If you were in Scottsdale would you take the Table..

[Trapped]

First of all, I knew that each “side” would see different things from this passage before I posted it, but I think there are good points for both sides to consider.

Regarding Evangelical’s response, Nee clearly is referring to the local churches in many parts of the excerpt. Who else is the “we” in underline below referring to?

“If we look on other believers as sectarian and consider ourselves to be non-sectarian, we are immediately differentiating between God’s people and thereby manifesting a divisive spirit even in the very act of condemning division. No matter by what means we distinguish between the members of God’s family—even if it be on the pretext of Christ Himself—we are guilty of schism in the Body.”

“Denominations are not scriptural, and we ought to have no part in them, but if we adopt an attitude of criticism and think, “They are denominational; I am undenominational. They belong to sects; I belong to Christ alone”—such differentiating is definitely sectarian.”

I actually think this might be what I was looking for regarding this topic. Nee’s speaking was clear, positive, and inclusive but very cautionary about our attitude of others and our criticism of others. But Lee took that exact attitude of criticism! What else can you describe “poor, poor Christianity” as?

Nee seemed to ride the line of being doctrinally clear without allowing that to become a division, but Lee somehow turned it in a way that made it divisive/sectarian.

Additionally this bombshell: “If when we say “our brethren,” we do not include all the children of God, but only those who continually meet with us, then we are schismatic.” THIS DESCRIBES THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO A TEE!!!!!!!!!!! There it is! WOW. WOW. I missed that sentence the first time around but what a sentence!! The LC use of the phrase “the Body” overwhelmingly refers to just the saints in the LCs.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

First of all, I knew that each “side” would see different things from this passage before I posted it, but I think there are good points for both sides to consider.

Regarding Evangelical’s response, Nee clearly is referring to the local churches in many parts of the excerpt. Who else is the “we” in underline below referring to?

“If we look on other believers as sectarian and consider ourselves to be non-sectarian, we are immediately differentiating between God’s people and thereby manifesting a divisive spirit even in the very act of condemning division. No matter by what means we distinguish between the members of God’s family—even if it be on the pretext of Christ Himself—we are guilty of schism in the Body.”

“Denominations are not scriptural, and we ought to have no part in them, but if we adopt an attitude of criticism and think, “They are denominational; I am undenominational. They belong to sects; I belong to Christ alone”—such differentiating is definitely sectarian.”

I actually think this might be what I was looking for regarding this topic. Nee’s speaking was clear, positive, and inclusive but very cautionary about our attitude of others and our criticism of others. But Lee took that exact attitude of criticism! What else can you describe “poor, poor Christianity” as?

Nee seemed to ride the line of being doctrinally clear without allowing that to become a division, but Lee somehow turned it in a way that made it divisive/sectarian.

Additionally this bombshell: “If when we say “our brethren,” we do not include all the children of God, but only those who continually meet with us, then we are schismatic.” THIS DESCRIBES THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO A TEE!!!!!!!!!!! There it is! WOW. WOW. I missed that sentence the first time around but what a sentence!! The LC use of the phrase “the Body” overwhelmingly refers to just the saints in the LCs.

There are two ways to be divisive - one in practice, and one in attitude. Here Nee is addressing a divisive attitude, for the "we" i.e. those in the local church. But no where does he condone division in practice, and even himself defines the differences between a genuine local church and sects. When reading or quoting the words of anyone, it's important to see where they are coming from. Nee comes from the view that the local church is the genuine church. Nee was for the idea that the local church, one church per city is the genuine church, and everything he wrote is in that context. Similarly, if Nee was a Catholic, then anything he wrote about sectarianism and division would be with respect to the view that the Catholic church is the true church.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are two ways to be divisive - one in practice, and one in attitude. Here Nee is addressing a divisive attitude, for the "we" i.e. those in the local church. But no where does he condone division in practice, and even himself defines the differences between a genuine local church and sects. When reading or quoting the words of anyone, it's important to see where they are coming from. Nee comes from the view that the local church is the genuine church. Nee was for the idea that the local church, one church per city is the genuine church, and everything he wrote is in that context. Similarly, if Nee was a Catholic, then anything he wrote about sectarianism and division would be with respect to the view that the Catholic church is the true church.

Yes, I understood all that very clearly.

My point was that the local churches fit Nee's description of those who have been/become divisive in attitude and scope. The fact that he uses the word "we" to refer to the local churches indicates that this very attitude is something that can happen in the LCs ("if we do xyz.....we are guilty") and should be guarded against. Lee/the brothers did not guard against that and instead, from what I have seen, exacerbated it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Evangelical - I don't know if you saw this from a few posts back. It was regarding the question you had asked: "For me it's very simple. Is your gathering the original church in Scottsdale or is it a church which came from the original one?"

As far as your last question, I am not aware of any others before Scottsdale Church who were here claiming they were the "Church in Scottsdale." In that respect, as our legal name states, we are unique. Does that answer your question?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Evangelical - I don't know if you saw this from a few posts back. It was regarding the question you had asked: "For me it's very simple. Is your gathering the original church in Scottsdale or is it a church which came from the original one?"

As I understand it, your church was started by Bill Freeman while he created his own little faction out of the recovery with "his followers", and moved to Scottsdale. Doesn't really matter now how it started. Now let's say you're the church in the city, so you got a lampstand, you got it all going on! Hopefully all those denominations get brought down and everyone joins your (i.e. the local) church (I'm paraphrasing Nee here). That's why you meet separately from the other churches, right? Because if not, you're quoting of Nee is in vain I'm afraid, there is some responsibility with being the local church in the city.

In other words I hope it goes beyond being merely a "better version of "The Recovery"", like you said in your first post. I hope you see the meaning and value of the lampstand in the city according to Nee or Lee, and live up to that calling.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now let's say you're the church in the city, so you got a lampstand, you got it all going on! Hopefully all those denominations get brought down and everyone joins your (i.e. the local) church (I'm paraphrasing Nee here). That's why you meet separately from the other churches, right? Because if not, you're quoting of Nee is in vain I'm afraid, there is some responsibility with being the local church in the city.

In other words I hope it goes beyond being merely a "better version of "The Recovery"", like you said in your first post. I hope you see the meaning and value of the lampstand in the city according to Nee or Lee, and live up to that calling.

Without addressing all your statements here, it's a somewhat fair synopsis I suppose (although no one is actively trying to bring any other group "down").

So here's the main point/original question from the first post which started this thread:

If you were in the area, would you come and enjoy the Lord with us and take the Lord's table with us? (all are certainly welcome)
And please, I would also appreciate an explanation of why or why not.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Without addressing all your statements here, it's a somewhat fair synopsis I suppose (although no one is actively trying to bring any other group "down").

So here's the main point/original question from the first post which started this thread:

Then I probably would, you know?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I understand it, your church was started by Bill Freeman while he created his own little faction out of the recovery with "his followers", and moved to Scottsdale. Doesn't really matter now how it started. Now let's say you're the church in the city, so you got a lampstand, you got it all going on! Hopefully all those denominations get brought down and everyone joins your (i.e. the local) church (I'm paraphrasing Nee here). That's why you meet separately from the other churches, right? Because if not, you're quoting of Nee is in vain I'm afraid, there is some responsibility with being the local church in the city.

In other words I hope it goes beyond being merely a "better version of "The Recovery"", like you said in your first post. I hope you see the meaning and value of the lampstand in the city according to Nee or Lee, and live up to that calling.

StG,

Per your inquiry I would refer you back to #34.

We often focus on the mechanics of the teaching and practice of the ground of the church in a city ... but we have to consider whether our teaching and practice issues from the authority of the Holy Spirit as well. Local churches are the reprint of the Spirit therefore there is a fellowship among the churches in the larger reality... the One Body of Christ. When I have lived in places where there are many local churches in close proximity to each other there is a sweet fellowship between them that opens the aperture to experiences of the One Body. So there is not only the ground but the fellowship as Brother Evangelical describes above. Only one way to test that.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

Per your inquiry I would refer you back to #34.

We often focus on the mechanics of the teaching and practice of the ground of the church in a city ... but we have to consider whether our teaching and practice issues from the authority of the Holy Spirit as well. Local churches are the reprint of the Spirit therefore there is a fellowship among the churches in the larger reality... the One Body of Christ. When I have lived in places where there are many local churches in close proximity to each other there is a sweet fellowship between them that opens the aperture to experiences of the One Body. So there is not only the ground but the fellowship as Brother Evangelical describes above. Only one way to test that.

Drake

Thanks for the reply. And post #34 of yours suggests going to a gathering with the ones who meet as the Church in Phoenix. I am certainly open and will mention it to one of the brothers who I think has had some recent contact. We may be lead of Him to go over and share Christ with those saints!

(BTW - Right now we are traveling a few weeks in the aforementioned RV up in Colorado, and unfortunately we keep having to break camp on Sundays to travel to our next destination - just how it's all working out. Therefore I haven't, and won't, be able to gather with any LC - or other saints - up here on Sundays!)

So, Drake, the original question and purpose of this thread was, "If you were in Scottsdale, would you take the table and enjoy Christ with us?"

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

We often focus on the mechanics of the teaching and practice of the ground of the church in a city ... but we have to consider whether our teaching and practice issues from the authority of the Holy Spirit as well. Local churches are the reprint of the Spirit therefore there is a fellowship among the churches in the larger reality... the One Body of Christ.

Regarding the fellowship you describe, I think the issue in this case would not be whether the church in Scottsdale would participate in fellowship with the nearby local churches, but whether the nearby local churches would participate in the fellowship if the church in Scottsdale was involved.

I am not aware of any LSM/WL related local church that deigns to fellowship with another legitimate but non-LSM local church that does not base its fellowship on WL's material or speaking. I have heard plenty of times descriptions from co-workers about this concept of the "standing" of proximate local churches....they dance around it with fancy phrases ("in the central lane of the recovery" is one exact phrase I've heard, for example) but come on......what that really means is "with the Witness Lee program"!!!

I have also lived in places where there are local churches in close proximity to each other, or local churches that sprang up in nearby cities from the natural growth of a local church.....and in over 5 years there has not been one single blending meeting together of those local churches in neighboring cities. If that is a requirement you place on the legitimacy of the local churches then many of the local churches do not meet that requirement!