Blending

[Trapped]

UntoHim and Ohio,

I certainly had a similar thought while reading 1 Cor. 12 in considering whether the tempering applies to the comely members too, but in that chapter alone I could not find backup for it to my satisfaction (I'm open to hear otherwise, however). I think that is just because of the particular focus of the passage though, and I do agree that the "tempering down" of, let's call them, "overly-comely members" is addressed in other verses elsewhere.

I would "temper" my statement above like this though: for the ones who are sources of problems and divisions, for the ones who are puffed up, who solicit rivalries, and abuse absolute authority.......they may seem like or pass themselves off as the "comely" ones on high, but in reality they are among the truly uncomely, aren't they?

That's an interesting question that I hadn't thought of until now.....what do "comely" and "uncomely" really mean? I can think of some fellow brothers and sisters who really rub me the wrong way and give me unnecessary attitude at every turn, and internally I gleefully label them "uncomely", but I wonder what Paul had in mind here? Maybe there is no objective comeliness, but those around us are just comely/uncomely in each of our individual estimations.....i.e. the same one person who may seem uncomely to you may seem comely to another, and in this way every member receives some honor in some way. I'm not sure if that's what is meant......just thinking out loud.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

UntoHim and Ohio,

I certainly had a similar thought while reading 1 Cor. 12 in considering whether the tempering applies to the comely members too, but in that chapter alone I could not find backup for it to my satisfaction (I'm open to hear otherwise, however). I think that is just because of the particular focus of the passage though, and I do agree that the "tempering down" of, let's call them, "overly-comely members" is addressed in other verses elsewhere.

I would "temper" my statement above like this though: for the ones who are sources of problems and divisions, for the ones who are puffed up, who solicit rivalries, and abuse absolute authority.......they may seem like or pass themselves off as the "comely" ones on high, but in reality they are among the truly uncomely, aren't they?

That's an interesting question that I hadn't thought of until now.....what do "comely" and "uncomely" really mean? I can think of some fellow brothers and sisters who really rub me the wrong way and give me unnecessary attitude at every turn, and internally I gleefully label them "uncomely", but I wonder what Paul had in mind here? Maybe there is no objective comeliness, but those around us are just comely/uncomely in each of our individual estimations.....i.e. the same one person who may seem uncomely to you may seem comely to another, and in this way every member receives some honor in some way. I'm not sure if that's what is meant......just thinking out loud.

Good points, Trapped.

The "comeliness" of each member is basically derived from the attitudes of the other saints, either favorable or unfavorable. Paul attempted to address both due to the problem which existed in Corinth. To the same degree both also existed in the LCM. Many have noted LSM's obsession with only "good material" on the campuses whereas the uncomely weak and infirm are totally neglected -- "don't waste your time."

The normal reaction of the LC reader is to consider which member differs from them and decide that some "blending" is required, as if that will expedite oneness and brotherly love in the church life. For sure God desires to give more abundant honor to those which lack, but a far greater source of trouble can be found in the subsequent verse. (I Cor 12.25) Here Paul identifies a source of division in the church by admonishing them to have the same care for one another.

Starting in Texas circa 1980, following the "Max rebellion," a movement grew to "honor" W. Lee, as if he were the victim in that whole fiasco. The LC members were constantly exhorted to "give back" to the ministry as if the entire body of Christ were forever indebted to W. Lee. This devotion was un-tempered by scripture or even reason, resulting in special love for the Lee family at the expense of all others. If the same care for one another in the body of Christ prevents division, obviously having extraordinarily special care for certain ministers will facilitate division, which is exactly what has happened. Regularly.

Remember how this epistle began? (1.12) Each one identified with a specific minister, and they were divided as a result. This is one area where LC adherents are totally blinded instead of blended. They somehow think that these verses never apply to them unless they actually say "I am of Lee." The so-called "New Way" of the 80's aligned those who were "absolutely one with Lee" against those who merely appreciated his teachings. Fights ensued. Changing the wording did not change the reality, nor the result, which was more divisions in the body.

[ZNPaaneah]

The book of Acts presents an example of an uncomely member being blended. The apostle Paul is shipwrecked as a criminal in chains. A venomous snake bites him and everyone assumes he is a criminal that God has judged. They avoid him, he is "an uncomely member". But then he shows no effect of the snake and their opinion changes, they bring him to their homes where he prays for healing, people are healed, and now he is fully blended into the community. They all work together to help him and all with him to continue on their journey.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points, Trapped.

The "comeliness" of each member is basically derived from the attitudes of the other saints, either favorable or unfavorable. Paul attempted to address both due to the problem which existed in Corinth. To the same degree both also existed in the LCM. Many have noted LSM's obsession with only "good material" on the campuses whereas the uncomely weak and infirm are totally neglected -- "don't waste your time."

The normal reaction of the LC reader is to consider which member differs from them and decide that some "blending" is required, as if that will expedite oneness and brotherly love in the church life. For sure God desires to give more abundant honor to those which lack, but a far greater source of trouble can be found in the subsequent verse. (I Cor 12.25) Here Paul identifies a source of division in the church by admonishing them to have the same care for one another.

Starting in Texas circa 1980, following the "Max rebellion," a movement grew to "honor" W. Lee, as if he were the victim in that whole fiasco. The LC members were constantly exhorted to "give back" to the ministry as if the entire body of Christ were forever indebted to W. Lee. This devotion was un-tempered by scripture or even reason, resulting in special love for the Lee family at the expense of all others. If the same care for one another in the body of Christ prevents division, obviously having extraordinarily special care for certain ministers will facilitate division, which is exactly what has happened. Regularly.

Remember how this epistle began? (1.12) Each one identified with a specific minister, and they were divided as a result. This is one area where LC adherents are totally blinded instead of blended. They somehow think that these verses never apply to them unless they actually say "I am of Lee." The so-called "New Way" of the 80's aligned those who were "absolutely one with Lee" against those who merely appreciated his teachings. Fights ensued. Changing the wording did not change the reality, nor the result, which was more divisions in the body.

Okay, I see now. It's not so much that the comely ones need to be "brought down", which in my mind was sort of a "take them down a notch" kind of thing. It's more like you said in verse 25 about having the same care for all the members, and that if we have extraordinarily special care (or, say, constant, ongoing, unceasing extraordinarily special care) for some then that will cause division. Which as you said, and as many of us have seen, has happened.