Christ and the church is the Kingdom (semi-private discussion)

[tasteslikegold]

Second Response to post: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...10&postcount=9

You wrote:

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).

I’m getting a tone here that you feel the building up of the spiritual life of the individual (and thus the church) is a bad thing, at least as far as the LC approaches it. In my years under this ministry I’ve not seen or experienced this aspect of the LC doctrine in such a way that it contradicts either the New Testament or the typical pattern of other “deeper life” Christian ministries historically. Now, you may feel that the way the LC does things is particular to the extent that it is sectarian. That’s fine. However, I would contend that it is no more sectarian or particular in this aspect that many other deeper life ministries and churches.

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.

So, essentially what you are contending here is that the LC doesn’t respond to the inner prompting which should naturally result from spiritual growth – that being to take care of our fellow man in ways such as visiting the sick, the hungry, etc. Yet I am remiss to find a single teaching of this sort from the Lord Jesus other than “sell all you have and give to the poor.” Yes, we have Matthew 25:34-35, but if you read that carefully He’s talking about the saints – the church – during the tribulation. In fact, in principal He’s talking about the church at all times. The church should at all times first take care of the members – the poor, the sick, those in prison, etc. How can the church expect to bear the burden of those in the world if it cannot first take care of its own? In fact, how can the church even have the standing to preach the gospel, to fulfill “the Great Commission”?

Of course we also have James who said that, “true and undefiled religion” is, “to visit orphans and widows in their affliction…” I am not at all diminishing the clear mandate in God’s Word that we should take care of those in need in the world. However, I do contend that this is not a specific burden of all ministries, nor should it be the most primary function of the church. I see absolutely no problem with one ministry focusing more attention on building up the believers in the faith and simply allowing their burdens for taking care of the poor, hungry, etc. to be carried out individually. In fact, considering that many churches today are failing at equipping the saints with even the most fundamental aspects of the faith, I’d say that a lot of ministries would do well to limit their “missions” in various fields and focus on the primary function of the church. According to the Harris Institute (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vau...fs-2008-12.pdf), only a little more than half of all professed Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments respectively are the Word of God. A large percentage of Christians claim to believe in ghosts, UFOs and evolution (of the last more Catholics than Protestants). Now, I haven’t personally run the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the writings of Peter, Paul and John were in greater percentage concerned with the equipping of the saints to withstand heresies, persecutions, and with the building up of the Body of Christ, than going out to feed the hungry, heal the sick, help the poor, etc. Given the fact that various ministries are not only distracted with good works but are watering down the gospel of Christ with “ear tickling” sermons, I’d say that focusing strictly on the primary work of the church – building up the Body of Christ – is not at all a bad thing. In fact it’s what’s most needed.

I'm not sure where you got the quote, “the purpose of the church is to preach the gospel, not take care of the needy.” but I'm not entirely in disagreement with it. The primary purpose of the church is to preach the gospel. Taking care of the needy happens to be a part of that. I don't think that you can isolate a single phrase like this from an unknown source and use it to characterize the ideology of a ministry that's been around for more than 60 years. I'll take it as ignorance, however, of the fact that both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee taught pretty frequently that we need to take care of the needy both in the church and outside the church.

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.

I don't think I've ever heard another Christian argue that the need to believe is not the primary thing about salvation. Do I really need to point out to someone so obviously learned as yourself that believing into the Son is not merely the initiation of salvation but a continual process? The verb form of believe is, "believe and believe and believe." In many places in the New Testament it is used in conjunction with "believing faith." How can the nations in Matthew 28:19 be discipled if they are not first convinced of the gospel? Being convinced is a matter of believing, which means that practically we have to have Romans 10:14 before we can have Matthew 28:19.