What is the structure of the assembly?

[Cal]

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cal]

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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