Re: There is a Solution2

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I cannot agree with your definition of righteousness nor your characterization of LC meetings. A proper definition of righteousness is "absolute uprightness before God." In terms of the period of the law from Moses until Christ it was related to the keeping of the law. In terms of the church-age, from Christ onward, it is a matter of faith, of believing into Christ (Rom. 4:3; 1:17; 3:22, etc.). Any so-called "righteous behavior" in and of ourselves - even as Christians - is completely insufficient to properly display the kingdom of God. We have to be related to Christ and the church has to be related to Christ. Without regular involvement with Christ - our personal interactions with Him - and without our regular interactions with the Body of Christ, the church, we cannot display the righteousness of God. Not in any way, shape or form. I don't care how "good" you are to your family, friends, co-workers or customers.

And so the Kingdom is about church? No. It is the display of the righteousness of God. I never said that we had to crank it out on our own. That was your strawman argument. Defeat it all day long because I didn't make it.

I said that if you are not living righteously, then you are not living the Kingdom. I did not say that you should try to live it on your own. And "church" is not the way that you do live it. It is Christ. I would agree that meeting together is a positive influence in your tendency to live Christ. But it is not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.

In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is note the Kingdom.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As far as your comment regarding the LC meetings is concerned, displaying God's righteousness is not even that. Nor, for that matter is it standing in a Christian "worship meeting" while a band plays a rock version of "Oh My Soul" with your arms up in the air like some kind of spiritual satellite dish.

Whether you like the meetings of other Christian groups or not is irrelevant. I don't experience the kind of thing you just mocked. But my snide remark was not that you do what you do, but that you think it is so superior, and that "church life" is the Kingdom. All of the trappings of church, in LC style all the way down to the most liturgical meeting you can find, are not "the Kingdom" except to the extent that it is part of the living of the Kingdom people. The Kingdom is the entire life of the Kingdom people. It includes taking care of your kids (and not just by taking them along to your church meetings), helping your wife with mundane things in the house, living righteously in your environment. Ignore one of those and you are ignoring the Kingdom.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Which is exactly why we bring our children to the meeting.

Yeah. That's quality time. It makes up for ignoring them at home, or being home so little that you aren't even there to ignore them in person. Now they are in a large group setting being ignored by you (and everyone else) there.

Look. I'm not saying that you should not go to meetings, or "to church" or however you want to say it. I'm saying that it is not "the kingdom." And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are. If you believe otherwise, then your "church life" is an idol. You place it above obedience to Christ. "Church life" is not a commandment. Love your neighbor is. Your righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees is. And on and on. And don't bother with that "We're no longer under the law" malarkey. You surely are. Matt 5 increased the requirements. And Jesus said to teach them to obey it all.

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

Rather, let our "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." Speak the same language. Don't confuse meetings by speaking different languages (that was the meaning of the "trumpet" thing). Don't equivocate around terms so that the common meaning is ignored and some private meaning is intended (but not made clear).

In other words, get over the terminology. If I actually say "go to church" don't have a conniption. If I say "communion" likewise. Don't throw out alternate terminology and insist that everyone use yours or be deficient. For example, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, and Communion are equivalents.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

And so the Kingdom is about church? No. It is the display of the righteousness of God. I never said that we had to crank it out on our own. That was your strawman argument. Defeat it all day long because I didn't make it.

Well first, I didn't create a straw man from your argument. You did, however, write that "God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. You would agree that simply having "good relationships" and "right living" outside the influence of Christ is not sufficient in displaying the kingdom, right? To me saying, "good relationships" is the same as saying "crank it out on our own." The best we have is "goodness" in ourselves.

Nonetheless:

I said that if you are not living righteously, then you are not living the Kingdom. I did not say that you should try to live it on your own. And "church" is not the way that you do live it. It is Christ. I would agree that meeting together is a positive influence in your tendency to live Christ. But it is not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

Christ is all and is in all. How is that compartmentalizing the kingdom?

In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is note the Kingdom.

Not the meeting. The church itself. The meeting is a practical expression of the kingdom. In much the same way that the "gathering together" of a king's township would be the expression of his kingdom during the Feudal period of England's history.

Whether you like the meetings of other Christian groups or not is irrelevant. I don't experience the kind of thing you just mocked. But my snide remark was not that you do what you do, but that you think it is so superior, and that "church life" is the Kingdom. All of the trappings of church, in LC style all the way down to the most liturgical meeting you can find, are not "the Kingdom" except to the extent that it is part of the living of the Kingdom people.

Your posts drip with cynicism. I'm glad you acknowledge that as something purposeful on your part. My point was that I don't view LC meetings as any less relevant or meaningful to its participants as other Christian meetings who conduct their services in different ways, and neither should you, regardless of your obvious resentments. And no, I don't believe that any person, myself included, feels that the LC's way of conducting "service" is any more superior than other congregations.

The Kingdom is the entire life of the Kingdom people. It includes taking care of your kids (and not just by taking them along to your church meetings), helping your wife with mundane things in the house, living righteously in your environment. Ignore one of those and you are ignoring the Kingdom.

I would say that taking care of your own children, as well as helping to shepherd the other children in the church, is a natural expression of a life which regularly enjoys the king and the kingdom likewise. This would include personal interactions with Jesus as well as regular fellowship in the church - you know? That "meaningless" expression we use? The [big bad] "church life."

Yeah. That's quality time. It makes up for ignoring them at home, or being home so little that you aren't even there to ignore them in person. Now they are in a large group setting being ignored by you (and everyone else) there.

What in the world are you talking about?

Look. I'm not saying that you should not go to meetings, or "to church" or however you want to say it. I'm saying that it is not "the kingdom." And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are. If you believe otherwise, then your "church life" is an idol. You place it above obedience to Christ. "Church life" is not a commandment. Love your neighbor is. Your righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees is. And on and on. And don't bother with that "We're no longer under the law" malarkey. You surely are. Matt 5 increased the requirements. And Jesus said to teach them to obey it all.

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom. Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form. Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians." :rollingeyes2:

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

Bull. If anything Lee pointed out the need to keep from being religious in our terminology. We don't "go to church" we are the church. We don't "attend service" we are in His service, etc. Nee pointed out the same things. And even throughout church history we find a constant churning of definitions and re-definitions as culture and various movements in church history affected the language. So I don't buy that Lee believed LC terminology to be any better in terms of what we use and what others use. Certainly he believed that the terminology was more accurate and less religious in its origins, but what exactly is wrong with that? If certain terminology is overly religious - or perceived to be such - or if certain terminology is not as accurate as it could be, why not strive to find something that works and is more accurate; even using language that, by its nature, stimulates deeper fellowship?

Rather, let our "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." Speak the same language. Don't confuse meetings by speaking different languages (that was the meaning of the "trumpet" thing). Don't equivocate around terms so that the common meaning is ignored and some private meaning is intended (but not made clear).

Actually the "trumpet thing" was more about speaking different dialects absent interpretation. It wasn't about using the same language in different ways. If someone says "Bible study" and I understand it by my terminology to mean "home meeting," then what's it to anyone else? Or if I say "home meeting" and someone else understands it to mean, "Bible study" by their terminology where's the harm? In fact there is currently a growing movement within non-denominational congregations to have "home meetings." Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar to me.

In other words, get over the terminology. If I actually say "go to church" don't have a conniption. If I say "communion" likewise. Don't throw out alternate terminology and insist that everyone use yours or be deficient. For example, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, and Communion are equivalents.

I don't throw anything, much less conniptions. And I haven't witnessed this type of interactions between LCs and other Christians. I think this is where you are creating the straw man. As for "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper," etc. you know that we use "Lord's Table," and that the term has been around for hundreds of years. Read Chapter 9 of Frank and George Barana's "Pagan Christianity" with regard to the term "Lord's Supper."

Why should we "get over" the terminology if it happens to work for us?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

First, it is the assumption that “Christ and the church” are “the” essential factors of the Kingdom that is the problem. If you had just said “Christ” then there would have been no argument.

But while “Christ and the church” sounds so noble, it is the experience of what that means that makes it “compartmentalized.” It is almost entirely about the gathering of believers (and more importantly, the gathering of the believers that follow the way of the LC). It is not really about how life is lived outside the walls of the “tent of meeting” whatever form that takes. The whole “Christ and the church” theology is built upon a compartmentalizing of Paul’s writings in such a manner that righteousness becomes more about being spiritual together than righteous in all ways.

When I viewed the early believers, I saw people who had their lives changed. It was not that instead of being at the bar they were at church. It was that they were different in everything that they did. It was a change in their talk, in their actions toward others, in the cessation of excessive drink (if they had been marked by such), etc. It may not always be that they were suddenly more outwardly different as it was that their very attitude about everything was changed.

But once they retreat to their little group of believers, the Kingdom is no longer displayed to the world. That does not mean that it does not exist. But it is a different aspect of the Kingdom. Yet this is in essence the whole of the Kingdom in the LC’s mind. The Kingdom is about becoming more spiritual; more connected to God and each other. And that is happening in the meeting and not out in the world.

But it should be. Back to how I “see” the early church. They lived their lives much as they had, but with a difference. They no longer cheater their customers. They no longer treated the rich better than the poor. They no longer despised slaves and deferred to slave owners. They no longer refused to serve those of different cultures. They were very different. But they lived their lives in simplicity and humility. And they gathered to worship the One that had made it so and to learn more about Him and His ways. They did not treat their Christian community as the “Kingdom” and the rest of their lives as something to get through. (And I am not saying that the LC entirely does this. But while there are statements, such as in the messages Priestly Scribe has posted since, the practice was already different before those messages were given.)

You make the above-quoted statement immediately after I said “The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.” But your response, above, while not addressing what I actually said, does not disagree with it, but seems to ask why I should think that it should not be exactly as I said. And in that, you seem to establish my point of compartmentalization.

While I wanted to do the following in a different post, it does circle back to the compartmentalization a little, so here goes.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So the messenger is the primary constituent? I am not arguing that Christ is not the primary constituent of the Kingdom. I’m arguing that saying it is because He is the messenger that he is the primary constituent is ridiculous. Kings send messengers. Lawyers hire couriers. The messenger is generally not the constituent at all. In the case of the Kingdom, it was the declaration of the Kingdom that was significant. The only reason to make a statement like “If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent” is to follow that with something that otherwise would not make sense. But saying “surely” does not give it any weight. It is not “surely so.” It happens to be so. But it absolutely is not because Christ was the herald. If we take that kind of thought, then what was John the Baptist? I guess he was the primary constituent of Christ since he was the herald of the coming of Christ.

Constituents of the Kingdom. Yes we are. Very much so. All of those who believe are, even the pathetic whore of Babylon ones that find themselves in the modern Thyatira.

But the Kingdom is not just the constituents any more than the economy of God is just dispensing. The Kingdom is the expression of God’s righteousness through its constituents during this life and on this planet. It is not just the constituents nor is it merely a foretaste of a future thing. While the church is part of the kingdom, it is not the kingdom.

I know that there is the thought (underpinned by verses that I cannot immediately quote or find) that indicates that we are to shine for the world to see. But that shining is not because we are figuratively a collective cathedral of people who gather together and worship God better than anyone else worships their god (even the true God). It is because those people are among all others and their lives shine with the gospel of Christ. And I’m not just talking about preaching the verbal gospel, although that is part of it. I’m talking about the testimony of the good news. The change in the life due to an encounter with Christ is good news. It is good news to their neighbors, their coworkers, those who they meet in stores and on streets. That is where the Kingdom shines. It does not shine to the world in a meeting. That is for God. And it is not unimportant. But it is not the whole of the Kingdom.

The assembly is not the Kingdom. We are the Kingdom. In everything we do. If you are willing to expand your definition of “church” to encompass every aspect of every life of every believer in every interaction with all the world, then the church is the Kingdom. But while in a universal sense this is true, experience shows that LC usage is not so broad. “Church” is about the “Local Churches” and is about how they meet, what they believe, and what they do not believe. It is more about the assembly and less about the life. You can’t dispute this because I was there for many years.

[tasteslikegold]

Mike.

I'll wait until you're finished with each portion before I rebut. It'll help things to run more smoothly, I think. Sufficed to say for now, however is the fact that I can, and will likely, dispute many things in your responses, as I have also been in the Lord's Recovery for many years. So whatever respective responses each of us offer, let's just put the whole "well I know better than you because I was there longer" nonsense behind us. Years "behind the mast" so to speak does not qualify one or the other of us as a respective authority on particular matters.

[OBW]

I said “In saying that, I do not deny an importance to the regular assembly of the called-out ones. But the meeting of the called-out ones is not the Kingdom.” (I “note” that I fixed a typo that you evidently were not affected by anyway.) You responded with:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Not the meeting. The church itself. The meeting is a practical expression of the kingdom. In much the same way that the "gathering together" of a king's township would be the expression of his kingdom during the Feudal period of England's history.

If when you say “not the meeting, but the church itself” you simply mean the very existence of the constituents of the church throughout their daily lives in all things and in every way, then I agree. You start by saying that the meeting is “a” practical expression.

But in the next sentence, your example, you say that the gathering together is “the” expression of a feudal King’s kingdom. I would disagree. A kingdom is not expressed by the gathering of its constituents together. It is expressed by the power and authority of the king being exerted throughout the kingdom and through its interactions with surrounding kingdoms. The first only happens when the constituents are filling the environs of all the kingdom. And the second might still happen, but not successfully, if the constituents are huddled within the gates of the city while the surrounding kingdoms attack. (If the “gates of Hell” are not to prevail, then we have to be taking the battle to them, not hiding within our own gates.)

In this life, on this planet, we are, on one hand, sojourners in a foreign land awaiting a better land. But in a different way, we are the rightful constituents of this land rather than the “heathen” that seem to run roughshod over it. Remember, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. The world and they that dwell therein.” (Great Psalm with a great tune. I still sing that one.) The heathen are actually sojourners within our lands. Our righteous treatment of them is a public display of the righteous God that would grant them full pardon and the gift of His Son. If our kingdom is instead restricted to the assembly/corporate aspects of the church (accepting and agreeing that the church is the believers and not just the gathering) then we have a limited kingdom. I have intentionally used the lower case “k” here because I do not believe that this is the proper understanding of the Kingdom.

But no matter what kind of things you say to agree that the things outside the meetings are also the kingdom, you must combat the mountain of evidence that the whole of the LC existence is about the private transformation of its members into more spiritual people. And that transformation is focused on inward aspects of the Christian life (also referred to as the inner life) and on the corporate, meeting aspects.

Look at the entire collection of Lee’s writings. They are available online now. I have read some of them in the past, and others online. I have also perused many more to gain an appreciation for the nature and topics covered. It is virtually all about what goes on inside the believer and how the church must be patterned in thus and so a way and its meetings must be of a certain general type. And avoid having a name (but don’t forget who is the one with The New Testament Ministry, you know, God’s Oracle).

Yes there are practical things, like service groups so that the toilets get cleaned and the lawn gets mowed. The manner in which this is done is exemplary. But once the practical goes outside the boundaries of the property that the meeting sits upon, it is only about the breaking of bread from house to house. It is not about bridling the tongue or demonstrating your holiness through holy, righteous living. That is said to be just “works” and is to be avoided.

Unfortunately, more of what Jesus taught and said was about what you do and who you are than what you believe or how good your meetings are (actually, nothing on the latter). He never suggested that scripture was a treasure trove of doctrines. He said that you were to obey. And he upped the ante, so to speak. You don’t just have to engage in sex with another’s wife to commit adultery. You just have to think about it. Yes, He does provide the way to actually do it all. And, to use LC terminology, that “thing” provided is Himself. (I will return to this in another post if I can remember it.) But He did not make that provision so that we would look within to find Him, but that we would have the way to actually do what the OT saints had to fail at and kill yet another animal to cover.

Obedience is the primary admonition of Jesus. Yes, he also says “eat” and “drink” and “believe.” But if you aren’t obeying, then there is a serious question mark on those more “spiritual” activities. I am not suggesting that the LC is just a hollow sham that is only putting on a show of false spirituality. But it is so completely off balance in that it openly mocks those who actually obey in caring for the needy. If the outpouring of the spirituality should be obedience, and if the LC’s version of how to be spiritual is as superior as they claim it is, then they should be the most active at the homeless shelters and orphanages. They should be bending over backwards to be in full fellowship with every believer that meets with any group that does not entirely agree with them. But instead, they are a group that makes statements like “the purpose of the church is to preach the gospel, not take care of the needy.” Please be sure to repeat that one more time when your life is placed on display on “that day.” The sound of “depart from me…” might be heard a lot more than anyone in the LC could imagine.

And the worst part is that the majority of the members are just doing as they are taught. That is why Paul charged the builders to be careful what materials they use to build. I’m afraid that the uber-spiritual but practically useless teachings that Lee and his followers pushed on us qualifies as wood, hay, and stubble. As for the members, I’m not sure what it means for them/us because we didn’t built it. We were built into it by Lee and the others. I don’t know who you are, but I start with the presumption that you are just one of the ones who got built into a house of straw by a teacher not rightly dividing the word of truth.

In closing (on this one) look at the so-called “Great Commission.” Notice the parameters. What is it about? It is about discipling (causing to follow), baptizing, and teaching to obey. “Believe” is not in that list. I do not suggest that we have no need to believe. But that is actually not the primary thing about salvation. Salvation is ultimately a change in your life. It begins with a belief that provides the way. Then it is followed by acting according to that way because you have received the way.

Last, in response to your brief note about "I was there for many years," I did not mean that as an attempt to silence you but to make clear that I am not speaking from "book learning" about the LC or hearsay. Further, that connection is not entirely gone due to family ties, so I keep getting reminders about many things. And I also went for almost 17 years without even trying to rethink the basic teachings of the LC. It was only through the reading of scripture that I started out trying to read in the old LC way that I realized that it did not fit. I suddenly saw Lee's teaching without his Lee-D glasses reinterpreting everything. And one of the first things that I discovered in this way was his misuse of 1 Cor 3. Lee put the onus of those verses onto us, the ones he was teaching. Paul did not put them on the Corinthians. He put them on himself and the other teachers that the Corinthians were so busy lining up behind. (Don’t believe me? Look at it. Who is the worker and who is the field? Who is the builder and who is the building? The builders build the building. It does not build itself. And in context, Paul is clearly talking about himself, Peter, Apollos, etc. as the workers, not the Corinthians.)

But I have a history with the LC that has taught me a lot about it. There are too often responses that "it's just not like that" or something like that. While I'm sure that experiences of each of us creates a different perspective, no one can say "it is just like this" or "it's just not like that." But we can speak from observation of more than just the landscape of our own minds because we did observe.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

What?

Art Katz had nothing at all to do with Watchman Nee.

What is the context of your statement? Art Katz most likely had not the personal relationship with Watchman Nee as Witness Lee and Stephen Kaung had. Yet Art Katz in multiple messages has referred to books by Watchman Nee. Following is portions I could locate.

"I think we all need to heed a book that is rarely read. I was probably not ready for it when I picked it up a few years ago. It said nothing to me at that time. It is saying much more to me now. The book is called The Latent Power of the Soul by Watchman Nee. How prophetic this book is! " (from A man in whom the Spirit of God is)

"Do you know that in the Welsh revival, they would not even allow musical instruments? Have you read Watchman Nee's book, The Latent Power of the Soul? Find a copy and study it. In the 1920s, he warns us about the use of musical instruments, how they have the power to bring deception, and that was before the advent of amplifiers and our musical technology. Today, you not only hear the music; you have to feel it. "
(from Holiness or Blessing?)

In his book on spiritual realities, Watchman Nee wrote:
"Note that Jesus said, “This is My body” rather than, “This represents My body.” And after He said, “This is My blood of the covenant,” the Lord continued with, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on,” clearly indicating that the wine had neither been transubstantiated nor is representative of the blood."
(from Communion: The Joyful Sacrament)

Art Katz was not in the recovery, but he was a minister of Christ. If one has an ear to hear it will become evident Art's messages are equally applicable to the recovery.

Terry

[OBW]

Before I go to your statements, I must at least deal with one sentence of my own. I knew that it was potentially confusing when I wrote it. But I thought that I had made it fairly clear. But since then, I have come back to it and had to try twice to understand it the way I already knew it was intended. So let me try again.

“And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are.” Too many negatives cancelling each other out, or not, or whatever. I will break it down. Not being “in the church life” when spoken by a member of the LC does mean not being in the LC. But that does not mean not being in the Kingdom although some may sort of think that way. This is a little like whether “saint” means any Christian, or only those in the LC. Not a single one would say that it only means those in the LC. But if one of them uses “saint” and you come back with a reference to a Christian who is not in the LC, you get a funny, sheepish look as they sort of admit that they really meant member of their sect.

And since this sentence was with respect to the children whose portion may not be to be in the LC, I don’t think that this particular brother meant that they were not in the Kingdom. Or did he? Or are there two parallel kingdoms; one for the superior race of LC members and one for the inferiors (the rest of us). I know it sounds harsh and critical. And I don’t think that you really think this when you are actually thinking. But somewhere down inside there is the thought that it is true because things like this keep popping out of LC members. And not just the marginal ones.

OK, here goes your response. (If clarifying the above makes any of this moot, just ignore it.)

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom.

Not quite true. You did say:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

And before that, the thing that got all this started was Ron Kangas’ comment that “we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church.” That is where the whole thing started.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form.

This is probably cross-over from the comment on the brother’s question of RK that got his simplistic answer above. If I seemed to be pointing it at you, that was not intended. I take these discussions as a topic. I will take a comment by someone that I agree with and go into other issues. They occasionally think that I am accusing them of what I am discussing.

In any case, I really wasn’t talking about children being or not being part of the Kingdom as much as talking about the LC terminology that would seem to indicate that they are not if they are not in “the church life.”

I will not bother finding your quote, but to suggest that when a LC member says “church life” they are not talking exclusively about being an active part of the Local Churches and not in any way talking about the corporate life of other Christians in their assemblies then you think I am ready to buy Florida swampland from you. You know good and well that “the church life” is specifically the “Local Church life.”

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

Are you arguing against following the commandments of Christ? I’d much rather err on my side than yours. The warnings against any who teach otherwise are severe. Read Matt 5 again, especially the part after the “beatitudes.”

This is one of the primary areas in which I think the LC is horribly deficient. The focus on the inner life is fine. Even using terminology that might be confusing to others is OK. But if that inner-life and “church life” is not being seen in lives that actually follow and obey Christ, then there is a problem. I already made a comment about the “Great Commission.” The third part of it was “teach them to obey.” Have you taken note recently that the knowing of the “truth that sets us free” is not the result of studying, or “turning to your spirit"? It is the result of Holding to His teachings (doing them) which means you are truly disciples, or followers, and not just tagalongs.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians."

I almost left part of it out, but I realized that it would be better t include the whole thing.

Let’s start with “very large portion of scripture.” How large is “very large”? And how clear is it that all of these portions are just about “church life” and not about “all life”? Now, consistent with what I have said before, if “church life” really did mean “all life” to the LC, then I would expect to see a very different attitude toward those who are Christian, but not part of their fellowship. And toward those that are not Christian.

Another thing is that so much of that “very large portion of the scripture” really does talk about the interaction of the believers who were a mixture of races, nationalities, social status, etc. Paul spent time in each of those talking about the spiritual and factual underpinnings of the sacrifice of Christ to make us one, or whatever the particular portion was about. But once Lee got finished with it, it was all about the spiritual stuff. We were to focus on the spiritual stuff. And if you weren’t managing to love those “others” very well, don’t sweat it. Get some more dispensing and one day it will just happen.

What happened to having all things for godliness. (Unfortunately my memorization is more general than word-by-word so I haven’t found the reference. I hope that I have not “scripturized” some saying from outside the scripture.) If we have it, then we should do it. That even comes back to your question about how we do “righteousness.” I agree that we should not do it in ourselves. But what does it take to not do it in ourselves? If we have what it takes already, then we should simply do it.

But as for the amount of scripture on anything, I will tell of my past. I was raised in the Assemblies of God. When I was in high school, I decided to try to find all the verses that supported our holding to the supernatural gifts. After a rather lengthy study, I came up with very little. An entire group built upon so little. Now there is more about how we should live and interact with both believer and non-believer. And even the parts concerning the believer are not just about “church life.” But it does not create a “church life” that, in conjunction with Christ, is the Kingdom.

I will leave it at that for now. I think that there will be one more. But it may have to wait until tomorrow. Terminology.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the context of your statement? Art Katz most likely had not the personal relationship with Watchman Nee as Witness Lee and Stephen Kaung had. Yet Art Katz in multiple messages has referred to books by Watchman Nee. Following is portions I could locate.

"I think we all need to heed a book that is rarely read. I was probably not ready for it when I picked it up a few years ago. It said nothing to me at that time. It is saying much more to me now. The book is called The Latent Power of the Soul by Watchman Nee. How prophetic this book is! " (from A man in whom the Spirit of God is)

"Do you know that in the Welsh revival, they would not even allow musical instruments? Have you read Watchman Nee's book, The Latent Power of the Soul? Find a copy and study it. In the 1920s, he warns us about the use of musical instruments, how they have the power to bring deception, and that was before the advent of amplifiers and our musical technology. Today, you not only hear the music; you have to feel it. "
(from Holiness or Blessing?)

In his book on spiritual realities, Watchman Nee wrote:
"Note that Jesus said, “This is My body” rather than, “This represents My body.” And after He said, “This is My blood of the covenant,” the Lord continued with, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on,” clearly indicating that the wine had neither been transubstantiated nor is representative of the blood."
(from Communion: The Joyful Sacrament)

Art Katz was not in the recovery, but he was a minister of Christ. If one has an ear to hear it will become evident Art's messages are equally applicable to the recovery.

Terry

Notwithstanding your citation of Katz's recommendation of Nee's books, the above comment by Priestly Scribe appeared to say that Katz implemented the ministry of Watchman Nee better than Witness Lee. Yet Katz was not a constituent of Nee's ministry. Other than perhaps reading a few of his books and picking up on the major conceptual tenets of his theology, it's doubtful that he "implemented" Nee's ministry in any full way. Not any better than a man who served both under and alongside Nee for years. Perhaps, at best, Katz advocated the same concepts and implemented a few of them within the scope of his own ministry, but that's hardly implementing the whole of the ministry of Nee as seemed to have been implied.

Mike, let me know when your finished so I can respond. Thus-far it's quite a lot to address point-by-point.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

And your point is?? How is it that someone must actually be part of another's ministry to implement the core of that ministry? It is all in writing. And it is easy to find whether Lee or Katz are following Nee the best. I have no idea about Katz, whoever he is. But the starting premise that he must have been part of Nee's ministry to do anything of value with it is purely bogus.

And I will finish later today. Also, you can begin to respond to what I posted. I realize that each of them got longer than I expected, but I tried to keep the topics together. Waiting may not be the better way.

I think that saying a certain person did "a better job" at implementing a ministry implies the ministry as a whole, not just aspects of the ministry. It's one thing to say, "Katz did a better job of implementing this part of Nee's ministry" and it's another to imply the ministry as a whole by saying "Nee's ministry."

The Lord Jesus's ministry had many aspects: Healing the sick, teaching concerning the law, Himself, and meeting some of the most despised right where they were in a very caring way. Yet these parts were not the sum of His ministry. A ministry is the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves. Interesting that Katz also pointed this out as a flaw in much of Christianity - that some focus on the aspects and not the full ministry itself.

Anyway, with regard to our conversations, I would rather you get it all out of your system before I begin. I've found that with discussions involving many points, which invariably lead to more points, it's easier to follow when each party has had the chance to complete their thought processes. In this way each of us can respond in turn without interrupting the flow of conversation.