The introduction of leaven

[UntoHim]

Excellent posts guys! I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue.
I don't think it is unreasonable, however, to assume that there were a lot of things that the Lord Jesus taught the original apostles (+Paul) that did not make it word-for-word in the Bible.(in fact the Bible itself tells us exactly this) I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Just as an aside (maybe not relevant) I think it should be noted that there has been just as much abuse of power and hierarchical nonsense perpetrated in the "house church" movement as anywhere else. Ironically this movement has, in some part, been lead by Gene Edwards who was once in the Local Church.

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Good to hear from you both!

[OBW]

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

The changes, both positive and negative, that are happening or being proposed as the fight between conservative, liberal, evangelical, emerging (and emergent) thoughts collide, and the larger change from a philosophical base of modernity to one of postmodernity can be staggering. And anyone who simply says that we need to stay the course of conservative Evangelical "modern" thought is a fool. The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship. (That last one is really vague because "emerging" is as varied as the climatological environments present within the whole of Asia.)

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

I believe the Lord warned the disciples of a falling-away, post-resurrection, but I can't find it, and maybe I've confused it with Paul's word in Acts 20 about the "fierce wolves" coming into the flock. I'll keep looking. But for the meantime, please take Revelation 2 & 3 as the starting point. What caused all the problems in the seven assemblies? Is there one "root cause" we can single out? Or even two or three?

I say this because I am interested in solving puzzles, and this one has me intrigued. Also, I do it before you all because it seems to me that some appropriate context may help us as we continue to diagnose "l'affaire Lee" here and elsewhere. As I mentioned in another post, it's not like Lee showed up in a marvelous christian brotherhood/sisterhood, 1964 USA, and proceeded to ruin everything. No, "l'affaire Lee" is to me a symptom of a larger issue, and I want to know what it is.

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship.

Agreed. I am rapidly moving away from my "anti-organizational" views. I think organizational structure, or lack thereof, is not the crux of the matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

See my response to "UntoHim" in my previous post, e.g. "But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation?" I apologize if my initial, thread-starting post wasn't coherent enough.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by aron

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

No need to apologize. I tried to answer your direct question with no intent of stirring up a conflict. Unfortunately there are those who seem to enjoy challenging what others post regardless of the intent.

I took a break from these forums because I tired of the argument-for-arguments-sake debates. Alas, I was only about three posts in to my return before it reared its head again.

This is my last post.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No need to apologize. I tried to answer your direct question with no intent of stirring up a conflict. Unfortunately there are those who seem to enjoy challenging what others post regardless of the intent.

I took a break from these forums because I tired of the argument-for-arguments-sake debates. Alas, I was only about three posts in to my return before it reared its head again.

This is my last post.

Dear beloved Timotheist,

While you are, of course, fully free to follow the Lord as you are led by Him, I must say that I hate to hear that you have made your last post. :verysad:

I was actually enjoying the fellowship back and forth here, but I guess that is easy for me to say since I was not directly participating.

Have you considered opening a "blog" on the "blog" section of this forum? With a "blog" you can share whatever is on your heart, whenever you want. If you do start your own "blog", I know it would be a big blessing to the rest of us.

Whatever you decide to do, we love you in Christ, dear brother.

Much grace, peace, and love be with you, precious one.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Hello dear brother aron, beloved in Christ,

At the present time I do not have any answers to your big questions, but I do have one insight to share. One item the Spirit is clearly speaking to the seven assemblies is the crucial need for repentance. If I remember correctly, the word "repent" appears eight times in these seven epistles. These eight mentions of the word "repent" are not spread evenly throughout all the epistles, but we should remember that all seven of the assemblies read the book of Revelation as a whole, i.e. each assemlby read the epistles spoken to the other assemblies.

While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important! How many times in Church history can we see examples of this? Not enough times! May our dear Lord be incredibly merciful and gracious to us regarding this matter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

At the present time I do not have any answers to your big questions, but I do have one insight to share. One item the Spirit is clearly speaking to the seven assemblies is the crucial need for repentance. If I remember correctly, the word "repent" appears eight times in these seven epistles.
While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important!

You are right on track. The idea of "repentance" being broadly applied to cover a host of woes afflicting the fellowships is exactly what I was looking for. I am looking for themes which might be applicable beyond those 7 assemblies.

As I said, if the seven assemblies in asia were merely "signs" meant to represent the seven "stages" of church experience through history, then that wouldn't help the Corinthians or the Antiochians, right? I think that John's letters were meant to have an immediate and broad application, what the Spirit was speaking to the churches, both in Asia and beyond. And one of the things was surely "repent". Another was "hold fast".

But I digress. Those words are therapeutic in nature, and I was first looking for diagnostic. What is the problem with the seven assemblies? And how does this relate to others, including the lc issue, and us today outside the lc fold?

Well, I got some help from Jude's epistle, and I wanted to share it here. Jude in verse 6 says that some angels "abandoned their appointed place"; they had a position and function set for them by God and they left it. I realized this was of course especially relevant to Satan, who had a high position but wanted the highest position, reserved for God alone. Satan left his place. So did Adam and Eve. God set bounds for their human experience, and they trespassed the boundaries, went where they shouldn't, and suffered great loss.

Now, this is directly applicable to the christian experience. We all have an allotted portion of the common faith. There is a strong warning not to overstep our boundaries. To me, a common thread of the problems evident in the asian assemblies was leaving God's boundaries, and going somewhere you don't belong. To me, the Satan's throne, the Jezebel's fornication, the Nicolaitans (lording it over others), the claiming of some to be apostles, etc are all "wofish" ambition manifesting itself in the kingdom of sheep.

The second problem is pride. Attaining something spiritually is dangerous, if you look at the attainment instead of christ. That's what Satan did. And in the LCs you have the constant self-promotion of the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee. The "we have laid hold" theme is pervasive there. This can be seen in boasting of one's attainments, and also in lukewarmness (thinking one has already laid hold).

So, my diagnosis is: 1) Ambition, masking unremoved fear; and 2) pride, masking hidden shame. Those 2 spiritual "viruses" leaven the collective experience of Christ, and its expression on earth.

They issue in: 1) Egypt, which is carnality, and 2) Babylon, which is religious confusion. And the mingling of the two is seen in a golden cup full of abominations (Rev. 17:4), and the incessant merchandising ("cargo of gold and silver and precious stone and pearls and fine linen..[etc]..and cargo of horses and chariots and slaves and souls of men" - Rev. 18:12,13).

That's the kind of universal themes I am looking for, and it certainly seems applicable to the case of the local churches of Lee. But I am really just thinking aloud here; I don't pretend to have the definitive diagnosis of the situation. I just think it's fun to publicly explore ideas, it seems everyone has a piece of the puzzle and we can collectively find out things that would stymie us individually. My thanks to all for the input.

p.s. I have found that faith and love are the cures for fear and shame. I certainly need more of both. Lord, that we would fix our eyes on You alone!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important! How many times in Church history can we see examples of this? Not enough times! May our dear Lord be incredibly merciful and gracious to us regarding this matter.

KTS, I do hear what you're saying. You touched on a key word. Repentance is indeed a big part of the solution, but there needs to be humbling of oursleves. If a saint believes brothers so and so needs to repent, but not me, how can you or I expect anything can change? In a sense when there's no humility, there's no capacity to love beyond our natural measure.
This is why we need the Lord's grace, the Lord's mercy, and to seek the Lord's love. Whatever the factors of degradation may be, one that is missing is loving one another as the Lord has loved us.

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue. I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Good point. As I stated in my response to YP, it seems natural that a) if the Lord didn't explicitly forbid it and b) it was the prevailing practice among the observant ones, pre-Christ, then why shouldn't church leadership models which seemed proper be enacted? I am radically rethinking my longstanding issue with "organization" per se. I may have been completely missing the boat on this one. Thanks for your input.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

I understand completely. I raise this questioning thread based on the "epistles to the seven churches" in the second and third chapters of Revelation. It seems to me that something had happened to the fellowships between the day of pentecost and the day that John was instructed by the Lord to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the seven churches. Something negative, corrupting; some degrading element had "leavened" the fellowships.

I take the opposite tack as Witness Lee; he says that they were identical positively (golden lampstands) but differed in negative aspects (lukewarmness, pride, deadness, sin, etc). I say the opposite: as a positive collective expression of Christ, these fellowships, like individuals, will have unique characteristics. God will give some to be strong on the truth, some to be strong in the gospel, some in shepherding, etc. I believe this pleases the Father, and the strengths of one can support the weaknesses of another in a free flow of fellowship among the differing assemblies.

But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation? As I said before, I think this is a wider issue than the seven churches; in some way they are meant to be representative of the larger body, the "body of Christ", not only at that time, but going forward. There is a strong universalist streak in the book of Revelation, and it would be completely out of character (it seems to me) to insert seven private letters into this book like John did. Nee & Lee say that the seven churches represent the various "ages of the church"; I don't disagree but it goes much deeper than that. If that was merely a prediction about the various stages the body of christ would go through, it wouldn't have much sense for the immediate recipients would it? No, John is MUCH more practical than this. He has fish to fry, and he wants to fry them today, not when Nee or the Brethren show up to correctly interpret the signs.

If you have 4 patients in a hospital ward, and one of them has Karposi's Sarcoma, one of them has Hairy Leukoplatia, another has uncontrolled infections, another has Pneumonia, you may say they are all diversely afflicted. But if I tell you they all have AIDS, and it is manifesting itself differently, that makes sense, right? So I think that maybe some "virus" got into the fellowship of the believers, before the end of the writing of the Bible, and I want to know what it is.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Well, the notion of "serving priests" would have different connotations to a Jewish believer AD 50, and a gentile believer today, wouldn't it? Point well raised.