The Unique Move of God

[Drake]

Igzy) "Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek? "

Igzy,

In the New Testament age it is the Spirit that speaks to the churches.

In Revelation 2 & 3 it is the Spirit speaking to the churches. Which churches? The seven churches that are identified in each city. Not thousands of churches in seven cities. Not the universal church but rather seven churches in seven cities. "The" church in a mentioned city is a definite article. It does not get any more explicit than that in any language.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy, "But you can say "we are meeting as the Church in the city." That I think is okay. At least it's okay by me. But in no place does the Bible tell us that we must meet as the Church in the city nor that we cannot meet in any other way."

Igzy,

I agree. When I am asked by anybody who do I meet with I always say we don't have a name we simply meet as the church in that place. I have done that for four decades.

For the very reason you stated because our view is that every believer is a member of the church in a particular city. I do not hold the view that only those in the Lord's recovery make up the church in a particular city. I don't know of anybody who holds that view . However I also understand that not all Christians have my view. I don't objective to that either. They are still members of the local church in that city whether they meet on that basis or not.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not hold the view that only those in the Lord's recovery make up the church in a particular city. I don't know of anybody who holds that view.

I'll bet there are people who stand up in your meetings and declare "We are the church in <city>!" And I'll bet they are often only talking about the people who meet with the LCM. And I'll bet they get a lot of amens from people thinking the same thing.

At the very least many are likely thinking, "And the people who don't meet with us aren't experiencing being the church in the city."

Anytime I think about being the church in the city when I'm with other believers, or for that matter when I'm by myself, I experience being the church in the city. But again you don't have to meet as the church in the city to be part of the church in the city, anymore than a woman named Suzie has to call herself Mrs. Davis to be be Mrs. Davis. She can be Mrs. Davis and she can be Suzie, too. Neither precludes the other, and the same holds for Brookhollow Community Church.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm sure there are people who stand up in your meetings and declare "We are the church in <city>!" And I'm sure they are only talking about the people who meet with the LCM. And I'm sure they get a lot of amens.

I don't think I have actually.

But if they did, so what?

Why shouldn't every christian have the realization that they are the church in the city where they live and in so doing drop the things that divide them and declare to the world and the principalities and powers that they choose the oneness found only in Christ....... why not?

That is a good thing to Amen.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't think I have actually.

But if they did, so what?

Why shouldn't every christian have the realization that they are the church in the city where they live and in so doing drop the things that divide them and declare to the world and the principalities and powers that they choose the oneness found only in Christ....... why not?

That is a good thing to Amen.

Drake

As I said, if you think of being the church in the city and your thoughts don't include every believer in the city equally, but rather favor the people in your clique, then your view of the church in the city is false and exclusive.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As I said, if you think of being the church in the city and your thoughts don't include every believer in the city equally, but rather favor the people in your clique, then your view of the church in the city is false and exclusive.

Being members of the church is a matter of being joined to the Lord by the Spirit through believing into Him.

Yet, please stop trying to justify the sectarian spirit operating in the church today causing each denomination to favor people in their own clique. I think if you called a spade a spade we'd find out just how much we agree on many things.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Being members of the church is a matter of being joined to the Lord by the Spirit through believing into Him.

Yet, please stop trying to justify the sectarian spirit operating in the church today causing each denomination to favor people in their own clique. I think if you called a spade a spade we'd find out just how much we agree on many things.

Drake

I'm not justifying a sectarian spirit. I'm saying if you were completely honest you'd realize you are as much or more sectarian than most out there.

Most Christians these days are not sectarian. They don't care about aligning themselves with some school of thought. They just want to be able to meet with people who care about Jesus. That's a fact.

And please don't continue with this self-serving drivel about names and ground and all that BS. Oneness is about ATTITUDE. It's about how you look at other BROTHERS and SISTERS and how you do not elevate DOCTRINES above your RELATIONSHIPS with them. Oneness is not about having a gotcha doctrine like locality. It's about how you really think about your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm not stupid, Drake. You aren't either. But please dispense with the attitude that you are more for oneness because you are in the LCM. You aren't. And I'm not more for oneness because I'm not in the LCM. The LCM is just another organization. Oneness is about what's between me and you and us and everyone else. Get it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't think I have actually.

But if they did, so what?

Why shouldn't every christian have the realization that they are the church in the city where they live and in so doing drop the things that divide them and declare to the world and the principalities and powers that they choose the oneness found only in Christ....... why not?

That is a good thing to Amen.

Drake

I think this is a very difficult position to be in. I have been in congregations where my children were taught that unbelievers go to hell. I believe the Bible is far more nuanced than that and do not appreciate that teaching. But it isn't the pastor teaching it from the pulpit, it is a Sunday school teacher.

I don't think I have ever been in fellowship with Christians where everyone agreed with everyone or where everyone fully comprehended the nuances and scriptural basis for the teachings.

What makes the LRC different from many other meetings is that any member can stand up and speak. We have all been in meetings where someone spoke something that was off the wall.

So then where do you draw the line?

The other issue I have with this is that most Christians that I have met do not make oneness a big issue like it is in the LRC. Redemption, forgiveness, salvation, these are generally the major topics that they focus on. So then, is it a positive thing that those in the LRC focus on the oneness of the Body? I think we all have to agree it is, otherwise why are you even discussing this on this thread? Clearly if you are on this thread you think the oneness is a big issue.

What I consider are the big issues with this teaching --

1. It denies the Lord who bought us with His blood. Any suggestion that the name of your meeting hall is a factor in the oneness is a denial of the work that Jesus did on the cross. That blood is the real "ground of oneness".

and

2. I see this doctrine as a way to create a monopoly, claim that you are the MOTA, and make merchandise of the saints. Regardless of how Dr a Ke understands this doctrine, the facts are clear. It is the basis for the claim that WN was the MOTA. It is the basis for saying WL took the mantle from WN. And, it is the basis for creating the LRC sect and giving WL a monopoly which he in turned used to make merchandise of the saints.

[Ohio]

This wikipedia article "Local Church Controversies" delineates the LC positions ...

Watchman Nee taught that the universal church, the Body of Christ, is properly expressed in local churches, that is, local assemblies consisting of all believers in their respective localities. His most comprehensive exposition of this principle can be found in The Normal Christian Church Life, although there are significant treatments of the subject in other books as well. This teaching is based on the New Testament examples of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1), the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the seven churches in seven cities in Asia (Rev. 1:11), etc. Watchman Nee and his co-workers, including Witness Lee, established local churches throughout China according to this principle.

Witness Lee continued to follow and expound this principle in his work and ministry. He pointed out that in Acts 14:23 Paul and his co-workers appointed elders in every church upon their return to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, while in Titus 1:5, Paul charged his co-worker to appoint elders in every city. This, Lee said, showed that the elders in the church equaled the elders in the city, meaning that the boundary of the church was the city. Furthermore, he noted that even though there were thousands of believers in Jerusalem, the church there was referred to in the singular and there was only one group of elders in the church.

Witness Lee was often critical of the organized system of Christianity, saying that it had deviated from the biblical revelation. He identified three inherent deficiencies in this system:

• There are many substitutes for the living person of Christ;
• The clergy/laity system nullifies the proper function of the believers; and
• The divided state of the denominational/free group system is contrary to biblical injunctions to keep the oneness of the Body of Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This wikipedia article "Local Church Controversies" delineates the LC positions ...

This, Lee said, showed that the elders in the church equaled the elders in the city, meaning that the boundary of the church was the city. Furthermore, he noted that even though there were thousands of believers in Jerusalem, the church there was referred to in the singular and there was only one group of elders in the church.

So I wonder if Drake agrees with this? Are the elders selected by Witness Lee in the church in Houston the only genuine elders in Houston?

Witness Lee was often critical of the organized system of Christianity, saying that it had deviated from the biblical revelation. He identified three inherent deficiencies in this system:
There are many substitutes for the living person of Christ;
The clergy/laity system nullifies the proper function of the believers; and
The divided state of the denominational/free group system is contrary to biblical injunctions to keep the oneness of the Body of Christ.

I feel that these criticisms of Witness Lee towards others is equally applicable to him.

1. Substitutes for the living person of Christ. -- MOTA and Ground of the Church are two examples. Jesus is the minister of the age. To say that Watchman Nee or Witness Lee is equals a substitute for the Living person of Christ. Likewise it is the living person of Christ that is the bond of peace that keeps the oneness, not WL's doctrine of the ground of the church.

2. Nullification of the proper function of the believers. -- We watched that as "living testimonies" were converted into parroting footnotes and WL's ministry.

3. The divided state of denominational system is never so clear as in the Lord's Recovery Church. It is either stated plainly or else implied that taking the Lord's table in any other Christian fellowship is akin to a sin that could kill you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think this is a very difficult position to be in. I have been in congregations where my children were taught that unbelievers go to hell. I believe the Bible is far more nuanced than that and do not appreciate that teaching. But it isn't the pastor teaching it from the pulpit, it is a Sunday school teacher.

I don't think I have ever been in fellowship with Christians where everyone agreed with everyone or where everyone fully comprehended the nuances and scriptural basis for the teachings.

What makes the LRC different from many other meetings is that any member can stand up and speak. We have all been in meetings where someone spoke something that was off the wall.

So then where do you draw the line?

The other issue I have with this is that most Christians that I have met do not make oneness a big issue like it is in the LRC. Redemption, forgiveness, salvation, these are generally the major topics that they focus on. So then, is it a positive thing that those in the LRC focus on the oneness of the Body? I think we all have to agree it is, otherwise why are you even discussing this on this thread? Clearly if you are on this thread you think the oneness is a big issue.

What I consider are the big issues with this teaching --

1. It denies the Lord who bought us with His blood. Any suggestion that the name of your meeting hall is a factor in the oneness is a denial of the work that Jesus did on the cross. That blood is the real "ground of oneness".

and

2. I see this doctrine as a way to create a monopoly, claim that you are the MOTA, and make merchandise of the saints. Regardless of how Dr a Ke understands this doctrine, the facts are clear. It is the basis for the claim that WN was the MOTA. It is the basis for saying WL took the mantle from WN. And, it is the basis for creating the LRC sect and giving WL a monopoly which he in turned used to make merchandise of the saints.

It does not deny the lord because
the blood ,life and light are necessary for oneness. Lee talks about the cycle of life light onessness in the book titled the genuine ground oneness. Nothing about names on meeting halls.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It does not deny the lord because
the blood ,life and light are necessary for oneness. Lee talks about the cycle of life light onessness in the book titled the genuine ground oneness. Nothing about names on meeting halls.

If you investigate the situation of today's Christianity, you will learn that every division is an elevation of some kind… Bible study should not become an elevation that separates God's people from one another. The same is true regarding pray-reading… We need to ask the Lord to grant us mercy that we may not elevate anything in place of Christ. If we hold to an attitude of elevating our opinion or preference, we set up a "high place," a place of division. (The Genuine Ground of Oneness, WL, Chapter 8, Section 5)

When you refer to Watchman Nee as "The Minister of the Age" you have elevated him. Why is he the MOTA? Because he discovered the "ground of the church". The basis for elevating WN is the doctrine of the ground of the church.

This elevation separates God's people. That also is true.

The LRC has held to their opinion and preference, they have elevated WN and WL due to this preference, and as a result they have set up a high place.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Why shouldn't every christian have the realization that they are the church in the city where they live and in so doing drop the things that divide them and declare to the world and the principalities and powers that they choose the oneness found only in Christ....... why not?

That is a good thing to Amen.

Drake

I agree absolutely! Whatever ministries Christians prefer, just drop the ministries and doctrines that produce division. In SBC assemblies it's Lifeway publications. For many local churches on the US west coast it's LSM publications. Just drop them and "choose the oneness found only in Christ".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

For the very reason you stated because our view is that every believer is a member of the church in a particular city. I do not hold the view that only those in the Lord's recovery make up the church in a particular city.
I don't know of anybody who holds that view .
However I also understand that not all Christians have my view. I don't objective to that either. They are still members of the local church in that city whether they meet on that basis or not.

Drake

How about a little honesty here? Do you really expect any of us to believe this? I visited dozens and dozens of LC's, heard thousands of testimonies.

I heard the opposite of what you said on a regular basis. I can't know what exact views and teachings everyone holds within. I only go by what they say.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How about a little honesty here? Do you really expect any of us to believe this? I visited dozens and dozens of LC's, heard thousands of testimonies.

I heard the opposite of what you said on a regular basis. I can't know what exact views and teachings everyone holds within. I only go by what they say.

I haven't visited as many LSM LC's as Ohio, but I agree. I've talked with FTTA grads, the regular joe, elders, etc and have never heard LSM members describe Christian believers in the city as part of the "Church in (city)", "saints", being in the "Church life", etc.

Maybe Drake is not from the US? I haven't interacted with many international LSM members. Unfortunately we will never know because he isn't interested in sharing his locality. As I've said before, I understand his position and sympathize with him on this. A spirit of fear and confusion abound in the LSM.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

It does not get any more explicit than that in any language.

Drake

Yes, it does.

"To the Seven Churches in Asia which are identified with cities. And, oh, by the way for those of you who can't read between the lines: There should only be one organized church per city under one group of elders who all follow the minister of the age."

That is more explicit. But the Lord didn't get that explicit. With good reason.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek? "

Igzy,

In the New Testament age it is the Spirit that speaks to the churches.

In Revelation 2 & 3 it is the Spirit speaking to the churches. Which churches? The seven churches that are identified in each city. Not thousands of churches in seven cities. Not the universal church but rather seven churches in seven cities. "The" church in a mentioned city is a definite article. It does not get any more explicit than that in any language.

Drake

Didn't the Spirit speak explicitly thru Paul? Why then no such explicit speaking in his many epistles, both public and private?

And looking from another point of view, why use such matters here to condemn the entire body of Christ, when LSM and the LC's should be doubly condemned for all of their divisive practices. You find splinters when timbers stick out of your eyesockets.