don't read as an observer but as a player. Picture all the scenarios that Paul, Peter, and John addressed in their epistles.

[MacDuff]

Ohio

You saying that your motto is “with God all things are possible” seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post.

Why do you think my view of the Bible as portraying a supernatural reality that meets us here on earth where the rubber meets the road is a fairy tale view?

You need to be a bit more clear and persuasive in your argument.

I know that as a Christian, if you are a conservative Christian, you don’t think the Bible is a mythological book that is portraying a series of fairy tales. But it does appear as if you believe that the supernatural is a fairy tale or something impractical when it comes to relating it to the 21st century Christian.

I don’t know where you get the idea of perfectionism in my view. I’ve never said that humanity is perfect. Only that it would be a lot less imperfect than Christians show themselves to be by being like your run of the mill human following their own mind or the flesh, if they followed the lead of Jesus Christ and the Spirit. Are you saying that’s an impossibility with man or with God?

MacDuff

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio

You saying that your motto is “with God all things are possible” seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post.

Why do you think my view of the Bible as portraying a supernatural reality that meets us here on earth where the rubber meets the road is a fairy tale view?

You need to be a bit more clear and persuasive in your argument.

I know that as a Christian, if you are a conservative Christian, you don’t think the Bible is a mythological book that is portraying a series of fairy tales. But it does appear as if you believe that the supernatural is a fairy tale or something impractical when it comes to relating it to the 21st century Christian.

I don’t know where you get the idea of perfectionism in my view. I’ve never said that humanity is perfect. Only that it would be a lot less imperfect than Christians show themselves to be by being like your run of the mill human following their own mind or the flesh, if they followed the lead of Jesus Christ and the Spirit. Are you saying that’s an impossibility with man or with God?

MacDuff

MacDuff,

It is simply ignorance to claim that if someone doesn't hold to your extreme view of the "Spirit's leading" then they don't truly believe in the Spirit's power. It's worse than ignorance. It's intellectually dishonest and baiting. I can't believe you really even believe it yourself. It's similar to the argument which says God is not all-powerful if he can't make a rock too heavy for him to lift.

Please drop this line of discussion. It's been batted around enough and is not going anywhere. It is not even discussion. You are simply playing semantical games.

If you persist along these lines in future posts, they will be removed.

Igzy
Moderator

P.S. Any insulting replies to this post will also be removed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio

You saying that your motto is “with God all things are possible” seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post.

Why do you think my view of the Bible as portraying a supernatural reality that meets us here on earth where the rubber meets the road is a fairy tale view?

You need to be a bit more clear and persuasive in your argument.

I know that as a Christian, if you are a conservative Christian, you don’t think the Bible is a mythological book that is portraying a series of fairy tales. But it does appear as if you believe that the supernatural is a fairy tale or something impractical when it comes to relating it to the 21st century Christian.

I don’t know where you get the idea of perfectionism in my view. I’ve never said that humanity is perfect. Only that it would be a lot less imperfect than Christians show themselves to be by being like your run of the mill human following their own mind or the flesh, if they followed the lead of Jesus Christ and the Spirit. Are you saying that’s an impossibility with man or with God?

MacDuff

MacDuff, my tag line belongs to the great State of Ohio --

Between the years 1866 and 1868, the State of Ohio had as a motto, Imperium In Imperio, meaning (An empire within an empire.) Since the repeal, in 1868, of the law providing this motto, however, this State has had no motto.

During the 1950's the state organized a contest to select a new motto. A 12-year-old youth from Cincinnati was the winner. When it was adopted by the legislature in 1959, "the Ohio Secretary of State publicly acknowledged in a press release the slogan's Judeo-Christian roots from the book of Matthew."

For you to comment that what I said, "seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post," based on my attempt to communicate with you, and my suggestion that a simple reading of the Bible might help you, indicates that I have wasted my time.

Sorry ....

Originally Posted by MacDuff

It’s my view that Christianity started when the idea of being led by the Spirit was to certain believers no longer tenable, and it’s been untenable to their followers ever sense.

Yes I agree, that to me hits the nail on the head. The "church leader" is the Spirit. If that is no longer tenable then you begin to fight over obeying and submitting to Church leaders and Christianity is created.

[MacDuff]

Ohio

For you to comment that what I said, "seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post," based on my attempt to communicate with you, and my suggestion that a simple reading of the Bible might help you, indicates that I have wasted my time.
Sorry ....

No I’m sorry. You misunderstood. And it’s my fault. I meant that your tag line seems less than sincere when considered together with what you said in post #175. It appeared to me to be an argument against the supernatural down here where we live. And that’s how I see the major views of the topic under discussion on this thread.

All I’m arguing for is the reality of the idea that the Spirit indwells believers, and that it should make a difference in what we see, in what we experience. More than just a religion that is just as natural as the rest of mankind, and no different in any practical sense.

MacDuff

Originally Posted by MacDuff

UntoHim

I have only this to say about Martin Luther. Martin Luther was perhaps one of the greatest heretics of the past two millennia. When considered in the context of Christian history. When considered in the context of the ekklesia as portrayed in the New Testament, he totally missed the point. He was too immersed in the thinking of his day.
....
MacDuff

I like what you say here. Martin Luther rebelled against the authority of the Catholic Church. If you agree with his right to do that then you must agree that Heb 13:7 did not apply to the Catholic church. If they had "rule" over Martin Luther then He is guilty of rebellion and condemned by the New Testament. On the other hand, if you agree that the Catholic Church did not have rule over him, then why should the Protestant church? After all, their foundation is based on the fact that the Church leaders do not have rule over a person following the Lord and that Heb 13:7 is not referring to "church leaders". Likewise Witness Lee rebelled against the authority of the Denominations, calling them daughters of the whore. Witness Lee utterly repudiated any authority that either the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches might claim, and yet he then enforced a level of submission to his authority which was as severe as any that we have seen from either the Catholic or Protestant churches (of course this view is tempered by the times, Salem witch trials and some of the torture the Catholic church did a few hundred years ago would seem more extreme, though quite similar in nature to WL).

Surely we can agree that we are not obligated to submit to the rule of Witness Lee or his cronies. So then, in light of history it would seem the only ones who can genuinely argue that Heb 13:7 refers to church leaders would be Catholics.

Since I am not a Catholic I have to conclude that "submit to those who have rule over you" would refer to the Apostle's teaching in the New Testament, and to the Spirit, but not to Church leaders. If you have a mentor or better yet a "shepherd", someone who has helped you as a new believer I think you would choose to submit to them because they are watching out for your soul, but there is no reason in my mind to equate "church leader" with the person who truly shepherded you as a new believer.

[MacDuff]

Igzy

Please drop this line of discussion. It's been batted around enough and is not going anywhere. It is not even discussion. You are simply playing semantical games.

If you persist along these lines in future posts, they will be removed.

I am commenting according to the major reason I’m a religious Agnostic who has no faith in Christianity and still has a little faith in the Bible, in lieu of being an outright Atheist. That the supernatural doesn’t exist in Christianity where the rubber meets the road. I’m not saying that there are no Christians where that isn’t true. I just don’t find any of them on this thread thus far.

Nevertheless, I have to agree with you, that trying to get the Christians on this forum to understand why I am what I am isn’t going anywhere.

Your threat is a little extreme in my opinion. I should think you would see me as the one who went astray and would be trying to formulate a persuasive argument to bring me back into the fold. Even by creating another thread if need be. Not trying to censor me. Which in my opinion is an excellent persuasive argument for Atheism.

I’m sorry you chose to make that threat public. Otherwise this would’ve just been between you and me. And perhaps we could have come to a mutual understanding on the PM. Now short of an apology on your part, an understanding may be impossible. Apart from the relative truth of Ohio’s tag line.

I think before I say anything further, I will await the response from UntoHim. And if that person chooses to not respond, that will be the argument from silence. And perhaps depending on the content of that person's response, should same choose to respond, your threat may automatically become a moot point.

MacDuff

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio



No I’m sorry. You misunderstood. And it’s my fault. I meant that your tag line seems less than sincere when considered together with what you said in post #175. It appeared to me to be an argument against the supernatural down here where we live. And that’s how I see the major views of the topic under discussion on this thread.

All I’m arguing for is the reality of the idea that the Spirit indwells believers, and that it should make a difference in what we see, in what we experience. More than just a religion that is just as natural as the rest of mankind, and no different in any practical sense.

MacDuff

That is the way I read it. I didn't see it as an attack on Ohio but rather pointing out the irony of saying that "with God all things are possible" and then saying that such a notion that "with God all things are possible" as far as church administration is concerned is a "fairy tale".

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I am commenting according to the major reason I’m a religious Agnostic who has no faith in Christianity and still has a little faith in the Bible, in lieu of being an outright Atheist. That the supernatural doesn’t exist in Christianity where the rubber meets the road. I’m not saying that there are no Christians where that isn’t true. I just don’t find any of them on this thread thus far.

Amen and Amen.

Just one question. Son of Man can these bones live?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I am commenting according to the major reason I’m a religious Agnostic who has no faith in Christianity and still has a little faith in the Bible, in lieu of being an outright Atheist. That the supernatural doesn’t exist in Christianity where the rubber meets the road. I’m not saying that there are no Christians where that isn’t true. I just don’t find any of them on this thread thus far.

MacDuff, your statement here is quite presumptuous. How can you say "the supernatural doesn’t exist in Christianity?" Have you been to every congregation of believers? Have you been all around the world? Only the omnipresent and omniscient God could make that statement.

And what is supernatural? Are you talking about changed hearts and changed lives? What does this word mean to you?

Originally Posted by Ohio

MacDuff, your statement here is quite presumptuous. How can you say "the supernatural doesn’t exist in Christianity?" Have you been to every congregation of believers? Have you been all around the world? Only the omnipresent and omniscient God could make that statement.

And what is supernatural? Are you talking about changed hearts and changed lives? What does this word mean to you?

I don't understand this post. The very next sentence makes it very clear to me that the context is his personal experience.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Your threat is a little extreme in my opinion. I should think you would see me as the one who went astray and would be trying to formulate a persuasive argument to bring me back into the fold. Even by creating another thread if need be. Not trying to censor me. Which in my opinion is an excellent persuasive argument for Atheism.

Nonsense. If you are smart enough to know I should be trying to help you then you are smart enough to know that's what I've been doing. You are not going to impress me by holding yourself hostage to your own threats.

Again, please respect the posters on this board by engaging in honest discussion. Please stop playing semantical games. If you don't care what others think, don't expect them to give a darn what you think. Someone apparently neglected to teach you that as you were busy learning the secrets of God's truth that no one else quite understands but you and the non-Christians you know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

I don't understand this post. The very next sentence makes it very clear to me that the context is his personal experience.

"The very next sentence" is my asking MacDuff for some clarification, not his explanation of what supernatural means.

FriendofGod, go back and read my post, with the quoted part of Macduff's post, and you will perhaps understand my point.

[Peter Debelak]

Here's some passages from Ignatius - who was contemporary of the Apostle Johns, friend of John's and fellow-worker/disciple of John - who only survived John by 7 years:

Writing to Ephesus:

"Let us take heed, brotherren, that we set not ourselves against the bishop, that we may be subject to God....It is therefore evidence that we ought to look upon the bishop even as we do upon the Lord Himself."

To the Magnesians,

"I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord; your bishops presiding in the place of God; your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles; and your deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ."

Excerpts taken From Miller's Church History at 179 (1980).

I may be wrong, but I imagine everyone (on these boards, at least) disagrees with this sort of view of church authority. Yet this sort of perversion arguably was occurring during the life of the apostle John, and argued for by a co-worker of John's - indeed, I believe he was the "bishop" of Antioch even during the final years of John's life.

It is at least worth the question: "What is it about human nature that leans toward this sort of perversion?"

MacDuff is asking this question - but also going a step further and asserting an authoritative answer. It seems much of the push-back against his arguments is the presumption to have the answer. But that shouldn't negate the validity of the question.

On the flip side - it may be entirely wrong to see this as a perversion - given that it was a view endorsed in such close proximity to the author of Revelation. So perhaps the questions should be: "How do we reconcile this view with "being led by the Spirit""?


Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

...

When he asked the Galatians “who has bewitched you?...... Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”, to what was he referring? A Spirit-led ideal? Is there something there between the lines these old eyes can’t see that says we really don’t have to take Paul seriously in this matter?

To whom was Paul referring? Protestants, who are individualistically minded to begin with, interpret what he says to conform with their own individualism. But Paul was writing to groups, to communities. His whole point was that believing communities were to be led by the Spirit. And only was referring to individuals as individual members of the community

1Corinthians comes after Romans for a reason. 1Corinthians shows what happens when believing men rule, or more specifically in this case, when believing men choose to follow specific believing men. Instead of the Spirit. Having seen first-hand what human rule amounts to in Christianity, the bad with the good, through your experience with the Recovery, I find it hard to believe you would advocate more of the same.

It’s my view that Christianity started when the idea of being led by the Spirit was to certain believers no longer tenable, and it’s been untenable to their followers ever sense.

....

MacDuff

I would push back a bit on this (even though I've used these same verses to argue against "offices of authority" in present day churches).

In these verses, there were specific abuses to which Paul could point to as evidence that they were not being "Spirit led." That is not an argument, necessarily, that being "Spirit led" is devoid of human structure. If their abuses hadn't come in, would Paul claim they were led astray, simply because they had human leaders? I'm not sure.

Just because something is "Spirit led" does not mean it won't have a concrete physical manifestation. That there end up "leaders" among groups of people is not inherently incongruous with being "Spirit led." Indeed, if there is a "leader" who emerges "thru the Spirit," it might well be the case then that each individual believer is then "Spirit led," to obey and submit to that "leader."

Your argument presumes that there will not and cannot be a visible structure to the Spirit's leading. That may well be true, but I don't see it as automatically true.

I remember years ago when scientists found the chemical in the body that was supposed to be the reason people feel "love." The commentary then was "see, there's no such thing as emotional, spiritual love - because its really just a chemical." My response would be - just because something has a physical manifestation does not mean it doesn't have an emotional, or even spiritual origin. The presence of one is not the negation of the other. The data is simply inconclusive.

Analogy make sense?

My general approach is that I'm open to just about any path someone takes in their spiritual journey - meet with churches, don't meet at all in a formal way, join a "leadership" or sit back quietly. It's not the form it takes, in my view. I just keep an eye on the fruits of the path taken (particularly my own). I don't happen to belong to a formal church organization. However, if I find that my walk is devoid of community and fellowship, I take it as a sign that my walk is unhealthy. Likewise, I don't have an issue with others participating in a formal church structure I may disagree with. However, if their participation turns into judgement of other groups or other individuals for not doing likewise, I take that as a sign there's something unhealthy in their walk.

Thoughts?

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here's some passages from Ignatius - who was contemporary of the Apostle John's ...

I may be wrong, but I imagine everyone (on these boards, at least) disagrees with this sort of view of church authority. Yet this sort of perversion arguably was occurring during the life of the apostle John, and argued for by a co-worker of John's.

It is at least worth the question: "What is it about human nature that leans toward this sort of perversion?"

Ignatius' views concerning the authority vested in the bishop were no doubt radical for his time and helped to set the stage for Rome's later dominance under the "Bishop of Rome." Here is another even more shocking quote from Ignatius, written at the same time, on the eve of his martyrdom.

But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from any man; but the Spirit spake, saying on this wise: Do nothing without the bishop, keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; flee divisions; be the followers of Christ, as He was of His Father.

These kinds of teachings, especially the final words of an aged Christian of such respect traveling to the Coliseum to meet His Maker, have fueled the abuses of evil men for thousands of years. This is why we cling to the scriptures and not the church fathers, whether they be Ignatius or Athanasius.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ignatius' views concerning the authority vested in the bishop were no doubt radical for his time and helped to set the stage for Rome's later dominance under the "Bishop of Rome." Here is another even more shocking quote from Ignatius, written at the same time, on the eve of his martyrdom.
These kinds of teachings, especially the final words of an aged Christian of such respect traveling to the Coliseum to meet His Maker, have fueled the abuses of evil men for thousands of years. This is why we cling to the scriptures and not the church fathers, whether they be Ignatius or Athanasius.

At this point in history, we assume Ignatius and other who gave rise the RCC are wrong. Are they? If so, based on what scriptural principals? And then, once we embrace those scriptural principals, how far do we take them?

MacDuff, it seems to me, has taken those scriptural principals to their logical conclusion - as radical as his stance might seem. If we should reject Ignatius and the RCC derived from his arguments, then what is the scriptural basis for stopping the argument for that rejection?

Igzy has argued practicality, but I haven't seen a scriptural argument that isn't also an argument to support Ignatius.

I'm not saying its wrong. But you have to make an argument that negates Ignatius but ALSO negates MacDuff. I haven't heard it yet. At least not one based in Scripture.

Peter

P.S. Ohio, your post prompted this, but when I say "you" in this post, I don't mean "you."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

At this point in history, we assume Ignatius and other who gave rise the RCC are wrong. Are they? If so, based on what scriptural principals? And then, once we embrace those scriptural principals, how far do we take them?

There are numerous verses -- perhaps hundreds -- which concern how church leaders should lead. Jesus said the disciples should serve, and never rule as the Gentiles, and He condemned any thought concerning the fleshly ambition to "be first in the kingdom," the hallmark of the papal lineage. Paul said he should be imitated, and that we should note how he was with the saints, day by day with tears, as a nursing mother caring for her young. Peter instructs us not to Lord it over the flock. These are just some highlights.

Peter, in your recent post you stated, "I just keep an eye on the fruits of the path taken." Your recent tag line read, "Prove all things, hold on to the good." These are worthy points. The Lord told us the same, that we would "know by their fruits." Sometimes it takes time to ascertain questionable teachings and practices. Ignatius' views are wrong because they contradict scripture and they have borne horrible fruit. I'm sure he had his reasons, but he promoted extremist views of submission and obedience which were fully exploited in the dark ages by the RCC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my view, there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things.

In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my view, MacDuff has a fairy tale view of the New Testament. I'm not saying that I don't like this point of view since I also have been burnt by bad leaders who placed personal gains above the needs of the flock, but I see the same issues in the Bible. MacDuff's view of the early church is tainted by the desire to have something "perfect" as a starting point. There was nothing perfect in the book of Acts! Unfortunately for both of us, we were jaded by Lee's Recovery paradigm which begins the age with a "perfect" church and ends the age with a "perfected recovered" church.

I personally believe that MacDuff's assessment of the Christian life and the church in general would be vastly improved by regularly reading the New Testament. Read it for the facts. Read it afresh like the first time you ever saw the book. Try to read yourself into every scripture. Don't read as an observer but as a player. Picture all the scenarios that Paul, Peter, and John addressed in their epistles.

It seems my prior post, quoted above, has upset certain folks. I never intended this, but I still provided my observations to MacDuff, and encouraged him to read the New Testament again. What could be wrong with that suggestion?

MacDuff said that, "there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things." I disagree with this. I have heard this numerous times before. I say they are the same, because we have the same Lord, same life, same Father, same Spirit, etc. All the shortcomings, pitfalls, and failures I have witnessed in contemporary Christianity all existed in the record of the New Testament. The same miraculous and supernatural events of the early church have also happened in our era.

Macduff further adds, "In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ." I disagree with this too. Yes, we "have an anointing, and have no need for any man to teach us," and, yes, God has given the church teachers and leaders. The Bible says to walk by the Spirit, and it also says to submit to one another and to leaders. The Bible records a balanced perspective, pleasing to God, honoring His Son, and necessary for fallen man.

MacDuff's views here are lopsided and, in my mind, a fairy tale view, one that I have heard before. Perhaps he disagrees. That's fine with me. Let's discuss it. Perhaps others disagree. Same as above. One thing is certain, there is no perfect church, and that was certainly true of the numerous churches recorded in the New Testament. They had lots of problems, and needed the leadership of wise and mature men of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems my prior post, quoted above, has upset certain folks. I never intended this, but I still provided my observations to MacDuff, and encouraged him to read the New Testament again. What could be wrong with that suggestion?

MacDuff said that, "there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things." I disagree with this. I have heard this numerous times before. I say they are the same, because we have the same Lord, same life, same Father, same Spirit, etc. All the shortcomings, pitfalls, and failures I have witnessed in contemporary Christianity all existed in the record of the New Testament. The same miraculous and supernatural events of the early church have also happened in our era.

Macduff further adds, "In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ." I disagree with this too. Yes, we "have an anointing, and have no need for any man to teach us," and, yes, God has given the church teachers and leaders. The Bible says to walk by the Spirit, and it also says to submit to one another and to leaders. The Bible records a balanced perspective, pleasing to God, honoring His Son, and necessary for fallen man.

MacDuff's views here are lopsided and, in my mind, a fairy tale view, one that I have heard before. Perhaps he disagrees. That's fine with me. Let's discuss it. Perhaps others disagree. Same as above. One thing is certain, there is no perfect church, and that was certainly true of the numerous churches recorded in the New Testament. They had lots of problems, and needed the leadership of wise and mature men of God.

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Christians would agree that Macduff's statement "in the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary." is on the surface "an extreme view" as Igzy pointed out and perhaps even a "fairy tale" as you have characterized it. But although I don't pretend to have read through all of Macduff's posts I am pretty sure that Macduff said he hasn't met anyone else that shares his view or something like that. So even Macduff agrees with the vast majority of Christians that his view is "extreme".

The first issue I had as a casual observer from cheap seats is the argument by Igzy "If you don't care what others think don't expect them to give a darn about what you think". To my opinion if you call his post "a fairy tale" then you don't care what he thinks. Perhaps I missed something, but it seems to me that "if you don't care what others think" really meant if you don't toe the line of the consensus of what this forum thinks.

The second issue I had was I agreed with Macduff that this should have been handled in a PM. If Igzy had sent a PM, instead of posting, saying that the post was considered rude and insulting, then I think Macduff would have apologized since he did anyway. Then this would have been a win win situation for everyone. But now that it is posted it changes the equation.

Now what Igzy said was "It is simply ignorance to claim that if someone doesn't hold to your extreme view of the "Spirit's leading" then they don't truly believe in the Spirit's power. It's worse than ignorance. It's intellectually dishonest and baiting. I can't believe you really even believe it yourself." The problem was when I read the quote that this was apparently referring to I couldn't see where Macduff said this. The closest I could come was where Macduff said "You saying that your motto is “with God all things are possible” seems less than sincere, less than genuine, when considered together with what you said in this post." Now I did not understand this in the way Igzy did. I didn't see him claiming that Ohio didn't believe in the Spirit's power. Rather I saw that he was pointing out the irony that "with God all things are possible" seems to support his view even though in that Post Ohio is calling it a "fairy tale". I think the sentence was worded poorly and he apologized for that, and if Igzy had left his post with the idea that he found the post rude and insulting then I think it still would have been a non issue, the apology to Ohio would have sufficed. Adding the threat of censorship would have been much better had it been done in a PM.

But the best part, the part that really made me laugh and be thankful that I had stopped by today is where Igzy said "If you are smart enough to know I should be trying to help you then you are smart enough to know that's what I've been doing." You have to admit, this couldn't have been said better by RK, a BB or even WL himself.

Again, I haven't read all the posts by Macduff but from what I have read it is very hard to understand why you guys get so riled up just because someone has an admittedly extreme view. (I don't know Macduff, but he has mentioned being in Eldon hall and he used the expression "bet your sweet bippy". Based on that I feel he is about 60 years old. It is very unlikely you are going to "help" him change his mind.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I didn't see him claiming that Ohio didn't believe in the Spirit's power. Rather I saw that he was pointing out the irony that "with God all things are possible" seems to support his view even though in that Post Ohio is calling it a "fairy tale".

Sorry about all the confusion, ZNPaaneah, but it sure is nice to "see" you again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But the best part, the part that really made me laugh and be thankful that I had stopped by today is where Igzy said "If you are smart enough to know I should be trying to help you then you are smart enough to know that's what I've been doing." You have to admit, this couldn't have been said better by RK, a BB or even WL himself.

My point about trying to help him did not apply to censoring, I was talking about my calling his argument what it was--theoretical and impractical--and not humoring his arrogance.

As to the comparison to LC poobahs, I hardly think being able to moderate a forum can compare to people claiming to have the keys to the kingdom and being able to ban people from "God's move."

Some people don't understand my methods. I don't believe in pussyfooting around with phonies, and I think MacDuff is a phony. When I see a phony I call it for what it is. I have no patience for it. He wants attention and doesn't care about anyone's opinion but his own. He's hurting and scared and tries to cover it up with arrogance and bluster. I see through it. I've seen these types come through before. They want attention and try to get it in all the wrong ways. They try to make it all about them. They need to snap out of it.

I'm not anyone but a moderator on a board. Please stop making comparisons between me and a bunch of guys who think they run God's kingdom.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

MacDuff's views here are lopsided and, in my mind, a fairy tale view, one that I have heard before. Perhaps he disagrees. That's fine with me. Let's discuss it. Perhaps others disagree. Same as above. One thing is certain, there is no perfect church, and that was certainly true of the numerous churches recorded in the New Testament. They had lots of problems, and needed the leadership of wise and mature men of God.

MacDuff's conclusions are totally theoretical. Yes, they make sense if you accept his premises (which I don't) and if you are only interested in a theoretical ideal (which I'm not).

I'm interested in how the Church actually can operate--manifestly from scripture and observation of what works. MacDuff's ideal has never existed in history, yet he claims it is the only way. This implies there has never ever been legitimate spiritual work done for God, which we know from observation to be false. So MacDuff's idea crumbles under reductio ad absurdum--it results in absurd conclusions.

The reason I told him to drop the tack he was taking was because he simply keeps making the same claim over and over--that if you don't believe the Spirit can and will completely control a group to the point there is no need for human organization then you are denying his power.

That's absurd. It's like saying if I don't believe the Spirit can and will make an ice cream cone appear in my hand then I'm denying his power. Just because the Spirit can do something doesn't imply that's what he wants to do or is going to do. It's just an absurd argument. He's wasting our time making it over and over.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm interested in how the Church actually can operate--manifestly from scripture and observation of what works.

I think that would be a good basis to find common ground. Certainly we can all agree on the following:

1. The Church cannot operate and never would have operated without the leading of the Spirit. And the leading of the Spirit as recorded in scripture was often accompanied by signs and wonders.
2. We can also agree that some laws trump other laws. If I am in the army I must follow the orders of my commanding officer unless those orders violate the Geneva convention, in which case I should not follow those orders. Likewise, Martin Luther felt that the orders of the church leaders of his day violated a higher law and so rebelled. To me church leaders are like traffic cops, they have authority and you have to obey, but if you are driving a fire engine you can ignore their laws. This is what Peter did and this is what Paul did.
3. God is not the author of confusion, so the idea that the church would not be "in good order" and "headed up" is not supported by the New Testament. That suggests leaders, rule and authority.
4. Every single believer will be held accountable for their own actions before the Lord's judgement seat. There is no excuse that you were merely "following orders". Regardless of how much you feel you are required to "obey" church leaders, that obligation will never exceed your obligation to obey the Lord's speaking to you. WL will stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR and RK and KR will also stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think that would be a good basis to find common ground. Certainly we can all agree on the following:

1. The Church cannot operate and never would have operated without the leading of the Spirit. And the leading of the Spirit as recorded in scripture was often accompanied by signs and wonders.
2. We can also agree that some laws trump other laws. If I am in the army I must follow the orders of my commanding officer unless those orders violate the Geneva convention, in which case I should not follow those orders. Likewise, Martin Luther felt that the orders of the church leaders of his day violated a higher law and so rebelled. To me church leaders are like traffic cops, they have authority and you have to obey, but if you are driving a fire engine you can ignore their laws. This is what Peter did and this is what Paul did.
3. God is not the author of confusion, so the idea that the church would not be "in good order" and "headed up" is not supported by the New Testament. That suggests leaders, rule and authority.
4. Every single believer will be held accountable for their own actions before the Lord's judgement seat. There is no excuse that you were merely "following orders". Regardless of how much you feel you are required to "obey" church leaders, that obligation will never exceed your obligation to obey the Lord's speaking to you. WL will stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR and RK and KR will also stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR.

I wonder if MacDuff feels that you have spoken for him. I got the impression that he disagreed with whatever was said about him.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think that would be a good basis to find common ground. Certainly we can all agree on the following:

1. The Church cannot operate and never would have operated without the leading of the Spirit. And the leading of the Spirit as recorded in scripture was often accompanied by signs and wonders.
2. We can also agree that some laws trump other laws. If I am in the army I must follow the orders of my commanding officer unless those orders violate the Geneva convention, in which case I should not follow those orders. Likewise, Martin Luther felt that the orders of the church leaders of his day violated a higher law and so rebelled. To me church leaders are like traffic cops, they have authority and you have to obey, but if you are driving a fire engine you can ignore their laws. This is what Peter did and this is what Paul did.
3. God is not the author of confusion, so the idea that the church would not be "in good order" and "headed up" is not supported by the New Testament. That suggests leaders, rule and authority.
4. Every single believer will be held accountable for their own actions before the Lord's judgement seat. There is no excuse that you were merely "following orders". Regardless of how much you feel you are required to "obey" church leaders, that obligation will never exceed your obligation to obey the Lord's speaking to you. WL will stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR and RK and KR will also stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR.

1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians. Just because they embraced a doctrine contrary to the New Covenant, does not mean there wasn't "order" or at least an appearance of "order." In fact, I would argue, it is easier to manufacture an "orderly assembly" than it is to follow the Spirit. A corollary to this is what appears to be "confusion" may in fact be God's wisdom that is bigger than ours. A lack of human order requires faith and prayer. A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.

2) I agree about a "hierarchy" of laws. But if HUMANS are going to be seen to have "authority" the question must me asked, "from where is that authority derived." Is it from God? If so, what is the scope of that authority - does it extend to those not within the congregation? If it is only upon the congregation, what is the source of the congregation's identity? That is, why is this congregation distinct from others? ANd then where do its leaders derive their authority? It's more complicated than traffic cops.

Its one thing to say human groups need human structure - even Christian groups. It's another thing to say the "leaders" of that group have "authority" beyond that bestowed by the congregation (every human group can grant its "leaders" authority by democratically or otherwise consenting to that authority). If, on the other hand, the claim is that the authority is derived from God, that brings a whole BUNCH of other questions.

3) Correct, God is not the author of confusion. But God might define "confusion" differently that you and I. The folks at LSM felt that having more than "One Publication" brought "confusion." Was it "confusion" or what it something else? This principle can be extended beyond the LC example. Our definition of "confusion" is not His. It comes down to the fundamental question - are we in charge, creating "order", or is He? To say that "He is in charge" does not mean that there aren't leaders and "order." But to say there "needs to be order and therefore there must be leaders" is to skip over His role in how it all plays out.

4) Agreed.

None of this is to advance a notion of some "ideal" church or assembly. Nor is it to embrace whatever sort of assemblies emerge. The point is, whatever our "corporate" experience must be individually entered into based on an individual relationship with Him. That relationship, if it is healthy (and this is where "know it by its fruits" comes in") will ALWAYS result in corporate fellowship and working together - even if not in formal ways, though it may most often. The contrary is not necessarily true: formal corporate groups with a formal structure with varying levels of "authority" may not lead to healthy individual growth.

So, if we're trying to think about what the "default" emphasis should be - it is on individual's knowing how to respond to the Spirit within, having faith that, if they do so, it WILL result in corporate fellowship. The other default - "join a group" which has some sense of "authority" over you - MAY be okay, but it ALSO MIGHT usurp your agengy before God.

Again, a matter of entailment.

Thoughts?

Peter

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Again, a matter of entailment.

That's the second time you've said that, and I still have no clue what it means.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's the second time you've said that, and I still have no clue what it means.

I was thinking the same think, but, being self-conscious, was too embarrassed to ask. M-W didn't help me a bit, but it did note that:

Entail is currently in the top 1% of lookups and is the 283rd most popular word on Merriam-Webster.com.
A green arrow indicates a fast mover: this word increased significantly in lookups over the past seven days.

Entailment is a rising star. Who knew? :rollingeyes2:

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians. Just because they embraced a doctrine contrary to the New Covenant, does not mean there wasn't "order" or at least an appearance of "order." In fact, I would argue, it is easier to manufacture an "orderly assembly" than it is to follow the Spirit. A corollary to this is what appears to be "confusion" may in fact be God's wisdom that is bigger than ours. A lack of human order requires faith and prayer. A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Galatians
3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Sounds to me like Paul is saying their Christian life began when they received the Spirit. I thought we could all agree that this was a basic NT teaching.

Second, verse 5 appears to be a rhetorical question. It seems to my understanding of Galatians that Paul is saying that we began in the Spirit and the entire Christian life should be one of receiving the Spirit and ministering the Spirit, and that this is not accomplished by the works of the law. However, setting up an orderly administration could be accomplished by the works of the law. Obeying and submitting to church leaders could also be viewed as something that is "works of the law".

What does "an argument for entailment" mean?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

2) I agree about a "hierarchy" of laws. But if HUMANS are going to be seen to have "authority" the question must me asked, "from where is that authority derived." Is it from God? If so, what is the scope of that authority - does it extend to those not within the congregation? If it is only upon the congregation, what is the source of the congregation's identity? That is, why is this congregation distinct from others? ANd then where do its leaders derive their authority? It's more complicated than traffic cops.

Its one thing to say human groups need human structure - even Christian groups. It's another thing to say the "leaders" of that group have "authority" beyond that bestowed by the congregation (every human group can grant its "leaders" authority by democratically or otherwise consenting to that authority). If, on the other hand, the claim is that the authority is derived from God, that brings a whole BUNCH of other questions.

1. The authority is derived from God. Human government was ordained by God after Noah's flood. Yes, the authority extends to police, employers, IRS, etc.
2. The authority of the church derives from Jesus Resurrection and ascension. He said "all authority has been given unto Me" and Ephesians says that Christ has been given to the church as head over all things.
3. Heb 13:7 refers to obeying those that "have rule over you". To have "rule" means you have authority. For example, the church might purchase a van but only one brother has "authority" over it. If you need access to the van you need to get permission from this brother. This brother would then give you the rules and requirements for using the van. Now if you want to use the church's van then this brother has "rule" over you. He can tell you when, he can tell you how long, he can tell you who can drive and who can't, he can tell you who can be in the van and who can't. Other brothers may have the authority to decide who can and who cannot attend meetings. They could lock doors, escort people out, call the police, etc. Now the thorny issue becomes if they decide you cannot meet with the congregation does that mean that God agrees with them?

In the case presented in 1Cor the answer would be yes. The authority that Paul exercised was derived from the New Testament. The brother wasn't excommunicated because of "Paul's" authority but because Jesus had already condemned sin, and the flesh on the cross.

[OBW]

When I see/hear "entailment," I immediately think of Pride and Prejudice or Downton Abbey. The lingering effect of wills that required certain property to only pass on to heirs of a certain type (almost always male). Usually was set into place and was effective for generations.

I can see where the new definition comes from. But as I have never heard it used that way, I would not understand that as the meaning. Just sit scratching my heard wondering if maybe it was about an edict about passing on leadership by will rather than fitness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

3) Correct, God is not the author of confusion. But God might define "confusion" differently that you and I. The folks at LSM felt that having more than "One Publication" brought "confusion." Was it "confusion" or what it something else? This principle can be extended beyond the LC example. Our definition of "confusion" is not His. It comes down to the fundamental question - are we in charge, creating "order", or is He? To say that "He is in charge" does not mean that there aren't leaders and "order." But to say there "needs to be order and therefore there must be leaders" is to skip over His role in how it all plays out.

LSM is a publisher they are not a church. For them to have more than one publishing house might be confusion. For a church to embrace a ministry is not unscriptural. But for a ministry to argue that a church cannot embrace any other ministry but theirs is to my understanding of the NT a gross overstepping of their authority and jurisdiction. The "church leaders" should never have submitted to this rule.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians...
The point is, whatever our "corporate" experience must be individually entered into based on an individual relationship with Him. That relationship, if it is healthy (and this is where "know it by its fruits" comes in") will ALWAYS result in corporate fellowship and working together - even if not in formal ways, though it may most often. The contrary is not necessarily true: formal corporate groups with a formal structure with varying levels of "authority" may not lead to healthy individual growth.

If you define the church as our corporate experience of Christ, then your statement that the "churches operated just fine without the Spirit" is contradicted by your statement that "our corporate experience must be individually entered into based on an individual relationship with Him."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does "an argument for entailment" mean?

Maybe LegalGuide can help us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians. Just because they embraced a doctrine contrary to the New Covenant, does not mean there wasn't "order" or at least an appearance of "order." In fact, I would argue, it is easier to manufacture an "orderly assembly" than it is to follow the Spirit. A corollary to this is what appears to be "confusion" may in fact be God's wisdom that is bigger than ours. A lack of human order requires faith and prayer. A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you define the church as our corporate experience of Christ, then your statement that the "churches operated just fine without the Spirit" is contradicted by your statement that "our corporate experience must be individually entered into based on an individual relationship with Him."

Brother ZNP, I'm not quite sure why you are being argumentative here. PeterD's post (quoted above) placed the word "operated" in quotes indicating he was being facetious about the proper "operation" of the church. Church history is replete with the "church" of Rome which "operated" with impunity for centuries just fine without the Spirit. Peter's point was plainly obvious.

You then quoted him by changing the punctuation marks to "churches operated just fine without the Spirit," and then pointed out his contradiction. Even a cursory reader like me can spot an unnecessary argumentative attitude.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians. Just because they embraced a doctrine contrary to the New Covenant, does not mean there wasn't "order" or at least an appearance of "order." In fact, I would argue, it is easier to manufacture an "orderly assembly" than it is to follow the Spirit. A corollary to this is what appears to be "confusion" may in fact be God's wisdom that is bigger than ours. A lack of human order requires faith and prayer. A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother ZNP, I'm not quite sure why you are being argumentative here. PeterD's post (quoted above) placed the word "operated" in quotes indicating he was being facetious about the proper "operation" of the church. Church history is replete with the "church" of Rome which "operated" with impunity for centuries just fine without the Spirit. Peter's point was plainly obvious.

You then quoted him by changing the punctuation marks to "churches operated just fine without the Spirit," and then pointed out his contradiction. Even a cursory reader like me can spot an unnecessary argumentative attitude.

Thanks, I didn't really understand what he was saying. It will be easier for me to pick up humor when I am familiar with Peter.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's the second time you've said that, and I still have no clue what it means.

Well, that's what I get for living in a narrow jargon community...

"Entailment" was used so often in my academic community that I just assumed it was a word commonly used in the general public. My bad.

It is a term in semantics - the study of meaning - and often used in formal logic.

In short, if a subset of something (Set A) is fully included in another set (Set B) then it can be said that the meaning of Set B is entailed by Set A's meaning. Think Venn Diagrams.

Thus, for example, the phrase "John is a man," is entailed by that statement "John is a bachelor." Since all bachelors are men, then if he is a bachelor, he must be a man. The reverse it not true: not all men are bachelors.

Soooooooo, back to the topic: I would argue that a healthy individual Chrisitan walk necessarily entails having a corporate spiritual life. Why is that? Because that is what Christ is after. Thus, if you are genuininely seeking Christ and seeking to live Christ, you will - necessarily - be led into group fellowship and even work. I emphasize "healthy" individual walk. It is entirely true that "rogue" individual believers can have an individual walk that doesn't include fellowship with other believers. I would say that the lack of fellowship is a barometer or "red flag" that the individual walk is unhealthy.

The reverse is not true. "Being part of a group" - signing onto its mission, doing work within and with it - does NOT necessarily entail having a healthy spiritual Christian walk. It is entirely possible to have a "successful" group experience without ever having to learn to hear the Spirit within.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.

That is if you focus on a healthy living by faith in God, you will get "order." If you focus having "order" you may not need any faith at all to succeed. As I said, a matter of entailment


Any clearer?

Boy, this forum really has helped me to realize how many jumps and leaps I make in my explanations, thereby utterly failing to make clear cogent points! Ugh!

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Just because the word I used is a very nerdy word, does not mean the thought I am trying to convey isn't a real, genuine and experienced-based one. I''m not arguing for some "mental ideal" thought up in some ivory tower. Hope that comes across.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thanks, I didn't really understand what he was saying. It will be easier for me to pick up humor when I am familiar with Peter.

You are in good company. Just call me out when you don't understand, and I'll attempt again to explain this silly head of mine. And, regarding humor, I attempt it often, but succeed at it rarely...

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

So, here's my monologue to attempt to explain my thoughts (perhaps its best to read my explanation of "entailment" here, before reading this):

I’ve done much of my posting by asking provocative (or, alternatively, naïve) questions. So, my arguments have been more responding to things rather than arguing for something (that is, an attempt to be a bit more "practical", as Igzy would emphasize). Here’s an attempt at explaining a “working theory” of mine. Emphasis on “working” not on "theory" (since I think it is not altogether impractical). Open to correction, etc…

The “assembly” is simply an occasion where Christians get together. At a coffee shop, in a Bible study, in a meeting of praise and worship and/or teaching. It is the venue for fellowship and mutual edification. That’s it.

Within that venue all sorts of talents and temporary roles will rise up: teachers, comforters, wise sages, practical-minded ones. With each role and as needs arise, “submit to one another” will be a governing principle. The gathering is then an outgrowth of individuals following the Lord. Each one needs teaching, needs leading, needs comfort, need encouragement, as well as will be prompted to employ their God-given talents – but often in different ways at different times.

This approach, which doesn’t “box in” the notion of “assembly” allows these needs to be met as the Lord leads. This may most often simply take the form of individuals “joining” a “formal group,” but by framing and emphasizing it differently, is leaves open the room from God’s alternative moving, planning, will.

Now, some will ask: what about the great commission? What about the “work” of God’s kingdom?

Of course there will be “work” and “missions” and “agendas.” But here’s the question: from where do they originate?

I submit that “agendas” or particular “missions” originate from God to individual believers. God prompts someone to pursue a particular work. He may prompt others to do the same, and may even do so through others. But it still comes as a “commission” that is personal and has individual accountability to God. God doesn’t commission a group to do anything (a bold claim, I know, but I think the Scripture supports this). Yes, many joined the work Hudson Taylor or George Mueller were commissioned to do, but they themselves were accountable for their work, not "the group."

When individual believers receive such a “leading” or “commission,” they may share this in fellowship with others or with a larger “assembly.” That may prompt others to join in that work. But that is not the same, nor should it be confused with, “work of the assembly.” The assembly and its “purpose” is entirely different – that is, simply mutual edification, praise and worship. The “work” is given by God to individual believers, who may or may not be joined by others. You may have “group work” – but only because each individual has been so lead – NOT because they are involved simply by their “membership” in a group which "collectively chose" to take on some work (if this seems odd to you, think about the "accountability" for the work and who is responsible. Try to tease that out and it might be clearer).

To me, this aligns with the New Testament record and teaching. It also cabins in the historically common occurrence of group members “just going along with the group agenda” consciously or not.

It is an attempt to focus the assembly on what it is for – mutual edification – and focus “work” in a way that has clearer accountability to the Spirit within each believer.

On the surface, this may not appear different than current practice in mainstream Christianity – but I think it is radically different spiritually.

In this way, it is NOT the same as the LC which IS a PARTICULAR GROUP which lays claim to the “ideal.” In fact, this approach is an explicit rejection to the notion that a PARTICULAR GROUP can monopolize the “ideal.” It gives room to the individual believer who feels lead to remain in the group of his youth – such as Lutheranism – who, while recognizing its shortcomings, nevertheless says “This is where God wants and needs me.” And it ALSO gives freedom to the individual who, at a particular point in life, doesn’t have a PARTICULAR group with whom he meets – but who NEVERTHELESS has robust fellowship and accountability in numerous ad hoc ways.

Thoughts?

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

And it ALSO gives freedom to the individual who, at a particular point in life, doesn’t have a PARTICULAR group with whom he meets – but who NEVERTHELESS has robust fellowship and accountability in numerous ad hoc ways.

Thoughts?

Peter

What about taking communion? - "Do this in remembrance of me." Isn't this a command, that requires the believer to belong to a particular group? I even wonder if the Lord gave that command, to take the bread and wine with other believers, in order to ensure that the Christian life was seen as a communal fellowship (not an individual floating spiritually in the air).

The Christians I've known who had "fellowship and accountability" on their own terms, but didn't truly belong to an identifiable group, were often very peculiar and narrow. They considered it a virtue that they didn't belong anywhere, but their spiritual growth was warped because they were so individualistic. (Sort of the opposite extreme from the Local Church, where there was no individuality allowed at all. There must be a balance somewhere.)

[MacDuff]

Peter Debelak

Excellent exposition of Evangelical Protestant thinking.

Please show examples of "the work" in the New Testament.


UntoHim

Did you receive my PM?

MacDuff

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The “assembly” is simply an occasion where Christians get together. At a coffee shop, in a Bible study, in a meeting of praise and worship and/or teaching. It is the venue for fellowship and mutual edification. That’s it.

Within that venue all sorts of talents and temporary roles will rise up: teachers, comforters, wise sages, practical-minded ones. With each role and as needs arise, “submit to one another” will be a governing principle. The gathering is then an outgrowth of individuals following the Lord. Each one needs teaching, needs leading, needs comfort, need encouragement, as well as will be prompted to employ their God-given talents – but often in different ways at different times.

This approach, which doesn’t “box in” the notion of “assembly” allows these needs to be met as the Lord leads. This may most often simply take the form of individuals “joining” a “formal group,” but by framing and emphasizing it differently, is leaves open the room from God’s alternative moving, planning, will.

When you say the “assembly” is that equal to the NT term that we translate “Church”? Also, are you equating the assembly with the venue? Because I don’t see how this understanding could align with a number of verses. It seems to my understanding that the Church cannot be defined as wherever two or three meet together.

For example:

1. Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ given unto the Church (2Cor 1:1). How could a venue be given the Apostle Paul?
2. In Revelation 2 and 3 each Church has an Angel. It seems a little over the top to think that a couple of saints meeting at a coffee shop “have an angel” for that venue.
3. Phebe is a servant of the church. (Rom 16:1) Again, hard to imagine many of these gatherings you are describing having a “servant”.
4. Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church (Acts 12:1). Again, I just don’t see a king getting all bent out of shape at 2 or 3 meeting at a coffee house.
5. At the time of Saul’s conversion there was a “great persecution against the church”. How could you persecute all these varied venues?
6. Paul said that he had “given order to the churches of Galatia”. It seems if a church is any venue where a couple of Christians meet it would be impossible to “give orders to the churches of Galatia”.
7. Rev. 1:4 says “John to the seven churches which are in Asia”. Based on the definition that wherever a couple of saints meet together to fellowship that is a Church how could you possibly count the number of churches? If everyone gathered in a big meeting you would have 1, if after the meeting they went out to eat in small groups you might have 10. Acts 16:5 says the churches increased in number daily. I just don’t see how you would be able to count churches with this definition.
8. According to 1Tim 3:5 you need to be able to take care of your own house to be qualified to take care of the church. That seems unreasonable if the church is 3 people meeting at a coffee shop.
9. 3John 1:10 refers to Diotrephes who casts people out of the church. How exactly could he have done that if the church is wherever 2 or 3 meet together?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What about taking communion? - "Do this in remembrance of me." Isn't this a command, that requires the believer to belong to a particular group? I even wonder if the Lord gave that command, to take the bread and wine with other believers, in order to ensure that the Christian life was seen as a communal fellowship (not an individual floating spiritually in the air).

The Christians I've known who had "fellowship and accountability" on their own terms, but didn't truly belong to an identifiable group, were often very peculiar and narrow. They considered it a virtue that they didn't belong anywhere, but their spiritual growth was warped because they were so individualistic. (Sort of the opposite extreme from the Local Church, where there was no individuality allowed at all. There must be a balance somewhere.)

When I focus on an individual walk in Christ, people always bring up the "rogue Chrisitian" or "individual floating spiritually in the air" argument. If you read my argument about "entailment" below - you'll see that I don't mean that at all. In fact, I argue that if such a focus leads someone to be isolated from fellowship and community, that is an indicator their individual walk is unhealthy and perhaps deluded.

Regarding communion: this requires someone to belong to one particular group? I don't see how it does. Also, I'm not arguing there won't be "particular groups".

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter Debelak

Excellent exposition of Evangelical Protestant thinking.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Most Evangelical Protestants I know would call this "working theory" crazy and delusional. Which is might be, but certainly isn't emblematic of a traditional view.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Please show examples of "the work" in the New Testament.
...

MacDuff

I doesn't matter to me what terminology is used. I used "the work" since it is a term recognizable to the audience. I would generally define it as pursuing the great commission. Paul preaching the gospels to the gentiles is an example of "the work" (though you can use other terms if you'd like). It was a personal commission to him, to which others joined, but the accountability was his before God. That "work" didn't belong to a particular congregation.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

When I focus on an individual walk in Christ, people always bring up the "rogue Chrisitian" or "individual floating spiritually in the air" argument.

Does this mean they're trying to get through to you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Christians I've known who had "fellowship and accountability" on their own terms, but didn't truly belong to an identifiable group, were often very peculiar and narrow.

I was immersed into the LC's for many years, never having "fellowship and accountability" on my own terms, always "truly belonging to an identifiable group," faithfully breaking bread week by week, and I became very peculiar and narrow, not to mention judgmental, and worse.

So I'm not following your argument here.

Originally Posted by Ohio

So I'm not following your argument here.

My argument is what Peter Debelak referred to as the "rogue Christian." In other words, some Christians (maybe because of negative experiences in churches) go to the extreme of avoiding any commitment to a Chrisitan group. It's just them and Christ, and whoever floats their boat, and their associations are loose and always changing.

Think Madame Guyon type spirituality, without any balance. The Christians I've known like this are very hard to deal with - they can become untouchable, living in their own spiritual castle.

But I get your point about the LC. Been there and done that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

LSM is a publisher they are not a church. For them to have more than one publishing house might be confusion. For a church to embrace a ministry is not unscriptural. But for a ministry to argue that a church cannot embrace any other ministry but theirs is to my understanding of the NT a gross overstepping of their authority and jurisdiction. The "church leaders" should never have submitted to this rule.

Until the last sentence, I agreed with your post. The local church leaders have choice which ministry publication (if any) to receive. My points are these:
1. Receiving or not receiving LSM publication does not qualify or disqualify an assembly as members of the Body.
2. For a ministry to insist churches take their ministry publications and no other, how is that not denominating? Emphasis on the ministry publication is the denominating factor.

[Peter Debelak]

ZNP:

I appreciate you're thoughtful response. Here's my best attempt at responding at least to a couple of your examples.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you say the “assembly” is that equal to the NT term that we translate “Church”? Also, are you equating the assembly with the venue? Because I don’t see how this understanding could align with a number of verses. It seems to my understanding that the Church cannot be defined as wherever two or three meet together.

As "ekklesia" was used in the NT - it had multiple references, sometimes a specific group, sometimes just meaning an assemblage of people, sometimes a mob, and sometimes the universal Body of Christ.

More often than not, this term just gets conflated to refer to distinct and separated groups, each with their own agengy. I am arguing that simple "gatherings" and the formal grouping of Christians are equally "the church" - not unlike the way in which the nondenominational and Baptist churches are equally "the assembly."

Regarding "venue" - I didn't mean specific location, I mean the occasion of gathering together.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For example:

1. Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ given unto the Church (2Cor 1:1). How could a venue be given the Apostle Paul?

Paul is given unto the church. That means he is given to serve the gathering of believers for their mutual edification. Not sure how this is problematic to my view.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. In Revelation 2 and 3 each Church has an Angel. It seems a little over the top to think that a couple of saints meeting at a coffee shop “have an angel” for that venue.

I generally read Revelation 2-3 as setting forth principles rather than being literal (most read it that way - its not like nowadays there are only seven churches and seven associated angels).

I didn't argue that two guys who meet at a coffee shop suddenly become an "entity" called "church".

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. Phebe is a servant of the church. (Rom 16:1) Again, hard to imagine many of these gatherings you are describing having a “servant”.

If the "gathering of believers" is for the mutual edification of Christians - someone could be a servant of making that happen, no matter the outward form it takes.

The believer who constantly opens their home to have young couples, struggling believers, families over for mutual edification - I would say that believer is a "servant" of the "ekklesia." You don't have to volunteer for one of the "teams" in the "service office" in order to be considered a servant of the church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

4. Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church (Acts 12:1). Again, I just don’t see a king getting all bent out of shape at 2 or 3 meeting at a coffee house.

Here, it seems "ekklesia" refers to all believers - the universal church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5. At the time of Saul’s conversion there was a “great persecution against the church”. How could you persecute all these varied venues?

Again, referring to the universal church. The persecuters didn't care about where these believers met - they cared that they were believers.


I'm sure I'll need to explain further. I just want to make sure we're not talking past one another (I have a bad habit of doing so).

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

My argument is what Peter Debelak referred to as the "rogue Christian." In other words, some Christians (maybe because of negative experiences in churches) go to the extreme of avoiding any commitment to a Chrisitan group. It's just them and Christ, and whoever floats their boat, and their associations are loose and always changing.

Think Madame Guyon type spirituality, without any balance. The Christians I've known like this are very hard to deal with - they can become untouchable, living in their own spiritual castle.

But I get your point about the LC. Been there and done that.

According to Witness Lee in Vision of the Age, Madame Guyon was the Minister of the Age, and any seeking believer in the 17th century who wanted to know the up-to-date move of the Lord, and to hear His speaking, must go to Madame Guyon for fellowship.

Sorry to hear she was off balance.

[OBW]

I think that one problem that plagues almost all analyses of "church" or the "ekklesia" is that it is not entirely certain in what context the word is being used as a general term concerning the totality of believers, whether in a small area or region or even universally, or of a single, practical meeting/assembly of believers.

There are letters to the church at a place that includes a reference to the church in a certain person's house. I would presume that in the first context, they were included within the intent of the letter, and yet they are also singled out. I realize that some assert that these house church references are intended to be someones who are in a different assembly, at least on a regular basis from those who are being addressed in the letter.

But the idea that church should just be so small that it just happens is probably not entirely supported by the accounts in the NT. For example, Corinth was a large enough group that Paul told them to cut down the number who participated in certain ways during any one meeting. And it was someone's responsibility, whether singly or a few together, who had the "job" of organizing it to be that way.

And we just spit nails at the very word "organize." Why? I'm really not sure. There was organization from the very beginning. We have been told that the very short-term version of "everybody is a priest" was the norm and God had to settle for a subset to take on the responsibility. Moses eventually took his father-in-law's advice and got 70 elders of the tribes to help administer things. Maybe — just maybe — rather than being the result of our failure, it is the forerunner of "gifts of the Spirit" in operation. God gave us a few weeks to try out being all things all the time and we got to see how futile it was.

Just like there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers, and not apostleprophetevangelistshephedteachers. That is not the way it is set out. There are elders, not a nation of elders. There are shepherds and a flock, not a flock of shepherds.

And the Spirit freely moves within each of us to accomplish our part in the entirety of what is the church, the work, the ministry. And that includes being those that are ministered to. But we don't like being less than essentially self-sufficient. So we think that is it spiritual to have formless meetings to which no one has given advance consideration. Why do we decide what will be covered more than 1 minute before we start? We might otherwise quench the Spirit.

I doubt it. This is a fantasy created from our history in the LRC. We still think that there is a way to make the ideal work. But it was not more likely to work than all the children of Israel simply getting it right on their own. Yes, it is true that the Spirit is now within us rather than external to us. But the accounts seem to indicate that we still need teachers. And leaders still need to get together and figure things out. And everyone's thoughts are not the way it ultimately turns out. (Otherwise, there would have been nothing to discuss in the first place because everyone would have already been on the same page.)

I do not dismiss the reality of very small churches, like house churches, that generally have less logistical issues than larger ones. But at some level, without being connected to either a number of other similar groups, or to one or more larger groups, they will find themselves incomplete. It will require too many multi-gifted persons to be all that is needed.

And the main reason I think that this is true is because there is no evidence that it has ever been any other way. And while it is true that just because it never has doesn't mean it can't be, it is also true that there have been quite a few people trying at different times over many years and they still haven't figured it out.

I don't think that church was intended to be figured out. It was just a fact. It was to be the community of believers. The practical connection between them. I do not see as many "musts" related to that connection as Lee and other purveyors of "superior" groups tend to insist upon. The fact that Jesus said he would "build" it and that it would prevail doesn't mean that we are just bystanders, or that it is some very specific thing that operates in a particular manner because that is what the Spirit causes to happen in those (few) who manage to actually allow the Spirit to take them over.

Maybe the point about church, universally or as an assembly, is that it is the church, not how it is organized, managed, administrated, packaged, etc. The point isn't "real, quick, and fresh" and it isn't traditions. But both can happen. It isn't communion from little cups and pre-made wafers or from single cups and hand-broken unleavened while-flour, unleavened crisps. Both work. It isn't hymns or praise songs. A capella, piano and organ, or rock bands. Pews, stadium seating, or folding chairs. Arched rows or circles. Ancient or modern.

But the oldest is still new today, while the newest is still connected to 2,000 years of history.

And rather than discuss the problems related to the LRC, we — a bunch of "don't really know anything" Joes — want to reinvent church. And think we are smart enough to do it. I know I come off like I think I am pretty smart at times. But even if I am, I have become convinced that I am not smart enough to be the driving fin something like this. And when those who have truly studied such things look at these kinds of discussions and simply see the next splinter in the making, I think it is time to listen to someone else. I will not close my mind as I do that. I learned that lesson. But I do accept that there are those that know more about this than me.

And even with our collective wisdom, I'm not sure that we are as smart as we think. We like to throw out a verse here or there as if it is the end-all to a particular line of thought. Sometimes it is. But not as often as we think. Mostly, I find the verses on these subjects to provide the evidence that it is harder than we think. There are more questions than answers. And that is not bad. Sometimes, the question is the thing that leads to the answer. Simply seeking the answer does not always satisfy the real question. Just a question.

(I'm sure that was too fuzzy to be very meaningful. I better quit while I'm not too far behind.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Until the last sentence, I agreed with your post. The local church leaders have choice which ministry publication (if any) to receive. My points are these:
1. Receiving or not receiving LSM publication does not qualify or disqualify an assembly as members of the Body.
2. For a ministry to insist churches take their ministry publications and no other, how is that not denominating? Emphasis on the ministry publication is the denominating factor.

The offensive rule I am referring to is not that they receive or don't receive the LSM. To me the offensive rule is that they cannot receive any other ministry. I don't see the Apostle Paul or Peter or any other Apostle having the authority to forbid a church from receiving one ministry or another. "I have planted and Apollos watered". I just don't see anywhere in the NT, with Paul or John or Peter where they forbid a church from receiving another ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here's my best attempt at responding at least to a couple of your examples...

I don't know if you are familiar with the messages on the church being an embassy of God's kingdom. But it sounds to me like you are saying anytime Christians assemble for the purpose of mutual edification they represent the Church.

The church represents the corporate experience of Christ and this is seen in any assembly of Christians where mutual edification is taking place, or where Christ is in their midst.

You might see manifestations of those serving even in a small group of three, and you might see evidence that Paul's ministry is given unto that group for their mutual edification. However, if this group grows into a hundred or a thousand their might be greater diversification of these roles and functions, but still at its root a corporate experience of Christ for the mutual edification of the believers.

Therefore, if you look at the meeting of 3 believers and see them submitting one to another you will see this same submission manifested in larger gatherings.

But then of course Jesus said "wherever two or three gather together in my name there am I in the midst". So why not define the church as a group of Christians assembling in the name of Christ where Jesus is in their midst?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that one problem that plagues almost all analyses of "church" or the "ekklesia" is that it is not entirely certain in what context the word is being used as a general term concerning the totality of believers, whether in a small area or region or even universally, or of a single, practical meeting/assembly of believers.

How do you define basketball? Does it have to have 10 players on each side, two coaches, a couple of refs a regulation court and some time keepers? What if there are only 5 on each side and no one sitting on the bench? What if it is half court, is it still basketball? Do you have to practice together before the game or can you choose sides and play without any preparation? Is that still basketball? What about 3 on 3, is that basketball?

No doubt Michael Jordan was a "gifted" basketball player, but would you get these gifts if the only game in town was the NBA? Don't you need the pickup games and the park and every level of organization to develop and support a league like the NBA?

Since this is the way things work, why does it have to be that different for the church?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore, if you look at the meeting of 3 believers and see them submitting one to another you will see this same submission manifested in larger gatherings.

But then of course Jesus said "wherever two or three gather together in my name there am I in the midst". So why not define the church as a group of Christians assembling in the name of Christ where Jesus is in their midst?

ZNP:

That's a large part of what I'm arguing. I am NOT arguing that large "organized" churches are "wrong". I am arguing

1) that WHENEVER Christians get together that is "the church" even though it might not be "organized," and

2) That an emphasis on individual walk with the Lord and learning to hear the Spirit's voice is preferable to a focus on "group" - just as a matter of emphasis - since a healthy individual walk WILL result in a corporate experience while a focus on "the group" may or may not result in healthy individual walk; and

3) the simple gathering of believers for mutual edification is often usurped when the group gains its own "agengy" to pursue "Agendas" or "ministry" - which sould perhaps be more God-to-individual driven, even though there might be resultant cooperation.

Make any sense?

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Mike:

I'm not sure we're saying different things. My point isn't to do away with "organized" congregations. I do not aim to lay out some "ideal church." Most of what I'm arguing for is more about an approach and an emphasis than it is about an outward manifestation.

There IS a long tradition of "church" as its practiced. But that tradition ALSO INCLUDES a tradition of problems - abuse at worst and a subtle, non-intentional stealing of one's resonsibility before God at least.

Thus, I am asking what spiritual principles - even WITHIN THE CONTEXT of traditional churches - can be internalized to 1) broaden our thinking about how we relate to other believers whether they "meet with us" or not and 2) keep our focus on our personal growth, rather than handing accountability over to the group or "the work."

Thoughts?

Peter

[MacDuff]

Peter Debelak

So what you're saying is that the outside doesn't matter, that it's the inside that matters? And you are emphasizing the individual person over whatever community might arise?

MacDuff

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter Debelak

So what you're saying is that the outside doesn't matter, that it's the inside that matters? And you are emphasizing the individual person over whatever community might arise?

MacDuff

Dear Socrates, er, MacDuff:

I'd prefer you say what you mean rather than the prolonged socratic method.



That is part of what I'm saying. But what "arises" is also important, but mostly as a barometer of whether our pursuit is a healthy one.

In Revelation 2-3, for example, the Spirit speaks "to the church" - that is to a community of people - but the call to action the call to "agency" is to the individual.

That Protestantism emphasizes "individualism" in theory does not mean that impulse isn't drowned out by centuries of habituated thinking in group human structures.

I've read just about all of your posts and I glean a disdain for historical Christianity - thus the reference to my thinking being "classic Protestantism" I read as having implicit disdain. If not, say so. If so, speak out where you think my thoughts are "off." Really, I'm open.

It doesn't matter much to me whether my view resembles a particular intellectual/religious history - I don't derive the strength of my convictions by how wide-spread they are accepted. It is nice when they are accepted, but I can't derive my self-worth or conviction that way anymore. It matters to me whether my view is born out by Scripture, my own experience - and yes, vetted by an open community of fellowshp and sharpening stones of loved ones. I don't know how to do much otherwise, even if I am greatly mistaken.

Thoughts?

Grace to you,

Peter

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The offensive rule I am referring to is not that they receive or don't receive the LSM. To me the offensive rule is that they cannot receive any other ministry. I don't see the Apostle Paul or Peter or any other Apostle having the authority to forbid a church from receiving one ministry or another. "I have planted and Apollos watered". I just don't see anywhere in the NT, with Paul or John or Peter where they forbid a church from receiving another ministry.

As I understand, you were speaking generally and I was speaking specifically. In current context you could reinsert LSM with SBC or another denomination which is ministry-specific alligned, and this is not a pattern of the New Testament ministry.

[Peter Debelak]

[NOTE TO MODERATOR: THIS IS OFF TOPIC, SORRY.... ]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Does this mean they're trying to get through to you?

I am certain they are "trying to get through to me." However, when they respond in a way that is obvious they aren't responding to my actual argument and instead are arguing against a caricature of my argument, then they will not tend to be successful in "getting through to me." In fact, when they respond to a straw man, rather than what I'm actually trying to say, it is more a commentary on where their openness is at, not mine.

That said, I truly am open to correction when people respond to my full argument, rather than some generic version they heard somewhere else. When they don't evidence a willingness to hear what I'm trying to convey, then its hard to "take correction."

I've been through so many iterations of "ways" to live the Christian life. I've seen so many different kinds of believers. I know folks in formal congregations who are delusional, and folks in formal congregations who have astounding spiritual heft. The same is true with so-called "individualistic" Christians.

I know I'm not very concise or cogent the way I explain things. I guess I can only ask for your indulgence/patience... That said, it doesn't mean there isn't a really point to it - and I'll keep re-explaning it if it's clear what I'm saying hasn't been made clear. That doesn't mean I expect folks to agree with me - but if its obvious they haven't even understood yet, I'll get back on the horse and go another lap...

Grace to you,

Peter

P.S. As long as I've been on these forums - and its been a few years - I've never come on to "preach" or "teach" according to my own little philosophy about God and His will. I have come on here because, in the regaining of a faith that I own for myself - rather than inherit from my childhood culture - I have found these boards to be a very healthy sharpening stone, indeed one with love. I don't claim to have "found a better way." If your intent is to engage in mutuality, rather than to jump on and challenge in a generic way, I urge you to get an account. In fact, if you had an account, this would be a PM and not a post in the public forum. I cherish having real engagement when it is founded in mutuality. I receive a lot of correction that way.

Thanks for the invitation. I prefer not to get an account or receive PM's.

My impression from reading your posts is that you are very self-deprecating, but actually you stand apart from belonging to any Christian group, and prefer an individual walk with the Lord that answers to no one. That's why I brought up communion. When was the last time you took the bread and the wine, and with what group? You can pontificate all you want, but to me that's where the "rubber meets the road." And I don't think Jesus meant that you take communion with one group, and then with another group, and perhaps later with another group, floating around analyzing everything without ever actually belonging to a particular group. I do believe Jesus expected the Christian life to be anti-individualistic. Yes, we have individual lives before the Lord, but they are to be lived in communion with other Christians. Do this in remembrance of Me - take My body and My blood with other people who I died for, and live your life among them. (This does NOT mean take the route of the Local Church where you have no individuality or personality at all.)

You say that you've heard numerous Christians respond to your own arguments with the "rogue Christian" response or the "floating spiritually" response, and maybe they were not responding to a straw man. Maybe they knew exactly what you meant, and had an instinctive reaction to it. Maybe the Lord was warning you through the members of His Body that your way is not as healthy as you think, and your questions are not as good as you think. That's all. I don't know you so I don't mean to sound critical. It's just that I know many who left the LC who still seem trapped in LC thinking (while at the same time reacting to it). So they look down on all of Christianity, and no Christian group is ever good enough, and they will never belong to anything larger than a tiny self-selection of people who think the same way they do. If that's not you, I don't mean to paint you with the same brush. But you come across as having an attitude of pride masked with self-deprecation. No Christian group will ever be able to contain you, because you see through them all. Yet you will be the one who misses out on the Christian community that can help you grow past your own perspective. (Again that sounds critical, but I'll just let it be and you can take issue with it if you want to. Actually I'm reacting against people you remind me of, not you personally.)

[Peter Debelak]

Dear Unregistered:

I understand that I am arguing for more emphasis on the individual walk, but I do not see where in my posts you gathered that I am or aim to be "answerable to no one." I do not meet with an identifiable group, but I do meet regularly with groups of people consistantly, with whom I have built up intimate relationships and with whom I am open to correction and even submission.

Just last night (and every Tuesday), I meet with a group of 8-15 brothers - ranging from ages 21-75 with the majority of them over age 40. Most of them meet in some formal group or another, but our particular group doesn't seek to carve out its own identity. It is a very open and intense gathering - and the relationships built continue in daily fellowship most days of the week.

A few nights ago, I met with an older brother who actually used to be my elder (as in, he was an elder in the local church). These days, I still fellowship with him and even submit to him - but as my elder (older and wiser believer) not just because he's my elder (office holder in a formal congregation).

These are but two examples of corporate fellowship that exists in my routine life, even though I don't claim "membership" of a formal organiztion. But importantly, I am not advocating that this is some sort of "model." My argument is about emphasis even if one belongs to a formal group.

Regarding "disdain" for groups, I would argue its harder for "members" of a particular group to have mutual respect for folks who don't meet with them (I'm not saying it doesn't happen - its just not as easy). I have routine and mutual fellowship with Catholics, Baptists as well as evangelical protestants. The last time I took communion was in a Lutheran Church. And I have an immense respect for the faith of my relatives who are members of that church.

In just about every post I have argued that an individual Christian walk - IF it is healthy - WILL NECESSARILY result in corporate fellowship. If and when I develop a disdain for corporate fellowsship, or my life is devoid of it - that is a RED FLAG that my individual walk is unhealthy.

People respond to me as if that is just "pontificating". Why the reluctance to even entertain a slightly different way of seeing the dynamic between "individual" and corporate spiritual walk. You again approach me as the "teaching father (or mother)". That has more apparant audacity and "disdain" and lack of opennesss than you cliam my posts exhibit. I don't bristle at folks disagreeing with me if I sense there is mutuality in the fellowship. I do bristle at the uni-directional teaching when its clear you weren't listening in the first place.

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Again, I would be more than happy to have one-on-one fellowship and share some more personal aspect to where I am coming from and why. But if you are only interested in making public points to a larger audience, don't use me as a punching bag to make points about other "rogue Christians" you've encountered in the past AND THEN say you're not open to one-on-one fellowship.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you define basketball?

. . . .

Since this is the way things work, why does it have to be that different for the church?

And your point is?

I didn't make a definite point. I suggested that the definitive points are problematic because of ambiguities.

And even if you point to various kinds and sizes of Christian gatherings and liken them to the full spectrum of basketball teams and games, from one-on-one street ball to professional teams, I'm not sure that it matters. Or that noting that it doesn't matter actually supports or questions what I said.

Basketball is still basketball no matter how you play it. Unless you try to do it with a small, hard, leather-covered ball and a bat.

But no matter how you speak of it, basketball is not both a game and a sports drink. The analogy may be poor, but my thinking was more along the lines that "church" is used for different things. It is not just a gathering. It is also the collection of gatherings. Possibly also covers all those who could be gathering but are not (it doesn't turn off just because there is not currently a gathering), whether that gathering would be one group or many groups. It can be used for any of those.

Can it be used for all at the same time? I'd have to consider that one. But I would tend to think that it would be confusing as to what was the topic.

And what is the topic is the real point. In one place, church is a specific gathering (the church in "her" house). In another, it is all those in a city without reference to how they meet, even if in multiple, separate groups. In another, it is a singular statement about "my church" and that is somewhat clearly more than any single assembly. And since it was made without a place of reference, it is not clear that any particular assembly or group of assemblies was considered.

Some of Paul's words are about practical aspects of the gathering of believers. So how church meets is not completely open. It needs to at least reflect the person of the one we allegedly gather around — Christ. Other of his words are about the church as an organism, likened to a body, then in another place to a wife. In yet other places, it is not an organism, but an army, a building, and even a farm. These are not really organisms. Yet these word pictures tell us some more about the church, whether a practical assembly or the mystical union of us all.

So what is it that basketball was supposed to tell me without actually saying anything? Or what was the question it raised supposed to be that furthered or diminished the previous post?

[OBW]

Peter,

I was going to comment a little on two of your posts, but I'll put them together here and start with the second one.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

There IS a long tradition of "church" as its practiced. But that tradition ALSO INCLUDES a tradition of problems - abuse at worst and a subtle, non-intentional stealing of one's responsibility before God at least.

I don't recall where I wrote this. It might have been in my blog and since that got eaten by McAfee anti-virus, I'm not sure the words ever made the forum.

My son (the ThM from DTS) and I were talking last night and we agreed that there is a lot of flack to be expected by the RCC. But also a lot of flack that is not deserved. (This will link to the last part of the bit I quoted above.)

I was thinking about something the other day when it hit me that Martin Luther did not try to speak up to the RCC because he thought all the parishioners around him we unsaved. He did so because he was convinced that they were saved, but the lack of understanding how that was a certainty was robbing them of a level of freedom to move beyond the sense that they may never truly be saved. And the way the RCC was going about their business of teaching may not have been intentional. But that was the effect. Martin luther was trying to help his fellow Christians understand what they had.

Then, because Protestantism became embroiled in battle with the political arm of the RCC, we slowly morphed our understanding of the problem such that we believe that we have to teach it right or we are not saved. I know that I have asked this before, but do we really think that virtually all of the RCC's membership are just marginal cultural Christians and should expect to be in Hell for eternity? I believe that the answer is that, like any place, there probably are some. We might like to think that it might be a larger percentage with the RCC, and some other older liberal protestant groups. But would we be surprised to find that the disparity is less than we think? I have no idea, but I am willing to entertain that we could be wrong.

Then in the earlier post your said:

That an emphasis on individual walk with the Lord and learning to hear the Spirit's voice is preferable to a focus on "group" - just as a matter of emphasis - since a healthy individual walk WILL result in a corporate experience while a focus on "the group" may or may not result in healthy individual walk.

This is one of the most succinct statements of what I believe is an underlying problem with the LRC. The group supersedes the individual with the result that individuals of questionable position and walk are drawn into, and become part of, a group practice that minimizes the importance of the individual, thereby never separately arriving at the level of true spirituality that could drive a true corporate experience. (If this gets lost to a computer hiccup, I could never write it like that again.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

So what you're saying is that the outside doesn't matter, that it's the inside that matters? And you are emphasizing the individual person over whatever community might arise?

I cannot answer for Peter, but here is how I would answer.

The outside does matter, but not at the same level as the inside. Not making a value judgment of one over the other. Just noting that they have their places. In some cases, outside is more important. In others, inside is.

But inside is never missing from the formula. The driver of all things Christian is the inside. It is the change from within. But not in the way that Lee often taught it. It is not by avoiding doing the outward right until the inward was aligned (gets enough "dispensing"). We still strive to do the outward right. Notice that after Paul goes through his discussion of the law of God and the law of sin and death, he comes to the law of the Spirit. That law fulfills the law of God. Not by magic. We still have to set our minds. We have to choose and walk. But, like James said it, if the outside isn't being righteous, you have every reason to question the inside.

When we speak about how assemblies operate, all we see is the outside. And there are a lot of different outsides to observe. But the only thing that really matters — the only thing that will drive "correct" outsides — is a correct inside. Righteousness is inside. Out of righteousness, whatever form of organization is taken, it will be acceptable. Out of unrighteousness, no matter what form of organization is taken, it will be a problem.

To an engineer, we are speaking of the wrong part of the equation. They don't care about what is happening. They want to know why it is happening. The problem with a church that has abuse is not the form of administration, or its connectedness (or lack thereof) to other churches. It is the unrighteousness of those who are abusing. Since there is something fundamentally flawed about a theological conclusion that some particular church has taken to declare itself to the "the" church and others "not it," it might be easy to declare that they could be prone to this kind of abuse. But the abuse will not arise because of bad theology. It will arise because there is unrighteousness in the system. And bad theology, especially of a ridiculous kind, may hint at unrighteousness simply in the fact that they came up with that theology. But it ain't necessarily so.

The root cause of openly shaming someone for something that is not actually a shame is not just bad theology. It is dogged determination to act unrighteously, usually for a reason that has personal benefit. More unrighteousness. And why is there unrighteousness? Lack of a real individual walk with Christ. In the LRC, it is replaced by an individual walk with the words of Lee which do, on occasion, seem to include some of the words of Christ.

But, in the end, it is what is inside the individual, and the individuals, that matters. It does not matter what you do ot don't like about an assembly. The only real questions is, what about the people? What is going on inside of them. Even in one of the older protestant denominations that does a whole of of repetitive ritual. That is irrelevant. What is happening inside.

[MacDuff]

Peter Debelak

Dear Socrates, er, MacDuff:
I'd prefer you say what you mean rather than the prolonged socratic method.

Prolonged??? That was one of my shortest posts. Well under 200 words.

No Socratic method intended. I really thought I had it right with those two simple questions. Just thought I’d spend what little time I have left here trying to understand what it is you are trying to say. I thought it might be a little different than what is the norm here. Maybe a little closer to what I was trying to get across. But I no longer think that is the case.

As I read your posts to unregistered, I note you have a problem that is common here. You pretend to be open to what others say. But if they question you, you tend to take offense. I perceive that thou protests too much. Belying what you think you are. Oh for the gift he gie us. To see ourselves as others see us. I’ve been fortunate to have that gift, and often to agree with it. If you believe in the Spirit as you say, then it would be through the Spirit you are able to see yourself. Not reflected on anyone in particular. Apart from the Spirit, the only way to see yourself is through your reflection on others.

I have some experience with Lutheran Churches. If you attended Lutherans of the Missouri synod or the Wisconsin Evangelical, and they let you take communion with them, it was a fluke. Both denominations practice closed communion, being of conservative persuasion or Confessional Lutherans. But if of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, they let anyone take communion with them. And they ordain women pastors and accept gay Christians (and I understand gay Pastors as well currently), and the members generally accept abortion as acceptable, the denomination being of the liberal persuasion. I understand they deny the authority of the Bible and don’t hold explicitly to Justification by faith alone in typical liberal Protestant fashion. One would think I would have no problem with becoming a formal member of a liberal Protestant Church. But I have a different view of the Bible and Justification than they do. And I oppose their idea that being gay and abortion as being acceptable. They don’t practice formal closed communion. But to oppose them in those areas is a definite no-no, and they will strongly encourage you to go elsewhere if they know you hold a conservative view on those matters. Closed communion by any other name. The conservative view is considered discriminatory by them. And unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on ones point of vew, I’m closer to the conservative side when it comes to these matters.

In Revelation 2-3, for example, the Spirit speaks "to the church" - that is to a community of people - but the call to action the call to "agency" is to the individual.

I’ve been fascinated by how so many Christians can’t take the first and last books of the Bible literally. As if what was written is some sort of mythical reference or a parable like thing that stands for something else.

I've read just about all of your posts and I glean a disdain for historical Christianity - thus the reference to my thinking being "classic Protestantism" I read as having implicit disdain. If not, say so. If so, speak out where you think my thoughts are "off." Really, I'm open.

I will only say in my own defense that I have absolutely no disdain for Christianity. It has managed to serve Christians quite well for two millennia. I just don’t think there has been any real difference between the history of Christianity and the history of humanity in general. And thus to me Christianity is not really an expression of the Bible that is explicitly supernaturally oriented with obvious claims for evidence of the supernatural. So like everyone else here, you have totally misunderstood my view.

And I really don’t get the gist of your view. So it’s pretty hard to have disdain or respect for your view. Obviously you think nothing I have said so far is on target. You joined this forum back in 2008. And maybe the others here get it. I haven’t the same point of reference as they do to get it. So I guess I probably won’t get it before I leave here. And usually I’m pretty good at understanding the views of others whether I agree with them or not. Maybe if I were to stick around a little longer I would finally get it. But I see no reason to do so, having nothing in common with anyone here. Obviously.

It doesn't matter much to me whether my view resembles a particular intellectual/religious history - I don't derive the strength of my convictions by how wide-spread they are accepted. It is nice when they are accepted, but I can't derive my self-worth or conviction that way anymore. It matters to me whether my view is born out by Scripture, my own experience - and yes, vetted by an open community of fellowshp and sharpening stones of loved ones. I don't know how to do much otherwise, even if I am greatly mistaken.

Do you think you got your thinking in a vacuum? That what you think is unique? Think again. Not even my view is unique. Unusual? Perhaps. Often misunderstood? Plainly. But definitely not unique.

But you thinking that your view is unique to you, and your not thinking it matters much if your view resembles “a particular intellectual/religious history”, and that you are only concerned whether your view is “born out by Scripture, my own experience - and yes, vetted by an open community of fellowshp”, a fellowship of your own choosing, is why you can be considered a lone wolf. I too have been referred to in that way, among others. My personal favorite is that I am a denomination unto myself. How can that even be possible unless I have followers, which I don’t, nor do I want any. Eventually they denied me any Christian status at all. And to be denied the status of Christian only requires I reveal my view on one particular doctrine that is the uber essential in most of Christianity.

Christians have a habit of understanding Scripture by interpretation. It’s the common denominator between Catholics and Protestants. And the reason why Catholics and Protestants are doctrinally divided, as well as why Protestants are doctrinally divided from one another. They think their interpretations are what Scripture says. The diversity of the result doesn’t seem to bother Christians at all as they go about their business in whatever Church they happen to find themselves. Until someone gets them riled about something, then they just go off to find another Church that they deem more suitable. The current state of Christianity is very convenient for riled Christians.

So what does Scripture say? Whatever one wants it to say. It will always back one’s own view. I think Scripture backs my view. But who here agrees that it does? The one who calls my Scriptural view a theory with no conclusion? Or the one who calls my Scriptural view a fairy tale with no practical expression? I rarely even present Scripture anymore when I present my own view. Christians don’t understand the Bible alike. What’s the use? I could be a fundamentalist and hit people over the head with my Bible all day long. To no avail. They would just hit me back with their own Bible. And curiously enough the Bibles wouldn’t say the same thing.

Once, when I was still new to the forums, I made the mistake of just posting a list of Scriptures without any comment whatsoever. Except to say that they represented my view. Only to have the post called my personal opinion. Is that what Scripture is about, just a matter of personal opinion? That does seem to be the case in Christianity. Especially in Protestantism, where Scripture is claimed to be the only authority for all faith and practice, while simultaneously the claim is interpretively executed. They can’t even agree on what morals to follow, having their own interpretations for that as well. Catholicism makes much better sense in that regard acknowledging both the necessity for interpretation (that is commonly practiced by all) and having an authority that deals with that necessity. Doesn’t make my faith in the Bible any stronger. And it makes my faith in Christianity, that interprets the Bible according to whatever seems naturally reasonable to them, non-existent. Yet how can I tell whether or not I may be just as guilty of Biblical interpretation as the Christians, even though I’m savvy enough to oppose the practice?

The only reason why I still have some faith in the Bible is because it was through reading the Bible for myself after being a Catholic from birth that I actually began to believe that all that stuff was really true. By the time I was 12 I already began to doubt the verity of Catholic doctrines. When I read the Bible for myself, something inside seemed to say, now you know what’s real. And at first I was really enthused, to the point of near fanaticism. Talked about it all the time. Until I saw that the Catholics didn’t like what I thought was real. Just like here. So I went on a quest through Protestantism. Who liked what I thought was real no more than the Catholics. Just like here.

I didn’t really come on this forum to promote my own view. At this point in time I really couldn’t care less if Christians agree with my view or not. But it would be nice if they at least understood what it is they are disagreeing with. Not that I think that all who disagree don’t understand. Which is very revealing to me of their own thinking.

I only came here initially to share my own experience of the Recovery. Never did get to do that, except to say I experienced zero abuse. Not that zero abuse is really what too many on this forum want to hear. Whether unconsciously or openly, they don’t want their wounds to heal. Their wounds being their identity.

MacDuff

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I’ve been fascinated by how so many Christians can’t take the first and last books of the Bible literally. As if what was written is some sort of mythical reference or a parable like thing that stands for something else.

Are you talking about the first few chapters of the first book and some of the last book?

From what I can see, most who insist on a "way" read all of Genesis as literal. And despite references to "types and figures" in Revelation, too much is read as if absolutely a spot-on account of a sequence of events.

But in fairness, I wonder whether you actually meant what you wrote the way you wrote it. Most who would read all of Genesis in a literal way just couldn't arrive at an agnostic/atheistic position. If Genesis 1 through 3 is literal, then either God has to be what the Bible says, or the whole thing is an alternate to the Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc., myths of the time just to have their own stories. And is meaningless. If the former, no uncertainty about the truth of God. If the latter, then again, no uncertainty about the falsity of God.

I don't get it.

But that isn't the end of the conversation. Just noting something that doesn't track with my thinking. And maybe that is why it is my thinking and not yours — because I am the one thinking it and not you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Once, when I was still new to the forums, I made the mistake of just posting a list of Scriptures without any comment whatsoever. Except to say that they represented my view. Only to have the post called my personal opinion. Is that what Scripture is about, just a matter of personal opinion? That does seem to be the case in Christianity. Especially in Protestantism, where Scripture is claimed to be the only authority for all faith and practice, while simultaneously the claim is interpretively executed. They can’t even agree on what morals to follow, having their own interpretations for that as well. Catholicism makes much better sense in that regard acknowledging both the necessity for interpretation (that is commonly practiced by all) and having an authority that deals with that necessity. Doesn’t make my faith in the Bible any stronger. And it makes my faith in Christianity, that interprets the Bible according to whatever seems naturally reasonable to them, non-existent. Yet how can I tell whether or not I may be just as guilty of Biblical interpretation as the Christians, even though I’m savvy enough to oppose the practice?

Ah, the wonders of sola scriptura. The position that claims scripture is the final authority, then having to wrangle between different interpretations of that singular scripture.

Now this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is sometimes a joke that goes around in some seminaries that Christianity would be a lot better off if everybody didn't have their own Bible.

And oddly enough, it is partly true.

(It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
What's that?
Go through his clothes and look for loose change.)

Yeah, there is a serious problem when the claimed authority does not have the final say. There is always a "principle," or a "guiding rule" to consider. And usually the rule is something that forces the desired conclusion into the reading so you can get the desired conclusion out of it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And your point is?

I didn't make a definite point. I suggested that the definitive points are problematic because of ambiguities.

And even if you point to various kinds and sizes of Christian gatherings and liken them to the full spectrum of basketball teams and games, from one-on-one street ball to professional teams, I'm not sure that it matters. Or that noting that it doesn't matter actually supports or questions what I said.

Basketball is still basketball no matter how you play it. Unless you try to do it with a small, hard, leather-covered ball and a bat.

But no matter how you speak of it, basketball is not both a game and a sports drink. The analogy may be poor, but my thinking was more along the lines that "church" is used for different things. It is not just a gathering. It is also the collection of gatherings. Possibly also covers all those who could be gathering but are not (it doesn't turn off just because there is not currently a gathering), whether that gathering would be one group or many groups. It can be used for any of those.

Can it be used for all at the same time? I'd have to consider that one. But I would tend to think that it would be confusing as to what was the topic.

And what is the topic is the real point. In one place, church is a specific gathering (the church in "her" house). In another, it is all those in a city without reference to how they meet, even if in multiple, separate groups. In another, it is a singular statement about "my church" and that is somewhat clearly more than any single assembly. And since it was made without a place of reference, it is not clear that any particular assembly or group of assemblies was considered.

Some of Paul's words are about practical aspects of the gathering of believers. So how church meets is not completely open. It needs to at least reflect the person of the one we allegedly gather around — Christ. Other of his words are about the church as an organism, likened to a body, then in another place to a wife. In yet other places, it is not an organism, but an army, a building, and even a farm. These are not really organisms. Yet these word pictures tell us some more about the church, whether a practical assembly or the mystical union of us all.

So what is it that basketball was supposed to tell me without actually saying anything? Or what was the question it raised supposed to be that furthered or diminished the previous post?

My point is you are raising questions about whether the church was ever not a large organization. Yes there are small "house churches" and people gathering, but even in Acts we see a very large church in Jerusalem. So I am suggesting looking at this differently. If we were talking about basketball it is very easy to see churches in a region like Galatia or Asia being similar to Basketball teams in a league like the NBA, NCAA, or Europe, etc. We can see very organized teams, and we can see small pickup games and still recognize them as the same thing. We can see gifted members like Michael Jordan being "given unto" the NBA, we can see people "serving" the team, and many games are "in someone's house" even if it is "Staples" or some other major arena. We also see a higher level of submission required for the NBA than we do in a pickup game. For example, when the replacement refs were officiating in the NFL no one under the authority of the NFL could speak negatively of them without getting fined by the NFL. A coach or player couldn't voice or tweet their opinion without getting a $50,000 fine. So this goes to the heart of the thread, the more organized it gets the more submission there is. For example I learned that Belichick dresses the way he does because it is the ugliest, most heinous outfit he can come up with that stays within the NFL guidelines for what a coach can wear. He was offended that they tell grown men how to dress so this is his way of rebelling.

But here is the real question, is spectating part of basketball? The NBA has lots of spectators, is watching a game basketball or is basketball only refer to those who are actively involved (including coaches, refs, timers, ball boys, water boys, mascots, etc)?

Spectators are not a problem for pick up games or even high school games. But for professional sports it seems to be much more of an entity unto itself. Because it seems from my experience that spectating in a small church is not an issue, but once you have thousands of members there is a significant group that are essentially spectators.

[Peter Debelak]

MacDuff, Unregistered and others:

Yes, I have bristled recently in some posts. I get frustrated by the apparant reality that I don't communicate my ideas well and then people respond to things I'm not arguing. I will own that. My hope is to actually convey what I am thinking and have experienced, so that it can be sharpened, challenged or encouraged. But it is not helpful to me or to anyone else when folks respond to arguments I am not making. But again, I will own that as my failure. Please accept an apology for the tenor of those posts...

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter Debelak

Prolonged??? That was one of my shortest posts. Well under 200 words.

No Socratic method intended. I really thought I had it right with those two simple questions. Just thought I’d spend what little time I have left here trying to understand what it is you are trying to say. I thought it might be a little different than what is the norm here. Maybe a little closer to what I was trying to get across. But I no longer think that is the case.

I have been intrigued by your positions and though they are a bit more aggressively articulated than I may state them, they do have a similar emphasis that I have been trying to express.

I didn't really know what your questions were getting at, and I confess I was in a defensive attitude when you posted them. See my comments above.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I’ve been fascinated by how so many Christians can’t take the first and last books of the Bible literally. As if what was written is some sort of mythical reference or a parable like thing that stands for something else.

I'd be interested to hear more about what you mean here. You said this in response to my reference to Revelation 2-3. Literally, these passages discuss a message to city-churches that I don't associate with and aren't in existance today. Are you saying these shouldn't be read in a way that have some spiritual principles that can be gleaned? Or are you saying my reading of the verses is "literal." Sorry, I just didn't follow. Definately would be interested in more elaboration.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I will only say in my own defense that I have absolutely no disdain for Christianity. It has managed to serve Christians quite well for two millennia. I just don’t think there has been any real difference between the history of Christianity and the history of humanity in general. And thus to me Christianity is not really an expression of the Bible that is explicitly supernaturally oriented with obvious claims for evidence of the supernatural. So like everyone else here, you have totally misunderstood my view.

No, I believe I understood your view. It is one I've expressed here before. In fact, if you've seen any posts regarding my testimony - you'll note that the biggest reason I left the LC initially (in fact, at the time, I rejected God entirely) was that when I looked at my "Christian life" up to that point, I realized I really didn't need any faith or spirituality AT ALL in order to be "successful" in it. Members of the church praised me for how "spiritual" I was - and yet I knew that I had simply mastered a bunch of culture norms and mores, just as I would have done if I was born into a Buddhist family.

If human culture was all that was necessary to be "good" at "church," then I wanted nothing to do with it.

The ONLY reason I refound a faith was because I came to believe that God IS spiritual and MORE THAN human culture, though He works in and often through it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christians have a habit of understanding Scripture by interpretation. It’s the common denominator between Catholics and Protestants. And the reason why Catholics and Protestants are doctrinally divided, as well as why Protestants are doctrinally divided from one another. They think their interpretations are what Scripture says. The diversity of the result doesn’t seem to bother Christians at all as they go about their business in whatever Church they happen to find themselves. Until someone gets them riled about something, then they just go off to find another Church that they deem more suitable. The current state of Christianity is very convenient for riled Christians.

So what does Scripture say? Whatever one wants it to say. It will always back one’s own view. I think Scripture backs my view. But who here agrees that it does? The one who calls my Scriptural view a theory with no conclusion? Or the one who calls my Scriptural view a fairy tale with no practical expression? I rarely even present Scripture anymore when I present my own view. Christians don’t understand the Bible alike. What’s the use? I could be a fundamentalist and hit people over the head with my Bible all day long. To no avail. They would just hit me back with their own Bible. And curiously enough the Bibles wouldn’t say the same thing.

Once, when I was still new to the forums, I made the mistake of just posting a list of Scriptures without any comment whatsoever. Except to say that they represented my view. Only to have the post called my personal opinion. Is that what Scripture is about, just a matter of personal opinion? That does seem to be the case in Christianity. Especially in Protestantism, where Scripture is claimed to be the only authority for all faith and practice, while simultaneously the claim is interpretively executed. They can’t even agree on what morals to follow, having their own interpretations for that as well. Catholicism makes much better sense in that regard acknowledging both the necessity for interpretation (that is commonly practiced by all) and having an authority that deals with that necessity. Doesn’t make my faith in the Bible any stronger. And it makes my faith in Christianity, that interprets the Bible according to whatever seems naturally reasonable to them, non-existent. Yet how can I tell whether or not I may be just as guilty of Biblical interpretation as the Christians, even though I’m savvy enough to oppose the practice?

The only reason why I still have some faith in the Bible is because it was through reading the Bible for myself after being a Catholic from birth that I actually began to believe that all that stuff was really true. By the time I was 12 I already began to doubt the verity of Catholic doctrines. When I read the Bible for myself, something inside seemed to say, now you know what’s real. And at first I was really enthused, to the point of near fanaticism. Talked about it all the time. Until I saw that the Catholics didn’t like what I thought was real. Just like here. So I went on a quest through Protestantism. Who liked what I thought was real no more than the Catholics. Just like here.

I suppose to some degree I've come to similar conclusions. For myself, personally, I have come to believe in the Bible and the SPirit within. But I know that when I read the Bible and interpret it, that interpretation will differ from others - often greatly. ANd everyone uses the Bible to support their view, fully aware that others use the same book to justify a different view.

On one hand, I cannot just abandon the way I read the Bible and what I see that its conveying, just because others disagree. But on the other hand, I also recognize my own fallibility and that there is value to subjecting my interpretation to community of fellow believers. My view on numerous SCriputre has changed in various ways in just this manner - not that I adopted the view of the person arguing with me, but the fellowship caused me to see a viewpoint I hadn't given full consideration to - and thus caused me to adjust my view.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I didn’t really come on this forum to promote my own view. At this point in time I really couldn’t care less if Christians agree with my view or not. But it would be nice if they at least understood what it is they are disagreeing with. Not that I think that all who disagree don’t understand. Which is very revealing to me of their own thinking.

This was a bit of my frustration - I don't mind folks disagreeing, but I would prefer they understand what I'm conveying first before disagreeing. But again, the fact that others may not understand what I'm trying to get across can be just as much my failure of clarity.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I only came here initially to share my own experience of the Recovery. Never did get to do that, except to say I experienced zero abuse. Not that zero abuse is really what too many on this forum want to hear. Whether unconsciously or openly, they don’t want their wounds to heal. Their wounds being their identity.

MacDuff

I definately would like to hear your experience in the LC, if you're still open to sharing.

Thanks for your long, thoughtful response.

In Love,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Just one more quick comment, because it relates to how I view relation to groups:

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter Debelak

Do you think you got your thinking in a vacuum? That what you think is unique? Think again. Not even my view is unique. Unusual? Perhaps. Often misunderstood? Plainly. But definitely not unique.



MacDuff

My point is that it doesn't matter to me whether my view is "unique" or "in the mainstream." I do not derive its value or my belief in it from these things. It doesn't "add" or "subtract" to the strength of my argument to know that it is shared by others or not shared.

I only know how to read/experience things as I do. I cannot conjure something that doesn't resonate with me presently.

That said, I have had enough experience of how my silly head works that sometimes I can go ary or need adjusting. So I am willing and open to correction - but it isn't an argument I find persuasive simply to say my view is "not shared" or "shared" by others.

That is precisely contrary to what I'm arguing in the first place. Other sorts of rebuttals, from the Word, from others' spiritual experience and wisdom, I am open to. Because those address the merits of what I am trying to convey.

Does that make sense?

Peter

[OBW]

Before I start, not all of this is directed at "you" but is my own continued thoughts springing from the topic started by ZNP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But here is the real question, is spectating part of basketball? The NBA has lots of spectators, is watching a game basketball or is basketball only refer to those who are actively involved (including coaches, refs, timers, ball boys, water boys, mascots, etc)?

Since basketball at the professional level presumes a lot of money being shelled-out by spectators to make it happen, and the players are actually quite affected in their play by the support, or lack of support, of the fans in attendance, then the NBA cannot be presumed to be just about the 10 men on the court plus the guys on the bench.

Sports at almost any level is complicated. It is seldom just good exercise. It is often more about winning, and being able to gloat about winning, than about the "sportsmanship."

And for this reason, even Paul's comments about athletics is limited to certain aspects. You can't throw out basketball and the NBA and milk the possible metaphorical comparisons as if they are universally applicable.

So, in the parts of the post I did not quote, you actually made a point around basketball that you failed to make in the prior post in which you all but mentioned the sport at its full spectrum of existence and stopped without comment.

But you do raise an interesting point that is actually a typical complaint about Christianity that comes from the LRC. Is Christianity intended to be a "team" of active players who all become "Big A" Apostles, "Big P" Prophets, etc., or is it a collection of people at vastly different levels, some of which come to the temple to learn, and then simply go back to live their changed lives in front of the rest of the world that they contact every day of the week? If Christianity were the NBA, then it is reasonable to argue that the fans are almost as important as the star player on the team. If they don't watch, shout, applaud, and go out and spread the enthusiasm over the last game (or raise a ruckus over the last loss), the NBA will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. For the team, the NBA is a full-time commitment to exercise, practice, and performance. For the fan, there is a similarity. They spend most of their time talking about the last game, or even some long past game. Only a little is at the game.

The analogy is sketchy. But if we are going to compare the NBA to the Christianity I see laid out in the NT, then there is a comparison. But it is not the one that Lee and the LRC paint. They suggest that only the team counts. Only the stars are important. Fans are just dead weight. Their spread of the enthusiasm to the general population to get them excited to join in watching the next game is irrelevant.

And the result is a group of alleged superstars that have to pay each other to play because no one is coming with outside money to watch.

The participation in mainstream Christianity that the LRC scorns is actually what spurs them on to live the life. And living the life is not about overtly religious things. It is about righteousness, peace and joy. It really is the main thing. Not the serous activity of the superstars back at the temple. They are necessary to equip us to go out and spread righteousness as a visible gospel. To speak just a little.

[ZNPaaneah]

I am sitting here in shock having just read your post (#247). You have changed! A year ago I would have gotten a lecture on this misuse of metaphor and how this is due to WL.

Yes, I think I agree with you (perhaps I have changed a little too). The only verse I can think of is in Hebrews which says "seeing that we have so great a cloud of witnesses let us run the race". Therefore I would agree that spectators are part of the Christian life.

Which leads to the next question: does this cloud of witnesses refer to the saints who have died or to those that are alive as well?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am sitting here in shock having just read your post (#247). You have changed! A year ago I would have gotten a lecture on this misuse of metaphor and how this is due to WL.

Yes, I think I agree with you (perhaps I have changed a little too). The only verse I can think of is in Hebrews which says "seeing that we have so great a cloud of witnesses let us run the race". Therefore I would agree that spectators are part of the Christian life.

Which leads to the next question: does this cloud of witnesses refer to the saints who have died or to those that are alive as well?

But in the end, the metaphor only covers some aspects of the discussion. For Lee, he would make every effort to force it to be a complete identity. For every item observable in the metaphor, there must be a corresponding parallel in the Christian life, "church life," or whatever.

What I did not take from the metaphor is one of the things that Lee would have found. He would have noted that there is a virtual disconnect between the team and its management from the fans. The manager, head coach, specialty coach, etc., directs the team to do certain things. They are the only ones doing anything related to the sport of basketball, baseball, football, hockey, soccer, etc. And except for those crazy Brazilians who go out and drive like maniacs after one of their race car drivers wins a race, most spectators just go back home, to work, etc. and live lives that have nothing to do with the sport no matter how much they may talk about it.

And that would be the way Lee would have spun it. And it is not untrue with respect to spectators of sports. But it is not simply a metaphorical match when put up against all those people who go to some Baptist church on Sunday morning, sing 3 or 4 songs (typically 1st, 2nd, and last verse), hear the choir sing, listen to the sermon, put some money in the plate, and go home after sining "Praise God from whom all blessing flow" or something like that. (Wait, I forgot about the required altar call. If anyone thinks I am making fun of them they are wrong. There is nothing wrong with any of it.) And if our assessment is going to be based upon an isolated view of the acts undertaken, and there is no value assigned to those acts, then Lee would be right. But no matter how pathetic he thinks the organ and piano sound, and how poorly the people sing, there are words in front of them giving admonition, instruction, encouragement, etc. as they muddle through the singing.

And even though we might like to suggest that it is just "going through the motions," the only reason we think that is true is because "we" are much more spiritual. We all give popcorn testimonies about how great it is to know that God is the processedallinclusivelifegivingsevenfoldintensifie dspiritbeingdispensedintoourspirit. (The break in that impossibly long, run-on word was put there by the system, not me.) And since they don't know that, and don't say it, they are pathetic.

As to your question about the cloud of witnesses, it might be worthwhile to note that the answer is not clearly given, so "both" might be the best answer. Surely there are witnesses here on earth. Even witnesses that are not of the family of faith. But their observation may become the spark that moves them along the spectrum toward joining that family (our family). Yet surely the principalities and powers on all sides in the spiritual realm are also watching. Some are hoping to see us fall while others are cheering for our success. I would like to think that the latter is the home crowd and therefore the stronger voices. But that may not always seem to be the case. We just need to be encouraged at every opportunity. Always giving thanks as we go through our light afflictions.

[OBW]

ZNP,

I have noted before that I am not opposed to metaphors. I am just opposed to the insistence that once a metaphor is provided, every possible parallel that you can imagine must have meaning to the discussion. But in this one case, we have now shown how to get two competing lines of thought out of the same metaphor. One says that Christianity is just like spectators at sporting events and that is pathetic. The other is that many of us are, in a limited way, engaged in a relationship with the "gifts" given to the church for our equipping that is somewhat like spectators at sporting events (and definitely not in every way).

The real issue is whether the metaphor is being used as evidence, or as a lens to view evidence. If you take the negative sports spectator view, you have to determine whether the metaphor actually describes what is, or it is instead being used as the evidence. In other words, is the metaphor accurately describing what is, or is it being used to redefine what is into what is not.

And while I managed to build a more complete (and positive) comparison out of spectators at sporting events, it is poor, at best. But I think it shows that if someone wants to arrive at a conclusion, there are ways to manipulate the appearance of evidence in your favor even if the actual evidence is not in your favor. There are ways to push a conclusion into something so that the conclusion that comes out of it is what you want.

I have gone back to the vine/branches metaphor for abiding. My recent conclusion is that vines and branches are never simply "abiding" in some passive, "wait on the dispensing" kind of way. There is always activity in process. It may not be visible, but it is happening. Even in the dormant parts of the year, the only thing dormant is the external. Plants grow downward when you can't see the upward part. But the connection is the point. If there is the connection, then everything happens as it should. Including the activities of "doing" something. If you must be abiding to do, then you have to do while you abide. It doesn't say that you have to abide, then do. And that once you are doing, you are no longer abiding.

That means that observing someone doing something is never evidence that they are not abiding. You have to be abiding to be doing. That is the vine/branch/fruit metaphor. And if you are not doing, there is a question about whether you are really abiding. Maybe your bark has been cut away and your drying remains just look like they are abiding. The evidence will be in no fruit. Bearing fruit requires actually doing. It requires "works." So abiding is not somehow at odds with works. It is only at odds with independent branches wandering around trying to do works without a source of supply. Those are the only "dead works."

[Cal]

Guys,

This is getting a little abstract, to say the least. Can we get back to the subject of Should members obey or submit to church leaders?. If you want a thread about whatever it is you are talking about I'll be happy to move relevant posts to it.

Thanks.

[OBW]

A total of 6 posts out of 252 (including this one) and you want it moved somewhere else? This one sprung off of one that sprung off of one that . . . . well, you get the picture. How far back was the last post actually talking about "submission to leaders"? I count about 18 (including this one).

And the actual discussion has gotten convoluted enough that the last time someone said something about sticking to the topic, when I went back to figure that out, I realized that it was not exactly what we were talking about anyway. Before the sidebars. Related. Has a link. But not really on topic.

I don't know if John just gave up on it a long time ago, or just wanted to start a discussion that he considered worth discussing. Either way, I'm not sure that we are really that close to the original. It was much more pointed at an analysis of leadership, vetting ministries, being in submission (or not being in submission, or no requirement to be in submission) and so forth. But so much since then has been somewhat about the way small independent groups do church when compared to large groups and which is preferable. The first post provided at least a couple of verses in support of what I would characterize as the core of the question. But it did not consider other verses that provided some answers.

But I'm not sure that we ever actually went there. It seems that we veered away from that long ago. Maybe Peter is accurately keeping John's question going. But I don't know. It actually seems like a different subject.

Not complaining about the subject. Just noting that I'm not sure that we have really been "on topic" for a long time. Assuming someone doesn't post before I do, this is #252.

Now, having said all of that, starting a different thread to discuss metaphors might be worthwhile. But sometimes the result is that it is over already and that one becomes either ignored, or turned into yet another off-topic discussion.

I honestly believe that unless there is a serious discussion actually on the stated topic going forward, it is probably better to just let the various side discussions continue. If they start to become heavily followed, consider breaking them into a new thread for their own sake. But referring to it as "abstract" sort of insinuates that you just want to be rid of it (not saying it is so, just noting the insinuation). I don't think this one is continuing, and the one that it is interspersed with is not really on topic either.

Yeah, John's question is not completely missing from some of the continuing discussion. But based on my reread of it just now, we haven't really talked about that in a long time.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly believe that unless there is a serious discussion actually on the stated topic going forward, it is probably better to just let the various side discussions continue.

The problem is that when people are constantly starting "side discussions" it's pret near impossible to get a serious discussion going. I believe this is very frustrating for lurkers and others just stopping by the forum to get a handle on any one thread. What's the use of having a thread title it we are going to let it wonder over all of God's green earth? Just sayin.....

......we now return you to your regularly scheduled program......

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now, having said all of that, starting a different thread to discuss metaphors might be worthwhile.

Then again, probably not.

It's just that you and ZNP have a history of getting into things and going at each other in a way just loses everyone else. You guys were going at it on iSpeak for months before you looked around and realized everyone else had packed up and left. Just kidding!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then again, probably not.

It's just that you and ZNP have a history of getting into things and going at each other in a way just loses everyone else. You guys were going at it on iSpeak for months before you looked around and realized everyone else had packed up and left.

Actually, we both knew that there was no one there when we started.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, we both knew that there was no one there when we started.

Well, like I said I was kidding. But, anyway, you two push some kind of button in each other and you go into this mode where neither of you will back down and nobody else knows what you are talking about. I'm just asking you to be aware and try to keep it under control. Thanks.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The problem is that when people are constantly starting "side discussions" it's pret near impossible to get a serious discussion going. I believe this is very frustrating for lurkers and others just stopping by the forum to get a handle on any one thread. What's the use of having a thread title it we are going to let it wonder over all of God's green earth? Just sayin.....

......we now return you to your regularly scheduled program......

I understand. But sometimes it sort of looks like the topic started wandering off from the very beginning. Not saying this one did immediately. But I'm not sure that the question originally posed has ever been dealt with seriously. I just went back through the early posts and by #20, it was wandering. We may like where it went, but are we on John's topic? If not, this issue should have been raised long ago.

But the problem may be that sometimes a particular question is not in a vacuum. It presumes other facts or premises. Or needs to stipulate some facts before it is sufficiently bounded to be a cohesive enough question to pursue.

I know a little about John, and from that little, I might presume that he has certain things in mind when he asks about leadership and submitting. But I could be wrong. And either way, until those side issues are settled, anything said on the main topic will not be clear.

And we are talking about the meaning of things like "messenger" or "angel" relative to the 7 letters in Revelation 2 and 3. About who is being addressed and what they are being told.

But I have not seen anything on that topic in a long time. The one you think we have interrupted is not really that topic. It does include "leaders" so it has a relationship. But it is not the topic.

The topic was whether there is a command in Hebrews to obey and submit to the leadership, and whether that, or any other passage, gives the responsibility, authority, or right to "vet" ministries that might be allowed access to the "pulpit" in their assembly.

The kind of church, the linkage to other assemblies (denominations or loose associations), the size of the group, and a lot of other things are not relevant to the question. The question of the responsibility and/or authority of leadership is either provided for in scripture (clearly or unclearly) regardless of the type of assembly. Regardless of the history of abuse by certain kinds of leaders or of the leaders of certain groups. And no matter how we come down on the issue, I'm pretty sure that it does not give authority that would support the abuses, so talking about the abuses does not answer the question about whether there is a proper authority and/or responsibility.

Shall we return to the original topic? I think it is a valid question. And it has not been answered. And not discussed for what is probably the preponderance of the posts (by number of posts, not necessarily number of words, although that is probably similar).

I actually have the beginnings of thoughts on the subject. I doubt they will be satisfactory to some. Probably not entirely satisfactory to anyone. But just getting back to that topic is a little like getting a response that talks about basketball that does not really give a hint (to me, at least) of what it was supposed to be saying. I provided what I would have expected from Lee, followed by an alternative. ZNP then responded and we chatted a little. It is probably over.

But when we return to the original topic, I will note that I asked at least a couple of questions and made a couple of observations that should indicate that I'm not sure that we really have the question clearly framed. The answer is not just in one verse. Or in one "simple" principle. It is in a complete discussion of what biblical leadership looks like. And there will be some who will require a verse (a fortune cookie) that specifically states the principle that will rule that particular aspect or it will be rejected. Others will take in the pattern under which the early church actually operated (which somewhat borrows from Jewish traditions) and find a reasonable direction. That will not be comfortable for some.

And to some degree, the sort of "off topic" discussion that Peter has been having really is trying to get at part of this question. But it isn't the actual topic. But it may be necessary as a means of getting to an answer to John's original question and/or concerns.

So do we actually try to go back to the original topic, devise a plan of attack, and follow through with it? I don't think most actually remember the original topic other than as a one-liner at the top of every post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

My 1st Corinthians 14 has no vetting of speakers and no required submission of one brother to another, regardless of one’s giftedness or functioning, even if one happens to be one who is leading.

My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.

But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.

[OBW]

Looking back at the first post in this thread, I find the following:

From John:

Now, on to what I disagree with in your presentation as regards it being biblical. First, I do not see that Hebrews 13:17 supports leaders having the obligation to vet ministries as you claim:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (KJV).

As I hope that you will agree, the verse does not address vetting ministries at all. Therefore, this claim, so far as you have tried to show, is lacking in biblical support.

Second, I noticed that you did not give a biblical reference for the following statement: “members are charged to obey and submit to leaders.” I could assume that you would use Hebrews 13:17 to support it, since maybe it was what you meant to do when you used it to try to support vetting. Reading what the King James translators did with it sure seems to authorize some kind of heavy-handed ruling and obedience. Unfortunately, this verse has been used, I think, by leaders in some Christian churches to force submission, producing an environment in which abuse can take root and grow. The problem with leaning on this verse is that the translation is grossly inaccurate and does not actually support rendering obedience to church leaders. The literal Greek goes like this:

be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring

(scripture4all.org).

Now I agree that this reading says it somewhat softer than the old KJV. And the NIV says it this way:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:

“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”

The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.

And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.

But, like we so often read the “submits” in Ephesians, this is not written to the leader so they can demand obedience and submission. It is written to the follower to instruct them (for their benefit) to be persuaded and defer. If you are intentionally setting out to be persuaded, then it would be expected that something looking like obedience will arise. And if you set out to defer, then it will have the appearance of submission because it will be the suggestion given by the leader that is taken, not the direction given by the leader that is ignored.




It seems to me that there are two things in play here.

• First there is proper leadership. Someone posted concerning leadership that serves rather than orders around. That considers itself the least rather than the first.
• The second is the gratefulness of the flock for those who have given themselves to them to lead them. This comes with an attitude that these are God’s gifts to them. This is how they become equipped. It is not by figuring it out for themselves. They have trustworthy “men” who will give themselves for the flock.

And in this kind of relationship, who looks out for the wolves? It is the sheep!! (NOT!!) No! It is the shepherds.

We like to take Ephesians, and those five listed “gifts” to the church and read the following verses as saying that those gifts will make us into the same thing, so we will never need someone else to shepherd us again. To teach us again. But that is not what it says. It merely says to do works of ministry. The suggestion that “works of ministry” are just the very things that the five gifts are/do and that we simply become them (and without saying, we no longer need them — except for Lee) is a bare assertion made without obvious cause or evidence. We do not become our own shepherds. Imagine that, a flock of shepherds. Or a church full of elders.

Do we need a verse to directly say that the leaders should vet ministers? At any level? If we insist on it, then I would suggest that we have them. 1 Timothy has a few. That was written to Timothy, not the church in (wherever). Yes, we can read the words to him. And they should give us instruction enough to realize that not everything that calls itself a minister or ministry is worthy of the claim. But it doesn’t direct us to each make our own determinations. Not saying you can’t. But those were instructions given to leaders. Not to the flock.

Besides, what is a flock, and what is the need for a shepherd if they can all fend off the wolf by themselves?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.

But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.

We may not like what ZNP just posted. And we may argue that some of it is cultural and no longer applicable. But you have to get out your verse removal shears if you just want to ignore it and declare that there is no place for authority and submission. (Still nothing like the authority and submission as defined by Nee in his book of two names — Spiritual Authority, and Authority and Submission.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:

“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”

The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.

And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.

I don't think we ought to be using the scripture4all.org transliteration as being authoritative. My post #39 addressed this "be ye persuaded" and "be ye deferring" as poor translations. One cannot use the root of the Greek work to properly translate the word.

Obviously John has not posted here for weeks, so it has made our discussion difficult.