What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, in so doing you reject the clear revelation in Ephesians of the the gifts, the work, and the building of the Body of Christ.

Absolutely not!

The gifts are given by the Head to build up the body.

Did Lee's Quarantines build up or tear down?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Absolutely not!
The gifts are given by the Head to build up the body.
Did Lee's Quarantines build up or tear down?

Okay. Then please explain why you reject the work according to Ephesians.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. Then please explain why you reject the work according to Ephesians.

Drake

What is described in Ephesians and Witness Lee's "the work" are not the same thing.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

What is described in Ephesians and Witness Lee's "the work" are not the same thing.

Tada! Mr. K strikes again! About as succinct as it gets. Even to the most casual of observers, the real boundary for everything related to the church, the ministry and the work is the person and work of Witness Lee - His personal ministry (actually synonymous with "the work") and the supposed God-given authority invested in his person.

So anytime Witness Lee or his followers use the term "the work", they always mean the dissemination, propagation and "defense and confirmation" of Lee's ministry. Everything in the Local Church of Witness Lee is for this. The Living Steam publisher is for this. The conferences are for this. The trainings are for this. All the Full-Time Trainings are for this. The "seven feasts" are for this. DCP is for this. Bibles for America is for this. Amana Trust is for this. Finally and foremost - the local churches are for this.

So how could Koinonia be so bold as to say that Witness Lee's "the work" is the not the same as "the work" in Ephesians? Simple. He has eyes. He has ears. And I suspect that he has had a taste of the real thing. And the real thing ain't headquartered over their on La Palm Ave in Anaheim California.
-

[Drake]

ZNP#210>”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.”

ZNP,

Please provide your reference where Brother Nee and Brother taught each church was autonomous.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

Really Drake?

Local Church 101:
From:The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches

Each local church is autonomous in its administration. Therefore, there is no central headquarters. No particular local church should be regarded as the head church or leading church. On the contrary, all the local churches share the same standing before the Lord.

Drake is well aware that the teaching that each local church was autonomous was a bread and butter teaching of Witness Lee. (Nee as well) The problem comes in when we want to talk about the actual practice. Yes autonomy was taught by Lee, but there is scarce little evidence that the man ever desired to see it put into practice. In fact, much, if not most, of the turmoil and dissension in the LC movement has come from the blatant hypocrisy of teaching one thing (the autonomy of the local church) and practicing quite the opposite (see the history of the Local Church under Witness Lee)

Sorry Drake. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off at the pass on this one. You are not going to get to extol all the virtues of the teachings without having to face the music on what was actually practiced (or lack thereof)
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Really Drake?

Local Church 101:
From:The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches

Each local church is autonomous in its administration. Therefore, there is no central headquarters. No particular local church should be regarded as the head church or leading church. On the contrary, all the local churches share the same standing before the Lord.

Drake is well aware that the teaching that each local church was autonomous was a bread and butter teaching of Witness Lee. (Nee as well) The problem comes in when we want to talk about the actual practice. Yes autonomy was taught by Lee, but there is scarce little evidence that the man ever desired to see it put into practice. In fact, much, if not most, of the turmoil and dissension in the LC movement has come from the blatant hypocrisy of teaching one thing (the autonomy of the local church) and practicing quite the opposite (see the history of the Local Church under Witness Lee)

Sorry Drake. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off at the pass on this one. You are not going to get to extol all the virtues of the teachings without having to face the music on what was actually practiced (or lack thereof)
-

Lee also taught:


To teach that the local churches are absolutely autonomous is to divide the Body of Christ. ~Witness Lee, One Body and One Spirit.


This proves that your claims about the teaching and practice being different is misguided.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee inferred that these designations were “boundaries” to jurisdiction. They taught that each locality was autonomous.”

ZNP, Please provide your reference where Brother Nee and Brother taught each church was autonomous.

Thanks, Drake

How about Hymn #824, "Administration local, each answering to the Lord." Sounds fairly autonomous to me.

Autonomous means:

• having self-government, at least to a significant degree.

• acting independently or having the freedom to do so.

• synonyms: self-governing, self-ruling, self-determining, independent, sovereign, free, un-monitored

None of these descriptions applied to LSM-ruled LC's, or for that matter, Cleveland-ruled LC's. The whole "local" thing as in "local churches" was nothing more than a farce. Why was it so evil for the Western denominations to rule over their affiliates in early 20th century China, when it is perfectly fine for Lee to do so in the USA?

Witness Lee said the local elders were given enough autonomy to choose what time to start their prayer meeting. At least that part was true, because had any elders taken any initiative by the Lord's leading to shepherd the saints under their care, they became "marked men."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Please provide your reference where Brother Nee and Brother taught each church was autonomous.

"From the very outset it should be made clear to the new converts that it is by divine appointment that the management of the church is entrusted to local elders and not to any worker from another place. "

Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Church Life, p. 73

[Cal]

I think it's safe to say, and this from years of experience and observation, that all the serious problems in the Local Church Movement stemmed from a misapplication and abuse of authority--both of the ostensive authority of Lee and other leaders, and of their teachings.

You can go down the list, starting in mainland China, to Taiwan, California, Texas, Daystar, the "sister's rebellion," the "New Way," the Philip Lee debacle, the ostracizing of leaders who would not swear allegiance to Lee, the kangaroo court than judged Titus Chu in absentia, and the dismantling of several Midwest churches.

These are not isolated incidents nor aberrations. They are serial evidence of a systemic problem which any intelligent and observant person can see is clearly rooted in the abuse of authority.

However life-filled some of Lee's ministry might have been, it doesn't excuse nor make up for these problems. The longer LCMers continue to wax vaguely spiritual to whitewash these problems, the longer they will not be taken seriously by people seeking serious and sensible answers.

The whole lesson of the history of Local Church Movement is an abject lesson, from God I believe, that no matter how seemingly good someone's ministry is, elevating that person or ministry to dominating levels is a huge mistake.

If you believe history teaches anything you should believe that. If you don't believe history teaches anything, well, good luck to you. You are going to need it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP#210>”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.”

ZNP,

Please provide your reference where Brother Nee and Brother taught each church was autonomous.

Thanks
Drake

I will defer to the excellent references provided by UntoHim, Ohio and Igzy (where did he come from?)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I will defer to the excellent references provided by UntoHim, Ohio and Igzy (where did he come from?)

ZNP,

I see you are jubilant about the support that impressive gang of three have provided you.....

However, in spite of the Dory Funk headlock that UntoHim believes he has put on this duck, a careful reading of his point is in disagreement with your statement about autonomous local churches.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. Then please explain why you reject the work according to Ephesians.

Drake

I only reject the work of LSM when it tears down the body, when it damages the church, when it stumbles the children of God.

Sorry you can't understand that.

[ZNPaaneah]

4I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. 7But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

1. This letter is written to all the saints in Ephesus and each believer "has been called with a calling".
2. We are charged to walk worthily of this heavenly calling "with all lowliness and meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another in love". I think it is safe to say we have all at some point fallen short of this. However, in the most egregious cases this lack of "lowliness" becomes codified. For example I was kicked out of the meeting hall in NYC because I had the audacity to talk to Ed Marks privately at dinner. I know that the blendeds claimed they had been "long-suffering" with Titus Chu, but I don't see it that way.
3. We are also charged to give diligence to keep the oneness in the uniting bond of peace. Paul then gives us 7 things that make us all one and not one of them is "the ministry".
4. We are then told that to "each one of us" was "this grace given".

These four points were given as an introduction to the Lord giving gifts to the Body for the building up of the Body through their ministry.

I think Ohio's point is well taken that those that he observed coming from LSM did not show any respect for these four points. Ohio: "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." They did not respect that each member had a calling. They were not diligent to keep the oneness in the uniting bond of peace. There was no lowliness, meekness, or forbearance in love. Nor did they respect that "to each one this grace was given".

I also think that if Drake is going to reference Ephesians 4 saying that Ohio "rejects the work" as it is presented in this chapter that he should read the chapter and not just assume that those of us on this forum are too blind and stupid to read it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I only reject the work of LSM when it tears down the body, when it damages the church, when it stumbles the children of God.
Sorry you can't understand that.

I understand that just fine. I also understand it when you called the work initiated by the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem as the work of Judaizers.

Feel free to set the record straight.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I understand that just fine. I also understand it when you called the work initiated by the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem as the work of Judaizers.

Feel free to set the record straight.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, now you are simply playing the troll.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, now you are simply playing the troll.

Ohio,

The troll allegation is just a diversion so you don’t have to clarify or explain what you meant when referring to a work initiated by the Holy Spirit as a practice of Judaizers.

Ohio> “Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.”

Are you included in “some”?

Please clarify.

Drake