What is the structure of the assembly?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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