The Ground Of The Church

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Could well be. But it happens to be the model the Lord is operating in in this day and age. And at the very least it's the lesser of all the other "evils" I've seen and heard.

In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says:"If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

[OBW]

Igzy said:

To my mind, any genuine church must receive all believers, otherwise they are a sect. Almost all Christian groups realize and practice this now. They receive all believers. So at least part of what you are envisioning is already in place.

This is so true. Sunday we observed the Lord’s table. It was clearly stated before we began that it was not the table of IBC, but that all born again believers were welcome.

Toledo said:

In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says: "If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

You were correct to say that this is not the age of denominations. But it is also not the age of some other subset of the church, such as the church according to cities, or other narrow definition. It is the age of the church. And as Igzy pointed out, it is Christ who will build the church. We are to pursue the things of peace, and things that build one another.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by OBW

You were correct to say that this is not the age of denominations. But it is also not the age of some other subset of the church, such as the church according to cities, or other narrow definition. It is the age of the church. And as Igzy pointed out, it is Christ who will build the church. We are to pursue the things of peace, and things that build one another.

Mike,

Great reminder. See bold text above.

Surely it is not the age of denominations. Surely it is not the age of some subset of the church. But then the Lord did issue a call for overcomers to the seven churches. In 1 Cor. Chapter 11 Paul did referred to those who “were approved.” He also warned us to be careful how we build. By the way what do you feel is to build with wood, hay and stubble? What is to build with gold, silver and precious stone? Should we care?

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who desires to be a true disciple.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Hope

Mike,

Great reminder. See bold text above.

Surely it is not the age of denominations. Surely it is not the age of some subset of the church. But then the Lord did issue a call for overcomers to the seven churches. In 1 Cor. Chapter 11 Paul did referred to those who “were approved.” He also warned us to be careful how we build. By the way what do you feel is to build with wood, hay and stubble? What is to build with gold, silver and precious stone? Should we care?

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who desires to be a true disciple.

I don’t necessarily know what is wood v gold. But in the context of 1 Cor 3, the persons who were being referred to as “building” with anything were not the Corinthian believers, but the ones who they had decided to take up sides behind. Please refer to the entirety of the chapter, noting the transition in verse 9 which identifies Paul and the others that the Corinthians were aligning behind as workers while they, the Corinthians were the building. The ones who are then building in the following verses are not the Corinthians, but the workers — Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and others.

It is interesting that Paul did not define wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver, or precious stones. He simply said that what got built into the church would be tried and the one who built it would suffer some sort of problem/loss (not clearly stated) if his work burned. Paul didn’t even say that the Corinthians were responsible to make the determination about what was wood, hay, or stubble, or was instead gold, silver or precious stone — at least not within the context of these verses. He told them that the workers were coming to build and that what they built with would be tried. (This — the building by the workers — might be somewhat of a parallel with Ephesians where there are the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers that equip the saints. Equipping with wood in that context would be parallel with these verse in 1 Cor.)

Paul was telling the Corinthians that picking sides was not their concern. That is not entirely consistent with other verses where there is a charge that some be denied the right to teach, but in most cases, those kinds of admonitions were clearly to the leadership, such as in Paul’s letters to Timothy and/or Titus. Peter and John also had things to say about the discernment of the believers concerning teachings and teachers. It is not clear that this was to be personal discernment or the collective discernment of the assembly. I would lean toward the latter, more like the council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

I do not say that we should not care about what is kindling v what is fireproof. This is especially true of those who have responsibility to care for the flock. But the flock itself is not necessarily the source of that determination. I realize that this is a little too much like a clergy-laity issue, but the scriptures seem to point more in this direction than in any other. I fear that this is one of those places where we fall back into the mindset that we learned from Lee and the LC. If the leaders are true servants of the flock, the “evils” of the kind of clergy that Lee talked against are not an automatic thing.

As for the letters to the seven churched in Rev 2 & 3, each church was clearly in differing circumstances, yet none were told to abandon their particular place of worship and flee to one or more of the others. The charge and challenge in each case was to be strong, diligent to overcome, not to change to some other way of meeting or to “take the ground.” While each letter ended with the general admonition to hear what the Spirit said to the churches (plural), there was otherwise no indication that any one was admonished to be like another, except to the extent that each could read of the positive things that were said about the others and thereby have a pattern to follow.

This is a general discussion of my understanding on this. We could nuance things, as has Gubei and others, but what I have outlined here is sound and scriptural. Pursuing the things of peace would not seem to be consistent with always feeling obligated to have your radar out to discern the wood from the gold. Too much of the LC-type discernment is about putting borders around truth and practice such that many things that are allowed in the freedom of Christ are deemed not allowed. Look at Romans 14. It seems that the LC is the weaker believers always going out of their way to find believers who have more freedom than they observe in their restricted consciences. It is true that Paul said that the stronger ones practicing their freedom in front of weaker ones could stumble those weaker ones. But the LC claims to be the strongest, yet puts more restrictions on freedom in Christ than almost any others. They seem to go out seeking to find those who are not bound as they are (almost too parallel with “seeking to devour”). If there are Judaizers going out from James in these days, metaphorically speaking, I think it is more likely the LC than any others.

[Hope]

Mike,

I enjoyed your expounding of 1 Cor. Chapter three. (See post #267)

I have always applied the phrases, 1 Cor 3:12, “Now if any man builds” and 1 Cor 3:13, “each man's work," to everyone. Since Paul does referred to the Corinthians as God’s building then the builders could certainly be a different set of person, aka Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. If they are indeed equivalent to the gifted members in Ephesians chapter four, then the charge of 1 Cor 3:10, “But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.”, becomes a very serious admonition for anyone who has any type of oversight-teaching-shepherding ministry.

For a long time I applied the following to myself as a leading one of the church in Dallas, 1 Cor 3:17, “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.” I believed that my failures had to some degree lead to a tearing down of the various brothers and sisters. I am sure that is true but I now believe that the Lord has forgiven me and I am again called on to build. I have come to greatly appreciate, Rom 11:29, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

If you allow me to accept your interpretation, then many in the LSM/LC leadership current and past are subject to more than just a little inspection.

While I agree 1 Cor. three does not charge the saints to check the builders to see if they are up to code so to speak, there are plenty of passages that do tell us that those who labor among the believers must give an account and that the believers should test their work.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

Would you care to comment on 1 Cor 11:19, For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.

In particular, address “who are approved.”

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Hope

Would you care to comment on 1 Cor 11:19, For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.

In particular, address “who are approved.”

Don,

First, while I will eventually address this verse, I probably will not address "who are approved" in quite the way you want, although I do not think you will be disappointed.

Paul’s reference to his gifts as “irrevocable” in Rom 11:29 is an important statement. God does not give to take away. But on the other hand, we often have those who come with their own proclamation of a “gift of God” with the expectation that others will simply listen.

You are correct that within all of scripture, at some level, there is a requirement to discern among teachers, evangelists, or more rightly so-called teachers and evangelists, etc. Among those that are “so-called” are both the real deal, the frauds, and probably levels in between — those who do have a calling but have undertaken to expand their influence beyond their calling. The church was never to simply take the good with the bad and not worry about it. But in 1 Cor 3, Paul is not talking about the believers’ responsibility, but that of those who teach — who build.

When you mention 1 Cor 11:19, I find this verse to be a sort of mystery. Paul has just finished talking about men and women both as in submission to each other, and with some (at least) hint of positional superiority of men. I will not begin to take those issues apart here, even if I were able to do so. Then he starts talking about the kind of chaos that occurs at their Lord’s table meetings. Since there is some merging of a time of meal and the actual observance of the Lord’s table as we know it, it seems that Paul chides them for their inequity and lack of brotherly love for the former, then clarifies what the latter is intended to portray.

In the early part of this talk on their “table” he write two verses that speak of “divisions among you.” In the second of these two, when he says, “there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval” it is not clear if he is saying that this is rightly so, or if he is stating the obvious fact that their internal divisions are part of their own seeking to claim that this or that faction is right and superior to the others. Is Paul really saying that this rightly “must be” for God to demonstrate who is correct, or is he stating that that is what the Corinthans, whom he has already chastised for their internal divisions, are trying to to accomplish on their own? With these two terse sentences and no further explanation, it is hard to say. Instead, Paul goes right on to discuss how they run roughshod over each other. Since we typically take these as all being part of one paragraph, is it possible that rather than commending the Corinthians for getting to the bottom of their differences, he is simply stating that they think that one group essentially overpowering another, even in getting plenty to eat, is somehow proof of their superior position.

So Paul begins 1 Corinthians by pointing out the lack of superiority of one teacher over another. He has here just finished putting man in woman “in place” under God’s authority rather than man’s, and he is about to level the playing field on the gifts and even how the meetings should be run, with a centerpiece of doing all things in love.

In this context, I wonder if we have taken 11:19 out of context by making it talk about something that is essentially not what Paul is really talking about at that point. I wonder if it is really talking about there being purpose for divisions to prove what God approves. Or is he pointing back at their divisions that he has already condemned and indicating that here at the Lord’s table the problem once again rears its ugly head with some supposed purpose of seeking God’s approval. Was this verse talking about gaining God’s approval or about pointing to misguided purposes in the way they held their table meetings.

I do not pretend to say that this is the “right” way to look at this verse. But when I put it back into its context, I have a difficult time returning to the understanding that has been put forth for so many years by so many people and with which I essentially “grew up.” I have some reason to believe that we may have created something that is not there because we have ignored the context.

I appreciate your efforts to harmonize the various aspects of scripture. I believe this must be done. But while doing that, we must never gloss over the differences in the various passages that tell of the multifaceted truths. I agree that what we do with wood v gold is important even for the lowliest of believers. But 1 Cor 3 is specifically saying something about the responsibility that those who would be the teachers, elders, evangelists, etc., take on when they set out in those roles. I do not diminish everyone’s responsibility, but if we simply turn these verses to talk to us all without understanding the purpose for which they were written, we have not rightly divided the word of truth. There was a purpose for these verses and it was not to tell me — one of the simple members at IBC — that I have this increased responsibility. It was specifically to those who teach me, who turn our journey in certain directions. You may rightly apply it to me anyway. But that is not what Paul was doing.

[Hope]

Dear brother and sisters on the forum,

I would like to share some current experience which may fit into the discussion here. In particular I have reference to practical application of spiritual reality and to the oneness of the body of Christ practically realized. Is the oneness of the Body of Christ manifested because we have an understanding of one church one city? I have also raised the matter of the headship of Christ being practically realized locally.

Last week, one of the dear ones with whom we gather passed away. He was in his middle seventies. He was saved five years ago after a miserable life as an alcoholic. He was a plain simple man but had developed a sweet relationship with young and old alike. Hardly a week passed and he did not call “Amazing Grace.” That hymn will never be the same.

Yesterday, Saturday, some of the brothers gathered, as whosoever will may gather, to seek the Lord, pray and fellowship regarding the Lord’s work among us and the meetings coming up on the morrow. During the fellowship, it was determined that we would have three sections of the gathering which was to be followed by a love feast. First we would have a memorial meeting. Then we would have the Lord’s Table and then some sharing.

The previous Friday and Saturday some fellowship had been released in a young people’s conference on Joseph and Sampson. The young people had shared some with the church of their enjoyment and realization last Lord’s Day.

The brethren who gathered yesterday felt that the burden was of the Lord for the whole church. Some were asked to be prepared to share with the whole church.

The memorial meeting began promptly at 10: A M. The church was informed as to the three parts of the meeting. The Lord’s presence was so strong during the testimonies regarding the life of the deceased brother. We were all deeply touched by the Love of God for this man and also for the Love of God for this man that was in the hearts of the saints. The memorial went on and on. Young saints and old saints, brothers and sisters, guests and family members all stood one by one and spoke of the wonderful love and compassion of Christ and what the Lord had done in our brother. The agenda went out the window. Christ, the Head, was directing things another way. The memorial ended at 12:15 P M. Then we passed the bread and the wine and dismissed for the love feast.

I was so impressed at the honor given to this seemingly weaker less honorable member. 1 Cor 12:22-25, On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. NASB

Christ was the Head of the church, not the elders, the brothers, some headquarters or some agenda. Christ directed the meeting. The Oneness was manifested due to the honoring of a less gifted member. The members functioned, not due to some rote formulas but due to their love for Christ and for the dear believer for whom Christ had died.

This brother is not the only one among us who has been saved from a profligate life. We have several. When you honor these dear believers at least as much if not more than some good material that is redeemed, the oneness seems to just happen. Add an assembly that is looking directly to Christ, not a headquarters, a tradition, an agenda or elders or to the ministerial team and you have the local administration of the glorious Head, the resurrected and ascended Christ.

Any genuine believer may join in and participate. The only lines of division drawn are belief in Christ. Yet we have unbelievers as guest in nearly every Lord’s Day gathering. Just this week a person from Nepal, a Hindu, professed faith in Christ and renounced the false gods of Hinduism.

We are like those in Zephaniah chapter three. Or maybe more like 1 Corinthians chapter one. 1 Cor 1:26-28, For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are. NASB
We are the:
1. Not wise
2. Not mighty
3. Not noble
4. The foolish
5. The Weak
6. The base
7. The despised.
Yet, we do know something of a practical local church life. We are looking forward to seeing the manifestation of the One New Man more and more.

One brother read an email from Mindanoa, Phillippeans and shared photographs from the email. We rejoiced at the report of the Lord's blessing on a simple local church and their expression of gratitude for the gifts they had recently received.

After this report, a brother who cares for the offering box told how the deceased brother gave him a cash gift every month and said be sure half goes to India and half to the Phillippeans. We actually were able to see photos of poor children who were fed by the gifts of our brother and to see their parents being baptised. Glory!!!

Pray for us.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

In this context, I wonder if we have taken 11:19 out of context by making it talk about something that is essentially not what Paul is really talking about at that point. I wonder if it is really talking about there being purpose for divisions to prove what God approves. Or is he pointing back at their divisions that he has already condemned and indicating that here at the Lord’s table the problem once again rears its ugly head with some supposed purpose of seeking God’s approval. Was this verse talking about gaining God’s approval or about pointing to misguided purposes in the way they held their table meetings.

I apologize but this was not a very clear elucidation to me, OBW, so please forgive me if I get this wrong.

Is it your suggestion that 11:19 is essentially saying "Of course there are sects among you because everyone is vying to be most approved" or something like that?

I would say that Paul's concept concerning "approval" is well documented in the scriptures (if poorly studied and understood) and I would not presume the reading you've suggested (if you have indeed suggested it.) 2 Tim. 2:15 in particular is a strong parallel with regard to the concept of "approval" reflected in 1 Cor. 11:19.

Rom 14:18 For he that in this serves the Christ [is] acceptable to God and approved of men.

Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles, approved in Christ. Salute those who belong to Aristobulus.

2Cr 10:18 For not *he* that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.

2Cr 13:7 But we pray to God that ye may do nothing evil; not that *we* may appear approved, but that *ye* may do what is right, and *we* be as reprobates.

1Th 2:4 but even as we have been approved of God to have the glad tidings entrusted to us, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, who proves our hearts.

2Ti 2:15 Strive diligently to present thyself approved to God, a workman that has not to be ashamed, cutting in a straight line the word of truth.

I think it would be an excellent exercise (which I have not done and cannot fully do at present) to consider what exactly might Paul mean by "approved" (I think 2 Cor. 10:18 is particularly interesting!) but I'm not really seeing this reading I think you have suggested.

I look around this forum, in fact, and I think I can see 1 Cor. 11:19 in action from time to time.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Toledo

In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says:"If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

Yes, but the church is not a place, it's a group of people, as you have pointed out. Are you saying there is a group of people meeting in the Lord's name who are hell? (No comments about my family reunions, please.)

Also, I do not believe in the age of denominations. But a community church is not a denomination. It's a whole different animal. Also, many churches, particularly Baptist churches are dropping "Baptist" from their name. Plus, let's give Baptists due credit. They practically invented autonomous churches.

I was simply pointing out that the Lord is operating in the situation today. Don't make the good the enemy of the best.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I was simply pointing out that the Lord is operating in the situation today. Don't make the good the enemy of the best.

Fair enough. Neither should we make the bad the enemy of the best. So many posters here keep trying to measure the principle of oneness by the failures of the LSM denominational churches.

Just because their experiment failed due to the lusts, ambitions, and rivalries of the "Blended Brothers" (falsely so-called), does not mean that some should not still endeavor to come back to meeting simply and in oneness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Fair enough. Neither should we make the bad the enemy of the best. So many posters here keep trying to measure the principle of oneness by the failures of the LSM denominational churches.

Just because their experiment failed due to the lusts, ambitions, and rivalries of the "Blended Brothers" (falsely so-called), does not mean that some should not still endeavor to come back to meeting simply and in oneness.

Perhaps we missed the point of the Lord's prayer for oneness. He prayed for oneness, perhaps we should, too, and let him show us along the way what it means and how it is worked out. And in the meantime, don't neglect make the best of what we've got, for His sake.

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Fair enough. Neither should we make the bad the enemy of the best. So many posters here keep trying to measure the principle of oneness by the failures of the LSM denominational churches.

Just because their experiment failed due to the lusts, ambitions, and rivalries of the "Blended Brothers" (falsely so-called), does not mean that some should not still endeavor to come back to meeting simply and in oneness.

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Oregon

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

Happy New Year!

The problem with the LC model was not with the failure of human nature, the problem was with the model itself. It was systemic. Retreating into spiritual generalities of things you think you see in the Bible does not help at all. You need to propose a model that works.

I say that the Lord will always need a failsafe to allow true seekers to follow him if "the church" in the city becomes so corrupt that splitting is the only way. Some of you have already split from the LSM-led elders in your city, and so produced a division. You feel justified in doing so. Regardless, the fact is you made "the oneness" subordinate to something else. Yet you still say the oneness in the city needs to be practical. But doesn't that practical oneness mean not breaking from elders no matter what?

Sorry, but you guys sound a little confused to me. You have an ideal yet you don't have a clue as to how to obtain it. Yet when others seek to go on without all the angst about "practical oneness" you judge them and their results as being inadequate, and perhaps stumble them.

I think you've defined "division" too strictly. You think division is two churches in one city. I don't buy it. You want one church in New York, but are perfectly happy with two churches in two small sister cities which are adjacent. Yet the two sister churches are "divided." Suppose there was one city the size of the two adjacent sister cities, then all of a sudden only one church reflects practical oneness, when really nothing has changed but political boundaries. Suppose there were three tiny towns all within a mile of each other. You would think three churches are perfectly fine, when in this situation only one church would serve the cause of practical oneness much better.

So you talk about "practical oneness," but really your thought isn't about practical oneness at all. That's just the justification. It's really about adhering to a pattern in the NT you think is binding, even though no reputable Christian teachers, other that a few Brethren teachers, and Nee and Lee, have ever taken the teaching seriously.

I'm reminded of the attractive woman who is never satisfied with her beauty, and so sits in front of a mirror all day reflecting on her imperfections, not knowing what to do about it. I'm also reminded of the whiny idealistic teenager, for whom the world is never good enough. Both are wasting their life.

Until you have blueprint, don't whine and blame others that your dream house isn't built.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the LC model was not with the failure of human nature, the problem was with the model itself. It was systemic. Retreating into spiritual generalities of things you think you see in the Bible does not help at all. You need to propose a model that works.

I'm still thinking this "oneness paradigm" through. Personally I find it almost impossible to use the LC model of "dots and circles representing believers in the city." The model forces the believers to either "be the ones" or find those who are. The dangers just abound once the diagram is drawn up, but those are the original concepts of oneness presented by WN, hence an impossible dilemma exists.

Several years ago, when our LC became no more acceptable to my family to serve the Lord, and viewing a "battle" looming on the horizon over the matter of publications, I sold my house by the meeting hall in "the city" and move to a surrounding suburb. That was a way for us to visit other congregations, and not bear the inner turmoil of "being divisive" or meeting "in division."

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Happy New Year!

Some of you have already split from the LSM-led elders in your city, and so produced a division.

There is no LSM or any other kind of "local" church in the city I live in Igzy so I haven't created another division. All I am saying is that there is truth in the Word and I want to adhere to it and not explain it away somehow.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Oregon

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

Right, but I guess I would ask why such "practice" requires the existence of all the trappings of traditional Christian religious worship - membership rolls, clerical workers, meeting halls, etc. Moreover, even if it does require them, shouldn't they be a mere incident of meeting in oneness rather than a goal for an eventual formal organizational system? Talking about who is the right eldership has always seemed like a serious problem of putting the cart before the horse in these discussions.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Right, but I guess I would ask why such "practice" requires the existence of all the trappings of traditional Christian religious worship - membership rolls, clerical workers, meeting halls, etc. Moreover, even if it does require them, shouldn't they be a mere incident of meeting in oneness rather than a goal for an eventual formal organizational system? Talking about who is the right eldership has always seemed like a serious problem of putting the cart before the horse in these discussions.

Thank you YP0534,

Acts 14:23 shows churches were already there and recognized as such before any elders were appointed. Elders are not the issue. Elders do not a church make.

There were a few LSMers in Chapel Hill, NC where I lived in 1989. I told them to their faces that they were a sect and a division. I challenged them on their notions of oneness and I took the position that our oneness was in Christ alone and had nothing to do with our oneness with an apostle or his work. They declared that our oneness was based on our oneness with "THE APOSTLE." They further let me know that oneness with the Apostle meant supporting the current work and burden of the apostle. You could not just be neutral or passive. If you were, that was an undermining of the work. In addition, they informed me that they had written a letter to WL informing him that I was not one with the ministry and not supporting the new way. They planned to deliver it to him at the spring conference in Cleveland. With that we shook hands and parted ways.

I called my best friend, Don Looper, after this encounter. He told me I had made a mistake and should have moved to another town. Our conversation turned to the matter of Deputy Authority. For Don Looper, it was all about Deputy Authority. The matter of one church one city never came up. He never contacted me again. I did get up with him 11 years later on my initiative. I was in San Antonio on business and drove up to see him. He received me for the afternoon but no hospitality was offered. I stayed in a motel.

Within a few days after the encounter with the NC LSMers, I received a call from Titus Chu. He had somehow heard of our problems and what was about to transpire. He invited me to come to Cleveland and stay with him and he would have me sit next to WL during the meetings. Then, these few would not dare do anything against me.

Of course I did not go to Cleveland. But I did lose my relationship with most of the brothers in Texas and all the brothers in the Ohio area for nearly 15 years. But all is forgiven. It was forgiven then as well as now. Based on what those brothers held in their conscience they were between a rock and hard place.

Throughout 1989 and 1990, I waited to see how all would come down. From several sources I was informed that WL had asked on several occasions if someone would visit me to rescue me. He had told the brothers that “Don is the purest brother in the recovery.” I have no idea why he thought that but it seems he did. Finally, he charged Benson directly to go and see me. (There were little birds in the room at that time that would call me.) Within a few days I received a letter from Benson. This was the first letter ever from Benson. He included a check for $500. This was another first, but very much appreciated. Since I had severed my relationship with the LSM etc., I had stayed about one week away from bankruptcy and living on the street. I thanked him for the financial help but it never worked out for us to get together.

The content of his letter and my reply is another story for another time. I will just say this. In his letter, he never brought us “local church” but only wrote of WL and the glorious work that was taking place.

The model of the city church was of no consequence to the LSM cadre. They were all about persons and personalities and power struggles. Thus, I have continued to point to the twin dangers of “Deputy Authority” and “the Work.” In my experience with them from 1974 on, it was not about one church one city or the correct set of elders but all about “the Apostle,” “the Ministry,” “the Work,” “the Flow,” “the Coordination,” “the Oneness,” etc.etc. To quote by beloved brother Dan Towle, “Don you and I cannot be one unless you are one with Max.” On another occasion he stated, “We have a middle management problem,” when referring to local elders. He saw the critical entity as “the Work,” the “we” above and the elders were the middle managers for the Work. Believe me I have pages and pages I could write along this line and quote upon quote. Trust me. THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY. To find this being taught there, you will need to go deep into the remote stacks and dust off a volume of forgotten lore.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "
NASB

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY. To find this being taught there, you will need to go deep into the remote stacks and dust off a volume of forgotten lore.

Don, your words are raising eyebrows. However where are you going with the comment "THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY"?

Here's my take, a locality can strive to live the model of "One Church One City". If a given locality doesn't recieve LSM publications, there is no desire for LSM to recognize that given locality as a local church. My point is LSM is about LSM. For LSM to function as a business entity, LSM requires the financial support of churches that recieve LSM as their ministry publication.
Local churches can have the Lord's Table and have a Lord's Day service without needing LSM. There is always the Bible.

Terry

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Oregon

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

Dear Oregon,

Excellent points: Your statement should be a serious consideration, “God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an ‘in the spirit,’ thing”.

But is there any need to practically practice a spiritual reality?

Why did Paul in his first letter to Corinth mention division three times?

Could a poster or two address these two questions?

1 Cor 1:10, Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you,

1 Cor 11:18, For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it.

1 Cor 12:25, that there should be no division in the body

I have concluded that the posters here have agreed that the LSM/LC got it wrong. (Wow! Aren’t I sharp?) The LSM notions of “oneness” and “division” are not anywhere close to Biblical truth. Over time they got so deep in the woods of error that they can no longer see the forest.

I believe it is a good exercise to consider how they got so deep in the woods. Thus, there is a need for both a fair recounting of history and a cool calm consideration of truth and today’s situation with them and the Body of Christ in general.

One theme I read repeatedly is the “poor poor Christianity” mantra of WL. This does need to be examined but I believe in a very cool calm manner as the topic is white hot all by itself. WL’s application of the incestuous children of Lot as the fruit of the gospel among “free group” Christians is way too dramatic and just over the top. Such expounding does not build anyone up but only lays a foundation to condemn and belittle genuine born again believers.

On the other hand, I have real problems, for example, with the prosperity gospel preachers. I have seen too many young believers stumbled when everything did not go smoothly for them after their conversion.

I did not then and do not now believe it is wrong to test and examine what Christians may practice. I never felt that we should not have some discernment about the Christian world around us. To this day I endeavor to test everything but in a right spirit.

Consider a few verses:
Phil 1:9, And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,

1 Thess 5:21-22, But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

Rev 2:2, 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot endure evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

I have noticed that some on the forums believe if you have a bad report to give regarding the LSM/LC then you have a free pass from any checks. Reminds me of the LSM boys and their quick attack on any word of discouragement regarding their new way or beloved office or dear minister of the age. NO CHECKS OR EXAMINATION OF THEIR REPORTS ALLOWED.

In a like manner, I have noticed that others in their reaction to the abusive language from WL regarding our brothers in Christianity seem to take the position that all is well in Mudville even if Casey has struck out.

A final comment: I have read the term here judgaholic. Pretty clever on the part of who ever came up with it. The Lord said, Matt 7:1, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

I have also read about checking the fruit of WL and those in the LSM/LC and applying John the Baptist's words to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matt 3:8-11, "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves,' We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 "And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. NASB

Lord save us from being judgaholics and from being excessive fruit inspectors and axe wielders’.

I am anxiously awaiting some good answers to my questions.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "
NASB