My poor analogy for the assembly

[YP0534]

In the entire world, there is only one McDonald's corporation. This is the universal aspect of McDonald's. Universal. Corporate.

At the same time, there are thousands and thousands of local McDonald's retaurants, probably one very near to you. Each of them is locally owned and operated.

Now, it is true that all of the McDonald's restaurants originated in a single McDonald's restaurant long ago. In a sense, when you go into any McDonald's, you are going into the one unique original McDonald's. They still sell the same hamburger and cheeseburger as they always did.

But there are a couple of things to recognize about the arrangement of McDonald's.

First of all, there is no such thing as a universal McDonald's restaurant. The very concept is nonsensical.

Secondly, if you want a hamburger, even if you can find the McDonald's corporation, they don't have any hamburgers there. If you want a hamburger, you must go to your local restaurant.

I understand that the analogy is not quite right in some of the implied details but I'm only making a point in it.

The reason the assembly is so important is that it is practical. Obviously, the Body is something universal but when we try to take something that is inherently local and make it into a universal meaning, we're missing the point of it's being local in the first place. The very God of the universe is to be found on display in the assemblies of the saints. If you take those verses that say "assembly" and "universalize" them, you miss the whole point of the thing being something about practical assembling and deprive yourself of the light on God's purpose among us in our meetings.

We don't want to ignore that the Lord, as the Head, has His Body. Far from it! Instead, we want to put the full emphasis on the fact the assembly IS His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all.

I hope this could help you.

Grace be with your spirit.

[countmeworthy]

Interesting analogy. I think this applies to many of the religious organizations out there...RCC..the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, AOGs, etc... not just the LC.

I like 'assemblying' together in large groups for the following reasons:

1) Praise & Worship of our KING

2) Praying together..AS the Holy Spirit leads..for where 2 or more are gathered, there HE is in our midst. I believe there is power in prayer.

3) For conferences on a particular subject matter.

Most of us on this board & others like this SHOULD be teaching & bringing the up the younger ones in Christ. We ought to be praying for the Lord to bring us together with like minded Christians & brethren who are truly strong in the Word, the Faith & are filled with the Love of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. We should be encouraging each other, learning from one another through our studying the Word together and in our alone time with our Precious LORD Jesus.

[Guest1]

and also the 'universal' should not be made local.. i know you said that very concept is nonsensical. but some still try and all christains are local not just those that "take the ground" i even hate using that terminology.. sorry..

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Interesting analogy. I think this applies to many of the religious organizations out there...RCC..the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, AOGs, etc... not just the LC.

Well, I think you missed my point completely, so maybe I didn't make it as well as I thought I did.

Yes, in the world there are so many religious denominations, including the Local Church, and they do indeed all have organizational structures that follow that of business corporations because they are in fact worldly institutions.

What I was attempting to illustrate, though, is the relationship between the genuine Body of Christ and the saints meeting in a practical way as the assembly, specifically in a distinguishing way so that the Body was seen as plainly different from a religious denomination.

The key distinction between a religious organization and the Body of Christ is that there are always "heads" of religious organizations but there is only one Head in the Body of Christ, which is Christ Himself.

The saints assembling and displaying Christ in reality under His unique headship is the reason that we say that the assembly is His Body. But if you try to build up the Body you simply could not do it. You would only build yet another denomination, built once again on the concept of "universal church." Instead, we should simply focus on building ourselves together in Christ with the saints we meet wherever we are. Then the building of the Body will happen spontaneously as a consequence.

[YP0534]

and also the 'universal' should not be made local.. i know you said that very concept is nonsensical. but some still try and all christains are local not just those that "take the ground" i even hate using that terminology.. sorry..

My whole point is that universal should not be and in reality could never be made local.

This is the first big problem with my analogy, the implication that such a thing could happen. Obviously, if McDonald's Corporation wants to introduce a new kind of sandwich in all of its local restaurants, it can do that. And they will prescribe precisely the new way of making sandwiches after coming up with the correct formula in a laboratory test kitchen. But the Body of Christ is not this way and I think most believers understand this, even if you and I know of some Christians who think taking orders from a central headquarters is the right way to follow God. Their error originates in believing in a "unversal church" which has a human leadership that can wield the authority of the Head.

I agree. There is nothing to do called "taking the ground." If you try it, you will only succeed in taking something away from yourself. Such language is erroneous, nonsensical and divisive.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, I think you missed my point completely, so maybe I didn't make it as well as I thought I did.

What I was attempting to illustrate, though, is the relationship between the genuine Body of Christ and the saints meeting in a practical way as the assembly, specifically in a distinguishing way so that the Body was seen as plainly different from a religious denomination.

......there is only one Head in the Body of Christ, which is Christ Himself.

I don't think I was as far off as you think I was YP0534.

I assemble with members of the Body of Christ all the time. I hang out with them at home, in the car, at their homes. Sometimes I meet brethren in Christ whom I have never met at grocery stores..and we hit it off, fellowship some, pray some. Some ...actually most, I have not run into again.

I don't follow a forumla although I sometimes go 'to church' for a service.

These types of 'meetings' are a practical way for me/us to assemble.

Am I on the right tract with your thread now?

[YP0534]

Oh, yes.
I thought you were thinking my analogy was about the religious denominations.
I guess I misunderstood you!

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Kat, my whole point is that universal should not be and in reality could never be made local.

This is the first big problem with my analogy, the implication that such a thing could happen. Obviously, if McDonald's Corporation wants to introduce a new kind of sandwich in all of its local restaurants, it can do that. And they will prescribe precisely the new way of making sandwiches after coming up with the correct formula in a laboratory test kitchen. But the Body of Christ is not this way and I think most believers understand this, even if you and I know of some Christians who think taking orders from a central headquarters is the right way to follow God. Their error originates in believing in a "unversal church" which has a human leadership that can wield the authority of the Head.

Our "local" is always "universal" to God, because God is the one who fills all in all. God sees all.

And God's "universal" is always "local" for us, because we always have some "neighbor" near us, be it sinner or saint. We have a "square inch" portion of the God-who-fills-all-in-all, carefully bounded in by God with a "neighbor" on each side.

The "fruit" of the universal church idea is clearly evidenced when we give ourselves to "the cause", meanwhile despising the person God has placed next to us.

Remember the environmental bumper sticker slogan -- "Act locally, think globally"? I rephrase it as "When I act locally, God can act globally". Because God needs to act in my "local" sphere to be the "One who fills all in all". God needs my square inch to be who He is destined to be.

When I try to act "globally" I step out of my allotted portion. When I try to act "globally" I have to ignore, or trample over, the person next to me.

[Guest1]

i have to say a big AMEN.. to all posts herein ..whew

[Paul Cox]

Universal/Local:

I was talking to a brother from a country in Africa one day. He told me how that when the "ground" was taken in a certain locality, many local tribes people attended the meeting. It wasn't long before they all pealed off. Why? They just wanted to wear their local tribal garments, and they wanted to sing (and oh, how they can sing) in their local dialect.

Instead, what seemed to be happening is that they were expected to conform to a certain attire (dark pants, and white shirt) and they were being led to worship in a certain way (clinched fist, with a "Praise the Lord" to the top of the lungs, prayreading, calling, you know). Well, if that was Christ manifest in His Body, then he totally failed in reaching the locals. But, of course, He would never fail.

Someone told me once that the Lord makes Himself perfectly comfortable in every culture. To me, that is the real practical side of the true teaching of "locality." If it doesn't accomplish reaching locals right where they are, then all it is is a worldwide chain, only looking for those who can be comfortable with the charter mandated ways of the chain.

The Living Stream Church (please suffer me to use this name, I believe it with my whole heart) is a world wide chain, of restaurants, if you will, that is only looking for diners who can be comfortable with what is uniquely on their menu, and served in it’s unique manner.

Here is another example. It has been my experience that Christians from India, especially those who were under Bagh Singh (sp?) feel very strongly about kneeling when they pray. For those of us with a L. C. background, could we comfortably kneel with those saints to pray?

But you know, even McDonalds is starting to wise up. In China, for example, many of their restaurants are starting to offer the local cuisine. Maybe there is hope yet for McLSM.

Roger

[aron]

Originally Posted by Roger

Universal/Local:

Someone told me once that the Lord makes Himself perfectly comfortable in every culture. To me, that is the real practical side of the true teaching of "locality," ...reaching locals right where they are, [or else] all it is is a worldwide chain, only looking for those who can be comfortable with the charter mandated ways of the chain.

One of Lee's greivous "misses" was the interpretation of the seven lampstands in Revelations 2 and 3 meaning that all the local churches needed to be identical. Of course, I miss, and you miss, but we are not set up as infallible interpreters of God's word, so when we miss thousands of christian believers don't go tumbling over the cliff. In Lee's case, mandated uniformity resulted in just that. "Chain" churches and the rest, wounded, frightened and confused, driven back out into the wilderness.

Brothers, sisters; how many thousands of christians got cut off from fellowship from one another? And for what? So that we can all have the same "flavor"? What kind of "universal" is that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Roger

Universal/Local:

Someone told me once that the Lord makes Himself perfectly comfortable in every culture. To me, that is the real practical side of the true teaching of "locality." If it doesn't accomplish reaching locals right where they are, then all it is is a worldwide chain, only looking for those who can be comfortable with the charter mandated ways of the chain.

Roger,

The ultimate irony of your post is in WN's own work. He promoted "locality" in response to the western missionaries imposing their own culture upon the local Chinese communities. Now LSM, in the name of WN, is doing what he struggled to undo.

[YP0534]

Truly, the doctrine of locality is turned on its head in this group.

[OBW]

Ain't it the truth.

Of course, I would rephrase that to say "Truly, the non-doctrinal doctrine of locality is turned on its head in this group."

[Cal]

YP,

I've been meaning to ask you:

You said the church (assembly, ecclesia) was not universal, but that the Body was. So what do you do with these verses?

"... and he is the head of the body, the church..." (Col 1:18)

"... the church, which is his body.." (Eph 1:22-23)

Don't these verses equate the church with the body? Don't they have a universal rather than local meaning?

[cityonahill]

Come down to Mcdonalds down under and you can order the "Mcaussie burger," the "Brekkie Roll," and the "lean beef burger" just to name a few...(also pay 50 cents per ketchup "tomato sauce" packet) what a rip-off!

In my lowly opinion, I must say that "kingdom culture" is so far beyond our understanding that nobody can define it...Christ Jesus is the glue that ties us all together. To me a "corporate expression" of the church is:
*singing songs of praise and worship with 10,000+ saints on a sunday morning 'at' church in the Western world.
*meeting with college students in a dorm for a thursday "connect group"
*serving the community in practical ways to meet social needs like Christ
*dancing, singing, and ministering with an international team in africa...
*building water wells and planting churches in Cambodia
*having an honest time of fellowship at someones home
*and the list goes on and on and on and on....

This is the church 2,000 years and millions of saints later! The beautiful thing about "kingdom culture" is that it transcends other cultures but doesn't replace them!!!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

I've been meaning to ask you:

You said the church (assembly, ecclesia) was not universal, but that the Body was. So what do you do with these verses?

"... and he is the head of the body, the church..." (Col 1:18)

"... the church, which is his body.." (Eph 1:22-23)

Don't these verses equate the church with the body? Don't they have a universal rather than local meaning?

Sorry, Igzy, I missed this post.

Simple answer.

No.

The Body is universal.
All assembling is local.

It is merely the doctrine of catholicism that has miscontrued these verses to necessarily require a "universal" aspect to be understood.

You and I are members of the Body. When we are meeting, are we not the Body? Obviously, not the entire Body, but we are in fact the Body for anyone who would care to know it. Yet, we are just locally assembling. So, it is obviously the case that the assembling believers are the Body and that the Body is the assembly. However, the further extrapolation that a reference to the \ekklesia\ in the immediate context of a reference to the Body is necessarily a reference to "The Universal Church" just seems too illogical to entertain at this point. It is not a required meaning. It is the traditional interpretation.

However, I've said elsewhere that I can understand that people think a few verses necessarily mean "Universal Church." But I do disagree with that and stongly contend that holding such a doctrine robs them of the possiblity of seeing the importance and role of the actual meetings of the believers. Still, for those who would insist that these certain verses must refer to the "universal aspect," please, I implore you, radically change your concept and try to find the "local aspect" everywhere that you can. The "universal aspect" clouds the understanding to the point where there are nearly no verses about the "local aspect" and this is clearly not the intention of the scriptures. Try reading all the verses substituting the word "assembly" for instance. It really helps to remove the clouds to remove the poor translation of "church" entirely.

Consider this: aside from the verses in Matthew 18 which Lee taught was "the church you can go to," what are the verses which use the word "ekklesia" that refer to the local aspect in any way that is more than a form of address? In other words, where are the verses which tell us what the "local church" is?

All of us here were in a denomination called the Local Church, some for a very long time, and I don't think we really know what the Bible says on this topic. The "church" is the house, and the "church" is the wife, and the "church" is the new man, etc. Everyone makes these to mean "universal aspect" but then where is the definition of the "local aspect" like this?

Finish this sentence with a verse reference, if you can:
"The local aspect of the church is...."

I may be too limited in my Bible knowledge but I just don't know what is supposed to go here if I make all the verses mean "universal aspect."

But if I say that the assembly is the house of the Living God, I can really see something! If I say that Christ loves the assembling believers as His wife, even as His own flesh? This is something too exciting to utter, really! If I leave the traditional teachings in place, I just have some nice doctrines about the "Universal Church" being important to God, and Witness Lee taught that it had to do with a revised kind of sweet by-and-by of the New Jerusalem where one day we will all be one and God's corporate expression in eternity.

My appreciation is that by making everyone think all the verses mean "universal aspect" the enemy has successfully hidden the reality of the "local aspect" in the verses that we all know and he laughs at us in scorn. Because it is the manifestation of God in the local aspect which will bring about his demise.

Grace to you!

[Cal]

YP,

Thanks for you comments. So when Jesus said "I will build my assembly," which one was he talking about? And if he was talking about all of them, why didn't he say, "I will build my assemblies."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

Thanks for you comments. So when Jesus said "I will build my assembly," which one was he talking about? And if he was talking about all of them, why didn't he say, "I will build my assemblies."

He was talking about Jerusalem.

And, actually, that was where this thread started, if you wanted to read back to what I wrote about previously.

But, like I said, I appreciate that people can have different opinions on some verses and it's really well-entrenched doctrinally speaking.

I would put it this way: if there is indeed a "Universal Church," the only place it matters to us in the assembly. So, rather than just writing it off as "well, that belongs to the universal aspect," we should endeavor to understand what it means in the context of the local aspect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

He was talking about Jerusalem.

How do you know that? I don't see you mentioning Jerusalem anywhere else in this thread.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How do you know that? I don't see you mentioning Jerusalem anywhere else in this thread.

The Lord did build in fact the assembly in Jerusalem, did He not? Surely you are not confused about that. If you mean how do I know He referred to Jerusalem and not "Universal Church," I would pose the same question to you. I can show you the assembly in Jerusalem and I do know that it existed and I do know that Peter was the living stone as the foundation there. Can you concretely show me the other interpretation? I don't think so.

Also, the analogy that began this thread does not specifically mention Jerusalem but that was the point of talking about "the unique original restaurant" if you read that again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

If you mean how do I know He referred to Jerusalem and not "Universal Church," I would pose the same question to you. I can show you the assembly in Jerusalem and I do know that it existed and I do know that Peter was the living stone as the foundation there. Can you concretely show me the other interpretation? I don't think so.

I think I can try. The Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail against that church. Yet, it seems, it did. This leads me to think he wasn't just talking about the church at Jerusalem, but something more universal.

Your comments? How has the church at Jerusalem prevailed against the gates of hell?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

The Lord did build in fact the assembly in Jerusalem, did He not? Surely you are not confused about that. If you mean how do I know He referred to Jerusalem and not "Universal Church," I would pose the same question to you. I can show you the assembly in Jerusalem and I do know that it existed and I do know that Peter was the living stone as the foundation there. Can you concretely show me the other interpretation? I don't think so.

Also, the analogy that began this thread does not specifically mention Jerusalem but that was the point of talking about "the unique original restaurant" if you read that again.

Hmm. This is an interpretation of "I will build my church" which I honestly haven't heard before. It see its logic, but my first though is: that lends a heck of a lot more credence to the Catholic (big "C") interpretation of Peter being the "rock." My understanding was that the "rock" was the revelation that Jesus was the Christ. Under this equating of "My church" specifically with the local assembly in Jerusalem, it gives a lot more credence to the notion that Peter, as a specific person, was "the rock" upon which the church was built - and could lend credence to an implied system of clergy - even if only within local assemblies, not universally.

In short, by your interpretation, the Catholics have the whole "pope" thing wrong, but only because they apply it to the assemblies all over the world. If they restricted their "pope" to each local assembly, that would be okay.

I don't think this is what you mean, but that's where the interpretation goes, i think.

Thoughts?

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think I can try. The Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail against that church. Yet, it seems, it did. This leads me to think he wasn't just talking about the church at Jerusalem, but something more universal.

Your comments? How has the church at Jerusalem prevailed against the gates of hell?

You believe that the "gates of Hades" have prevailed and then you also interpret this to mean that the assembly in Jerusalem has not prevailed, assuming prevailing must run one way or the other, of course, naturally.

Perhaps you can tell me what you think it means, in any context, for the "gates of Hades" to prevail or not prevail. And then please say why that requires a prevailing on the other side.

I thought this phrase has something to do with the fact that the believers will be resurrected in glory eternal and defeat the enemies of death and Hades. What do you think it means? That the enemy succeeded in removing the testimony of the "Local Church" in Jerusalem and so by universalizing the application of this verse we can achieve the effect of saying that some part of "The Universal Church" will forever be in existence? I truly don't understand that sort of concern about "the gates of Hades" prevailing. They will not prevail, not even against Jerusalem.

But let me move to the next verse, if you don't mind: do you believe Peter held the universal keys or were they the local keys? I think one has to really struggle to make this an issue of the "Universal Church" and that implies, at least potentially, that the section is not about a universal thing.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Hmm. This is an interpretation of "I will build my church" which I honestly haven't heard before. It see its logic, but my first though is: that lends a heck of a lot more credence to the Catholic (big "C") interpretation of Peter being the "rock." My understanding was that the "rock" was the revelation that Jesus was the Christ. Under this equating of "My church" specifically with the local assembly in Jerusalem, it gives a lot more credence to the notion that Peter, as a specific person, was "the rock" upon which the church was built - and could lend credence to an implied system of clergy - even if only within local assemblies, not universally.

In short, by your interpretation, the Catholics have the whole "pope" thing wrong, but only because they apply it to the assemblies all over the world. If they restricted their "pope" to each local assembly, that would be okay.

I don't think this is what you mean, but that's where the interpretation goes, i think.

Thoughts?

Peter

Peter, Peter WAS such a rock. Go read his name on the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem. The apostles and prophets are the foundations of the local building.

And no, there are no local popes.
But there surely are the foundations.
They are slaves. They wash feet.

[Cal]

Right, YP. It depends on what you mean by prevail. If you think it means that after hundreds of years of not having an assembly then one reappears then I guess it did prevail. But I don't think that's a reasonable definition.

You are the one who has said that the church means the practical local assembly in time and space and nothing more. So I think to be consistent in that view, then you have to also think that if that assembly does not meet for very long period of time (let alone hundreds of years), that a reasonable person would have to say the gates of hell have prevailed.

It seems that to satisfy the "prevailing clause," you are lapsing into an abstract, spiritual version of the assembly, rather than the practical concrete one you have said is the only valid one. We are not talking about the saints prevailing, we are talking about the assembly prevailing.

If there is no assembling for years and years then there is no assembly for that time, no? So how is that not failing to prevail? Regardless of how the saints themselves prevail in resurrection, the assembly, according to your definition, did not.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are the one who has said that the church means the practical local assembly in time and space and nothing more. So I think to be consistent in that view, then you have to also think that if that assembly does not meet for very long period of time (let alone hundreds of years), that a reasonable person would have to say the gates of hell have prevailed.

It seems that to satisfy the "prevailing clause," you are lapsing into an abstract, spiritual version of the assembly, rather than the practical concrete one you have said is the only valid one. We are not talking about the saints prevailing, we are talking about the assembly prevailing.

Again, however, you have ignore my points.

Hmm, how to handle that?

OK, well, again, I'll repeat my concession that the ability to universalize some verses is done with facility. I don't deny it and I'm not really arguing against it. I just don't believe it myself and caution those who do that they should take care not to find "universal" everywhere automatically.

So, I would also note, again, that you have assumed that an assembly is said to prevail somewhere but the verse does not speak of this. It only says that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the assembly.

But if you cannot accept that the assembly has a spiritual reality, perhaps you can certify to me that there has been no assembly in Jerusalem for years and years as you have said? Is this because LSM has not certified a Local Church congregation in that place? I believe the Christians have been there a really, really long time.

Can you also please address now directly what it is you believe "the gates of Hades" represents? Especially since you have brought it up? I don't believe I can engage you further unless you do. You have now brought a theoretical reasonable person's definition into the equation but have not even given us the benefit of yours. Meantime, you have felt fine to criticize what I have said because to you, as you apparently believe, the saints are not the assembly.

All of this is really not proper, Igzy, and I've got other things to do...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Again, however, you have ignore my points.

What points have I ignored? What's not proper?

YP, all I've been doing is trying to understand what you are talking about when you use the word "assembly." I asked you specific questions and pointed out what I thought was a weakness in your belief. Just because I don't respond to every side point you make doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. It means I have a specific reason for asking what I asked.

The gates of hades means Satan's kingdom, Satan's attack.

I never said the saints weren't the assembly. I thought that you believed that if there is no assembling there is not assembly. If that's the case the assembly doesn't exist when there is no meeting, right? It's an extreme view, but I thought that's what you were getting at. I mean, that seems to be the basis of your argument as far as I could tell.

[OBW]

“The Lord did build in fact the assembly in Jerusalem, did He not?” Well, I’m not sure He did any more than he did many other assemblies in other places then and since. They had spent most of their time outside of Jerusalem prior to that time. When he ascended, he told them to go to Jerusalem. If that is the extent of the special effort He did to start the church in Jerusalem, then I’m not sure it is much of a statement of special intervention in the start of that one assembly.

I hate to say it, but suggesting that the reference to the building of the church in Matthew 18, with or without mention of overcoming the gates of hell/Hades, was exclusively to the assembly that was to be in Jerusalem is quite a stretch. There is nothing to support it. It would be interesting that Jesus would make such a statement about the church at a significant distance from Jerusalem, probably in the hearing of many who did not and would never consider Jerusalem home, and simply mean the assembly in Jerusalem.

He made the statement so generally that it can only be understood in terms of any and all actual assemblies, even if some overarching “universal” aspect is not intended. Still, it would seem that each assembly is intended to assault the gates of hell and prevail. He did not mean for only the assembly in Jerusalem to do so. Jesus did not come to the world to create the church in Jerusalem. He came that world, through Him, might be saved. Besides being ground zero for the start of the spread of the gospel, Jerusalem is not, in itself, significant.

So what could that mean? Surely the testimony of the church is seen assembly by assembly. But it is also seen in the collective of the assemblies. Not because there is a hierarchy, but because the visible presence of Christ in the world is the sum of these assemblies.

Your aversion to the notion that there is something about “church” or “my assembly” that transcends any one gathering is puzzling. Surely “church” (and thereby Christ) is expressed assembly by assembly. Yet Christ is also expressed by the collective of these assemblies. And by the common faith, both believed and lived-out, that demonstrates His love and justice.

This is where the example of McDonalds fails. The corporate headquarters does not serve burgers. But the church as a collective is not a headquarters. It is not some “thing” that is different than the sum of its parts. It is a collective. It is the reality of Christ seen in all the separate assemblies. One assembly may demonstrate more what you or I would call the life of Christ than another. But neither demonstrates what the whole demonstrates. The totality of the separate assemblies is something greater than any one assembly. But a corporate headquarters is something different from the local store.

Surely every teaching, command, practice, etc., must be undertaken at the separate assembly level or the totality of such assemblies would be meaningless. But the church, the body of Christ is both visible in the form of an assembly, and universal in the spiritual oneness of all such assemblies. If the whole is healthy, that spiritual oneness will shine because there are many assemblies marching on the gates of hell. Christ does not have many bodies. Yet each assembly may refer to itself as the body of Christ. The uniqueness of the one body of Christ does not suggest a hierarchy within the separate assemblies that are each also referred to as the body of Christ. And it does not indicate a headquarters, except to the extent that we properly practice the headship of Christ.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The gates of hades means Satan's kingdom, Satan's attack.

I appreciate your addressing this point.

I disagree with your definition of "gates of Hades." According to my understanding, Hades is the place where the dead abide until resurrection. Thus, "the gates of Hades" should be the things that keep people inside Hades. Your definition doesn't seem to have much basis in the scriptures that I'm aware of. Can you help me with a verse to show that "the gates of Hades" means "Satan's kingdom, Satan's attack" as you have said? I'm not aware of this meaning in the Bible, but I definitely do not know all of it.

I referred to the resurrection and you said that was about the saints and not the assembly. I believe that the resurrection of the dead is primarily for testimony of God in His building and that the Lord's concern today as it ever was is in the building together of the members of His Body as the Temple not made with hands both locally, and yes, universally. I just disagree that the term "assembly" is a universal term.

As to a "weakness" in my belief, my confidence is in the resurrected Christ, so, perhaps you mean to say that you think you detect error in my doctrine, which is fine, but you should say what you mean.

I don't really want to be a teacher here; I've just been sharing what I've been enjoying. If you don't enjoy that, I'm fine with being ignored. I'm used to it, really. I welcome and even seek the honest questions (that's why I post stuff like this here.) But I asked if the keys given to Peter reflect a universal or local aspect of the assembly and I did expect a response to that before another assertion that reading the passage as applying locally was unreasonable. If the keys are local and Peter is not the pope, then perhaps it is possible that the assembly is not universal? That's all I'm saying.

As to my potentially proposing a definition of assembly as requiring assembling, this is a fair criticism. My answer would be that I do not understand a definition of an assembly that does not assemble. However, it is certainly the case that the assembly of the Christians is a standing group which maintains its existence as such even when not presently assembled.

I would say that you could not find the assembly accept when it assembles but that the assembly is not limited to existing only while assembling.

Does that help, any?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

So, I would also note, again, that you have assumed that an assembly is said to prevail somewhere but the verse does not speak of this. It only says that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the assembly.

And so, as has been asked, what are the gates, and what is it to prevail?

I've heard two different arguments on the "gates" issue. One suggests that there may be some term of art that means that a warring group outside of its boundaries has some reference to its gates as prevailing or failing. The other suggests that if you are to discuss the gates, then the battle must be a the city in question and its defenses must fail. In other words, the "church" takes the battle to Satan and wins, not just holding him off outside of their own "city."

If the latter is correct, then the mere dwindling of a particular assembly might be construed as failure to prevail. But if the whole of the church is prevailing, any single assembly that we think to be faltering is not the issue. The church is prevailing.

This does not give any support to a hierarchy of persons or assemblies. It merely denotes a spiritual unity that transcends what we think we see locally.

Any thoughts?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I hate to say it, but suggesting that the reference to the building of the church in Matthew 18, with or without mention of overcoming the gates of hell/Hades, was exclusively to the assembly that was to be in Jerusalem is quite a stretch. There is nothing to support it.

I would agree that it may seem like a stretch to many but the word itself implies a local group and Peter could only be in one place at a time and the keys were not and could not be universal authority. I think the context sufficiently bears out a local reading.

And, as I've said elsewhere, my main problem with the notion of an extra-local universal assembly concept is the distraction that it implies from all the places where the word "assembly" appears so that it eventually means "univseral" everywhere and "local" no place.

I hear your argument about a collective concept of "assembly" and I do not say it is unreasonable, I merely resist the reasoning. The Body is universal but the assembly is completely practical and in your place. I just don't feel to take a few verses which could reasonably be construed as "universal" and insist that they could not be understood as implying local application and simultaneously discount that the majority of clear verses are very obviously local.

By the way, I may be the only ex-LC person who has considered this, but there are others among our brothers who are not of that flock.
http://thomaswilliamson.net/uct_new.htm

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

And so, as has been asked, what are the gates, and what is it to prevail?

Gates hold things, usually people, in and out.

Hades is the place of the dead.

Like our own risen Lord, death shall not be able to win out over the Lord's assembly.

Yes, I know.

You're sure this means the "universal aspect."

I'll just suggest that it might possibly mean a local aspect as well in some more difficult to comprehend fashion.

How's that?

Can I just be kooky like this for now?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I appreciate your addressing this point.
I disagree with your definition of "gates of Hades."

This is simply what I was taught. Perhaps I'm wrong.

As to a "weakness" in my belief, my confidence is in the resurrected Christ, so, perhaps you mean to say that you think you detect error in my doctrine, which is fine, but you should say what you mean.

I did say what I meant. One meaning of the word belief is a tenet of doctrine. I encourage you to look it up.

Does that help, any?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Okay here's another problem I have with what you are sharing. Like I said, I'm trying to understand, not criticize. This goes back to those verses I shared, specifically Ephesians 1:22-23, which states, "the church, which is his body..."

Now, these verses say, effectively, that the "church is the Body." This means that the "the Body is the church" is equally valid, since the sentence says that they are two words for the same thing, that's what "is" means when it appears between two noun phrases.

It make no sense to say "the church is the Body" if "the church" and "the Body" aren't referring to the same thing. In fact, that's what the sentence means!--these two are the same. And if they are the same then they must have the same characteristics.

So it seems to me when Ephesians says "the church is the Body" then if the Body is universal, then it is entirely appropriate to conclude that the church in this phrase is as well, for the reasons I explained above.

Where am I going wrong?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So it seems to me when Ephesians says "the church is the Body" then if the Body is universal, then it is entirely appropriate to conclude that the church in this phrase is as well, for the reasons I explained above.

Where am I going wrong?

That two things share characteristics and are related to each other does not necessarily imply coextensiveness and identity.

A part of the Body is surely the Body but that doesn't mean that it's all of the Body.

My shin is my leg. While it is also true that my leg is my shin, you need not assume I must mean my whole leg when I referred to my shin.

It is only an interpretation that there is identity and coexstensiveness implied in such a statement. I do not say that it is an unreasonable interpretation in the immediate context. I only point out that it is certainly not an irrefutable conclusion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

That two things share characteristics and are related to each other does not necessarily imply coextensiveness and identity.

A part of the Body is surely the Body but that doesn't mean that it's all of the Body.

My shin is my leg. While it is also true that my leg is my shin, you need not assume I must mean my whole leg just when I referred to my shin.

It is only an interpretation that there is identity and coexstensiveness implied in such a statement. I do not say that it is an unreasonable interpretation in the immediate context. I only point out that it is certainly not an irrefutable conclusion.

But saying your shin is your leg or your leg is your shin are by definition inaccurate statements. The shin by definition is not the leg. The shin is part of the leg. No one attempting to accurately define the shin would simply say it is the leg.

Saying the church in Oshkosh is the Body is innaccurate. It's part of the Body. You experience the characteristics of the Body there, but not the whole Body. So it's inappropriate to say any single church is the Body, because as you said, the Body is universal, and no local church is.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The shin by definition is not the leg.

I agree with you.

[Cal]

Let me try to help here.

What you seem to be saying, YP, is that when Paul said, "the church which is his Body," that would be like me saying, "Texas, which is America."

Someone might ask you, "Texas is America, right?" And you might answer, "Yes." But saying "Texas is America" in that context is an understood shorthand, or slang, for saying "Texas exists within the scope of America."

Now in order for your premise to be correct, you have to be correct in believing that when Paul said, "the church which is his Body," he meant, "the church which is contained in the scope of his Body."

Did Paul employ such shorthand? Or did he mean identity?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me try to help here.

What you seem to be saying, YP, is that when Paul said, "the church which is his Body," that would be like me saying, "Texas, which is America."

Someone might ask you, "Texas is America, right?" And you might answer, "Yes." But saying "Texas is America" in that context is an understood shorthand, or slang, for saying "Texas exists within the scope of America."

Now in order for your premise to be correct, you have to be correct in believing that when Paul said, "the church which is his Body," he meant, "the church which is contained in the scope of his Body."

Did Paul employ such shorthand? Or did he mean identity?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Texas existing within the scope of America" or "the church which is contained in the scope of his Body." It seems you're dealing more with definitions while I'm talking about realities. It's not so much the map of America, or the definition or description of America, it's the actual real territory of America.

Similarly, it's not so much that the definition of the assembly is to be found within the definition of the Body, although I think that this is clearly the case, but rather it's that the reality of the assembly is the manifestation of the reality of the Body. Therefore, the reality of the Body is seen in the reality of the assembling believers. It's only a part and it's not exclusive but wherever believers are, there is the Body and we can refer to that as that the assembly because they do assemble (and must not forsake that!)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It seems you're dealing more with definitions while I'm talking about realities.

Realities. Okay.

Anyway, I'm dealing with what the words say. "A is B" means "A is B," as far as I'm concerned. It means A is another name for B which means A and B are the same thing.

Thanks, though, YP. I've benefited from your insights and I appreciate your being patient with me to explain them.

See you around the roost.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying the church in Oshkosh is the Body is inaccurate. It's part of the Body. You experience the characteristics of the Body there, but not the whole Body. So it's inappropriate to say any single church is the Body, because as you said, the Body is universal, and no local church is.

I'm not so sure anymore. Paul told Corinth, "You are the body of Christ, and members individually."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not so sure anymore. Paul told Corinth, "You are the body of Christ, and members individually."

Good point, Ohio.

I'm content right now to believe that wherever believers are meeting in the name of the Lord, there is the church and there is the Body (but not all of it). The characteristics of the church and the Body are there, or what some like to call the "reality" of them.

Trying to place anymore qualifiers on it just seems to lead to contradictions and fruitless confusion.

[Steven]

Perhaps the real point here is that there is no practical way to experience and express the "universal" aspect of the assembly or the Body (except perhaps the Lord's Table and maybe Baptism, but that's another discussion), at least no way that is explicitly expressed in the bible. Certainly, there are a small handfull of verses that can be construed to connote a "universal" aspect to the assembly, or an equivalence with the Body. Interestingly, the most prominent of these clearly tie this concept to the Headship of Christ:
"*I* will build my assembly" or "*Christ* is the Head", or the Husband. The implication to me is that, in this broader aspect, Christ builds and Christ heads. We do not build and we do not head. We assemble. In contrast, consider the plethora of instruction, example, and advice for how we assemble: "each one has", "one has a tongue", "when you break bread", etc. Thus when we presume to organize something larger than the assembly, we usurp the Headship and end up with something like the Vatican or the LSM/BB.

Thus, while there may or may not be a spiritual universal aspect to the assembly, there is no clear way to make it happen, other than to simply assemble, love one another, love God, love our neighbor, pray without ceasing, etc. It doesn't affect our commission, in other words.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Steven

Thus, while there may or may not be a spiritual universal aspect to the assembly, there is no clear way to make it happen, other than to simply assemble, love one another, love God, love our neighbor, pray without ceasing, etc. It doesn't affect our commission, in other words.

Welcome, Steven! Great first post.

What does location "The Katrina" mean?

[Cal]

delete please

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What does location "The Katrina" mean?

It should read, with the wrapped text just below, "The Katrina Diaspora", which should make more sense. Foolishly, I relocated myself somewhere else on the Gulf Coast and am now hoping not to join the Gustav Diaspora.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Steven

Christ builds and Christ heads. We do not build and we do not head. We assemble. In contrast, consider the plethora of instruction, example, and advice for how we assemble: "each one has", "one has a tongue", "when you break bread", etc. Thus when we presume to organize something larger than the assembly, we usurp the Headship and end up with something like the Vatican or the LSM/BB.

Thus, while there may or may not be a spiritual universal aspect to the assembly, there is no clear way to make it happen, other than to simply assemble, love one another, love God, love our neighbor, pray without ceasing, etc.

I like these comments & hope Steven doesn't disappear forever.

The word /ekklesia/ I have always translated, roughly, to be "the gathering of the called-out ones". For 'gathering' one can easily substitute 'assembly' or 'congregation' or 'aggregation' or some such without loss of meaning.

Today I was thinking on the word, and later, at home, I wrote 2 words in my little 'memory book' which I keep handy for random thoughts.

(1) Calling
(2) Gathering

God has been doing something wonderful with us, and to us, and it seems that He is doing it in 2 successive stages. First, He calls us. Out of darkness, into light. Out of death, into eternal life. Out of fear and shame, into the peace which comes from knowing God. Out of sin, into redemption. Etc, etc.

Second, He gathers us together. He assembles us together to be a corporate expression. This is my only amendment to Steven's speaking; he says "we assemble" and I think it's more complete to say "God assembles us together". God calls, then God assembles. God is doing this, not us.

Seems to me like He does this with all of us. Sometimes both experiences come pretty much simultaneously, sometimes one or the other is drawn out somewhat. But both getting called out and then assembled together seem to be universally applied to anyone who goes by the moniker "Christian".

If you don't have the first you can't have the second. But the first experience alone is not what God is after. Clearly, the collective expression, the being gathered together, the aggregation, is a "universal" experience.

Does anyone need to "go on" from there, to add some other entity, work, or item? I am wondering if adding anything else is merely adding leaven.

By my last point I am not implying any judgment on anyone else's work, life, or activities. I am merely considering the word /ekklesia/ and thinking that this word alone may take us right to the top. Why mess with success? God gave it to us in the faith of His Son. Why add anything?

We were called out, then we were gathered in. I am in awe. God is soooo amazing. In His simplicity I sense limitless profundity, and I am not sure if I want to leave that for anything.

Thoughts, anyone?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Second, He gathers us together. He assembles us together to be a corporate expression. This is my only amendment to Steven's speaking; he says "we assemble" and I think it's more complete to say "God assembles us together". God calls, then God assembles. God is doing this, not us.

I think it's important to say "we assemble."

Some don't and we really need to.

Hbr 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of the hope unwavering, (for he [is] faithful who has promised; )
Hbr 10:24 and let us consider one another for provoking to love and good works;
Hbr 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom [is] with some; but encouraging [one another], and by so much the more as ye see the day drawing near.

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it's important to say "we assemble."

Some don't and we really need to.

I agree.
We also need to not have a notion about "what the assembly looks like".
Trying to make it look like another gathering usually ruins the Spirit's move.
Sue

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it's important to say "we assemble."

Some don't and we really need to.

I receive your "mending" of my amendment.

Hebrews chapter 10, vv 23-25 is indeed worth considering. "Let us" hold fast, and consider, and assemble; yes, these verses "...should not be overlooked in the daily dispensing..." of the God's word (cf Acts 6:1).

I may have overstressed my point, which could lead to apathy, passivity, or even hostility. My own personal vision of God's work, of His call plus His assembly, instead energizes me, and frees me from obsessing over "what men do". The driving force, for me, is God's assembling us together, which rouses each us the called-out ones from his/her own navel-gazing spirituality, and causes us to seek fellowship.

Plus, it can free us from the temptation to usurp headship from a God who seems inadequate to the task. It can free us from the "deputy authority" trap.

And we assemble together, not on the basis of being identical, or even similar, but on the basis, the common ground, of believing into Jesus the Son of God.

Thank You Father for calling Your children from every tribe and tongue and nation, and gathering us into the Name of Jesus. Amen

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

I agree.
We also need to not have a notion about "what the assembly looks like".
Trying to make it look like another gathering usually ruins the Spirit's move.
Sue

I agree that trying to make it match the outward forms and practices of some particular gathering or other is certainly the best way to make certain the precious shining forth God's own expression leaves and doesn't come back to the group.

On the other hand, I think we know EXACTLY what an assembly "looks like" - believers gathering together in spirit and reality bear the very glory of God's own image.

If you can meet God in that meeting - good enough!

That's all that really matters anyway.