What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[ZNPaaneah]

My point in this thread is that the church does have a boundary, it is crucial, like the wall in the New Jerusalem, or on a human body it would be the skin. WL teaches it is a trivial boundary designated by the world and changeable. I think if we could see how significant the wall is that would help us see how absurd the “doctrine of dirt” is.

Job 1:10 Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath, on every side?

A hedge around a field prevents livestock from coming into the field. It reduces disease spread from one animal to the next. We do something similar at airports, screening for people with a fever to prevent sick travelers into our country. It also provides shelter from the wind which can have a significant impact on survival of new born lambs. It provides shade which can increase milk production. It helps drainage and prevents wind erosion. Also, it provides a habitat for essential species. Pollinators can live in the hedge as well as natural enemies of pests. Predatory insects and birds can live in the hedge year round, and once the fields attract pests they go to work devouring them.

Numbers 14:8If Jehovah delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it unto us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. 9Only rebel not against Jehovah, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is removed from over them, and Jehovah is with us: fear them not.

The liars, cheats, abominable ones, they are “bread for us”. If our wall is similar to a “hedge” where it is a dwelling place for those that can discern and defeat these cheats it could explain how there are none of them in the New Jerusalem. This is similar to the FBI hiring a former forger to catch forgers, or a former hacker to catch hackers.

This in turn explains

Ps 130:3If thou, Jehovah, shouldest mark iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with thee,
That thou mayest be feared.

Why is our wall so fearsome? Because we have those forgiven forgers, hackers, cult members, etc. They can discern the false prophets and expose them. Because of them the defense of these scam artists is removed and they become bread for us.

Once again this brings us back to Matthew 18. We deal with sins according to righteousness and mercy, grace and truth. Without mercy we would not have a fearsome wall.

[ZNPaaneah]

In the NT “local” churches are frequently addressed as “the church in ________”, the church in Ephesus, the church in Colossae, the church in Rome. So then these city boundaries are used to designate different assemblies of Christians.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee inferred that these designations were “boundaries” to jurisdiction. They taught that each locality was autonomous. But Witness Lee also disparaged the autonomy, teaching that the differences in the seven golden lamp stands in the New Jerusalem were negative.

We know that the different localities did not have autonomy regarding the faith once for all delivered to the saints through the fellowship of the apostles. We also know that the discipline of a saint is not a local matter. The only example we have of this is Paul who was not present in the locality discipling a brother in Corinth. If we look at Matthew 18 “telling it to the church” is equivalent to having what has been bound on Earth be bound in Heaven. We also know that letters addressed to churches were not addressed to elders. There is no suggestion in the NT that the elders in a locality were to “lord it over” the flock, on the contrary they are specifically told they are not to do this. The function of the elders is to shepherd the sheep, however the sheep do not belong to them, they belong to the Lord. We also know that saints freely moved from one locality to the next without the need for anything more than a letter of reference. We also know that elders were appointed in every church and in every city, equating the two.

So then there surely must be a purpose in designating assemblies of Christians by city and also of appointing elders by city.

Deuteronomy 21:1If one be found slain in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; 2then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3and it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. 5And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be. 6And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; 7and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8Forgive, O Jehovah, thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of thy people Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

These verses clearly indicate that the people of God will be held accountable, not simply for what each individual does, but also for what each community does. The first mention of a city is the one built by Cane. The biggest city in Genesis is Babel. Paul wrote a letter to Philemon, as a result Philemon would be held accountable for how he treated that word. Likewise Paul wrote to various assemblies, and these assemblies would be held accountable for how they received his word. Later he said that “all in Asia” had abandoned him. Individuals can sin, and assemblies can sin. The boundary of a city is not a designation like the wall of the NJ, or like a hedge of protection, rather it is a designation for accountability.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the NT “local” churches are frequently addressed as “the church in ________”, the church in Ephesus, the church in Colossae, the church in Rome. So then these city boundaries are used to designate different assemblies of Christians.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee inferred that these designations were “boundaries” to jurisdiction. They taught that each locality was autonomous. But Witness Lee also disparaged the autonomy, teaching that the differences in the seven golden lamp stands in the New Jerusalem were negative.

And herein is what I found to be the hypocrisy in both Nee's and Lee's teachings.

In their early ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized city boundaries under autonomous "city" jurisdictions administrated by the elders. Both were firm on this matter, even teaching that the elders were the "highest court" in all matters. Some have referred to this as the "Antioch Principle" established under Paul's ministry.

In their later ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized the "oneness" of the body of Christ, with all the churches identically the same, with workers sent out from headquarters overseeing the elders, and a Minister of the Age overseeing these workers. Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.

During the quarantines of the Midwest churches, this ecclesiastical change was a source of great conflict and confusion. The Midwest leaders all considered the early paradigm by Nee and Lee to be still in operation, while the Blendeds were all convinced, as the legitimate successors to WL, that the second paradigm was in operation. Midwest leaders compiled reams of old Nee and Lee quotations to support their positions, and Anaheim produced their 28 "attack pack" booklets of more recent quotations to support their positions.

Thus the Midwest battles (divisions, lawsuits, infighting, etc.) during the quarantine were very much similar to the battles Paul et.al. faced with the Judaizers sent out from Jerusalem. Though the Biblical conflict apparently was centered on salvation by circumcision, and supposedly solved in the Acts 15 council, the heart of the matter was the bigger issues of power and control. Had not Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, the latter model would most certainly have won out, and altered the entire course of church history.

[Drake]

Ohio,

You have some of the facts but you are polarizing them to fit your history, perhaps to justify it. Here is what I mean.

You position the Antioch principle favorably but the Jerusalem principle negatively attributing it to Judaizers. Actually, both principles are revealed by God to show different models of the work, not about the administration of a local church. The beginning in Jerusalem was initiated by the Holy Spirit and the beginning in Antioch was also initiated by the Holy Spirit. Both Antioch and Jerusalem were centers of the work. They also were local churches. This is what makes Antioch and Jerusalem unique in that they were both local churches and centers of the work. As local churches their administration was local. Jerusalem did not control the churches in Samaria. Antioch did not control the churches raised up by the apostles sent from Antioch. However, as centers of the work, which was regional, they did manage the affairs of the work on an extra local basis. So we see, in the biblical record, Peter going to Joppa and then to the house of Cornelius and Caesarea and then returning to Jerusalem. In Antioch, the apostles went out for years at a time and lived in the places where they established local churches. Only to return years later. And we see a letter from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to Antioch to resolve the Acts 15 issue. It is apparent from that letter alone, that God was not using a power and control technique established by Judaizers to resolve the Acts 15 issue! Neither of these New Testament models change the administration of the local church. Which is local.

Your casting of the Jerusalem model as being formulated and a craft of Judaizers is unfounded and wrong. Both were a work of the Holy Spirit showing different circumstances of the work in the first century. Lastly, you appear to be suggesting that God sent Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the purpose of destroying the the church and the work that was centered at Jerusalem. That is a fallacy of argument by cutting up the puzzle pieces of history to fit your narrative.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

You have some of the facts but you are polarizing them to fit your history, perhaps to justify it. Here is what I mean.

You position the Antioch principle favorably but the Jerusalem principle negatively attributing it to Judaizers. Actually, both principles are revealed by God to show different models of the work, not about the administration of a local church. The beginning in Jerusalem was initiated by the Holy Spirit and the beginning in Antioch was also initiated by the Holy Spirit. Both Antioch and Jerusalem were centers of the work. They also were local churches. This is what makes Antioch and Jerusalem unique in that they were both local churches and centers of the work. As local churches their administration was local. Jerusalem did not control the churches in Samaria. Antioch did not control the churches raised up by the apostles sent from Antioch. However, as centers of the work, which was regional, they did manage the affairs of the work on an extra local basis.

You apparently missed the points I was making, but that's fine.

I no longer espouse the system of workers which you call "the work." The Bible only speaks of "the work of ministry." This para-church structure called "the work" apparently models scripture, but in reality ends up modeling all the denominations which LSM has long condemned. All they have done is changed the names, not the reality. They all claim to serve the church, but actually the church only exists to serve the ministry, LSM, that is.

My time in the LC was marked by a wonderful local church experience only to be nearly destroyed by outside workers who supposedly came to "help" us. This happened in all three of LC's I was a part of. Living and serving in the local churches with "the work," was always like "two steps forward, three steps back." Yet, for all the chaos, confusion, suffering, frustration, causes of stumbling by many, and divisions in my local churches caused by "the work," never did they ever take ownership or repent for their damages.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You apparently missed the points I was making, but that's fine.

I no longer espouse the system of workers which you call "the work." The Bible only speaks of "the work of ministry." This para-church structure called "the work" apparently models scripture, but in reality ends up modeling all the denominations which LSM has long condemned. All they have done is changed the names, not the reality. They all claim to serve the church, but actually the church only exists to serve the ministry, LSM, that is.

My time in the LC was marked by a wonderful local church experience only to be nearly destroyed by outside workers who supposedly came to "help" us. This happened in all three of LC's I was a part of. Living and serving in the local churches with "the work," was always like "two steps forward, three steps back." Yet, for all the chaos, confusion, suffering, frustration, causes of stumbling by many, and divisions in my local churches caused by "the work," never did they ever take ownership or repent for their damages.

Ohio,

You are allowing your experience to shape biblical truth. You reject the work because you had a bad experience then you rejected what the Bible teaches about it too. It starts with “He gave....”.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

You are allowing your experience to shape biblical truth. You reject the work because you had a bad experience then you rejected what the Bible teaches about it too. It starts with “He gave....”.

Drake

Rather my experiences and the scriptures together proved that the Recovery deviated from the truth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And herein is what I found to be the hypocrisy in both Nee's and Lee's teachings.

In their early ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized city boundaries under autonomous "city" jurisdictions administrated by the elders. Both were firm on this matter, even teaching that the elders were the "highest court" in all matters. Some have referred to this as the "Antioch Principle" established under Paul's ministry.

In their later ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized the "oneness" of the body of Christ, with all the churches identically the same, with workers sent out from headquarters overseeing the elders, and a Minister of the Age overseeing these workers. Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.

During the quarantines of the Midwest churches, this ecclesiastical change was a source of great conflict and confusion. The Midwest leaders all considered the early paradigm by Nee and Lee to be still in operation, while the Blendeds were all convinced, as the legitimate successors to WL, that the second paradigm was in operation. Midwest leaders compiled reams of old Nee and Lee quotations to support their positions, and Anaheim produced their 28 "attack pack" booklets of more recent quotations to support their positions.

Thus the Midwest battles (divisions, lawsuits, infighting, etc.) during the quarantine were very much similar to the battles Paul et.al. faced with the Judaizers sent out from Jerusalem. Though the Biblical conflict apparently was centered on salvation by circumcision, and supposedly solved in the Acts 15 council, the heart of the matter was the bigger issues of power and control. Had not Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, the latter model would most certainly have won out, and altered the entire course of church history.

It is essential to the "doctrine of dirt" that city boundaries delineate something. This is the entire rationale for creating his own sect, lambasting Christianity, and creating a monopoly so that he can make merchandise of the saints.

However, in order to make merchandise of the saints he needs every one of these "Lord's Recovery Churches" "one with the ministry", pushing product. Hence the second paradigm.