Titus Chu Conference at "Chicago Gospel Hall" (April 9-10, 2016)

Hi all,

I have to say that I'm inclined to see the merit on both sides of the discussion on this issue of who is of who, and who is right, and who is in the wrong. Now, Captain Sparrow, clearly, clearly, it is not wrong to be of Christ. Aren't we all 'of Christ'? Are you yourself not of Christ, I hazard to ask? How can you say, then, that the apostle Paul condemned those who took such a position? Does that even make sense? However, you do not appear to be a novice in these things and therefore I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and humor you. Let me go so far as to say that if the point you're laboring to make is that what the apostle was actually nitpicking at was not the actual stance per se, but the attitude and mindset with which it was put forward, then, I begin to see what you are driving at.

Reading through your thesis again, I begin to see that if that group of believers of whom each claimed to be 'I am of Christ' had, instead, declared, "We are all of Christ", and had agreed by extension that "those of Apollos are of Christ" and "those of Cephas are equally of Christ", etc, it possibly might have been more politically correct (if that is the right phrase) to put it that way...because as Ohio quoted from Romans 12, "so in Christ we who are many form on body, and each member belongs to all the others". One who is able to comprehend the awful import of those words cannot just idly announce that he is "I am of Christ...(whilst implying) and to hell with the rest of you.." but would rather loudly proclaim that "We are all of Christ!". I can well imagine that this would have been most gratifying to the apostle Paul. For he himself encapsulated this attitude of mind later on in the epistle when concluding the issue when he wrote,

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

Amen

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

These scriptures are quite fitting for all LC members ...

But our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. -- I Cor 12.24-25

Both in Corinth, throughout church history, and in the Recovery, divisions were repeatedly caused by not heeding these verses. Where was the "same care" for one another? Where was the "more abundant honor" to the less comely, less gifted members? Just the opposite was the Recovery norm. So it's no wonder we were constantly warring and dividing over Lee and Chu, or Max and Dong. Every LC sooner or later, or both sooner and later, was fighting over whether we were of Lee or of Chu. They were not "ours," but we were "theirs." We did not own them, rather they owned us.

In Romans, Paul exhorted us to "Love one another warmly in brotherly love, vying with one another in showing honor." (12.10) But in Kangas' book A Response to Recent Accusations (p.68) he says, "If the saints have honored Witness lee excessively, who can condemn them? The Bible will not." Obviously Kangas has changed his Bible to read, "Love one another warmly in Brother LEE love, vying with one another in showing him honor."

I'm not just playing with words here. Examine the facts of history. Read the side of history hidden from LC members. Compare our sordid history with the Apostles' teachings to Corinth. The reason for all of our 10-year "storms" was never due to "ambitious men," but because faithful men of God spoke their conscience in the face of ministry exaltation and corruption.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Romans, Paul exhorted us to "Love one another warmly in brotherly love, vying with one another in showing honor." (12.10) But in Kangas' book A Response to Recent Accusations (p.68) he says, "If the saints have honored Witness lee excessively, who can condemn them? The Bible will not." Obviously Kangas has changed his Bible to read, "Love one another warmly in Brother LEE love, vying with one another in showing him honor."

Ron should go back and re-read 1 Corinthians. Condemn would be too strong to say, but definitely there's a sense of rebuke in Paul's first epistle to Corinth.

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building."

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

I have to say that I'm inclined to see the merit on both sides of the discussion on this issue of who is of who, and who is right, and who is in the wrong. Now, Captain Sparrow, clearly, clearly, it is not wrong to be of Christ. Aren't we all 'of Christ'? Are you yourself not of Christ, I hazard to ask? How can you say, then, that the apostle Paul condemned those who took such a position? Does that even make sense? However, you do not appear to be a novice in these things and therefore I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and humor you. Let me go so far as to say that if the point you're laboring to make is that what the apostle was actually nitpicking at was not the actual stance per se, but the attitude and mindset with which it was put forward, then, I begin to see what you are driving at.

Reading through your thesis again, I begin to see that if that group of believers of whom each claimed to be 'I am of Christ' had, instead, declared, "We are all of Christ", and had agreed by extension that "those of Apollos are of Christ" and "those of Cephas are equally of Christ", etc, it possibly might have been more politically correct (if that is the right phrase) to put it that way...because as Ohio quoted from Romans 12, "so in Christ we who are many form on body, and each member belongs to all the others". One who is able to comprehend the awful import of those words cannot just idly announce that he is "I am of Christ...(whilst implying) and to hell with the rest of you.." but would rather loudly proclaim that "We are all of Christ!". I can well imagine that this would have been most gratifying to the apostle Paul. For he himself encapsulated this attitude of mind later on in the epistle when concluding the issue when he wrote,

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

Amen

Dear Unregistered,

I thank you for your contribution and I acknowledge that there is absolutely no point of contention between us whatsoever .

And of course I did not mean that there is anything wrong with being "of Christ". How could I? But there is a problem with believing and confessing that one is 'of Christ' while not accepting others who are equally 'of Christ'. I believe that this is what Paul was condemning in his inclusion of that small sect of Corinthian believers in his admixture of divisive ones. I'm pretty sure that those particular Corinthians in declaring that they were 'of Christ' must have believed they were incontrovertibly standing on sound Scriptural ground, but unfortunately, they had also missed to see the blessed and functional reality of the Body of Christ.

In illustration, if you are a healthy arm or a leg and the other leg or arm is diseased or disabled, don't you think it would be ridiculous for that good arm or leg to celebrate its good condition and go about its ordinary business without caring a hoot about the unhealthy part of the body? Would that body be able to function at optimum par? Would the head of that body be pleased with that smug arm or leg? I think not. So it is with the church.

...and that's just my two pieces-of-eight, me mateys!

God's grace be with you all,

'Jack'

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

And of course I did not mean that there is anything wrong with being "of Christ". How could I? But there is a problem with believing and confessing that one is 'of Christ' while not accepting others who are equally 'of Christ'.

Not that it matters, but I'm with Sparrow on this one. And I thought his first post made it clear. To be "of Christ" is not wrong, but to be "of Christ, and NOT like those so-and-so's over there" is actually not "of Christ". Because Christ died for all.

If Christ is for us, who can be against us? And how can we be against (or 'not of') each other?

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

Christ doesn't care about ecumenicalism. Or shaking hands over fences. Or agreeing to disagree. Christ cares about love. The Father loved us so much that He gave us His only-begotten Son. This practical expression of love outpoured cannot be matched by any doctrinal position, however carefully parsed.

Or so I think, anyway. My own two shillings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

So true Aron...

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Say what one wants about "the high peak teachings". "speaking positively", or "speaking the New Testament ministry", if there's no love all I hear is "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal".

Originally Posted by aron

Not that it matters, but I'm with Sparrow on this one. And I thought his first post made it clear. To be "of Christ" is not wrong, but to be "of Christ, and NOT like those so-and-so's over there" is actually not "of Christ". Because Christ died for all.

If Christ is for us, who can be against us? And how can we be against (or 'not of') each other?

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

Christ doesn't care about ecumenicalism. Or shaking hands over fences. Or agreeing to disagree. Christ cares about love. The Father loved us so much that He gave us His only-begotten Son. This practical expression of love outpoured cannot be matched by any doctrinal position, however carefully parsed.

Or so I think, anyway. My own two shillings.

Well, as for me and my house (and you should too, Ohio) we stand with those... "of Chloe's household"... whom the Apostle did not castigate because they, in contradistinction to everybody else, were concerned about the division of Christ in Corinth and the attendant, appalling exaltation of mere men's ministries.

Just one more shilling...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, as for me and my house (and you should too, Ohio) we stand with those... "of Chloe's household"... whom the Apostle did not castigate because they, in contradistinction to everybody else, were concerned about the division of Christ in Corinth and the attendant, appalling exaltation of mere men's ministries.

Just one more shilling...

Amen!

You truly are the brother with "no name."

The church with "no name" could learn a lot from you!