What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

[ZNPaaneah]

What is the church? The church is the composition of the Lord’s many brothers. Individually, we are the Lord’s brothers; corporately, we are the church. The church is the composition of the firstborn Son and the many sons of God. (Witness Lee, The Subjective Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 1)

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Witness Lee provides several tests:

1. No particular name

In the Bible a name is a great matter. Referring to the Lord's name, Acts 4:12 says, “There is salvation in no other, for neither is there another name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved.” Romans 10:13 says, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Matthew 18:20 says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” John 14:14 says, “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Hence, salvation is obtained in the Lord's name, and the church is gathered into the Lord's name. Furthermore, even baptism is involved with the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). By reading the New Testament, we can see that a name is a great matter. Witness Lee, The Bridge and Channel of God, Chapter 3, Section 1)

2. No particular teaching

The basic need for the building up of the Body of Christ is the apostles' teaching. We should have no particular teaching other than the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching concerning Christ's person and redemptive work and concerning God's economy in faith (2 John 9-11; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; Jude 3; Titus 1:4). (Witness Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 10, Section 2)

3. Fellowship is universal, not isolated

Some people say that they do not have any of the above conditions and that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship. However, we still need to know whether their fellowship is isolated rather than universal. Over the past thirty years, quite a number of people have seen the error of sects and left the denominations. Because they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they think that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. But there may still be a problem. Although they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they have an isolated local fellowship, not a universal fellowship. They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect. According to lesson 14, even though the churches are expressed in different localities, they are still the Body of Christ, and their fellowship is universal. Therefore, if a Christian fellowship is limited to its locality and has lost its universality and the nature of the Body of Christ, it will be a local sect and will result in a division in the church. (Witness Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4)

4. Do not have separate administration.

We also need to look at whether there are separate administrations in the same locality. Some groups have nothing special, having no special name, no special belief, and no special fellowship. They seem to be nondenominational, but their administration is separate from other nondenominational groups in the same locality. They do not meet together as one with other nondenominational groups in the same locality. For example, in Taipei there may be three small groups, none of which have a special name, special belief, or special fellowship, but the three groups have separate administrations and are independent of each other. This is also sectarianism. According to the Scriptures, a locality can have only one church, and in a church there can be only one group of elders which represent one administration. The Bible says that the apostles appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and it also says that the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). This shows that the elders in a church are the elders in a city, and the elders in a city are also the elders in a church. The apostle did not charge Titus to appoint elders in every street. If he had, we would need to admit that there could be a church on a street. Rather, the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city. Therefore, in a city there can be only one group of elders, and there can be only one administration of the church; there cannot be two or more groups of elders, and there cannot be two or more separate administrations of the church. Although the church in a certain locality may meet separately in many places because of a large number of believers, the administration should still be one. (Witness Lee, The Testimony and the Ground of the Church, Chapter 10, Section 4)

5. No connections with other organizations.

"One other factor is a test of a genuine local church. There may be a Christian group that has no particular name, no particular fellowship, and no particular teaching. Their fellowship is universal, not isolated, and they do not have a separate administration. Although they pass all these tests, do not be quick to say that they are a true local church. It is still possible that this group has a hidden connection with another organization. They are like a kite in the air: someone on the ground is holding the string." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 14, section 5).

So when I consider this definition I find it really useless at explaining why a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is not a church.

No particular name -- could be
No particular teaching -- could be
Fellowship is universal -- could be
Not some isolated thing -- could be.
Do not have separate administration -- Might be problematic
No connections with other organizations -- could be.

So the only real issue that Witness Lee has with a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is that they might have a separate administration. Look at how interesting this word "administration" is. They have the same Lord. They submit to the apostles fellowship which is the NT authority. But the elders are the "administration". So then according to Witness Lee a true church is one that has the one true bureaucracy, the one appointed by the apostles.

He doesn't identify the apostles, but he does identify the true churches, they are all ones where he himself appointed the elders.

So then Witness Lee's working definition is this: Any church that has an administration appointed by Witness Lee and answerable to Witness Lee is a true church, all others are not because they have a separate administration.

As a result I completely reject Witness Lee's teaching on this matter as being self serving with another Jesus.

The apostle Peter said that he was an elder. Who appointed him? What apostle appointed him? Surely it was Jesus who appointed him.

I also reject the entire teaching about 2 or 3 by Witness Lee as self serving and hypocritical. I see the church as being analogous to a body. How many cells does it take to have a human body? When the egg splits into two cells is that a body? How about 4 cells? Do you have to wait until you can see the hands and feet? Do you have to wait until you can identify the sex? Do you have to wait until the baby can survive outside the womb? It is a continuum. Once the cell is fertilized it has everything that it needs to grow into a complete human being. From this point on it is simply a matter of maturation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Here is how I read the NT on this question:


1. Paul said "There is one body" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no denomination. We aren't of Paul or Peter or Apollos. But it is completely opposite to Witness Lee. WL sees this as a way to show which churches aren't true, Paul shows this as a way to state that all believers are part of the one true Body of Christ.

2. Paul said "and one Spirit" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's fellowship is universal, but it explains why fellowship is universal. This is not something that we have to do, it is due to the Spirit that we have received.

3. Paul said "even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's 'Central lane of God’s economy' which is based on Paul telling Timothy to charge some to "not teach differently". Why? Because there is one hope of your calling.

4. Paul said "one Lord —" This is equivalent to Witness Lee's one administration, except Witness Lee has distorted "one Lord" to be "one administration". Jesus is Lord, as long as we all submit to Jesus, the Lord, we can be one. Witness Lee created a new requirement that we need "one administration", elders which he himself picks and controls. This makes WL lord. This is abominable. This is why it is a "damnable heresy". This is why he denies the Lord who bought us.

5. Paul said "one faith" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no particular teaching, except that WL's word doesn't make sense whereas Paul's word makes it very clear what he is talking about. We all recognize the fellowship of the apostles as our "one faith". We have lots of particular teachings. Baptism and the Lord's table are two very particular teachings. Justification by faith, the Lord's redemption, eternal salvation, etc. Once again Paul is inclusive, Witness Lee is exclusive. Everyone who embraces the one faith is included by Paul, anyone who has "particular teaching" whatsoever it is, is excluded by Witness Lee.

6. Paul said "one baptism" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no connection with other organizations. We died to the world and the world to us when we were baptized. Every one of us is associated with other organizations (our job, our family, our community, our nation, etc). It is the Lord's work that makes us one, not some phony baloney claim to independence. It is being immersed into the triune God, separated from the world, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love, this is what makes us the true church.

7. Paul said "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all"— He is over the apostles, the prophets, the elders. He is working through all, whether a group of 2 or 3, or a mega church of 10,000. He is in all, He is the good housekeeping seal of approval. Witness Lee tries to make "locality" over all, it isn't. He tries to make himself the MOTA, he isn't. He tries to be "through all" by only sanctioning churches that have elders that he picked and that answer to him, sorry he isn't God. He tries to make his ministry in all of the church meetings, once again he isn't God.

In addition I agree when Witness Lee says that individually we are sons of God, corporately we are the church. The minimum number of believers to have a corporate experience is 2 or 3. If these 2 or 3 meet in the name of Jesus as described in the 7 ones I just went through then yes, they can have the Lord's table and yes, they can be a lamp stand and yes one of them can be the "elder".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

Originally Posted by aron

Two or three may have the Lord's name, His presence, His commission ("God forth before Me"), His binding and loosing, and His testimony ("Tell it to the church"). But all this seems insufficient to some posters here, because, "It's not the church."

I am not saying, "2 or 3 equals the church". What I am saying is that God is quite willing to work with 2 or 3; in fact if you see Jesus function, He often dismisses "the crowd", even some of the disciples, and works with only a few. But God can work with 3 thousand or 3 or 355.

And God may work within city limits, or on a boat or on the deserted highway. But there is power in being together, and even more power in being one. "Then you shall be one, even as I am one with the power." Then, this oneness brings the destruction of Satan. "The gates of Hades will not prevail against My builded church."

But please understand context here. The ekklesia was an assembly, to the Greeks. See, "And with these words he dismissed the assembly [ekklesia]" of Acts 19:41 or "In the midst of the assembly [ekklesia] I will praise Thee" of Psalm 22:22, which Psalm predated Christ by centuries.

To me the hallmark of the meeting, or gathering, or ekklesia of Jesus (i.e. "My church") is that Satan is put to rout. It isn't about playing church, with its networks of quanxi determining who's 'responsible one for Africa'. It is about gathering together and destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoners free. That is done with 2 or 3 or whatever.

The rest of it, to me, is just playing games with words. I meet with anyone who will work with me to destroy Satan. I see the love of Christ for me, as He lay there pinned to the cross, and I get up out of the dust and follow. Whoever is coming with me, is whoever is coming with me. "Receive those whom God has received in Christ Jesus." The rest of it is distraction at best.

The church in Anaheim, that doesn't take a name, but is affiliated with the ministry of Witness Lee, doesn't guarantee any special blessing, in my view. In fact I see too many stumbling qualifiers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

[aron]

When I mention the ekklesia of Jesus destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoner free, I don't suggest some "work", religious or otherwise, rather a testimony of the work of God in sending His Son Jesus Christ, that we might believe and be saved. This ekklesia, or gathering, or meeting, can occur at any point, in multiples; in New York City or London there might be dozens of 'ekklesia' occurring simultaneously. All of them in my view have one mission: to testify of Christ, and in this testimony destroy the king of this age. The love of God compels us to assemble and testify.

So to focus on the church as a subject in its own right is to begin to move away from the testimony of Jesus and into the testimony of human affairs. Then, the unbeliever happens upon our discussion and sees incessant wrangling over names and positions and doctrines, and say, "No way do I want to be a Christian!", and who could blame them?

No, the power of the church is to testify of Jesus Christ, not only in theory but in actuality, in the assembling together. Peter stood with the eleven, and the gates of Hades crumbled before his testimony of Christ risen from the dead, and thousands at that very hour streamed into the Kingdom Of God. The ekklesia should be, in my estimation, a birth chamber for the new life. "Blessed is that man that is born in her"

1 He has founded his city on the holy mountain.
2 The Lord loves the gates of Zion
more than all the other dwellings of Jacob.

3 Glorious things are said of you,
city of God:
4 “I will record Rahab and Babylon
among those who acknowledge me—
Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush—
and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’”
5 Indeed, of Zion it will be said,
“This one and that one were born in her,
and the Most High himself will establish her.”
6 The Lord will write in the register of the peoples:
“This one was born in Zion.”

7 As they make music they will sing,
“All my fountains are in you.”

Blessed are those who are born in her, in Zion, the ekklesia, or meeting, or assembly, or gathering together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are born there are blessed indeed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

But Jesus doesn't say, "Tell it to My church", a la Matthew 16, but to the church. The ekklesia in gospel context was any gathering, religious or not. Only with the passage of time did ekklesia come to mean exclusively religious, even specifically Christian, assembly. We tend to read current understanding back upon the text, and assume it meant the same to the original speakers and writers as it means to us today. I'm just publicly questioning that, here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Matt 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The context here is similar to Martin Luther nailing his paper to the door of the Catholic Church. It is David vs Goliath. Jesus is making it clear that two or three plus Jesus out weigh any monster or mega lithic church.

This thread was started in response to a post that said that 2 or 3 cannot be considered a church. As the person was questioned on this they did walk back their full assurance a little. But the context is very clear that 2 or 3 can take on a much larger group and they will succeed because Jesus is in the midst of them. At the very least it undermines the argument that there is some kind of minimum number of saints required to be classified as a church. If this verse were pictured as a seesaw you would have 2 or 3 with Jesus on one end outweighing the entire Catholic Church on the other.

[Evangelical]

I question the view that says when two or three are gathered, Jesus is automatically present, because with the Laodicean church in Revelation, they were a gathering of 2 or 3 or more believers, but Jesus was not in their midst but outside knocking on the door wanting to get in. (Revelation 3:20).

So I don't think it's correct that just because some believers get together they can claim to have the Lord's presence and be a genuine church.

I am not talking about Jesus's presence with each individual believer or Jesus's omnipresence (which all believers and even non believers have) , but His manifest presence in the church.

Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church.
A true church is also not merely about two or three gathering in Christ's name. That is, just because two or three gather in some place, does not mean they can hold the Lord's table there or claim to be the true church in the city.

Merely copying the forms and patterns of the early church does not make it a genuine church. A church without the presence of the Holy Spirit is not the true church.

The local churches in the Lord's recovery were established not as a decision to copy a first century church model, but because Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had the presence of the Holy Spirit.

To get to the heart of the matter, the true local church in each city is the one that has the lampstand. The lampstand's purpose is to express spiritual light. The lampstand is the Spirit (Rev 4:5).

The true church in each city is the church that Jesus Himself has chosen to express spiritual light and have His manifest presence in that city.

In this sense, ZNPaaneah is correct that a two or three sized genuine church (with a lampstand) outweighs an entire false church (or self-proclaimed church). But to say that just any two or three believers can gather together somewhere and consider themselves the true church, I question that.

[aron]

1. We established that 'ekklesia' didn't mean, specifically Christian gathering. It could be a civic gathering, or political, or religious. See Acts 19:41 "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'.

2. We established that the word had usage predating Christ by centuries. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You" (Psa 22:22)''

So when Jesus said, "Tell it to the church" what did He mean? To me, He meant, Tell it to a group larger than two or three. It didn't have to be specifically a Christian organization. In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "I will build My church", meaning there were 'ekklesia' not of Him (see points one and two). In Matthew 18 we shouldn't be too quick to assume meaning.

For confirmation, look at the next sentence. "Let this one be like the pagan or tax collector" (NIV) If they don't repent in the larger setting, the public assembly (religious or otherwise), let them be ignored. They are gone.

Remember that the Jews were what we today would call racist, or xenophobic. They wouldn't acknowledge foreigners. If a gentile went up to a couple of Jews and asked for directions, one Jew would look at the other and say, "Why should I talk to a gentile dog?" They wouldn't even acknowledge their existence. They were a special, separated people. Jesus is saying that if your brother sins against you, and refuses to repent, when given chances, including private opportunity, then they are gone.

Eventually "your brother" included the gentiles, after Jesus was gone. But we shouldn't read too much of "[gentile] church organization" into a Jewish teacher's sayings. In fact, the only universal points, "wherever two or three gather I am there" and "whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven" are specifically set to the two or three.

So to say, "Oh, but that's not the church" doesn't hold much water with me. But I acknowledge that I may be in the minority position here. And since I don't want to be like the publican or sinner, I happily go to the established, Christian organizations. But I don't see it as a requirement, per Matthew 18.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church.

Wow you are funny! "Many of us" refers to you and Witness Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

1. We established that 'ekklesia' didn't mean, specifically Christian gathering. It could be a civic gathering, or political, or religious. See Acts 19:41 "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'.

2. We established that the word had usage predating Christ by centuries. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You" (Psa 22:22)''

So when Jesus said, "Tell it to the church" what did He mean? To me, He meant, Tell it to a group larger than two or three. It didn't have to be specifically a Christian organization. In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "I will build My church", meaning there were 'ekklesia' not of Him (see points one and two). In Matthew 18 we shouldn't be too quick to assume meaning.

To me, this understanding of the meaning of ekklesia is the strongest evidence for the idea of "locality" as the ground of the church. In Greek society the "ekklesia" was the gathering of all the citizens in that town. This was the earliest form of democracy.

Also, when you view this concept of the ekklesia, here is a town, or village or city, the gathering of all the believers in that locality is the ekklesia of that locality, then it also suggest that 2-3 is really a rarity for a "true ekklesia".

All of that said, you have to understand you are pulling all of that meaning out of the history of Greek democracy and not directly from the NT. Also Jesus makes a contrast with this history when He says "my" ekklesia. That history of the word refers to the Greek's ekklesia, not Jesus'. But, when you also look at the New Jerusalem as a type of the true church there is a very clear NT link between this concept of ekklesia and the NT church.

But here is the thing, anyone who describes the Greek ekklesia will include the fact that it was a city council. No NT apostle did that. Why? An oversight on such an important topic as this? Or, which is far more likely in my opinion, did they forsee that these ekklesias might not be limited by time and space (i.e. this forum).

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All of that said, you have to understand you are pulling all of that meaning out of the history of Greek democracy and not directly from the NT.

Acts 19 says, "He dismissed the ekklesia" and the meaning was clear to Luke and his readers that it was a civic assembly. Acts, obviously, is a NT book written after Jesus had resurrected. But centuries latter, when the text was translated into English, they had to translate it into something else because it couldn't mean 'church'. I'm simply pointing out that the way out is to translate the word in all cases as 'meeting' or 'assembly'.

Now, eventually the word took on strong association as usage changed. But don't be to quick to read that later meaning back onto a gospel passage.

[ZNPaaneah]

I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that Witness Lee's strongest argument for his doctrine of dirt is to take the Greek usage of this word. I agree that if you limit this term to the Greek usage you can conclude a doctrine of dirt, but the apostles do not do this. And, that lack is, to my mind, very telling.

[Ohio]

Yes, but, there are many other Greek words which initially had secular meanings, yet were understood by the believers and the writers of the N.T. to have a Biblical or spiritual connotation. The context would determine the actual meaning. For example, the logos was the message, the discourse, and Greeks understood its meaning in the course of life, but for believers fellowshiping about their Savior, the Logos was something different, and had new meanings and implications.

Likewise "assembly" is a general phrase, but in Christian circles it refers to a gathering of believers. I think it was much later that the German word "church" took over this meaning for clarification.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, but, there are many other Greek words which initially had secular meanings, yet were understood by the believers and the writers of the N.T. to have a Biblical or spiritual connotation. The context would determine the actual meaning.

And I am saying that Evangelical and many others assume a meaning that I here question, in Matthew 18: "Concerning a brother who sins in church" is the typical contextual understanding. But Jesus pointed to a larger idea, which ZNP is considering as well (so I surmise), which Evangelical dismisses with, "It's not the church".

So my way of entering the discussion was to say, "When 2 or 3 have the Name, and the Presence (Gk: parousia), have the authority to bind and loose, to testify (to the 'church', or other, larger, [public] assembly(s)", and it is dismissed with "That's not the church", which 'church' we're promptly told needs "proper elders" and "proper administration" (appointed by the head of a non-profit publishing company), ad nausea, how quickly we've gone back on the road to Rome!

Of course this is just my reaction. Hopefully it's not too disrespectful of others who don't think as I do, and hopefully it includes the caveat that my thinking changes over time.

So I provisionally put forth the notion that the 'ekklesia' as it was understood in the gospels was temporal in not only space, ('local'), but in time as well. An 'ekklesia' was assembled and dismissed. The 'ekklesia' of Jesus, per Matthew 16, was to testify that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, or Son of Man, who was expected by Jews of all types and stripes. The Messiah, who it turns out, was not only the Savior of Israel but Savior of the world.

Let me give two examples. First is the assembly in Acts 2, attended by 120 believers and several thousand unbelievers. Peter stood with the eleven, testified, and thousands were converted. Second is Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8. The first meeting, or assembly, was thousands, the second was merely two people! In one many were converted, in the second only one. But both had a convening, a testifying, a result (repentance, confession and salvation) and a dismissal.

If someone says to me, "That's not the church", I'm going to be careful to move on too quickly, especially when I see what they're moving on to. And when Evangelical tries to bring the 'context' of Matthew 18 as in, the "Sinning brother in the church" motif, I want to also bring in the context of how the word 'ekklesia' would be understood when Jesus was speaking to the crowds. I'm saying we shouldn't be too quick to read 20th century meanings, and perceived needs, onto 1st century words in the NT gospels. Especially when it results in the downplaying of Jesus' words as conditional and provisional, when I see no such thing. "Verily, verily, I say to you, whenever you do 'x'" doesn't seem so constrained as we might wish; it rather seems an invitation. Why dismiss it with, "Oh, that's not my ontological construct"?

MW "ontological" - "relating to or based upon being or existence". When the thing you create into existence pushes away the thing Jesus placed into existence - His presence, His name, His authority, His testimony - then I say not so fast. But this is a discussion, a mutual learning exercise, and I don't presume to push anything away; I'm rather saying there's more in the text than merely "a brother sinning in church"; there's a principle and an invitation - and if we need elders appointed by Witness Lee to bring our principle into reality, then I really question our understanding, here. Of "church" or anything else. I was there, I saw it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And I am saying that Evangelical and many others assume a meaning that I here question, in Matthew 18: "Concerning a brother who sins in church" is the typical contextual understanding. But Jesus pointed to a larger idea, which ZNP is considering as well (so I surmise), which Evangelical dismisses with, "It's not the church".

So my way of entering the discussion was to say, "When 2 or 3 have the Name, and the Presence (Gk: parousia), have the authority to bind and loose, to testify (to the 'church', or other, larger, [public] assembly(s)", and it is dismissed with "That's not the church", which 'church' we're promptly told needs "proper elders" and "proper administration" (appointed by the head of a non-profit publishing company), ad nausea, how quickly we've gone back on the road to Rome!

Most references to the ekklesia describe a collection of believers gathered in some location, either city, or home, or region. Some other references to the ekklesia refer to the so-called universal church, "which is His body," as in "I will build My church." Some other references to the ekklesia refer to a specific gathering, which also may include secular references.

I did voice a little protest (post #5) when you said to "tell the church," was to "publish it abroad and shout from the rooftops." (post #6) I do feel the Lord was saying, "take it public, go to thers for help, but keep it in house, preferably by going to some mature brothers, possibly the elders or other wise brothers," as in I Cor 6.5.

But as far as "two or three meeting in His name," who's to say that is not the church? The Bible is NOT definitive here. Did not Paul "appoint elders in every church" (Acts 14.23) which implies those congregations of untold numbers of believers were churches BEFORE elders were appointed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I did voice a little protest (post #5) when you said to "tell the church," was to "publish it abroad and shout from the rooftops." (post #6) I do feel the Lord was saying, "take it public, go to others for help, but keep it in house, preferably by going to some mature brothers, possibly the elders or other wise brothers," as in I Cor 6.5..

I do overstate to make my point, and I see your point, here, as well. Certainly the 'ekklesia' of Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 6 are not mutually exclusive. But I didn't like what seemed to be cavalier dismissal of the Lord's words with, "It's not the church". Context shrinking meaning, and spiritual value, nearly to the vanishing point.

But I protest too much. . I usually do.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But as far as "two or three meeting in His name," who's to say that is not the church? The Bible is NOT definitive here. Did not Paul "appoint elders in every church" (Acts 14.23) which implies those congregations of untold numbers of believers were churches BEFORE elders were appointed.

Very nice. I thought the "appointed elders" criteria that Evangelical made would be completely unworkable.

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

Though you may think so from my posts, I don't long for some magical re-creation of Acts 2, or Acts 8, or Peter and James and John on the mountaintop with Jesus and Elijah and Moses, or want to forbid any assembly of more than 2 or 3. I understand there's such a thing as history and I'm placed in time, space, and culture. Organization is okay. I go to a building on Sunday morning and open a hymn-book, like the rest. It's okay.

No, really.

But I also like to place the emergence of Nee's Little Flock, and Lee's infiltration of the USA Jesus Movement in history as well. The "God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil" of China narrative doesn't produce a one-size-fits-all Christian church. We can and should be critical when folks presume to find clear and necessary organizational patterns in the NT text. Which (I think) is what I've been doing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very nice. I thought the "appointed elders" criteria that Evangelical made would be completely unworkable.

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

I agree.

Also I completely reject LSM's claims that ONLY the apostles can appoint elders. That did occur, and was recorded, but never prescribed by the N.T. If that were true, then there could not be any elders beyond the first century.

This is why Paul delineates healthy requirements for elders and deacons in both I Timothy and Titus. Along with these requirements, leaders should be "well-attested" by the saints, and confirmed by the Spirit. (Acts 16.2, 20.28)

[ZNPaaneah]

OK, another very good point. So, if we look at the prescription by Paul for choosing an elder and follow it, then although the elder wasn't ordained by the apostle, the elder was ordained according to the fellowship of the apostle.

[Ohio]

How much better than some lackey getting appointed elder due to his loyalty to headquarters.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How much better than some lackey getting appointed elder due to his loyalty to headquarters.

Guanxi. Look it up. That's all it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Fallen human beings arranging social structures according to their culture. The biblical and/or spiritual veneer is thin, even non-existent in some places.

[ZNPaaneah]

To Summarize:

Evangelical said that the NT qualification for a gathering of Christians to be a "church" is for them to have two male elders.

However, as Ohio pointed out the verse Evangelical uses to make this claim says that "they appointed elders in every church". So, the NT already considered the gathering a church prior to the elders being appointed.

We can assume from Evangelical's silence that he does not disagree.

Witness Lee said that a church is the corporate expression of the son's of God. I agreed with this and noted that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement.

The word ekklesia is defined as "gathering of the called out ones" and again I pointed out that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement.

A common teaching in the Local church is that a to be a church you have to have a Lord's table. The practice of "taking the ground" (apparently one of the secret practices of this group that they don't discuss in their written ministry) involves a group of Christians having a "Lord's table" meeting for the first time (for that group in that city). However, there is no reason why 2 or 3 could not have a Lord's table meeting.

So we did not reject this as being descriptive of a church, but saw no reason why it would eliminate a church meeting of 2 or 3.

Evangelical stated plainly that 2 or 3 could not be a church. But when asked what the NT minimum number of believers was required for a church he walked this statement back. No one has provided any NT minimum number other than a "gathering" and "corporate expression".

The really important expression, the one that is the most provocative and which elicits the strongest feelings is Witness Lee's expression of "the true Church". He never defines what makes a "true church" but rather works off the assumption that you have accepted everything he has taught about the ground of the church and then used that doctrine to claim that any gathering that does not subscribe to his doctrine is not a "true church". When we looked at his doctrine and criteria carefully the only point that would cause many groups an issue was the point about "elders appointed by the apostle". He uses the term "administration". But when you boil down his teaching and carefully dissect it to determine what is and is not a "true church" according to his teaching, the only churches that qualify are those in which he has appointed the elders.

So I would dispute this term "true church". Instead, I would argue that the church is the expression of Jesus. As long as the church is expressing the "true Jesus" then no one should have any issue with that gathering. According to the Lord's word about 2 or 3, saying that "He would be in their midst". To me this says that this gathering is expressing the true Jesus, hence anyone who is judging this gathering falls under the Lord's word about judging another man's servant.

[OBW]

Starting back in the opening post, I realize that this is a bit of a challenge for those who claim that a church must meet some formula. And it was started by quoting some of Lee's material.

But the questions at the end seem to be in terms that those of the LCM would use.

Was this intentional? Trying to draw out a clear definition from those of the house of Lee?

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

I will assume that my reading is right because, as posited, it is worded in a manner that seems to assume that there are true churches and other churches (untrue churches? not so true churches? false churches?)

And the constant insistence by the LCM of including the word "local" almost every time that "church" is used is peculiar. They clearly are not referring to proximity — unless they disregard so many other groups as being churches. It is not a benign term because it is too clearly associated with their group no matter how un-local it is for some people, and not for other groups no matter how local they are to those around them.

It is not a term with special definition provided by scripture. So whatever they think they have found in scripture that is so important, it is not that the church is "local." But they have attached it to that word anyway.

The title of the thread is "What is the New Testament Definition of a Church." Oddly, I believe that most of what we think of as definitions are more like attributes. I don't find much that defines the church. I heard some discussion among some theologians and while what they said made sense, it was still somewhat a kind of imposition of opinions about things.

And yet, it is somewhat the same kind of partial opinions that leads me on this subject.

Especially when you get to things like trying to define a minimum number. Could it be 2 or 3? Possibly. But is it sufficient for all that a church needs to be? When you consider the multitude of "gifts" that operate within a practical "body" (not just the 1 Cor 12 gifts, but also those listed elsewhere) is 3 sufficient in the long run for a healthy body?

I am not suggesting that God cannot multifariously gift 3 people to be all that they need as a church. But then it is hardly a church of anything like normal people, but of super-elders.

I would agree that 2 or 3 can function as a church for a purpose, or for a period of time. But as a regular, ongoing thing, I believe that its lack of the breadth of experience and ability will leave it seriously lacking. Or wandering into dangerous territory. Consider that when the issue of the Judaizers came before the Jerusalem elders, it took more than three of them to talk, listen, pray, and decide. And yet we think that any 3 of us could simply be a church.

Maybe on paper. In a theoretical discussion. But in practice a church of three is like an ant farm with only 3 ants. They are really diligent ants, doing whatever it is that those particular 3 ants do. Bit it takes more than 3 ants to really be an ant farm.

How many believers for it to really be a church? I don't know. There is no rule. 50 may fail while 10 succeed. But from an expectation standpoint, I would have had more expectation for the 50 than the 10. And I would have more expectation from 10 than from 3. But there is no magic number. There is no way to parse together anything that says "this is the minimum." For every declaration that a certain small number can't be, it could be. And for every insistence that a certain larger number is clearly sufficient, it just may not be for a particular group of that many.

The church is not a number. It is a gathering which requires more than one. Probably more than two because "gathering" is difficult to layer over 2.

And saying that having the Lord's table is a defining thing, what's to keep a gathering of Christians who are not otherwise intending to regularly meet as a church from having the Lord's table. Jesus' command made no reference to "as oft as you do it" being strictly a church thing. A proper remembrance is a proper remembrance.

And what if some do not do the Lord's table in "your" way? I do not find enough in the scripture to create a "proper church squad" to go around defining who is and who is not a church. It is for sure that the LCM version of who is and who is not cannot stand scrutiny from the Bible. Way too sectarian to get the Good Churchkeeping seal of approval.

[Nell]

I don't believe there is such a thing as "the" New Testament definition of "a church" or "the church." As Ephesians 5 says, the church is a "great mystery." The NT has many references to the church but there is no clear definition. I believe this is by design. Jesus said He will build His church. Men can only speculate about what He will build as they interpret various scripture passages and game plan their buildout based on speculation.

I think that any definition of the NT church arrived at by men we can pretty much guarantee not to be "it". Why? How "great" is a "great mystery"? When I say "great mystery" it is limited by my "poor reach of mind." But when God says "great" compounded by "mystery", I think we are way in over our heads attempting a definition of that which God has not clearly defined.

The best men can do is to define structure, organization, hierarchy of the membership, etc. No mystery there. How does this compare to "a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

There is plenty of structure, organization, hierarchy, etc., but I doubt that the Lord has committed Himself to this mound of spots and wrinkles. Perhaps we would do well to gather for fellowship with Him and other believers and trust Him to take care of the rest.

Nell

[Evangelical]

If a church is merely one's family group at home or a group of friends gathering together for a prayer time, the verses in the Bible about excommunication would not make sense.

For example, suppose my church is my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I. We have home fellowship every week, have bread and wine, sing a song, pray and read the Bible.

Suppose my sister sinned in some way deserving of excommunication, am I supposed to apply this verse?:

1 Cor 5:1-6 :
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

Obviously a church cannot be a gathering of family or friends of this verse to "remove from our midst" could not apply.

It seems like church as defined in the Bible is something more than just a gathering of believers.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't believe there is such a thing as "the" New Testament definition of "a church" or "the church."...

Wouldn't you agree that the church is the corporate expression of Jesus and therefore indicates a corporate experience as well?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a church is merely one's family group at home or a group of friends gathering together for a prayer time, the verses in the Bible about excommunication would not make sense.

Why?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, suppose my church is my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I. We have home fellowship every week, have bread and wine, sing a song, pray and read the Bible.

You do understand that a "home meeting" does not indicate that everyone in the meeting is in the same family? The church in Odessa met in a home until they got too large, about 25 adults from a number of different families.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose my sister sinned in some way deserving of excommunication, am I supposed to apply this verse?:

1 Cor 5:1-6 :
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

Obviously a church cannot be a gathering of family or friends of this verse to "remove from our midst" could not apply.

Are you familiar with Merriam and Moses in the book of Exodus?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems like church as defined in the Bible is something more than just a gathering of believers.

It seems this is very vague and impractical a definition.

[ZNPaaneah]

I have found that 3 is an ideal number for evangelism, and for being sent out to a church. I cannot see any gift that cannot be exercised by 3 saints.

Also, it has been my experience that when the church size is small, less than 100, the participation and service is very high on a per member basis. But once you get over 1,000 the participation and service on a per member basis is much lower.

But I don't think anyone would disagree that a "church" of 3 would be a very sparse meeting indeed. It is doubtful you would meet the same way, probably no "message" rather just fellowship, often around the table as you might eat at the same time. Also, the burden for evangelism would be much greater.

So then, how about looking at it the other way around. Is there a number too large to be a church?

My father used to say that meetings that have more than 12 people are doomed to failure, hence the Lord's choice of 12 disciples, and even then He had Judas.

According to Paul when you are in a meeting (gathering, ekklesia) and something is revealed to one they should stand up and the one speaking stop, while everything is being done in "good order".

That seems to be impossible once a meeting reaches a certain size. We have seen in some of these "mega churches" that breaking the big meeting into much smaller groups (as they did in Taipei) is one effective way to shepherd and care for the entire flock.

There has been a lot of discussion among Christians on the necessity of having home meetings to keep a church healthy, regardless of the overall size of membership.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wouldn't you agree that the church is the corporate expression of Jesus and therefore indicates a corporate experience as well?

Maybe. Though I doubt that I would ever, under any circumstaces, use the ruined term "corporate expression" to define anything.

When the Lord sends me to a group of Christias to fellowship, I don't bring a checklist with me to make sure they fit my preconceived definition of "church". I just obey and trust that I'm there for a reason.

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

The Local Church used their definition as a way to disqualify Christian gatherings. I think that as we look closer and closer at this we will see that the Apostle's view was inclusive, not exclusive.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe. Though I doubt that I would ever, under any circumstaces, use the ruined term "corporate expression" to define anything.

And that gets back to what you said about there being no definition (and I agree).

Originally Posted by Nell

When the Lord sends me to a group of Christias to fellowship, I don't bring a checklist with me to make sure they fit my preconceived definition of "church". I just obey and trust that I'm there for a reason.

I agree on not bringing a checklist.

But I don't generally feel called or sent to any particular group. Instead I feel compelled to meet. And to be fairly consistent with it in terms of both regularity of meeting and regularity of who I meet with.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have found that 3 is an ideal number for evangelism, and for being sent out to a church. I cannot see any gift that cannot be exercised by 3 saints.

Also, it has been my experience that when the church size is small, less than 100, the participation and service is very high on a per member basis. But once you get over 1,000 the participation and service on a per member basis is much lower.

But I don't think anyone would disagree that a "church" of 3 would be a very sparse meeting indeed. It is doubtful you would meet the same way, probably no "message" rather just fellowship, often around the table as you might eat at the same time. Also, the burden for evangelism would be much greater.

So then, how about looking at it the other way around. Is there a number too large to be a church?

I have already stated that I can agree with 3, but have a problem with it being regularly viable.

But the question about are there too many is a question that has no simple answer.

The problem is with the potential lack of community. There is a sense in which church is also a community or family. Too many and you don't know anyone.

(As an aside, I read some time back that most people are unable to actually keep up with more than about 150 friends, and that most of that 150 will be somewhat distant friends. It says a lot for people with 500+ "friends" on facebook.)

But when you consider the pattern provided in Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost, there was getting the apostle's teaching in the temple and breaking bread, prayer, and fellowship from house to house. So a large church for purposes of the teaching of the word that also has a structure of smaller groups for all kinds of purposes, whether "official" or impromptu can be an effective and complete church in every sense.

Does that mean that any large church is completely successful at this? Or that there are not always people who will primarily be involved for the "ministry" or teaching? Even if you are a small enough group to meet in a house?

In other words, the potential for failing within a large church can easily be no better or worse than for a small church. It is ultimately all about the commitment, involvement, etc., of each member. (Member used loosely, not in some organizational or official sense.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Also, large churches are tempted to get involved in politics and are tempting targets for marketers and others with less than pure motives. They will also get caught up in large building projects since they will need a hall (or glass cathedral) and they will be targeted by the Jezebel's and Balaam's looking for a congregation big enough to give them the Benz.

Likewise, one way to become bigger and more influential is by "franchising" or creating an alliance of churches (denominations).

In my experience 200 is a number that will support several elders and a meeting hall without being so large as to attract those with an impure motive. That is also in line with your "150 friends". So this is certainly a large enough fellowship to keep you fully involved and links will exist with other churches since everyone has friends and family outside of this congregation.

I don't mean to suggest there is anything in the definition that would say a church is too big, but the NT does describe a setting where each one has, and a certain level of impromptu sharing, as well as a number of different gifts along with elders and deacons. You can get all of this with 200.

If you look at Taipei most of the halls in Taipei can only seat 100 or less. A couple of the bigger halls can seat upwards of 3 or 400. But even hall 1 is packed out at 400.

[ZNPaaneah]

Finally, what about time and space?

When Witness Lee makes "locality" a key criteria in defining a church he limits it by time and space and actually makes it clear that a church is limited and defined by time and space.

But today our meetings do not need to be limited by locality. We can meet and fellowship with people all over the world through the phone, internet, video conference, etc.

Also, we don't need to be limited by time. These forums are an example of how a meeting and fellowship can take place irrespective of time.

So then is there anything in the NT that says a church must be limited by time and space?

Was Witness Lee teaching from his poor human concept or was it actually based on the apostle's fellowship?

[OBW]

While I agree that we can meet with anyone anywhere, anything besides a one-way meeting (live streaming of a sermon, for example) is fairly problematic once you have multiple points of access. At some level it may be worse than meeting in a huge room with 4,000 people at the same time. At least everything going on is visible to all.

But I think that this whole location thing is missing Lee's point. And maybe even the points that the Bible actually make on the subject (few though they be). Lee is not concerned about how easy it is to meet. Despite the many "halls" that seat only 100 or so in Taipei, he restricts how people would physically meet by a series of criteria that he claims is only one item, and that is "locality." As high-sounding as it may seem before you actually try to vet it for scriptural significance, it is not the basis upon which the LCM has ever met. It is just a formulaic overlay that clearly no one else would use (or at least few would use) behind which they can hide a series of other "musts" to really be the true church.

Moving back to online meetings, for all the possibilities of real connection in an online environment in limited circumstances, I believe that for the most part trying to make church as simple as joining a chat room or streaming a sermon, or other technological method is a way to fool ourselves into thinking that we met when all we did was observe. I fear that suggesting such things as viable is just providing an excuse for those who really don't want to connect to fool themselves into thinking they did. I don't really have a lot of problems with the idea of a mass video of a live sermon to difference locations where many people actual engage with each other, join in singing and other aspects of corporate worship, and are only "online" relative to the sermon.

Once the whole thing becomes remote, then the idea of meeting has been short-changed. No matter what kind of technological marvels we can come up with, there is something to be said for real, flesh-and-blood gatherings of people. I cannot declare that the Bible would forbid such a thing. But you have to consider whether even a lot of such meetings might fool us into thinking that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves together when we really have become little more than people who sing karaoke with the computer and listen to YouTube videos of faux worship as some computer graphics show us a "room" full of personal avatars who are animated by the computer as if actually engaging with others when there are no real others to see or engage with.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that gets back to what you said about there being no definition (and I agree).
I agree on not bringing a checklist.
But I don't generally feel called or sent to any particular group. Instead I feel compelled to meet. And to be fairly consistent with it in terms of both regularity of meeting and regularity of who I meet with.

I agree with you. Here's another way to look at it. When are Christians, regardless of size (3 plus?), NOT the church?

Much of this topic focuses on the church meetings--the where and how. When you consider verses like "Christ loved the church and gave himself for her," there has got to be more to it than meetings, structure, heirarchy, etc. Verses like this one should make us realize that the church is much more personal than can be covered by a mutually accepted definition. "Personal" is not the best word, but it will have to do for now.

What did Christ die for? Maybe that is the better question. And again, when and how are Christians NOT the church? Who can make that call?

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Moving back to online meetings, for all the possibilities of real connection in an online environment in limited circumstances, I believe that for the most part trying to make church as simple as joining a chat room or streaming a sermon, or other technological method is a way to fool ourselves into thinking that we met when all we did was observe. I fear that suggesting such things as viable is just providing an excuse for those who really don't want to connect to fool themselves into thinking they did. I don't really have a lot of problems with the idea of a mass video of a live sermon to difference locations where many people actual engage with each other, join in singing and other aspects of corporate worship, and are only "online" relative to the sermon.

But I am viewing this differently. I am thinking that the New Testament reveals that there is one church. It is not as simple as just "Christians gathering". There are 7 ones in Ephesians that are criteria and must be met. But these are inclusive criteria, not exclusive. It seems relatively straight forward for a group of genuine Christian believers to meet those criteria.

So imagine that the NT church in practicality is all of those Christians who are currently alive on Earth. That is the "Body of Christ". That is the "Bride of Christ".

But, the ekklesia, the gathering of the called out ones, includes any gathering (as few as 2-3) of these members who are gathering together into the name of Jesus.

If you take this view you can explain "church in Ephesus", "church in their home", and "the church". It also opens up other possible gatherings that are much more akin to what Paul said when he said 1Cor 5:3 "For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit,".

Originally Posted by OBW

Once the whole thing becomes remote, then the idea of meeting has been short-changed. No matter what kind of technological marvels we can come up with, there is something to be said for real, flesh-and-blood gatherings of people. I cannot declare that the Bible would forbid such a thing. But you have to consider whether even a lot of such meetings might fool us into thinking that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves together when we really have become little more than people who sing karaoke with the computer and listen to YouTube videos of faux worship as some computer graphics show us a "room" full of personal avatars who are animated by the computer as if actually engaging with others when there are no real others to see or engage with.

That is if you take the "either or" approach, but if you take the "both" approach they each have something to offer. It is easier to have full participation, full accountability and a written record of the meetings that take place on line. It is simpler to participate and to do it "in good order".

If one of the issues with a large congregation is that it is difficult for all the members to function, then technology does facilitate this.

If one of the issues is time and space then technology can facilitate this.

What happens today when someone is sick or ill and cannot attend the meeting. Technology can help in that situation as well.

Yes there are a lot of things to be said for the flesh and blood meetings, but one of the extreme limitations is that once the meeting is over 200 people it is highly likely that members will begin to become spectators.

The fact that not all uses of the technology are examples of genuine worship and fellowship is no different than complaining about having music in the meetings because some music is worldly.

I have fully embraced technology in my classrooms, it increases accountability and participation 10 fold. As a result the students are able to learn quicker, less frustration and less boredom. Used correctly it enables more people to participate, more people to function.

In my opinion there is a limited value in having meetings for more than 200 people, yet this is the main staple in the Christian gatherings that I have observed in my lifetime.

I have also observed that it is difficult for people to participate in the smaller gatherings. For example, it takes me 45 minutes to drive to our meeting hall. So to have a small fellowship for an hour and a half is doubled in time when I take into account driving. I would expect that eliminating the need for driving and thereby cutting the total time required for this meeting in half would greatly increase participation and function.

Also, for those who miss a meeting they would have access to all of the "notes", "minutes" and "fellowship". So although there are a lot of things to be said for the flesh and blood meetings, there are also a lot of things to be said for the online meetings. In fact the only real thing that you can do in a flesh and blood meeting which you can't do online is to eat together. So by adopting more online meetings it would probably lead to a more regular gatherings that involve eating together at the hall. After all, why call a meeting at the hall unless it is so that you can eat as well as fellowship?

[OBW]

Going with more recent posts by both Nell and ZNP, the fact of Christians is the fact of church. And I agree that Christians together are church. But that is in the sense that the verse about loving the church and giving himself for "her." In this sense the church is not the meeting, but the members.

(I would add here that while I understand the popularity of the "personal" aspects of the Christian life, church, etc., there is little that makes even this particular verse really about "me" with respect to the church, but more about the church without borders. It is really about the whole of it, not the "personal" of it. The context in which the meeting is not relevant does not appear to make it about the components as much as it makes it about the whole without reference to the meeting.)

This is the universal sense of the church. And in this sense, whether or how we meet is not the issue. But when we get back to brass tacks of continuing in our faith over a long period of time, it is the meeting of the members (that is also isolated from the whole by reference to the church in places, cities, houses, regions). And when it referred to regions, it used the plural "churches." So in that use it was not the same at the one where Christ "gave himself for her" because that one was about the whole, not the meetings.

I do not dismiss the partial use of online meetings of one kind or another as being anything about the church. But if that is simply what you call "church" then I think that there is something missing that is important. If, as ZNP has since indicated, that online is "part of a balanced diet" or physical and online meetings, then they can clearly have their place.

But at the same time I feel that the lack of real contact will result in a tendency to take such meetings less seriously. If it requires no personal commitment to be other than online, only those who are (at least at the time) "sold out" zealots for Jesus will continue with it in a serious way for very long. They will instead wear a decent shirt (if their web cam is on) and otherwise mute their microphone because they don't want anyone to hear the sound of the fingernail clippers. Or whatever.

When I refer to sold out zealots, I am not demeaning them. But the Christian life is not only for sold out zealots. Full salvation and sanctification is for those who simply believe, obey, and grow. Anyone who thinks that being a believer is about "extreme Christianity" or whatever the latest buzzword is for being one of the disciples (the few) rather than the many that Jesus taught about their living. Told them to go home and live right. Not everyone was told to follow as a disciple. Even the rich young ruler was not denied the ability to believe. Just to follow. He didn't have it.

Christianity (the collection of believers in Christ, not some negative overlay like the LCM throws around) is about believing and obeying. And for some, there is an additional call to follow like the disciples/apostles. If Christianity is only about disciples/apostles, then it isn't much because there never were many. But if it is about all who believe and obey, then it has been growing and multiplying from the beginning until this day. Even in the Dark Ages. They may have lost sight of assurance. But they did not lose sight of believing and obeying.

[ZNPaaneah]

Witness Lee got us to focus on what may have been a fully contrived goal, "the true church".

When you read the Bible this is not the issue. The very concept of "wherever two or three are gathered into My name, there I am in their midst" completely changes the focus. The issue isn't the "true church" but rather the "true Jesus".

If "the true church" is the focus, then you give Jezebel and Balaam power. You can't "walk out of the true church" and you literally become imprisoned. This appears to be what is keeping those in Laodicea from heeding the Lord's call to come out.

On the other hand if the focus is on "having Jesus in your midst" Jezebel and Balaam cannot imprison you, and you will not find yourself stuck in Laodicea when the Lord is outside.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee got us to focus on what may have been a fully contrived goal, "the true church".

Lee often presented Ephesus as a "normal" or model church, while Corinth was a "typical" church. In Revelations, Philadelphia was the model church, Smyrna was acceptable, while all the others were deficient to varying degrees. Most Bible students would agree with these assessments.

Lee would then take the "lampstand" paradigm to extremes. If Ephesus could have their lampstand removed, then obviously all of Christianity denominations have suffered the same consequences.

Similarly, any differences between LC's were considered negatively. But if homogeneity was to be lauded, then the Recovery could never compete with the Orthodox and Catholic brands.

[ZNPaaneah]

Suppose instead that a major promise indicating the true power and importance of the church is that Jesus will be in the midst of a genuine meeting of believers in His name. Something along the lines of one will put a thousand to flight, two ten thousand.

What Lee did was go through and say "that meeting is no good, and that one and that one and that one..." It was such a big deal about how to qualify as a "proper meeting", ultimately it was only the meetings he controlled, and he condemned all meetings that he didn't control. Since he didn't control the internet the entire "cyberspace" was off limits. Telephones were vehicles of gossip.

"We also need to consider the matters of gossiping, reasoning, and murmuring. Each day how much time do we spend gossiping? Some saints are very free in passing on information about others. Too much time has been wasted and too many dollars have been spent in talking vainly on the telephone. In such activities we have been outside of Christ." (Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man, Chapter 5, Section 4)

Letters, emails were also somewhat suspect.

We also need to check with ourselves about the way we write letters. Do you write letters in the spirit or in your natural man? It is very possible that much of our correspondence is done in the natural man, not in our regenerated being. There may be nothing wrong in a letter you write. Nevertheless, it may be written by the natural man, not by the spirit. The same may be true concerning our talk on the telephone. Much of the saints’ talking on the telephone is done by their natural being, not by their reborn being. (Witness Lee, The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chapter 10, Section 5)

Instead of having the "true church" what his teaching really accomplished was to distract you from the true Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Suppose instead that a major promise indicating the true power and importance of the church is that Jesus will be in the midst of a genuine meeting of believers in His name. Something along the lines of one will put a thousand to flight, two ten thousand.

What Lee did was go through and say "that meeting is no good, and that one and that one and that one..." It was such a big deal about how to qualify as a "proper meeting", ultimately it was only the meetings he controlled, and he condemned all meetings that he didn't control. Since he didn't control the internet the entire "cyberspace" was off limits. Telephones were vehicles of gossip.

"We also need to consider the matters of gossiping, reasoning, and murmuring. Each day how much time do we spend gossiping? Some saints are very free in passing on information about others. Too much time has been wasted and too many dollars have been spent in talking vainly on the telephone. In such activities we have been outside of Christ." (Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man, Chapter 5, Section 4)

Letters, emails were also somewhat suspect.

We also need to check with ourselves about the way we write letters. Do you write letters in the spirit or in your natural man? It is very possible that much of our correspondence is done in the natural man, not in our regenerated being. There may be nothing wrong in a letter you write. Nevertheless, it may be written by the natural man, not by the spirit. The same may be true concerning our talk on the telephone. Much of the saints’ talking on the telephone is done by their natural being, not by their reborn being. (Witness Lee, The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chapter 10, Section 5)

Instead of having the "true church" what his teaching really accomplished was to distract you from the true Jesus.

Why did Lee never warn us about how much time we spent sitting in meetings, "being hearers, and not doers?" Why did Lee never warn us about how much time we spent reading books (especially his) and not God's word?

I have said this before. If you listen and read Lee long enough, being warned of every danger under the sun, you will be convinced that he, and only he, should be trusted. Everything else in life has a huge warning sign in front of it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are 7 ones in Ephesians that are criteria and must be met. But these are inclusive criteria, not exclusive. It seems relatively straight forward for a group of genuine Christian believers to meet those criteria....But, the ekklesia, the gathering of the called out ones, includes any gathering (as few as 2-3) of these members who are gathering together into the name of Jesus.

Wouldn't such an important subject deserve a more comprehensive definition using all the available biblical references to form the most accurate and complte view?

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sorry ZNP, there is more to the biblical definition of a church than what you have included else the situation above would be legitimate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sounds like the glorious church life!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Good to hear from you again Drake. So glad that our little pond is one of your stops on your way South for the winter.

Let's bring your hypothetical example down to real-life, brass tacks, shall we?

Mom and Dad in the kitchen believe that all believers in their city are part of "the church in their city". But, they follow the person and work of Witness Lee, and will only meet with those who solely and fully accept "the Ministry" AS INTERPRETED by a select few "Blended Brothers." All others are persona non grata.

Now Melba and Dalton in the living room also believe that all believers in their city are part of "the church in their city". And they also follow the person and work of Witness Lee....AS INTERPRETED by one Titus Chu. They will not accept many of the interpretations of the Blended Brothers. So? What to do? What to do? Well, they will simply meet in the living room as another "church in their city". It's all good! Right?

Now we come to The Twins in the basement. They have been taking a closer look at the ministry of Watchman Nee. Opps! It seems that few of the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, or the ones tweaked by Titus Chu, seem to match up with those of Watchman. What to do? What to do? Easy! Just continue to meet as "the church in their city", but with Nee materials instead of Lee or Chu! How cool is that! Am I right?

Finally we come to dear ole gramps and gram gram in the garage. Now these old birds have been around the pond a time or two, you see. They are sick and very tired of being forced to follow the person and work of any of these men - Nee, Lee, Chu, the Blendeds. They've seen the movie and they know exactly how it ends. It ends the same exact way with the whole lot of em - division, back biting, double-crosses, personal attacks and character assignations, wanna-be apostles who claim they are more blended then the other guys....etc. etc..etc.

But, since the garage is relatively clean and the rent is cheap....they decide to just leave Mom and Dad, Melba and Dalton and the twins to fight among themselves, wasting their time, and more importantly, wasting God's time. They will simply follow the Person and work of Jesus Christ. All the others call them "the church in the garage". Oh well. No biggie. It's just a name, right?

-

Thanks for the welcome back Untohim. Just waddling through. ;-)

Pick your favorite example. Any of them will demonstrate the fallacy of ZNP's selective criteria for the definition of a church.

A city of 1 million could have as many as 500,000 churches!

Of course that would be ridiculous too.

The majority of the New Testament is to, about, and for the churches. To take a few slices and call it the complete definition is at best careless interpretation of the Bible.

[least]

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

That's where your divisive mind works- a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches.
4 separate churches? you said it.
The Lord Jesus who is building His church hears you.

These 8 people in a household, are one in the body of Christ, one in the church. One with all Jesus believers throughout time and geography. One with all Jesus believers at the same time in the same city.

Is the body of Christ divided? Christ's own body, can be divided? He is God, know you not? Who, and/or What, can divide God's body?
Even as you've decided that the household of 8 is divided into 4 separate churches, they are not divided.
Piece of advice: gods are NOT God. (you know it and admit it, you who proclaim yourself god.)

Four "elders"? Your mindset of 'our place and positions'. That's the mindset of the pharisees and priests who would have Jesus killed.

Shepard (s)- feed the lambs, feed the sheep.
Members one to another, building up in love.

in Ephesians chapter 4:
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

NOTE: NO 'one publication'. !!!
You divide yourselves into the 'one publication' prison, yet the body of Christ is not divided. If you are a member of the body of Christ, you are one with all members of the body of Christ.
And the greatest is LOVE. Agape love. Not NLW blending love.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wouldn't such an important subject deserve a more comprehensive definition using all the available biblical references to form the most accurate and complte view?

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sorry ZNP, there is more to the biblical definition of a church than what you have included else the situation above would be legitimate.

This is an open forum, educate us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for the welcome back Untohim. Just waddling through. ;-)

Pick your favorite example. Any of them will demonstrate the fallacy of ZNP's selective criteria for the definition of a church.

A city of 1 million could have as many as 500,000 churches!

Of course that would be ridiculous too.

The majority of the New Testament is to, about, and for the churches. To take a few slices and call it the complete definition is at best careless interpretation of the Bible.

But if there are 500,000 cities (towns, villages, cities, hamlets, etc) then you would have 500,000 churches worldwide, even though there is only one church. So you haven't eliminated this conundrum. How can 1 church be divided into 500,000 smaller gatherings and still be "one".

Well, if they all have one God, one Father, one Lord, one Spirit, one baptism, one faith -- then every meeting regardless of how big or small is still part of the one worldwide gathering of believers.

More importantly, suppose you do have a church, according to whatever definition you will give us (why are you keeping us in suspense?) and this church is perfect in every single point except one, they don't have the presence of Jesus. The Lord of Lords is not in their midst. Does it really matter that they fit your definition?

On the other hand if a gathering has too few members to meet your definition (whatever it is) but they are meeting into the name of Jesus and He is in their midst, then who cares that they don't have Witness Lee's good housekeeping seal of approval? If Jesus, the Lord of Lords is in their midst who cares what Witness Lee has to say? He did not die for our sins. We are not servants of WL. To our own master we will stand or fall. Who is WL or anyone else to judge the servants of Jesus Christ?

Least》"That's where your divisive mind works- a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches. "

I know, it's absurd!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why?

You do understand that a "home meeting" does not indicate that everyone in the meeting is in the same family? The church in Odessa met in a home until they got too large, about 25 adults from a number of different families.

Are you familiar with Merriam and Moses in the book of Exodus?

It seems this is very vague and impractical a definition.

That is true but the family is the base group for the home meeting. That is, even if no one else came, the family itself would probably hold a meeting.

Excommunication would not make sense if the home meeting is just the family as it would involve disassociation (1 Cor 5:11). How can a husband "excommunicate" his wife? or his children? He cannot.

Therefore a church must be at least larger than a single family.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is true but the family is the base group for the home meeting. That is, even if no one else came, the family itself would probably hold a meeting.

Excommunication would not make sense if the home meeting is just the family as it would involve disassociation (1 Cor 5:11). How can a husband "excommunicate" his wife? or his children? He cannot.

Therefore a church must be at least larger than a single family.

So then, according to your definition of a church, you cannot be a church unless excommunication is practical?

Am I understanding this correctly. A husband and wife, having a meeting in their home, cannot view this as the "church" because how could the husband excommunicate his wife?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you are saying?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, according to your definition of a church, you cannot be a church unless excommunication is practical?

Am I understanding this correctly. A husband and wife, having a meeting in their home, cannot view this as the "church" because how could the husband excommunicate his wife?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you are saying?

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

What about Moses and Miriam?

What happens if the son of "the Apostle" needs to be excommunicated?

What happens if an elder has a wife, and one of them gets excommunicated?

Jesus compares divorce with amputation. Saying that a husband cannot excommunicate a wife is like saying a doctor cannot amputate a damaged limb.

This is the most inane example of grasping at straws.

Not to mention "Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their house".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

So here is a paradox. You have 2 or 3 gathering together into the name of Jesus, and Jesus is in their midst. However, these 2-3 were excommunicated by Witness Lee and LSM. Now if Jesus is in the midst of the 2-3, then who got amputated from the Body of Christ?

Reminds me of the church in Laodicea. They thought they were rich, they thought they had need of nothing. Except for one tiny little problem, Jesus was outside knocking for them to come out. They didn't have Jesus.

I wonder, when Jesus left was it due to the church in Laodicea "excommunicating" Him?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What about Moses and Miriam?

What happens if the son of "the Apostle" needs to be excommunicated?

What happens if an elder has a wife, and one of them gets excommunicated?

Jesus compares divorce with amputation. Saying that a husband cannot excommunicate a wife is like saying a doctor cannot amputate a damaged limb.

This is the most inane example of grasping at straws.

Not to mention "Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their house".

I'd like to know how you think a husband could excommunicate his wife. It would amount to divorce. This verse could not apply between husband and wife:

1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

A husband is supposed to not eat with his wife if she is a drunkard.

[ZNPaaneah]

That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but this thread is trying to ascertain the New Testament definition of a church.

In particular we have become hung up on the minimum number of members in the church before it can be called a church.

You have argued that it cannot be three members where two are husband and wife because the husband could not excommunicate his wife.

I have resisted the urge to mock this definition rather I would like to examine the implications.

Since an "elder" is supposed to be "the husband of one wife" this issue would arise in every single "church". Your previous definition of a church is that they would have to have two male elders. However, it was pointed out that the NT says "appoint elders in every church" so then they were a church prior to the elders being appointed.

So now you say that 3 members meeting in a home could not be a church because how could two of them excommunicate the third if they were related by marriage which would be likely. I'll refer to this doctrine as the doctrine of "primo excommunicado" meaning that before you can be a church you must be able to excommunicate.

This reminds me of the church in Ephesus who examined those who claimed to be apostles and were not. Jesus commended them on this work, but if I recall there was some issue with that church, if I remember correctly there was something that Jesus was not happy about, He had something against the church in Ephesus, something they needed to repent of. And you know, if I remember correctly, Jesus told them that they could lose their lamp stand over that issue. Some issue that determines whether or not a church is a lamp stand, now that seems to me to be something that should go into our definition. Was it "primo excommunicado", nope, but there was something that took the first place.

[Evangelical]

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'd like to know how you think a husband could excommunicate his wife. It would amount to divorce. This verse could not apply between husband and wife:

1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

A husband is supposed to not eat with his wife if she is a drunkard.

This happens often in exclusive circles.

Think Amish.

The true Darby lineage Exclusive Brethren have such rules. They can not eat with unsaved family members over age twelve.

The Recovery is headed down the same path. Just wait and see.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

They were unwilling to sit thru one more training meeting?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

Great point, Martha was worried about a lot of things but Jesus told her that Mary had chosen something more important that would not be taken away from her.

Which makes me think of a perfectly useless and impractical definition, but one that evokes warm memories of my LC experience.

A church needs to have those that love Jesus, serve Jesus and have experienced Jesus in His resurrection power (Mary, Martha and Lazarus).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

Very good point.

I do know of an example of someone who had been in Dallas, then moved up to OKC but still have relatives back in Dallas. The one in OCK began to entice some young sisters into compromising situations (we'll leave it at that). When it was discovered and there was not repentance, he was cast out in OKC. And because of the connections back in Dallas, we were advised of the situation and the status.

Was everything about this one done right? I don't know. But it does stand as one (and maybe the only) situation in which external forces were not behind any such situation whether or not otherwise warranted.

[OBW]

This seemed more appropriate here.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is not correct. The LC has the name of Christ, others have names other than Christ.

"To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.""

Yes, because of the previous point, they are not real churches because they commit spiritual fornication. The other churches have no issue taking a name other than the Lord and approve of others who do likewise. In other words, the one who has the name of Christ is the genuine wife.

It depends. A church will often tend to use one version over another. Others have unique prayer books and service books. During my 30 years in denominations, I have been in many situations where everyone chose to use a common bible version for convenience, or the pastor recommended one over another.

Cooperation but no genuine unity.

There is a lot in this one.

First, the LC has a significant name other than Christ. In fact, their name is so important that, if possible, they will join with another group already bearing that name, try to convince them to follow Lee and use the RecV, and if they fail, either try to make things miserable for them, or separate from them and declare themselves to be a variation on the name they really wanted.

(And consider this one in conjunction with the last internal quote, below.)

To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.

This one is the real whack job. Make a statement that is not actually supported by the scripture (even those passages in 1 Cor) and thereby call everyone but yourselves apostate and heretical.

And you want to lay claim to any kind of unity? What a joke!!

And you are proud of your claim that you are the one true church.

I find it funny that Corinth, the scene of the problems that you are so adamant cause apostasy and heresy were not called that by Paul when writing to the church in Corinth. And they were happening within the church. Not outside of the church by heretical, apostate wannabes. And you are so certain that the church in Corinth was simply this singular thing that was named in a way that supports your claim to not have a name.

You will need to deal with how the problems that you call "not true church" were happening within the one that you claim was the only true church in the city.

As for the common bible usage, it is clear that there is nothing particularly wrong with such a practice. It makes reading together much more coherent.

But that is not what goes on in certain kinds of "churches." It is quite common that groups that want to be "THE church" with "THE truth" will often go to great lengths to create a translation that brings all the things they like best together into one place. But more than that, they want to retranslate certain things in ways that create emphasis or even new meaning to certain things so that their peculiar teachings now can be claimed to be "from the Bible" rather than just from the teaching of their favorite minister. For the LCM, that version is the RecV and that leader is(was) Lee.

Even benign things like retranslating so many instances of "truth" into "reality" has no real value other than to provide a way to elevate your version of truth to the status of "reality" and thereby denigrating all other "truth" to heresy and apostasy.

No need to prove that your interpretation of what is the truth is, in fact, the truth because you have already given it the superior title of "reality" and it can no longer be questioned.

And last, you want to claim genuine unity when you won't even cooperate. You have no idea what genuine unity is. Cooperation is part of it. It means that people with differing ideas about things that are not central to the Full Gospel of Christ are willing to cooperate with each other. But you are not. That undermines even cooperation. If you can't cooperate, you can't claim to be in unity with anyone except those who absolutely agree with you 100% on all things. So rather than strive to keep the unity of the faith, you are casting off all those who do not keep maintain unity of the minutia.

Way beyond faith.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is quite common that groups that want to be "THE church" with "THE truth" will often go to great lengths to create a translation that brings all the things they like best together into one place.

This always makes me think of a quote by G. K. Chesterton which I find fitting:

The heretic (who is also the fanatic) is not a man who loves the truth too much; no man can love truth too much. The heretic is a man who loves his truth more than truth itself. He prefers the half-truth that he has found to the whole truth which humanity has found. He does not like to see his own precious little paradox merely bound up with twenty truisms into the bundle of the wisdom of the world.

I don't quite think the LC heretics (not quite), but I thought this quote fitting.

By the way, is it perhaps better to move my and evangelical's discussion of the definition of "denomination" (under my testimony) to this thread?

[UntoHim]

Distant Star,

When you get a chance, could you please point me to the posts you want to move. Please include the post #s, or if applicable, a series of post #s. Thanks.

***To All.

I think this is an extremely important subject to discuss on this forum. Accordingly, let's all try to keep from introducing side issues, such as excommunication, heretical teachings, details regarding the functions of elders, etc, etc.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

However, to be fair to Witness Lee the term "sect" as a work of the flesh is used in the New Testament. This word is sometimes translated as "heresy" and "damnable heresy". So although the term "true church" isn't used, there is quite a lot of evidence of "counterfeit" gatherings referred to in the New Testament.

"Many Christians know that heresy refers to something negative, but not many know the real meaning of heresy. In these days, I have been burdened to put out a tract on the subject of the true meaning of heresy. If you consult a dictionary, you will discover that heresy is an anglicized Greek word—a Greek word brought over into the English language. Do you know what heresy is? To know what heresy is, we must go to the New Testament and understand the meaning and usage of this word in the Greek language. We cannot derive the meaning of the word heresy simply by studying a lexicon. We must know both the meaning of the Greek word and its usage in the New Testament. The Greek word hairesis is used nine times in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1). The adjective form, hairetikos, is found in Titus 3:10. In most of the occurrences of the word hairesis the meaning is “sect.” For example, Acts 5:17 speaks of “the sect (hairesis) of the Sadducees.” In Acts 24:5 Paul was accused of being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here, a small number from the Jewish religion followed Jesus to form another group which was considered by others as a sect. Paul uses the word hairesis strongly in Galatians 5:20, ranking heresy with works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, and witchcraft. Immediately before speaking of heresies, Paul mentions “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions.” Hence, wrath, strife, seditions, and heresies are related to each other. First we have wrath, then strife, and after strife we have seditions. Following these are heresies. This means that if we strive and fight with others, the result will be divisions that issue in sects. Thus, in this verse, Darby translates hairesis as “schools of opinion.” To have a school of opinion means to hold an opinion that causes you to be separated and divided from others and to form into a sect." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 8, Section 4)

So this is a very, very high standard. Every single gathering of Christians has opinions and has a certain level of agreement on those opinions otherwise the gathering is completely unstable and will explode.

If that group develops enough their opinions will become a "school of opinions". They will publish, they will write, they will defend their ideas, etc. Some claim that they are exempt from this, but I have yet to see that in my life. I don't think the NT condemns this as it could fall under the "study to show yourself approved".

But when your teaching, your opinions, that your sect holds "causes you to be separated and divided from others" that is when it becomes a "damnable heresy".

Therefore I think the definition of the church in the NT is very clear that there is "one" church. This is because there is one Lord. There is one kingdom. There is one family of God. No teacher, no teaching, no person has a monopoly on this. The prerequisite to entering into this kingdom is to receive Jesus Christ by faith. You are not required to subscribe to any particular teaching, ministry or minister. There is one baptism that is our entrance into this kingdom.

The question therefore becomes whether Witness Lee was right in identifying all other Christian gatherings as being "heretical" (i.e. sectarian) and therefore "not the true church". Or was his teaching about the "true church" actually sectarian and divisive. I think it is undeniable that the Local Church is a "school of opinion" with their own publications, trainings, terminology, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel. (Witness Lee, (Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

Witness Lee uses Revelation 2 to conclude that "the New Testament forbids women to teach". Why? Revelation 2 refers to Jezebel, a "prophetess".

Revelation 2 also refers to Balaam, a false prophet, yet Witness Lee doesn't use that reference to conclude that the New Testament forbids men to teach.

Using this reference to say that it "shows that God forbids women to teach" is very much in line with his use of these references to say that the New Testament teaches there is one church in one city.

This reference also refers to Evangelical's claim that the New Testament definition of a church includes "two male elders".

The connection to me is it undermines Witness Lee's credibility in defining what is and is not a church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

If we agree that a church is a gathering of the called out ones into the name of Jesus and that they are regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians, and use that as our standard for what is and is not a church. Then the only church of the 7 that I see as being a potentially "false one" is Laodicea. I say this because where 2 or 3 are gathered together into the name of Jesus there He is in their midst. I am equating "gathering together into the name of Jesus" as being regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians.

Since Jesus is not in the midst of the church in Laodicea it is reasonable to say that they don't meet that standard.

But according to the record you could certainly have 2 or 3 genuine believers fulfilling this requirement in Thyatira, and there is no suggestion that Jesus is not in their midst.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

I can easily disprove this. Revelation 1:4 says "To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

Yes, it is one church (the universal church), but also 7 churches (7 local churches), one in each of the 7 cities. It's not that hard, is it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since Jesus is not in the midst of the church in Laodicea it is reasonable to say that they don't meet that standard.

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

It was John the Apostle, in his last days on earth, who gave that definition.

Listen to yourself! "A church of demons confessing Jesus came in the flesh."

And to respond to your absurd speculations -- yes, I think I would prefer an upright polygamist (Jacob basically had 4 wives remember) to the ungodly, degenerate, molesting, abusive, money hungry adulterer who headed up LSM for years -- the late Phillip Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can easily disprove this. Revelation 1:4 says "To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

Yes, it is one church (the universal church), but also 7 churches (7 local churches), one in each of the 7 cities. It's not that hard, is it?

How does this disprove that "any gathering of these believers has the potential to be a church"?

John wrote to 7 gatherings, 7 churches, in a province. Each of these churches was identified by the town they lived in.

But that is not proof. When God wants to give us a commandment it is very clear that there is a commandment.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

I also agree that using the presence of the Lord is not realistic or practical as a definition.

I think that the 7 ones are the only NT requirements for a "genuine", "proper" or "true" christian gathering.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

Why are you getting so slimy? Just point us to the verses in the NT that define the church, what it is, what constitutes a church, etc. Surely, something as important as this will have plenty of verses defining, describing, and qualifying it.

It is quite a turnoff to hear such ridiculous accusations. Do you really think that Ohio was claiming that "a church of demons would be a true church"? This type of rhetoric is offensive and unbecoming.

Has Ohio ever given anyone reason to say that he claimed Jesus was a polygamist? This is vile rhetoric. Please stop.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also agree that using the presence of the Lord is not realistic or practical as a definition.

I think that the 7 ones are the only NT requirements for a "genuine", "proper" or "true" christian gathering.

The "presence of the Lord" is too subjective of a test for churches, but admittedly, many seeking Christians will use that "test" when visiting churches.

I have many Catholic friends and family who feel the "presence of the Lord" at mass. Who am I to argue? After I was saved, I went to a marriage mass, received communion, and I was filled with the Spirit and the "presence of the Lord." I know some who have been saved at Mass.

[Ohio]

This was posted anonymously a few years back, and has some points pertinent to our discussion ... (Bolding is mine.)

When approaching Christian unity, the higher principles which are talked about by the Lord Jesus directly are "loving one another" (Mark 12:31-33) and "oneness" (John 17:21) among the believers. These two principles are the most directly taught and therefore, the most important. Any attempt to practically implement these higher principles must always be examined to ensure that these higher principles are not being undermined by the practical implementation itself. Two paradigms have emerged on this thread as ways to view the teaching of the church, and these two paradigms correspond to two very different ways of obtaining practical oneness among believers. The two paradigms are:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

The topic of this thread is to examine paradigm #1, “one city, one church”. I would like to challenge every local churcher to go back to the Bible and re-evaluate this teaching and ask some hard questions about why you have come to believe this. Have you ever done a personal study apart from the training and conferences given by others? Trainings and conferences are good, but many times the presentation of truth has been filtered so that only one side of an argument is presented. Without seeing evidence for both sides you are impotent to decide for yourself what the merits of a teaching are and whether it should be accepted as a teaching which binds all Christians.

Ephesians 4:14 warns us “that we may no longer be little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching...” Ultimately we are responsible for what we believe and it is not enough to stand before God and say “Brother so-and-so said so” even though we love the brothers very much. You need to determine individually what you will believe about the “ground of the church”. As a fellow local churcher I had never got to hear the arguments which refuted this teaching, so naturally I believed it. Now, after studying this matter myself I have personally concluded that this teaching is not supported by the Bible. I would just like to share the reasons I feel this is not a teaching that carries the weight of Biblical authority. My main point is that this teaching is not binding upon a believer nor is it necessary to practice to keep the oneness.

Below I will address reasons that are cited as support for the “one city, one church” or “local ground” teaching and I will follow that by a response for your consideration:

(1) In the Old Testament, the temple had to be built upon the proper ground. This is a type of the New Testament church being built upon the proper ground. While the foundation is Christ in the New Testament, the ground and the foundation are not the same. The foundation must lie upon the ground and the ground of the church is the city - one city, one church.

Only a few verses in the New Testament talk about the building of God upon the ground. One such verse is Colossians 2:7-8 and contrary to proving that the ground is the city, it actually proves that the ground is not the city but the GROUND is CHRIST. It says, "being rooted and builded up in Him (the ground), and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ"

The New Testament precedent for the ground is Christ. We are ROOTED in Him. These verses even strongly warn us not to build upon any other ground than that of Christ. The other place which the Bible speaks of the foundation resting upon something is in Luke 6:47-49, “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep and laid a foundation on the rock. And when a flood came, the river broke out against that house, yet it was not strong enough to shake it, because it had been built well.” This verse speaks of building the foundation upon the rock. The Rock also represents Christ (1 Cor 10:4, Deut. 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:2). Therefore, no matter where you want to put the foundation of God’s building, you can't get around putting it on Christ (unless you put it on the sand). These verses prove that the ground is Christ and NOT the city.

At this point, some do concede that the ground is Christ – but then quickly add that there is an earthly ground and a heavenly ground. The claim is that the earthly ground is the city, but the heavenly ground is Christ. What must be recognized, however, is that we are not given permission to make very fundamental points like this without verses to establish them. Does the New Testament teach us that there is an "earthly ground of locality" and a "heavenly ground of Christ"? To say this would be akin to claiming that there is an earthly foundation and a heavenly foundation. Surely you would demand Biblical proof for this to prevent the pure foundation of Christ from being marred and something being added to it. The same is true for the ground. The New Testament does not teach of an “earthly” and “heavenly” ground and neither are we permitted to. The ground is recognized as only one thing in the New Testament, and that is Christ. The church is built on Christ and we should not add “locality” to it.

(2) Because the New Testament mentions a spiritual city to come (the New Jerusalem) that means Christians everywhere should gather around city boundaries as a miniature of this future city to come...and if a Christian does not gather around the ground of city boundaries then they are not practicing the real oneness.

This statement mixes up some wonderful truth with some very wrong assumptions. The part that echoes inside of the Christian as truth is the fact that today we can have experiences that give us a foretaste of the New Jerusalem. This is consistent with what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:5 - “You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house...” This verse shows us that today, in this age we are being together as a spiritual house. The experience of this spiritual house is not only reserved for a coming age, it can even be experience by us today. Therefore, it seems likely that when we have real experiences of being built together as a spiritual house in this age, we are getting a foretaste (even if only a small one) of the spiritual house that is to come, the New Jerusalem.

The error in this statement is in connecting physical cities with a spiritual city in a way that tries to support an argument for “one city, one church”. The logic says that because what is coming is a city, therefore we should practice oneness today by keeping the city boundary. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual. A symbolic spiritual city that will be fully realized in the future makes no implication that we should try to keep physical city boundaries as our oneness today. This would be like saying that because the book of Revelation says there are streets of gold in the New Jerusalem we should all pave our streets with gold today. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual that the apostles of the time never taught (and for good reason!). If you want to establish a doctrine you must have verses to back it up and there are no biblical support for this rather odd teaching.

Not many Christians who know their Bible will accept this kind of logic as truth that should bind them. A spiritual city in the future does not obligate people to keep physical city boundaries today. This would mean that everybody who lives out in the country would be missing out on some "mystical experience" that you can only get in cities. Even common sense proves this to be ridiculous.

(3) In Revelation 1:11 & 1:20 there are 7 letters sent to 7 cities delivered by 7 messengers to 7 lampstands which are the 7 churches. This proves at that time there was "one city, one church" because we see no more or less than 7 churches in 7 cities and this disproves that there were multiple assemblies in any of those cities, one of which was the disputed Laodicea (Col 4:15).

Recall the two different paradigms for practical oneness being discussed:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

This statement is an attempt to disprove paradigm #2 in favor of paradigm #1. If you look at things through the paradigm of "where two or three gather" = the church, you will see there is no problem with these verses. You can refer to believers as a house together and that is "the church". You can combine two houses together if you like and that is "the church" and as in these verses you can refer to all the believers at the city level as “the church”.

In these verses there is no doubt that He is addressing 7 collections of believers at the city level, but where you begin to assume things is when you begin to say He is addressing 7 "city churches" as if this were his only unit of measurement. If Jesus had an official unit of measurement, it would have been stated with a verse

On the contrary, Acts 9:31 states “So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied.” This verse gives us the freedom to group whole regions containing cities together and refer to that as "the church". Would you then make the claim that because the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee are referred to as "the church" in this verse, then that means there are no individual churches in their respective cities? Of course not. In the same way, just because the Lord Jesus has chosen to group an entire city together and refer to it as "the church" that does not mean there were not its respective house churches. He is simply addressing his called out ones at the city level versus the regional level or the house level. Whether I choose to group the believers together as "the church" at the neighborhood level, community level, city level, etc. they are still "the church". Having one does not exclude having the other. It is merely a different form of grouping.

Neither paradigm can be disproved based on these verses alone. However, from other places in the New Testament we know that the “one city, one church” pattern IS disputable in some places and IS NOT binding upon all believers. This will be the subject of the next point.

(4) In Revelation chapter 2 & 3 notice the churches are addressed according to the city, i.e. “the church in Ephesus”, “the church in Smyrna”, “the church in Pergamos”, etc. Also notice in the salutation of Paul’s epistles in books such as Thessalonians where Paul addresses his letter to the "church of the Thessalonians". In the New Testament, believers practiced “one city, one church”. This proves that we should also practice the same "one city, one church" pattern.

This has been well-traveled topic of discussion on this forum. The argument comes down to "pattern theology". In considering the above point, two questions must be considered:
A) Is there a consistent, clear pattern in the New Testament for "one city, one church"?
B) If there is a clear pattern, should it be binding upon all believers today?

A) Is there a clear, consistent pattern?

In many cases, believers are addressed at the city level in the New Testament. However, if we wish to say something is a New Testament pattern, it must always hold true. There are some sections of verses where discerning such a pattern is indeed disputable. Take, for example, Philemon 2, Romans 16:3-5 and Colossians 4:15. These three verse sets all speak of “house churches”. The local churches generally teach that in the cases where you find verses such as these that refer to churches located in homes that these “house churches” include all the believers in the city. It is my main point in this section not to disprove this point by saying that all the believers in that certain city were definitely not all gathering in that house, which would be equally disputable, but to simply point out the fact that you can only argue that “one city, one church” is a New Testament pattern based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Philemon 2 states, “And to Apphia the sister and to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church, which is in your house.” Philemon most likely lived in Colossae because the book of Colossians links Philemon’s slave Onesimus to the city of Colossae (Col 4:9). Proof can neither be found in Philemon nor in Colossians that all the believers in the city of Colossae met in the house of Philemon. It is possible that Philemon simply had some believers in Colossae meet in his home, yet Paul refers to them as “the church”. Of course, you can also assume that all the believers in Colossae were meeting in the home of Philemon. Neither argument is definite nor carries scriptural authority. Therefore, a “one city, one church” pattern in Philemon is based on an assumption.

Romans 16:3-5 says, “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life ... and greet the church, which is in their house.” It is also possible that the church in the house of Aquilla & Priscilla does not include all the believers in that city and instead it is a house church with some of the believers in Rome. In fact, if you estimate the number of believers that Paul greets in Rome in this section it comes out to somewhere around 40 saints! It is a big house that is able to fit all 40 believers in it. Of course, you can argue the other way as well. You could argue that Aquilla & Priscilla had a huge heart for the Lord and as a service to Christ and the church they built a very large room to contain all the saints. This is an equally valid argument. What can’t be denied is that whichever way you choose to see it, you are making an assumption.

This also holds true with the end of Colossians, though in a much stronger way. Colossians 4:15 says, “Greet the brothers in Laodicea, as well as Nymphas and the church, which is in his house.” You can argue that all the believers that are in Laodicea are in the house of Nymphas. Here, however it is much more disputable because of the phrase "as well as". If I were to say to “greet my family as well as Mike” you probably would not assume that Mike were a member of my family. This does not concretely prove that Mike is not a member of my family but it certainly does imply the fact. The Greek word here is “kai” which is normally translated as “and” or “also”. The New American Standard version translates this verse as “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.” This is an even stronger argument that the house of Nympha was considered a “church” even though it did not include all the brothers in Laodicea. As in the case with Aquilla & Priscilla, I would not go so far the other way to say that this definitely proves that there were separate assemblies in Laodicea. You could make arguments the other way as well but no matter which way you argue, you are making an assumption.

As proven in these three examples, in order to establish that there is a pattern for "one city, one church" in the New Testament, you must make ASSUMPTIONS in no minor way. Since assumptions must be made the pattern is not clear and all believers may not see it the same. In fact, house church networks use these verses as a Biblical basis for the way they practice the church life. They obviously have seen these verses differently than we were taught. Is their interpretation right and our interpretation wrong? No one knows. The fact that assumptions are involved makes it difficult to say that it should be binding on all believers since now they must agree with YOUR personal assumption. Therefore, if we insist on the “one city, one church” pattern we run the risk of becoming divisive as it relates to the rest of the Body of Christ, basically telling them they must agree and order their church life with our assumptions or they are not practicing real oneness.

B) If so, should it binding upon all believers?

Now suppose for a second that someone is gracious enough to grant you that “one city, one church" is indeed an established New Testament pattern. Now the question becomes should that pattern be binding on us today? Were the apostles in practicing this pattern trying to set up a "blueprint" which would be binding for all time, or is this instead how the Spirit worked at that time? Firstly, you would expect that if this blueprint was to be kept and to be binding there would be direct apostolic statement related to keeping this pattern, or rebukes in cases where believers were not keeping the pattern. However, there are no direct teachings by the apostles about the “ground of locality”. Furthermore, you would expect many of the details related to the "one city, one church" pattern to be either explained or described in detail so that Christians wouldn't mess it up. After all, God knows that a created men often see things differently and would need something spelled out or at least "patternized" point by point. Do we see this in the scriptures? A resounding no! Instead, we see something a little more like what happened in Acts when the believers practiced communal living. Why did they do this? Was God trying to tell every believer today that they must pool together their possessions? If you say no, then you are arguing against our stated truth of the "ground of locality". These items are a historical account of how the Spirit operated with those particular believers at that particular time. It would seem indeed cruel of God to make such an obscure picture, then expect all Christians to agree upon it, and then charge them that this is the only way to keep the practical oneness.

Other Christian groups have followed this same “pattern” logic as well over slightly different New Testament practices. One such pattern is that on the first day (Sunday) of the believers gathered together in Troas (Acts 20:7). Some say based on this New Testament pattern that if you break bread on any day other than Sunday (the first day of the week) then you are lost! In Acts 20:7 we have a limited peek into what happened in one town among one group of disciples on one weekend. Was this characteristic of their normal custom? Was this the ONLY day they "broke bread" together? Do we know? Was this the custom in other cities in the Empire? Do we know? The fact is we don’t know...and never will. There are Christians out there insisting that you are lost if you break bread on a weekday. The potential patterns are endless...someone infers that a first century disciple observed the Lord's Supper with only one cup, then you and I had better do the same or face a thousand years of you know what. All this leads to is unnecessary division in the Body of Christ – I can’t fellowship with you because you don’t use only one cup. Among us, holding onto the “ground of locality” teaching/pattern has led us down a road of exclusiveness towards other Christians. If we insist that all believers should be practicing the church life in this way we are divisive.

(5) Keeping “one city, one church” helps us to be "one" in practicality because it causes us to take the cross.

Geography is powerless to produce true oneness. Gal 5:19-20 says, “And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, divisions, sects.” Factions, divisions, and sects are the result of the flesh, not because believers failed to gather in the principle of geographical boundaries. Geography cannot force someone to be spiritual and take the cross. This is why in many localities there are currently factions, divisions, and sects despite the "local ground" teaching. The cross is spiritual and must be applied spiritually.

The real test for oneness and the one that bears apostolic authority is found in Ephesians 4:13. This verse refers to the unity of "the faith". It is the faith that unites us. It has nothing to do with a physical boundary. This is why John 4:20-24 state:"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place to worship. Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship the Father."

We like to emphasize the geography like the Samaritan did, "You must do it here and if not then you are off". Jesus had a much deeper view and got to the root of it. You must worship in "spirit" and in "truth". If you do this, no other burden is laid upon you...not even the city boundary.

(6) Practical oneness can only be expressed when all believers in a city meet together under one roof and one administration.

The Bible never says that all believers in a certain city must meet under the same roof. It doesn't say that all believers in a city must be "blended" together. Just because I don't live under the same roof as my Mom and Dad, even though we are in the same city, does not mean that we are divided. There are families of believers under different roofs, and as long as a family is only holding onto the "unity of the faith" (Eph 4:13) then practical oneness is expressed.

That said, many of the denominations and church splits are indeed due to the works of the flesh which have caused division. This is not being denied, nor is it being celebrated. But if you think about this, these things have happened right among us as well.

The Bible also lacks many details about how administation (eldership) should be carried out. It is the local churches assumption that all the elders in a local area should be in coordination. However, the Bible never talks in detail about the need to have this specific form of administration.


=================

SOME FINAL POINTS

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why are you getting so slimy? Just point us to the verses in the NT that define the church, what it is, what constitutes a church, etc. Surely, something as important as this will have plenty of verses defining, describing, and qualifying it.

It is quite a turnoff to hear such ridiculous accusations. Do you really think that Ohio was claiming that "a church of demons would be a true church"? This type of rhetoric is offensive and unbecoming.

Has Ohio ever given anyone reason to say that he claimed Jesus was a polygamist? This is vile rhetoric. Please stop.

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

A church of demons would be a true church?

Only if they called themselves "the church in _____" and bought all their books from LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

So then, if you think it is a fair and right to "take someone's views to their logical conclusion" and then ascribe that meaning to what the person said then you must agree that if a church of demons is "on the proper ground" that is, if they call themselves "the church in ______".

I just can't believe you would say that! It is shocking! Since this is what the Local church of Witness Lee does, and it is reasonable to equate certain individuals and their behavior to "demonic" then, oh my! You just equated the Local church to a church of demons!

Please note, this post is simply stressing the incorrect view that you can take something to its logical extreme and then ascribe that meaning to the person who said it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was posted anonymously a few years back, and has some points pertinent to our discussion ...

When approaching Christian unity, the higher principles which are talked about by the Lord Jesus directly are "loving one another" (Mark 12:31-33) and "oneness" (John 17:21) among the believers. These two principles are the most directly taught and therefore, the most important. Any attempt to practically implement these higher principles must always be examined to ensure that these higher principles are not being undermined by the practical implementation itself.

Wow, that was a very long quote for you. Great quote for this thread.

But I wanted to just hit on these two points, I think they are huge. For the sake of this thread I would ask how can these become part of a definition of the church, because I do agree with the premise. "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another". Since we have already defined the church as a gathering of the Lord's disciples, and since the definition is so that we could know what the church is, this seems the critical component. [Think how different this is from "excommunication" and "two male elders" the two previous suggestions.]

I would argue, based on my study, that the answer is in Matthew 18.

Most Christians will immediately associate Matt 18 with excommunication rather than love, but lets look at a few verses.

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Think about this, Balaam taught Balak to cause the children of Israel to stumble. This is a crucial component of a false prophet. It is this lack of love for one another that should be sending out the major warning.

12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish

This is the key indicator that they have love for one another. They are not willing that any one would perish. This is the context where two or three are going to the offending party to get them to repent. These ones are trying to rescue the lost sheep. This is where we get the promise that "I will be in their midst". The indication is that this is going to be like David vs Goliath.

The point of dealing with sin in Matt 18 is that someone has stumbled the babes in Christ, they have brought the worldly ruler into the church, and some are standing against the destruction that is being wrought.

Instead of this, in the phony churches you will see "purges". You will learn of "sister's rebellions". It will be very obvious to all who observe carefully that it is the will of Witness Lee or whoever the leader is that "Some perish". That is the mark of a Jezebel. Cry blasphemy and then try and stone the person to death, all so that you can seize control of their vineyard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But I wanted to just hit on these two points, I think they are huge. For the sake of this thread I would ask how can these become part of a definition of the church, because I do agree with the premise. "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another". Since we have already defined the church as a gathering of the Lord's disciples, and since the definition is so that we could know what the church is, this seems the critical component. [Think how different this is from "excommunication" and "two male elders" the two previous suggestions.]

This is the key indicator that they have love for one another. They are not willing that any one would perish. This is the context where two or three are going to the offending party to get them to repent. These ones are trying to rescue the lost sheep. This is where we get the promise that "I will be in their midst". The indication is that this is going to be like David vs Goliath.

The point of dealing with sin in Matt 18 is that someone has stumbled the babes in Christ, they have brought the worldly ruler into the church, and some are standing against the destruction that is being wrought.

Instead of this, in the phony churches you will see "purges". You will learn of "sister's rebellions". It will be very obvious to all who observe carefully that it is the will of Witness Lee or whoever the leader is that "Some perish". That is the mark of a Jezebel. Cry blasphemy and then try and stone the person to death, all so that you can seize control of their vineyard.

Great points!

The so-called "love for the truth" and the desire to be a "pure bride" for the Lord often gets twisted in the minds of leaders. It results in an obsession for proper doctrine and justification for the elimination of undesirables.

I agree they have their verses. For example, the Blendeds longed to dump Titus Chu, but needed to do it "properly," so they wrote him two long letters, sent them certified mail, and sent copies to all the other LC's, just so they could declare to all that they followed Titus 3.10, "A sectarian man after the 1st and 2nd admonition reject." Forget about love, love for the hundreds of brothers and sisters in the region. LSM was compelled by Lee's authoritative doctrines, both verbal and written instructions, to keep the Recovery "pure" for the Lord. So what if we have a few casualties along the way. There will always be the collateral of war, and "are not we the warrior to defeat Satan?"

"By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another?" Where was this instruction from the Lord? Who could see the love of God in those excommunications? Who even knew what TC was being excommunicated for? Oh yeah, the first item was his obsession with "clean sheets."

[JJ]

I love where ZNPaaneah and Ohio are going with this thread.

The church is where Paul's exhortation in Galations 6:1 applies, that is:

"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

[Freedom]

The LC is certainly a close-knit group of Christians, however, that can give members a false sense of security when it comes to the obligation to love one another. If love is a presumption, then it is easy to assume there is no additional effort needed. It's easy for members to view things just like that, because after all, they can travel almost anywhere and receive hospitality with complete strangers. I know that I have some good memories of this aspect of the LC. Members often make reference to these things, saying "where else can you find this."

So it seems that all is fine and dandy until a 'situation' arises. Then when love is put to the test, it all too often fails. And I don't claim for a second that other groups fail in this way too, but there are so many indicators that the LC is full of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander. It seemingly comes out of nowhere. The group members once believed to be so special always finds a way to rear its ugly head.

[ZNPaaneah]

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Let's see how our definition compares with the church in Philadelphia.

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.

2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?

3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.

4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.

5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

I wanted to comment on the last point because I think there is the potential for this to be misunderstood. The key words here are "can be." In other words, a small size does not invalidate a church. With regards to large groups, it's not uncommon to automatically validate large groups based on their size. Speaking for myself, I know that I'm inclined to do just that, thinking that if a group is growing and large, it must be doing something right. There's always that possibility, but there are plenty of examples of large groups that have been dysfunctional.

Probably, the issue is that it's easier to be suspect of small groups, thinking that if they're small or 'invisible', they must be doing something wrong. Of course, both of those things can be indicators of something being wrong, but they don't automatically mean that. And this is what I think is the main point, is that size alone does not invalidate a group.

I don't assess the LC on the mere fact that it's small or stagnant. Those factors are considerations, but they don't mean anything alone. The real issue is that when you look at the LC, a lot of what they attempt to use for validation is just an excuse mechanism. When they fail increase in size, they claim that they only need to be small. The LC likes to point to the fact that they are small, that they are 'weak' or that they have been under 'attack' (criticism), as if those things provide an automatic validation the LC.

The hypocrisy is that the LC has no problem making projections about exponential growth, or "churchizing" the U.S. So really, the mindset is about excusing their failure. When they can't get the growth they think they can, they can easily write it off, saying that they only need to be small.

Regarding being small, it's really a two sized coin. Yes, it does provide benefit as it's hard for a group to be impersonal when they're small, and that might better suite people's needs. But what I saw in the LC was the willingness to be small and remain small, because it provided the best "comfort level." By that I mean nobody honestly wanted to get new members because these people would inevitably ask the 'wrong' questions or express reservations about LC teachings and practices. Sure they talking about "getting an increase," but it was just talk. It was easier to get together and "play church" every week in the comfort of an environment where everyone was 100% with the program. And it is hard for a controlled environment like that to exist as the group gets larger and larger.

Everything about the LC seems to indicate they want a layer of 'protection' from the outside world. Where I'm from, people were particularly interested in home meetings. Home meetings are all fine and good, except, there was never much effort made to contact the outside world. It was a mere social club of members who had known each other sometimes 30 or more years. If there had been an influx of new members, it is questionable as to whether or not anyone would have wanted to or been willing to care for them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.
2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?
3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.
4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.
5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

Overall, not bad.

But item 3 is not created by the reference to an open door. It does not say that they have an open door of fellowship with others and are therefore not exclusive. It says that God has put before them an open door. But if it was talking about whether they were exclusive or inclusive, that would not be something that they were incapable of changing.

Besides, a door in front of you is generally not referring to your own door of "protection." God did not put a door of inclusiveness in front of Philadelphia that could not be shut so that they would be inclusive. If that were a correct meaning of the words found in this passage, it would indicate that your ability to be inclusive or exclusive is not your own to determine. God has either made you inclusive or exclusive.

Stick to what actually has meaning to the discussion. Don't try to make everything say something in your favor on the topic. It tends to weaken your other points.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . .The real issue is that when you look at the LC, a lot of what they attempt to use for validation is just an excuse mechanism. When they fail increase in size, they claim that they only need to be small. The LC likes to point to the fact that they are small, that they are 'weak' or that they have been under 'attack' (criticism), as if those things provide an automatic validation the LC.

That kind of thinking reminds me of the people who are certain that [enter the name of your favorite conspiracy theory here] is really true because the fact that the government denies that it is true is evidence of its truth. Or the fact that there is evidence against it is evidence that it is true.

Or, as Charlie Brown puts it, "How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overall, not bad.

But item 3 is not created by the reference to an open door. It does not say that they have an open door of fellowship with others and are therefore not exclusive. It says that God has put before them an open door. But if it was talking about whether they were exclusive or inclusive, that would not be something that they were incapable of changing.

Besides, a door in front of you is generally not referring to your own door of "protection." God did not put a door of inclusiveness in front of Philadelphia that could not be shut so that they would be inclusive. If that were a correct meaning of the words found in this passage, it would indicate that your ability to be inclusive or exclusive is not your own to determine. God has either made you inclusive or exclusive.

Stick to what actually has meaning to the discussion. Don't try to make everything say something in your favor on the topic. It tends to weaken your other points.

Yes, I think you are right.

But let me ask you who is the one that shuts the door on genuine believers?

In our experience in the LRC wasn't it the doctrine of "one trumpet" and "one publisher"? Didn't TC get excommunicated, get the door shut on him, over this issue of one publication?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I think you are right.

But let me ask you who is the one that shuts the door on genuine believers?

In our experience in the LRC wasn't it the doctrine of "one trumpet" and "one publisher"? Didn't TC get excommunicated, get the door shut on him, over this issue of one publication?

I do not deny that the LRC shuts the door on believers all the time. It is part of their MO.

It just isn't mentioned in that passage.

As for the one trumpet and one publisher, the whole idea is simply ludicrous. But it was only known of by me through this forum. I did not experience those items or hear them directly in meetings. I had exited just before so many of those things began or became mainstream in the LRC.

I think that a recent post (maybe one of yours) talked about the whole Matthew 18 thing from the standpoint of the desire to keep everyone "in" even when not agreeing in every way while the LRC hierarchy is busy using it to weed out any hint of variation. The one trumpet and one publisher edicts are simply evidence of how far from the desire for unity they will go to keep their doctrine "pure" at the cost of any real unity.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

That kind of thinking reminds me of the people who are certain that [enter the name of your favorite conspiracy theory here] is really true because the fact that the government denies that it is true is evidence of its truth. Or the fact that there is evidence against it is evidence that it is true.

Or, as Charlie Brown puts it, "How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

To WL, truth existed in and was defined by his own perception. In the following excerpt, WL attempts to define 'abnormal' and 'normal' growth:

A Great Tree
The mustard herb, however, grew into a great tree...This represents Christendom... But this herb grew out of proportion and became a great tree with many evil birds lodging in its branches. As such, it was no longer good for food. Earlier in the same chapter, the Lord Jesus told us the interpretation of the birds, saying that they were the devil and his angels. Many evil spirits lodge in Christendom today. The branches have become the lodging place of demons...

Growing out of Proportion
We thank the Lord that the move of His recovery in this country has been growing gradually throughout the years. When we conducted the training on the Psalms in 1969, we had seven hundred attendants. In 1972 we had close to twenty-two hundred, more than three times the number in 1969. This has been the proper growth...
Witness Lee, The Kingdom, Ch 12

Here WL completely contradicts himself. He criticizes Christianity for being big and visible, yet he characterizes the rapid growth rate of the early LC as being proper. An increase of 700 to 2200 in a matter of 3 years is not bad at all. What if that growth rate had been sustained? The LC would be much different than it is today. So it WL's mind, that kind of growth within the LC would be proper, but outside, it would be "mushroom growth."

In that context, it's just ridiculous that the LC teaches members that because the LC is 'small' that it's the Lord's 'remnant' or whatever else they think it is. WL would have been perfectly happy with the growth or visibility that he criticized, in fact he was the one who like to make absurd claims of exponential growth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not deny that the LRC shuts the door on believers all the time. It is part of their MO.
It just isn't mentioned in that passage.
As for the one trumpet and one publisher, the whole idea is simply ludicrous. But it was only known of by me through this forum. I did not experience those items or hear them directly in meetings. I had exited just before so many of those things began or became mainstream in the LRC.
I think that a recent post (maybe one of yours) talked about the whole Matthew 18 thing from the standpoint of the desire to keep everyone "in" even when not agreeing in every way while the LRC hierarchy is busy using it to weed out any hint of variation. The one trumpet and one publisher edicts are simply evidence of how far from the desire for unity they will go to keep their doctrine "pure" at the cost of any real unity.

See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it.

It may not be stated plainly, but it is not unreasonable to put the pieces together and come to this conclusion:

1. Never again will they leave it => reasonable to conclude this is referring to those who had to leave previously, especially since those in Laodicea appear to have not left even though the Lord is outside knocking and telling them to come out to Him.

2. Since you have kept my command to endure patiently => clearly the ones in this church have had to endure some form of persecution. Based on the context it is reasonable to say that this persecution was an attempt to "shut the door on them"

3. I will make them of the synagogue of Satan => This is the only mention of any group that could be involved in the persecution, involved in the attempt to "shut the door" and the group that these ones were forced to leave. I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation based on the account.

4. See I have placed before you an open door => I think this refers to the context of others having tried to shut the door on them. The context of the synagogue of Satan claiming to be Jews but are liars. This is a comforting promise to those who were previously forced to leave and had the door shut on them.

5. What is the contrast of a group of Christians with "a little strength". Would it be a large Christian ministry with a legal defense team that bullies others? This is not some obscure reference, this is essentially what Jezebel did. Jezebel used false accusations in a 'civil court' to accuse people of "blasphemy" for the purpose of stealing their property. You cannot do this and still be faithful to the Lord's word and name. These ones who have a "little strength" obviously didn't do that because they were faithful to the Lord's name and held onto His word.

When the Catholic church sold indulgences this was a denial of the Lord's word and His name. If you stand up to them and do not deny the Lord's name and His word you are forced to leave, as Martin Luther was.

The experience in the LRC is not much different. The word is twisted to justify Witness Lee having a monopoly and making merchandise of the saints. you have to design a doctrine to explain why only his ministry is used, why everyone needs to have a complete Bible published by His ministry with His footnotes, why you need to pay this hidden tax of a standing order, etc. The doctrines that are created deny the Lord's name and His word. If you want to be faithful to the Lord's name and word you will be kicked out.

Look at my experience. I was in a small fellowship in NYC on a monday night. We are eating dinner together, about 20 of us. Ed Marks is there. I talk to him privately about his role in the apology letter to Phillip Lee. I feel I was being faithful to the Lord's name and His word in Matthew 18. Very quickly I am escorted out and the door is shut on me.

That group is "exclusive" because they cannot deal with their sins. If you refuse to deal with sins you will have to become exclusive. The Catholic church would claim that they represent all believers, yet those who do not deny the Lord's word and his name, like Martin Luther, are forced out and the door is shut on them. You can claim to be inclusive, but it is a lie. Likewise, the LRC claims to represent all genuine believers in a city, yet when a believer, like myself, living in this city wants to fellowship I am shown the door. That is, by definition, exclusive.

The promise to the ones in Philadelphia is that you can be faithful to the Lord's name and to His word, and the door will be open to you, a door that no one, not the Pope, not "The apostle", can shut. If any self proclaimed apostle can shut the door on a Christian, that by definition is exclusive.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.
2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?
3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.
4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.
5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

I think all of these things are true, yet you are ignoring the fact that it is written to the church (singular), in Philadelphia (a city). On this basis, we cannot say that any group of people satisfying those 5 things is a church. That is, you cannot define a new testament church by the bible, as long as you ignore that one church per city is a consistent theme of what constitutes a true church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think all of these things are true, yet you are ignoring the fact that it is written to the church (singular), in Philadelphia (a city). On this basis, we cannot say that any group of people satisfying those 5 things is a church. That is, you cannot define a new testament church by the bible, as long as you ignore that one church per city is a consistent theme of what constitutes a true church.

That is fine, explain to me how you could have a group of believers whose word is holy and true. We aren't talking about liars, cheats or scam artists, just genuine believers. They are doers of the word. You know them by their deeds that they are Christians, not by their word. They are inclusive, they have an open door to all genuine believers. They keep the Lord's word. They don't deny His name. And perhaps their strength is small, they don't have some big ministry, don't require anything of anyone.

Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

I love where ZNPaaneah and Ohio are going with this thread.

The church is where Paul's exhortation in Galations 6:1 applies, that is:

"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

Interesting question: when you have a sect that does everything "by the letter" and "by the book" but doesn't seem to exhibit much charity or gentleness, to judge by the broken and bleeding ex-members exiting its doors, then how can this be the church? How can "one church one city" cover that failure to love?

"Stupid is as stupid does" -so is love. Love isn't a word, it's an action, or rather a series of actions, actions which continue even in the face of non-encouraging results. Love suffers long. Love endures. Love never fails.

What we got was instead was, "training" and "perfecting". We got public shaming, and "know your place". That was how the "church was built up" - not in love. I recall a former leader who got called to the carpet, literally, in front of Lee, and forced to confess, "I am ashamed to admit" that things in his localities were not as "vital" as Lee proposed (that former leader is now ex-communicated because he wouldn't "lose face" to the current "blendeds").

I recall a current LC leader who stopped by, and took one of our faithful brothers to task before the whole conference, publicly querying him on his relations with his wife (unknown to the Maximum Brother, the man had just been left by this wife). The whole group shuddered, but we took it. "Know your place". No grace, no covering. Unless of course you are Top Dog, then you get covered, a la "Drunken Noah". But no one else.

Here is an article on Jewish culture, of not publicly shaming people:

Arnold Jacob Wolf (Sh'ma 4/77, September 20, 1974)
Many important commandments have been abandoned by almost all Jews, including those who consider themselves observant. One of these laws, I believe, is the prohibition against shaming another in public. The rabbis say: "Whoever shames his fellow-person in public has no share in the world to come. He is one of those who will go down to Gehinnom and never come up again." On the other hand, it is clearly written in the Holiness chapter (Leviticus 19): "You must sharply reprove your neighbor and not bear sin because of him." There was and is a clear responsibility to take a stand against sin, but as Rashi interprets the verse, never by shaming the sinner, or else one would, indeed, carry away sin because of him. If one is obliged to reprove, even a child or a slave, but also one's husband or wife, reproof must not be made by shame.

"Shaming" is vividly described in the Hebrew phrase as "whitening the face." Under accusation in public, one's blood leaves one's cheeks. One almost, as it were, dies of embarrassment, indicating that the sin of shaming is like murder. Murder, in fact, can find atonement, if the murderer is truly sorry. But I may shame my neighbor without even knowing what I have done, in which case I will never repent for my sin. We are commanded rather to let ourselves be destroyed than to embarrass any other person in public.

Tamar, who had the goods on her father-in-law after he visited her sexually, never named him as the offender, but only indicated what pledge he left with her, so that he could identify himself without being made ashamed. Joseph cleared the room before he disclosed himself to his brothers so that they might not be put to shame in the presence of the Egyptian court. For many generations, Jews have taken pains not to embarrass even a guilty person, much less one simply inferior in station or in power.

We are commanded not to give offense by words, by deeds, by epithets, even by hints. We are not to insult the stupid who would not even know they were being put down, nor our intimates, with whom we sometimes tend to think anything goes. Freud, in his wonderful joke book, tells of two men who behaved toward each other with scrupulous courtesy until each realized the other was a Jew, at which time they both put their feet on the furniture and dropped cigar ashes on the floor.

Shaming in the Jewish tradition
We are not allowed to recall someone's past offenses, blemished ancestry or personal weaknesses. If someone owes us money, we must not go near him in public, lest our very presence put him to shame. If we are well dressed and affluent, we should avoid poor neighborhoods and needy people. If we are collecting for a cause, we must be certain in advance that anyone we approach is able to contribute. When we recite the verse from the blessings after meals, "I have grown old without ever seeing a good person in need or his children begging bread," we should lower our voices, in case there is a beggar at our table. The Maharam said: "One who shames those who sleep in the dust has also committed a grave sin." We are not allowed to embarrass even the dead.

There is a precise etiquette for Jewish study. A teacher must not ask a student questions he probably cannot answer, nor the student ask questions outside his teacher's field of competence. Neither should they be queried in the presence of critical colleagues, nor when they have something else on their minds nor when they first enter the school-room. Blessings over study are said together, in case someone doesn't know the text by heart. So too, the ritual of first fruits ordained in the Torah, is always prompted, even if one is fully competent to say "my father was a wandering Aramean......," because the next person might not be able to recite the formula without help.

We should not watch someone eat or drink or do anything incompetently. We should not ask our host for what we don't see, because he may be unable to provide it. Virgins go out to find husbands (on Yom Kippur, according to the Mishnah) in borrowed garments, so as not to shame any poor young woman. Invidiousness is itself shame, so all our dead are buried alike according to tradition, and thus no Jew need be ashamed. Rabba said: "one is allowed to shame himself, even though it is against Jewish law to do oneself harm." But one must never "whiten the face" of any other woman or man.

Yes I know this is culture and "not Christ", and yes I know culture in Judaism isn't superior to oriental or western culture. But Christ never denied His Jewish culture, and its attempt to obey the scripture on God's command. Jesus never denied the message of God's revelation, but rather as the incarnate Word obeyed continually, and expressed this fully. This is our faith, not in ourselves but in Him.

And Jesus said, "Don't stumble the little ones" -- what was the public intimidating and shaming of the smaller and weaker 'local church' saints to 'know their place' but a stumbling? Of course it was. It was merely well-refined human methodology for the acquisition and maintenance of temporal human power, which power must fade at last and give way to Christ.

The LC was built on "whitening the face" of the members. This should be rejected as not the church. This is not the assembly of the Firstborn, no matter how it presumes to be "by the book".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, explain to me how you could have a group of believers whose word is holy and true. We aren't talking about liars, cheats or scam artists, just genuine believers. They are doers of the word. You know them by their deeds that they are Christians, not by their word. They are inclusive, they have an open door to all genuine believers. They keep the Lord's word. They don't deny His name. And perhaps their strength is small, they don't have some big ministry, don't require anything of anyone.

Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

Two problems with your question.

First, the qualifier "genuine." Christians are Christians. In this forum we are not discussing social Christians. There are many Christians in many places. They are all Christians so they are all genuine Christians.

The second is the idea that all of those Christians in whatever city you hail from must meet with you. As if your notion of what is the correct doctrine or practice on everything is clearly correct. Or that there is room enough anywhere for them to meet with you. Once you start to have enough "halls" of your choosing to include them all, you will find that they will not be identical unless there is an edict ordering how they will think on everything.

The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders. This is a fabrication. There is no definition for it.

[Evangelical]

You said "The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders."

The oneness is the "edict". If Christians want to meet in oneness then they must meet together in a single place, and the New Testament way of meeting is with the oversight of the elders (leaders). That is, a man and his wife for example cannot have a meeting together and claim to be in oneness with all believers in their city if they never meet with other believers.

I will change my question to a response to this then:
ZNPaaneah said:
"Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?"

My answer: Because they are not meeting together with all the other (genuine) Christians in the city. Suppose that group of genuine Christians was the most holy and pure group of all, yet don't meet with others, how can they claim to be in oneness? Similarly, suppose that group of genuine Christians had problems, they were only 20% the quality of the group ZNPaaneah described, yet met with all Christians in the city. How are they not the genuine church?

ZNPaaneah seems to say that church is about the quality of the meeting. However the Bible reveals it is more about the practical oneness, that is, the fact that a genuine believer would or should meet with other genuine Christians in the city.

It is a clear fact that church is about oneness on city-based locality, and not quality, based upon Jesus addressing all of the churches in Revelation as genuine churches, but most were poor in quality.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

Well lets think of a few ways.

Where I meet there is an 8 am service for those who work and cannot make the 10:30 service, and there is also a 3:30 service for those who work in the morning. So perhaps they don't meet together because they work at different hours.

Or the city I live in is very large. I have been to gatherings of a thousand believers in Manhattan and Brooklyn as well as Queens. Perhaps it is just not convenient based on the size of the city. Me, personally, I would like to meet within 30 minutes of my house. It can easily take 1 1/2 to 2 hours to drive from the one side of the Bronx to the far side of Queens. Not to mention you could have $8-10 in tolls for that trip.

Maybe the meeting hall can only hold 1,000 people, and for a city of 10 million with several million Christians there is no meeting hall that would be practical.

My point is that I don't have to meet with you in person to be one with you. Worldwide there are more than 1 billion Christians. Even if you met with a thousand different Christians each week, it would only be 50 thousand a year. Over 100 years it would only be 5 million, not even 1% of the total number of Christians. Just because I don't meet with them doesn't mean I'm not one with them. We have the same Lord. We have the same God. We have the same father. We have the same faith, the same baptism, the same Spirit. That is what makes us one.

We are not one according to the flesh. Meeting with Christians according to the flesh is not what makes us one. There is no such requirement that "unless you meet with a believer you aren't one with them".

[Evangelical]

You are confusing the difference between spiritual and practical oneness.

You described a group of (genuine) believers (their spiritual oneness is in relation to this aspect), and then described them in terms of practical aspects (being doers of the Word and having an open door policy etc). So I say to you that another practical aspect they must have is they must meet with others in their locality.

But you say they can be practically one without actually meeting other believers in the city. I think if we are talking about practical oneness, then there is a requirement to actually meet with a believer to be one with them.

It is true what you say about the spiritual oneness, and that does not change even if these believers are living on Mars or Jupiter. However there is no practical oneness unless these believers meet practically with other believers in their locality.

A question: is it possible to achieve God's will for the church on Earth by spiritual oneness or practical oneness? Obviously it is the latter. Christianity could not have achieved what it did without the practical oneness of the New Testament churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

If you are not one in spirit it doesn't matter if you are meeting together. That is a false oneness, a man made oneness, a contrived oneness.

On the other hand it is impossible to have a "practical oneness" with every Christian. Can't do it with the Christians in the world, can't do it with the Christians in the US. and can't do it with the Christians in NYC. I have already pointed out that there may be 5 million Christians in NYC. For me to have a practical oneness with them I would have to meet with 1,000 different believers each week, every week for 100 years. Even then many of the Christians that lived in the US would have died without me ever meeting with them, or they might have moved out.

Second, what an idiotic requirement. So how does this work, until I have met with each and every Christian in that city I am not "one with them"? So then, does this mean your requirement for a church is that it be a meeting of each and every Christian in that City? No, of course not.

So then what is your "practical" solution to your contrived issue? Declare that it isn't your problem, it is there problem. No longer are you accountable, the problem is with all the Christians that don't meet with you, rather than the other way around. What hypocrisy.

[Evangelical]

We are talking about genuine Christians here, so your first statement does not add anything to the discussion. Let's assume all Christians are genuine and have the Spirit.

In my post I never stated anything of the sort that practical oneness demands or requires an impossible demand on meeting with every single believer in your city week to week. That is a straw man argument you have put forward.

History speaks for itself on the practical possibility of one church per city.
Large Christian city-wide communities existed in Europe (for example) for hundreds of years. The life of many major cities revolved around the central church or Cathedral. That is why the church or cathedrals today stand at the centers of many European towns and cities.

Then there is the Jews worshiping in Jerusalem in practical oneness, which was the unique place God chose to maintain practical oneness among His people.

So practical city-wide oneness is achievable in one way or another.


For further consideration I post this wiki article which lists the largest peaceful gatherings in history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ngs_in_history

It is possible for 1 million people or more to meet together for a common cause such as a demonstration or a rock concert or religious beliefs. Why is it not possible for Christians to do the same?

[ZNPaaneah]

Of course such a meeting is possible, but is that your requirement for a church? Is this the NT definition of a church?

The point of this thread is to define the church based on the NT fellowship of the apostles. The straw man argument you accuse me of making is merely a reasonable understanding of your posts. Please explain, using the NT, what the definition is.

Saying "one church in one city" does not define church.

I have provided a NT definition, church is a gathering of genuine believers. As long as these believers meet the seven ones in Ephesians they are "one with all believers". Hence their gathering would be inclusive of all genuine believers and therefore they are "one church". Since it is absolutely impossible to require that every meeting of the church include every single genuine believer in the city, that cannot be requirement or definition.

You have not provided a definition from the NT. You have provided Wikis on church history.

You don't explain why a gathering of Christians is not a church.

You don't explain why one Christian gets to disqualify a church because they don't meet with them.

There is nothing practical in your definition. Explain to me how I would know which gathering in my city is the church and which isn't. I have done that, if they don't have one Lord, if they don't have one God, if they don't have one faith, if they don't have one baptism. Any of these points would identify a group as not being the church.

[ZNPaaneah]

This thread was started because Witness Lee's doctrine of the ground of the Church has created an issue over what is and is not a "true church" (Witness Lee's words).

The problem with Witness Lee's doctrine based on Watchman Nee's teaching does not give us any NT definition.

What it does give us is an inferred understanding based on many, many NT references to a church indicating that in any locality (city, town, village) there is one church.

This is not a NT doctrine of the apostles, which is why I and others are taking issue with this. It seems to me that if you judge and condemn all other Christian gatherings as not being "the true church" then that is a very serious accusation. I am concerned that such a strong and offensive judgement is not based on a clear NT teaching.

For example, Paul has a very clear NT teaching that we don't sue other Christians in civil court. That is a clear, black and white teaching.

There is another very clear black and white teaching from the Apostle Paul that you should excommunicate a "brother" due to sexual immorality.

The hypocrisy of Witness Lee and his followers in ignoring the clear black and white teachings of the NT and then creating whole cloth teachings out of inferences is very disturbing. But you cannot deal with this without having a clear word from the Apostles on this issue. How do they define a church? At what point would they judge and condemn a gathering as not being a "true church"? How did the apostles respond to this very arrogant teaching of how this one very questionable group that plays very loose with the NT is supposedly the keepers of truth? Only they are the "true church".

This is not some esoteric doctrinal debate. In my case meeting with the "true church" based on Witness Lee's definition is not an option. They showed me the door. Why? Because I asked one of the men who apologized to Philip Lee. That seems to me to be a contradiction to Paul's black and white word on this. Asking this brother was according to Jesus word in Matt 18. I also have an issue with the use of lawsuits by the Local church and Living Stream Ministry. That is also something that is a direct contradiction of the Black and white words.

Jesus said to be at peace, believe in God believe also in Him. I am doing that, yet this doctrine that I am not meeting with the "true church" is an assault on that peace. This question is personal. It seems to me that the Local church is telling me that to "meet with the true church" I would have to deny the Lord's name and His word. I am not going to do that. So then, my question is are they really the "true church" like they say, or are they lying like the synagogue of Satan who says they are Jews and are not? Has Jesus really placed an open door before me, or have they shut the door on my Christian walk?

If you want to understand what the church is you have to look at the first mention of the word.

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

The revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is the rock on which the church is built. It is not the Pope, it is not Jim Jones, it is not Witness Lee. You can claim to be the "true church" but if you are not faithful to the Lord, to His name and His word then you are a liar.

Therefore, when I was shown the door because I was being faithful to the Lord's word in Matthew 18 they were not being faithful to the Lord's word. They were not being faithful to the Lord's name. They have the right to kick me out of their meeting hall, they have the right to call themselves the church in NYC, but that doesn't make them a true church.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I asked one of the men who apologized to Philip Lee. . . Asking this brother was according to Jesus word in Matt 18. .

Recently (post #105) I brought up the Jewish idea of covering others' shame, and not exposing it needlessly. This is in accord of their view of the "OT" law and rabbinical commentaries, and later in the Christian principles of Jesus and the disciples, explicitly spelled out in Matt 18 and reinforced elsewhere, from "do unto others as you'd have them do to you" up to "and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty" (1 Cor 12:23 NIV).

By contrast the local church system repeatedly established the principle of "whitening the face" of the members, under the rubric of "perfecting". But this doesn't perfect one's soul but distorts it.

And the point I was getting to with the idea of public shaming is that by any objective, biblical measure which the local church uses to deem other assemblies as short of "true church" representation, they themselves fall, as well. I could name a dozen or twenty aspects where the local church judges the meetings of others as unredeemable, and deficient, when any objective scrutiny would place them under the exact same condemnation of illegitimacy.

So when the current president of LSM publicly shamed a "little" sister in Texas, he violated the principle of Matt 18 covering the members of the body, and showed that the teachings he fronted were a sham, and the fellowship that he deemed so superior was in fact not so, at all. Not so at all.

http://thethreadofgold.com/

Local church leadership maintained its hold on the lives of the saints by publicly embarrassing them, among other techniques, but if anyone else tried to critique the teachings or behavior of leadership it was called "rebellion", the most heinous of sins before God.

Yet this leadership style does not stand in the face of the Bible. Lording over the saints, however much one may paper over with "discipline" and "perfecting" and pseudo-spiritual hogwash, isn't of the assembly of Jesus. Period.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course such a meeting is possible, but is that your requirement for a church? Is this the NT definition of a church?...

ZNPaaneah, you are asking for NT definitions of church but I cannot see why the bible mentioning only one church per city cannot be classed as a NT definition?

These practical considerations you put forward were not considerations when there was only one church per city, from the New Testament period to around 1100 AD (if I recall correctly). There was no such thing as going to whatever church (denomination) you liked. If a group of believers broke away they would be called a heretical sect.

These practical considerations you put forward were also not an issue for the Jews, who maintained worship at Jerusalem. I can imagine it would cause inconvenience but somehow they managed and was not justification for disobeying God's will.

How we can know what is the local church is the same as stated many times before, it must be the one that identifies itself as the church in the particular locality, and not some denominational name.

[ZNPaaneah]

Because the Bible also says that the synagogue of Satan lies, saying they are Jews when they are not.

"The slander of the Judaizers toward the suffering church was their evil criticism of her." (Witness Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 11, Section 2)

According to your definition the best liar is the true church. All they have to do is claim that they are the true church according to your definition and they are. It doesn't matter to you if they deny the Lord's name and deny His word.

"First, almost every group has a name. We know that the moon is the moon; we do not need to add a special name to it. Similarly, the church is the church; she does not need another name. If people ask us what church we are from, we should tell them that we are in the church. If we reply, “I am from the Church Assembly Hall,” it will puzzle people and cause them to wonder exactly what the Church Assembly Hall is. We need to see that the church is one. The name of the church is simply the church; other than this, the church has no other name." (Witness Lee, Knowing Life and the Church, Chapter 9, Section 3)

From the NT what does matter is that these believers meet "in the name of Jesus". The very rock that the church is built on is the revelation that Jesus is Lord. What does matter is that they all have one God, one Lord, one Father, one Baptism, one Faith.

The church, first and foremost is "His" church. It is His meeting. That is the key point. Jesus is in charge.

Since there is only one Lord then by definition there is only one church. That is why there is one church in one city, because they have one Lord, one God, one Father, one Baptism, one faith. There is no suggestion anywhere in the NT that it is because they have one set of elders.

"The Lord has shown us that one locality should have only one church, and one locality should have only one administration." (Witness Lee, Further Talks on the Church Life, Chapter 4, Section 21)

You claim that "If a group of believers broke away they could be a heretical sect". But why did they break away? Was it because the Pope was selling indulgences? Then who is the heretical sect?

Or did they even break away. Was it because they were shown the door when they had legitimate questions about righteousness? Does calling yourself "the church in _____" trump the Lord's word and His name?

You make such a big deal over the name in the phone book and yet ignore the shame brought to the name of the person of Jesus.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lording over the saints, however much one may paper over with "discipline" and "perfecting" and pseudo-spiritual hogwash, isn't of the assembly of Jesus. Period.

A qualifying word is probably in order, here. I didn't mean to say that the local church fellowship affiliated with the ministry of Witnell Lee isn't of the assembly of Jesus. As OBW said, if they're genuine Christian believers, gathered together, then they are the church.

What I was trying to say was that by the same standards that they attempt to disqualify others as being "true", they also fail. So the Lee-ites have two sets of standards, one for their gathering, and one for the gatherings of "fallen Christianity."

But I don't want to fall in the same trap, so I don't judge them or their fitness to represent Christ. I'm rather pointing out that their parsing of the letter of Paul to cut off others, inevitably redounds against them, when they either violate the same letters of Scripture, or the Spirit of Jesus that it represents.

By that point, they hope that you don't notice the disconnect between what they've said and what they do. And I think that the disconnect is worth pointing out, as has been done on this forum repeatedly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, you are asking for NT definitions of church but I cannot see why the bible mentioning only one church per city cannot be classed as a NT definition?

It is relevant, it isn't a definition. The Bible only mentions cities in the Middle East and Mediterranean. You wouldn't infer from that these cities are particularly holy. It is relevant, it is the context, it is not the definition. I have made it clear in my posts that there are many references to churches in the NT and almost all refer to one city in one locality, or a group of cities in a district.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These practical considerations you put forward were not considerations when there was only one church per city, from the New Testament period to around 1100 AD (if I recall correctly). There was no such thing as going to whatever church (denomination) you liked. If a group of believers broke away they would be called a heretical sect.

The practical considerations I have quoted are from the book of Ephesians, Gospel of Matthew and book of Revelation. I have also quoted James.

No one has said that you can "go to whatever denomination you like". I have always said that they must meet in the name of Jesus. Hence, Jesus is their denomination. They only have one name that they meet in, Jesus.

I agree that if a group of believers breaks away from the church they are a heretical sect. Where I disagree with you is over who is Lord. Jesus is Lord, hence He decides who "broke away". If His word says to deal with sin in a certain way and this group from the leader on down decide not to, yet some like Antipas stand up to them. Then who broke away? Was it the group led by Jezebel or Antipas?

Suppose the Apostle's fellowship is clear on not taking other believers to court in a lawsuit but that you should rather choose to suffer loss. If you wanted to take issue with the church pursuing these lawsuits and using your donations to do so, that seems to me to be appropriate. If they in turn show you the door, then who "broke away" from the fellowship of the Apostles?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These practical considerations you put forward were also not an issue for the Jews, who maintained worship at Jerusalem. I can imagine it would cause inconvenience but somehow they managed and was not justification for disobeying God's will.

Are you talking about the set feasts? Are you now limiting church meetings to a couple of meetings per year?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How we can know what is the local church is the same as stated many times before, it must be the one that identifies itself as the church in the particular locality, and not some denominational name.

They are identified by the name of Jesus, the person of Jesus and the word of Jesus. If they deny any of these then that would be an issue. You seem to think that a group can deny the name of Jesus, the word of Jesus, but because they call themselves a certain name that trumps the truth. It doesn't.

Yes when these two branches of the vine separate one has been cut off from the vine tree. But is it the twig, or is it the big branch that decided it did not need to heed the vine?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said

The oneness is the "edict". If Christians want to meet in oneness then they must meet together in a single place, and the New Testament way of meeting is with the oversight of the elders (leaders). That is, a man and his wife for example cannot have a meeting together and claim to be in oneness with all believers in their city if they never meet with other believers.

That is actually not true.

I would submit that if they never meet with any other Christians in any way, shape or form, there might be a question mark on their oneness with other Christians. But you dismiss all kinds of Christian interaction. You presume the meeting as so preeminent that it is the only means by which Christians can be one.

I submit instead the words from Christ as recorded in John 17. Starting in verse 20:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

I do not pretend that this is the end of the context. And in looking at the context, it is clear that there is more than just this.

But notice that in the second sentence that the oneness of the believers was likened to (made equal to??) the way that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

There is a difficult thing to understand. Especially inside of a trinity theology that insists that they are not in any way truly three separate beings who also have a oneness and cannot be separated. Yet our oneness is said to be like theirs. And there is no way that I am in you or you are in me. At least not in the way that we like to think that statement means. And if their oneness is like what ours can be, are they simply One? Are they simply amorphous in one sense yet separate in another? Maybe that is not the correct analysis of what it means to be in trinity (or to be triune). Not simply One that can be as Three, but Three that are in some way so totally one that they can declare their Godhead to be one, not three. Something outside of our understanding in any case, and outside of the typical understanding of what it means that God is Three and One.

I dare not characterize it in that extreme a way. But it seems that Jesus at least kind of did. He said that we should be one just as the Father and the Son are one. But not just in thought or intent, but as being "in" each other. And since I can't get "into" you, then we really don't know what that means. Unless it is not as hard as we try to make it.

But no matter how you parse it and make it fit back into typical evangelical (not you) or orthodox theology, it is not talking about meetings. And not talking about labels or doctrines. It is talking about being one. And the kind of one that is being mentioned might be more about "shaking hands over the fence," and things like being of a like mind when it comes to the living in this world of the Christian than about agreeing on enough doctrines to have a nice peaceable meeting together.

Oneness is never stated in terms of where you meet, or who is there. That is an arbitrary formula predicated by those who want their meeting to be the only one that is "one" while all the others are divisive. Even if you want to declare that meeting together is important and that anything else is a "division," there is no talisman rule that would allow the latest division in centuries of divisions to be able to declare that theirs is "it" and the others are not.

You need more than grand, spiritual sounding rhetoric supported by nothing but the opinion of someone who doesn't even have reasonable training in the Bible (except maybe to refer to another with equally limited training in the Bible).

[Evangelical]

OBW,

There is two aspects to the church, the spiritual and the practical. There is a spiritual oneness that I believe Jesus's prayer was talking. I agree with you that the Scripture does not define (that is, state clearly in a prescribed format) what the practical oneness should look like, there is no rule etc. But it is a mistake to think that because Scripture does not state any rule, that there is no rule.

In one sense it is correct there is no rule. However that is not to say there is no structure, no meetings, no format. This is not to say believers can meet however they like. Because how believers meet should be constrained by the spiritual oneness. This (should) manifest in practical oneness.

The spiritual oneness defines who the church is, but the practical oneness is necessary to accomplish God's will for the church.

The view that church is just 2 or 3 believers meeting together is wrong from the point of view of God's purpose of the church. It is also wrong from the point of view of history, where we can find that the effectiveness of the church was because of the large united visible gatherings and not scatterings of two's and three's.

I found this sermon about the unity of the early church, it is fairly short so people can read it for themselves:

http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/cur...rly_church.htm

In summarizing, practical unity requires:

one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)
having all things in common
having faithful leaders and faithful people (this rules out groups without leaders, c.f. my past comments on a genuine church having elders).

And the results of this (from the sermon):

1. Great spirituality. Scatter the embers of a dying fire and it goes out. Rake them together and you have warmth and glow. So with a divided and a united Church.

2. Great power. "A city set on a hill," etc. Such a Church can make the powers of darkness tremble. Keep this ideal before us and we shall be a united, spiritual, and aggressive Church.

From this it should be clear that the early church was practically united as one large visible entity, and not a scattering of "embers of a fire".

The view that some here propose that church is just two or three, me and my sister, or me and my brother, having a prayer time together, is ignoring the weight of evidence showing that practical church unity was for a definitive purpose, that two or three cannot by themselves easily accomplish. God's purpose for the church rules out the idea that two or three can be a church. The fact that Jesus often spoke to crowds of people rules that out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Key takeaways:

1. Is there a NT definition? We received numerous responses: Evangelical requires 2 male elders and the ability to excommunicate to be a church. Ohio points out that neither is biblical. Since Paul says to “appoint elders in every church” we can deduce that they were a church prior to having elders appointed. Also, it is highly unlikely that some of these groups called “churches” by Paul where he was going to appoint elders had already excommunicated someone. Having the “potential” to excommunicate seems like a really fuzzy definition since they didn’t have elders. Nell says that the church is a mystery and hence does not have a definition. Surprisingly, this is well supported by the NT, since the NT does say the church is a mystery and also does not give us much of a definition. Drake takes great umbrage at the idea that we could refer to a group of 3 believers as a church, pointing out the absurdity of 100,000 churches in a small city of 300,000. But he (a drake is a male duck) does not give us a NT definition or any NT reference that would disqualify them. Once again pointing out how interesting the lack of definition is. Aron uses the Greek definition of the word Ekklesia to define church. He then distinguishes between “the church” and “my church”. Indicating that “tell it to the church” could refer to a wider gathering than just Christians. However, since the context is that if the person refuses to hear “the church” let them be to you as a publican and heathen. This suggests that this wider ekklesia cannot refer to a meeting of heathens and publicans. That wouldn’t make sense. You would also have to assume that they all recognize Jesus as the authority, otherwise how do you tell them your offense? But it does raise the point that “church” might merely mean a gathering, any gathering of believers into the name of Jesus. To that we suggested that the church is merely the “corporate experience” of Jesus. No one denied that as a definition and on this point we are also in agreement with Witness Lee. Aron qualified this saying that the church is the “expression of Jesus”. This may be true but is probably not a useful definition.

Although I agree that the church is a mystery, it still leaves us with the problem of “how do we tell it to the church” if we can’t identify the church? Since there are so many claims about who or what the church is, it seems you have to have a way to identify it.

Ohio pointed out that the context indicates that you should keep the offense and the dealing of the offense in house. Hence, “tell it to the church” would mean the particular gathering of believers. If someone offended me in the place I meet I do not need to publish this on an internet forum, I do not need to bring this to a council of churches, I merely need to bring this to my particular gathering. Of course, if it were a serious offense, perhaps a felony, I might need to consider a larger gathering, hence Aron’s point would be valid. So according to context you should be able to determine which gathering is the appropriate venue to tell.

One interesting point brought up by Aron concerning the definition is that an ekklessia exercised dominion in their locale. This point is echoed by Evangelical who argues for elders and the ability to excommunicate. This point is also supported by OBW who talks about the multitude of functions and gifts that should be present. This is also supported by the verses I began the discussion with, the context of 2 or 3 gathering together was in the exercise of dominion.

So then, what are we to make of all this?

My feeling is that we have been hoodwinked by Witness Lee into becoming self centered on the church. Yes, the church is the Body of Christ, yes it is the Bride of Christ. But a person consumed with their own body, or a bride consumed with herself, is generally concerned to be immature and narcissistic.

The key point is the exercise of the gifts, as OBW mentioned. It is Jesus Christ as Nell pointed out. The numbers are really not relevant, even 2-3 can have the presence of Jesus. The key point is the genuine worship to the Lord. After all, if you have the presence of Jesus, if you are truly exercising your gifts, if you have genuine worship to the Lord as a sweet savor rising to God, if you are a corporate expression of Jesus Christ, then what are you lacking?

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven"

[OBW]

I will start by saying that the constant need to have two sides to everything, in this case practical and spiritual, is a bit of a problem with Lee's teaching. But at the same time I can agree that there must be a practical oneness or there will be no value to any claimed spiritual oneness.

But the problem then comes with what is that practical oneness? So you provised the following from someone's sermon:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In summarizing, practical unity requires:

one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)
having all things in common
having faithful leaders and faithful people (this rules out groups without leaders, c.f. my past comments on a genuine church having elders).

The first problem with this list is that even the parts that I am willing to allow to you are not stated as requirements for practical unity. They are observations of how things were at the time.

But when you say to have "one heart and one soul," that is not so narrowly defined that it would require the kind of agreement on things that you require to meet with your group. And if I speak up to question things at your group, I could be privately counseled to either keep quite or move along somewhere else. And if your version of one heart and one soul is that narrow, then it clearly requires more than the basics of the faith.

I would think that there are people of all kinds of affiliation, and of all kinds of differences of opinion on the nonessential items that would find themselves still of one heart and soul with other Christians.

I think it says more about the positions of the LRC (negatively) that they won't.

And when you look at #2, the evidence in the following chapters makes it clear that this was not a thing that is required for unity. That is proved when Ananias and Sapphira decide not to throw all of their receipts from a sale into the pot. They are not rejected from the assembly for failing to give it all. Neither is that the reason for their death. It was because they lied about what they had given to keep up appearances. They wanted to give less while saying they gave it all.

Peter was very clear. They were under no obligation to sell the property or to give the full value for it to the church.

As for having faithful leaders and faithful people, I see that in so many places. The question seems to come down to "faithful to what?" If you mean faithful to follow a particular leader no matter what, or faithful to nonessentials in such a way that you just can't be one with those of differing takes on those same nonessentials, then it is clear that we have a different thought as to what it means to be of one heart and soul.

And given the teachings and rules like the "one trumpet" and "one publisher" edicts, then it is easy to find that your group cannot even be internally in unity because it chastises even slight variations. And since it refuses to acknowledge any unity with those outside of its doors, then it is regularly refusing even its own members (or former members) over much less than the "unity of the Spirit."

But it would seem that the LRC is very proud of its narrow view of everything. Finding ways to ensure that they have the New J to themselves. I guess that old joke about the C of C will have to be retold about the LRC . . . "They think they're the only ones here."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will start by saying that the constant need to have two sides to everything, in this case practical and spiritual, is a bit of a problem with Lee's teaching. But at the same time I can agree that there must be a practical oneness or there will be no value to any claimed spiritual oneness.

But the problem then comes with what is that practical oneness? So you provised the following from someone's sermon:
The first problem with this list is that even the parts that I am willing to allow to you are not stated as requirements for practical unity. They are observations of how things were at the time.

But when you say to have "one heart and one soul," that is not so narrowly defined that it would require the kind of agreement on things that you require to meet with your group. And if I speak up to question things at your group, I could be privately counseled to either keep quite or move along somewhere else. And if your version of one heart and one soul is that narrow, then it clearly requires more than the basics of the faith.

I would think that there are people of all kinds of affiliation, and of all kinds of differences of opinion on the nonessential items that would find themselves still of one heart and soul with other Christians.

I think it says more about the positions of the LRC (negatively) that they won't.

And when you look at #2, the evidence in the following chapters makes it clear that this was not a thing that is required for unity. That is proved when Ananias and Sapphira decide not to throw all of their receipts from a sale into the pot. They are not rejected from the assembly for failing to give it all. Neither is that the reason for their death. It was because they lied about what they had given to keep up appearances. They wanted to give less while saying they gave it all.

Peter was very clear. They were under no obligation to sell the property or to give the full value for it to the church.

As for having faithful leaders and faithful people, I see that in so many places. The question seems to come down to "faithful to what?" If you mean faithful to follow a particular leader no matter what, or faithful to nonessentials in such a way that you just can't be one with those of differing takes on those same nonessentials, then it is clear that we have a different thought as to what it means to be of one heart and soul.

And given the teachings and rules like the "one trumpet" and "one publisher" edicts, then it is easy to find that your group cannot even be internally in unity because it chastises even slight variations. And since it refuses to acknowledge any unity with those outside of its doors, then it is regularly refusing even its own members (or former members) over much less than the "unity of the Spirit."

But it would seem that the LRC is very proud of its narrow view of everything. Finding ways to ensure that they have the New J to themselves. I guess that old joke about the C of C will have to be retold about the LRC . . . "They think they're the only ones here."

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

This:

1 Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Cannot be achieved practically by hundreds of denominations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

On the one hand I cannot deny the link between the New Jerusalem, which I understand to be a city, and the church.

On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On the one hand I cannot deny the link between the New Jerusalem, which I understand to be a city, and the church.

On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either.

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

Responding to "On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either."

Evangelical equate 'A'postles to "G"od.
Capitalized Apostles are God are they?
Haha, if apostles in small letter 'a', then they are "g"od are they?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

I am referring to the specific apostles of the NT and not the broader and more controversial idea that we still have apostles today.

I don't dispute that the gift of apostleship exists, but the role of writing the NT has been completed.

[ZNPaaneah]

So there is another possible solution to this conundrum.

Perhaps, instead of looking for a definition in the NT for what constitutes the "true church" that Witness Lee refers to, why not look for a definition for what constitutes a false church.

The NT refers to heresy, sect, synagogue of Satan, fruit of a false prophet, false prophet, etc. There is quite a bit to discern what makes a false church.

It may be that the NT is very general when it comes to the gathering together of Christians, but is much more specific concerning the works of the flesh that can damage this fellowship.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

The world see us as one. They understand that there are differences of thought on things. But they treat Christians as Christians.

And what is it that the church is supposed to accomplish that 1,000 churches in a city cannot accomplish? Name one actual thing that requires lockstep unity with the errors of Lee just because he and Nee dreamed up a doctrine that allowed the world to define the church according to its political boundaries. What can those 1,000 churches not do?

And what it is meant to accomplish is quite significant. But

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

OBW -- you are absolutely right. Jesus said "I am the light of the world". Therefore the logical conclusion is that the church is light because we are expressing Jesus.

If salt kills germs then you would associate "salt" with someone like Antipas. He wasn't one with Jezebel. He wasn't one with Balaam.

How can the church be the salt -- because they stand against the germs of sin. That is going to make some people very unhappy.

It doesn't make any sense to equate this with oneness. If anything we are the Light of the world and the salt if we are one with Jesus. Not if we are one with other men. We should measure and judge based on this foolish measure of "oneness" with other men, that is not true oneness, that is agreement.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It doesn't make any sense to equate this with oneness. If anything we are the Light of the world and the salt if we are one with Jesus. Not if we are one with other men. We should measure and judge based on this foolish measure of "oneness" with other men, that is not true oneness, that is agreement.

Light and salt affect the inward parts of man, causing darkness and germs to flee. If anything, it is LSM's obsession with one publication, proper names, Lee-only-Lee, endless trainings, LC uniformities, lawsuits, exclusive marginal doctrines, etc. that has caused them to lose any semblance to light and salt.

[ZNPaaneah]

1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.

So although the NT doesn't refer to the "true church" it does refer to the "true faith".

The teachings may be deceptive, but the outcome is the works of the flesh, and these are obvious:

19The acts of the flesh are obvious:

sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery — we have seen this with many cults like David Koresh, this is the world of rock and roll, sex and drugs.

20idolatry and witchcraft — Catholic church, various idols

hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, —lawsuits, sociopath leaders and narcissist. False prophets.

selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy — fruit of selfish ambition

drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So then, "true faith" and "works of the Spirit" are what the apostle's focus on, not "true church".

Yes, Thyatira had issues, but the issues were a result of deceptive teachings and doctrines of demons pushed by Balaam and Jezebel. They were still a church, still had overcomers, Jesus was still walking in their midst and they still had those who walked with the Lord in white.

[HERn]

In the NT age the church was kind of messy. You had a mix Jewish Christians and pagan Christians. The strict Jewish brothers wanted all the pagan converts to be circumcised (hah, like that would ever happen). The recently saved pagans were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes and eating meat sacrificed to demons. Somehow the Holy Spirit fostered oneness and the gospel of Christ went forward along with the teaching of the apostles to avoid such things. If LSM had been in charge back then the teaching of the apostles (plural) would have become the teaching of their apostle.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

The world see us as one. They understand that there are differences of thought on things. But they treat Christians as Christians.

And what is it that the church is supposed to accomplish that 1,000 churches in a city cannot accomplish? Name one actual thing that requires lockstep unity with the errors of Lee just because he and Nee dreamed up a doctrine that allowed the world to define the church according to its political boundaries. What can those 1,000 churches not do?

And what it is meant to accomplish is quite significant. But

It was a rhetorical question for sure.

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was a rhetorical question for sure.

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

So then, are you saying that the NT definition of a church is that they all preach one gospel?

If that is your definition then what happens if you have a church of 200, a new member joins the fellowship but this person is out on the street preaching a different gospel. Is this church of 200 now "disqualified"?

Does the different gospel have to be published by them and sealed with their seal as though this is the gospel that everyone in this fellowship embraces?

My point is that you are making oneness = agreement. You are also saying that what you preach or believe will disqualify my standing before the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, are you saying that the NT definition of a church is that they all preach one gospel?

Hey ZNP, have you never heard of the "Mystery of Human Life?"

Is that the "one" gospel?

I remember back in the late 80's, after LSM/FTTT proclaimed that they had perfected the techniques of preaching the gospel going door-knocking with the MOHL tract, and they announced that they could statistically measure your performance by adhering to their rules and guidelines. Later Titus Chu made the comment, "Why don't they just hire professionals to go door-to-door, they would have much better success."

So much for the verse, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to announce Good News to the poor."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was a rhetorical question for sure.
It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

Actually, with some exceptions, they preach one gospel. And to the extent that you think that things about the way they preach the gospel is not "the gospel" that is only from your perspective of what is the gospel. So what is it that makes your version "the gospel" and an other's NOT "the gospel"? Your opinion?

What makes the gospel of the LRC "the gospel"? I know. It was the gospel according to Lee's teachings. And he declared all other gospels to be the "low gospel."

But like some other recent comments, I don't think there is a delineated "high gospel" and a "low gospel." There is a "high calling." But that is not the gospel. No, the "high gospel" is a man-made label designed to make its adherents believe that they are superior to all others. There is no substance to the claim of being "high" relative to the other gospels. (And that last sentence is predicated upon the notion that there actually are so many gospels. There is only one gospel and it is not simply what the LRC preaches as opposed to what anyone else preaches.

That is a lie from the pit of Hell. And it is perpetrated by some who would seduce you into a state of being puffed-up about your position with God relative to everyone else. If I were looking at Rev 2 – 3 churches to figure out where those people were, I would be stuck in a quandary wondering whether it should be Laodicea or Thyatira. Thinking you've got all the best teachings while accepting seducing doctrines of demons.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

Oh ye of little faith!

Who is doing the coordinating? The Holy Spirit? Anything "inefficient and uprodutive" would be a sure sign that this is the work of man and not of God. Or, "inefficient and unproductive" would be an "event" failed in the eyes of men. It's shortsighted to believe that God actually needs your coordination to demonstrate the power and/or outpouring of the Holy Spirit. God's ways are higher than our ways. God may be happy with something you deem to be "inefficient and unproductive."

Nell

[Evangelical]

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, with some exceptions, they preach one gospel. And to the extent that you think that things about the way they preach the gospel is not "the gospel" that is only from your perspective of what is the gospel. So what is it that makes your version "the gospel" and an other's NOT "the gospel"? Your opinion?

The high gospel includes the low gospel. Low means elementary. Most denominations are preaching the elementary gospel and not going much further than that (Hebrews 6:1). They are preaching the gospel with no mention or reference to receiving the Holy Spirit. Many make converts with no concern about their baptismal status. Whether one has received the Spirit or not and has been baptized was a main concern of the apostles when new converts were made.

[ZNPaaneah]

So far we have been unable to come up with any NT definition of the church other than the simplest: gathering of the believers into the name of Jesus, and a corporate experience of Jesus.

But now we have to add an even more difficult definition, what does it mean for a church to preach one gospel? Does this mean that the message spoken by one person on the pulpit determines whether or not the experience of several hundred people is "true" or not?

Is it a "published" gospel, like a profession of their faith published by a denomination?

Suppose most members merely accept the faith once for all given by the Apostle's as their gospel. Is that acceptable? After all that is one of the 7 ones that has already been given as a possible definition and rejected by the person floating this "preach one gospel" definition.

So then the NT is inclusive -- if you receive the faith once for all delivered by the apostles then you are one with all other believers who do as well.

However, this definition of "preach one gospel" is either just another way to say this or is a very exclusive definition, requiring each group to get the good housekeeping seal of approval on any word that they speak. And who is it that does that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

Sounds just like LSM, except they don't even appoint men based on theological qualifications and charisma, rather loyalty.

[Evangelical]

There are 5 gospels in the Bible. The gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Paul.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So far we have been unable to come up with any NT definition of the church other than the simplest: gathering of the believers into the name of Jesus, and a corporate experience of Jesus.

I increasingly feel that the premise of settling solidly on a real and meaningful identification of a "NT definition of the church" is a false one, leading to a proverbial rabbit trail. Because if you look in the NT for a definition of "church", I daresay you don't find one to your 21st century satisfaction. So you get your half-dozen or twenty six "key verses" and say, "There you have it". See, e.g. the "One church per city" idea, never stated as such but rather contrived in the early 20th century to run out the "foreign devils" from China. Watchman Nee claimed to find the new 'normal', but it was only normal for his perceived needs, and according to his ingrained biases.

And so forth. We all bring in our views, and our biases, and our present needs, and put these on the text, and then proudly wave our carefully selected "reality" before all the rest.

But what did the 1st Century believers think about "the church"? Remember at that time there was no New Testament to refer to. The NT was lived out, and written down, by people who never saw themselves as deviating from "the Book" (the law, the prophets, the writings [proverbs & psalms &c]). Never. They were good Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah promised before. The Son of David, the Savior and (Jewish) King of Israel.

See Peter in Acts 10: "Not so Lord! I have never eaten such foods!" Peter was a good Jew, until his death. Believing in Jesus didn't instantly divorce him from a thousand years of shared history and meaning. On the contrary, it pulled him deeper in, into the Source itself (the Father). The Logos, long hinted at, appeared and declared the Father. But this bright declaration doesn't mean that Peter and the rest simply discarded the long-held sacred texts and created meaning whole-cloth from a singular "NT experience".

It was only later, much later, that the gospel was so thoroughly divorced from its 1st century Jewish roots. And then new meanings had to be found.

If you look at 1st century identification with "church" they already had the term in the LXX. Look at Psalm 1, for instance.

Originally Posted by KJV

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

What is the 'congregation of the righteous' in verse 6, you ask? Why, none other than the 'ekklesia'! But in the 20th century, the post-Protestant Witness Lee had given up on 'works' and thus decided that Psalm 1 was vain and natural (because v.2 mentions the law of the Lord) and Lee therefore could ignore the assembly of the righteous in verse 6, and find his "church" elsewhere.

But did the 1st century believers ignore the assembly of the righteous? Is there any discussion in the NT which allows us to cut off the text, and meaning, thusly? Rather, in the repeated citations of 'scripture' being fulfilled in the NT, I see believers who sensed that the gathering and assembly of Jesus was the fulfillment of God's plan to be glorified. In the midst of the assembly is none other than the eternally-blessed Son, leading praise to the Father of lights(Heb 2:12, cf Psa 22).

And yet most if not nearly all of that seems irrelevant to the 21st century attempt to find consensus on the meaning of church, to its entirely great loss. And thus the interminable rabbit trail.

[ZNPaaneah]

I would prefer the congregation of the redeemed to the congregation of the righteous.

Otherwise I agree with you. I think it was a misdirection by WL to have us focus on "the true church". The focus of the NT is "the true Jesus".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would prefer the congregation of the redeemed to the congregation of the righteous.

Otherwise I agree with you. I think it was a misdirection by WL to have us focus on "the true church". The focus of the NT is "the true Jesus".

Jesus is the Righteous One. It is the Congregation/Assembly/Church of Jesus (see Jesus' "my ekklesia" of Matt. 16). Jesus is the One whose leaf never withers, who delights in the Law of the LORD. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. He alone is our righteousness; and our faith in Him is imputed to us. Basic Christian faith, which can be shown by the installation of the King of Psalm 2. Do you think Psalms 1 and 2 were haphazardly chosen?

Look at the specification of the Jewish King in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. It is Jesus, pictured "a little lower than the angels" in Psalm 1, and "enthroned in glory" in Psalm 2.

And I agree with you: that should be the focus of the NT. Not "how to do church". What a distraction and stumbling! Of course Paul often writes of the orderly church. But the core of the orderly church is the revelation of Jesus as God's Chosen One. Not sussing out who should report to whom, and what constitutes a quorum, a la Roberts Rules of Order.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

You, oh wise one, are alone worthy to determine on what basis other men do things. You are worthy to remain. Where you are. Where the deeds of others are, by your own definition, human, while your deeds are, by your definition, of the spirit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus is the Righteous One. It is the Congregation/Assembly/Church of Jesus (see Jesus' "my ekklesia" of Matt. 16). Jesus is the One whose leaf never withers, who delights in the Law of the LORD. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. He alone is our righteousness; and our faith in Him is imputed to us. Basic Christian faith, which can be shown by the installation of the King of Psalm 2. Do you think Psalms 1 and 2 were haphazardly chosen?

Look at the specification of the Jewish King in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. It is Jesus, pictured "a little lower than the angels" in Psalm 1, and "enthroned in glory" in Psalm 2.

And I agree with you: that should be the focus of the NT. Not "how to do church". What a distraction and stumbling! Of course Paul often writes of the orderly church. But the core of the orderly church is the revelation of Jesus as God's Chosen One. Not sussing out who should report to whom, and what constitutes a quorum, a la Roberts Rules of Order.

"how to do church" refers to the practical side of the church. How should it be organized, who should take the lead, how are finances managed, should the church have a name or not, in which building or buildings should it occupy etc.

[Evangelical]

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"how to do church" refers to the practical side of the church. How should it be organized, who should take the lead, how are finances managed, should the church have a name or not, in which building or buildings should it occupy etc.

Why shouldn't those be local concerns? Whatever happened to the freedom of the Spirit? Lee wanted everyone to be "exactly identical ", which was stifling.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

There's is a big difference between the Chinese army and the American one. Don't you see how much culture played a shaping role in local church organising principles?

Originally Posted by aron

What is the 'congregation of the righteous' in verse 6, you ask? Why, none other than the 'ekklesia'! But in the 20th century, the post-Protestant Witness Lee had given up on 'works' and thus decided that Psalm 1 was vain and natural (because v.2 mentions the law of the Lord) and Lee therefore could ignore the assembly of the righteous in verse 6, and find his "church" elsewhere.

But did the 1st century believers ignore the assembly of the righteous? Is there any discussion in the NT which allows us to cut off the text, and meaning, thusly? Rather, in the repeated citations of 'scripture' being fulfilled in the NT, I see believers who sensed that the gathering and assembly of Jesus was the fulfillment of God's plan to be glorified. In the midst of the assembly is none other than the eternally-blessed Son, leading praise to the Father of lights(Heb 2:12, cf Psa 22).

And yet most if not nearly all of that seems irrelevant to the 21st century attempt to find consensus on the meaning of church, to its entirely great loss. And thus the interminable rabbit trail.

Aron,

While trying understand your point something occurred to me: You don't accept the facts that 1) the law has been ended by Christ and that 2) the believers are no longer under the law.

If you do not accept those facts you will conflate the law with God's economy and end up with tangled teachings which is what I think happened in your explanation above.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

While trying understand your point something occurred to me: You don't accept the facts that 1) the law has been ended by Christ and that 2) the believers are no longer under the law.

If you do not accept those facts you will conflate the law with God's economy and end up with tangled teachings which is what I think happened in your explanation above.

Drake

Christ is the end of the law, but not the end of Righteousness. In fact, Christ is the very Righteousness of God, our Righteousness. The assembly of the redeemed is the assembly of the righteous, the assembly of Christ, i.e. the "my assembly" of Matt 16. This NT fact seems to have escaped Witness Lee.

My question is, How sure are you that this fact also escaped Peter and John and Paul? Where in the NT record is this suggested? Lee played fast and loose with the OT text. Where in the NT did he find precedent?

Originally Posted by aron

Christ is the end of the law, but not the end of Righteousness. In fact, Christ is the very Righteousness of God, our Righteousness. The assembly of the redeemed is the assembly of the righteous, the assembly of Christ, i.e. the "my assembly" of Matt 16. This NT fact seems to have escaped Witness Lee.

My question is, How sure are you that this fact also escaped Peter and John and Paul? Where in the NT record is this suggested? Lee played fast and loose with the OT text. Where in the NT did he find precedent?

Aron,

I don't know whether you really do not understand what Witness Lee taught or you are purposely misrepresenting what he taught.

Of course Witness Lee taught that Christ is our Righteousness.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

Which Christian gatherings are "divided against themselves"? Are you referring to the LC being divided against other Christians? Or are you referring to LC affliated with the blendeds being divided against those affiliated with Titus Chu, and those in south America and those with John So in Europe?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

OK, there is a lot I don't understand. But let's assume for a moment you are right. The church is something more than a few believers meeting over coffee.

So here is my question, what do we call a meeting of 3 saints over coffee?

Do we call it a gathering? Ekklesia is a gathering of the believers. That would be confusing.

So what would the NT call this little get together, with a couple of saints breaking bread together, meeting into the name of Jesus? (Also, I assume these saints are using our recipe in the alternate threads on how to make a good cup of coffee).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course Witness Lee taught that Christ is our Righteousness.
Drake

Then why did Lee pan the righteous man in psalms? Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me"; Lee said, "No, they're the vain words of a fallen man's natural concepts."

And back to the thread, what happened to the assembly of the righteous, under Lee? It doesn't exist, right? "There are none righteous, not one." Um sorry, there is one. In fact that is the core of the gospel message. Yeah that gospel - the so-called low one. I'm arguing here that it's the foundation of our NT assembly. It's the same ekklesia the OT LXX talked about.

"Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene? We know who you are - the Holy One of God! Have you come go destroy us?" Even the demons could see the Righteous One. Why was Lee so veiled?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, there is a lot I don't understand. But let's assume for a moment you are right. The church is something more than a few believers meeting over coffee.
So here is my question, what do we call a meeting of 3 saints over coffee?
Do we call it a gathering? Ekklesia is a gathering of the believers. That would be confusing.
So what would the NT call this little get together, with a couple of saints breaking bread together, meeting into the name of Jesus? (Also, I assume these saints are using our recipe in the alternate threads on how to make a good cup of coffee).

If they have the Lord's table, it would be "church". If not, it is just fellowship. Consider Paul's fellowship with Peter for 15 days:

Gal 1:18 Three years after his conversion, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.

We cannot say that this verse implies that Paul and Peter were a church or that their fellowship was a church meeting.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If they have the Lord's table, it would be "church". If not, it is just fellowship. Consider Paul's fellowship with Peter for 15 days:
Gal 1:18 Three years after his conversion, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.
We cannot say that this verse implies that Paul and Peter were a church or that their fellowship was a church meeting.

Yes, they are having fellowship. What do you call their meeting?

BTW, the NT does not refer to a meeting as "a fellowship".

Originally Posted by aron

Then why did Lee pan the righteous man in psalms? Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me"; Lee said, "No, they're the vain words of a fallen man's natural concepts."
And back to the thread, what happened to the assembly of the righteous, under Lee? It doesn't exist, right? "There are none righteous, not one." Um sorry, there is one. In fact that is the core of the gospel message. Yeah that gospel - the so-called low one. I'm arguing here that it's the foundation of our NT assembly. It's the same ekklesia the OT LXX talked about.
"Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene? We know who you are - the Holy One of God! Have you come go destroy us?" Even the demons could see the Righteous One. Why was Lee so veiled?

Aron,

I do not know what you are talking about when you say Brother Lee was veiled regarding Christ as our Righteousness. You lead us through a maze in psalms to derive that conclusion and yet your conclusion is so blatantly opposite about what Witness Lee taught on this topic.

Nevertheless, for the moment I will make an assumption that you really don't know or just forgot.

Philippians 3:9 describes two righteousnesses from two sources. One source of righteousness is from the law and the other source is out of God and based on faith.

The central thought of the Psalms is Christ (Luke 24:44) but not every thing in Psalms refers to Christ (i.e gods in 82, nations in 83, etc.).

Psalm 1 says blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of Jehovah. Psalm 19 says the law is perfect. Indeed, yet the man who penned Psalm 19 broke the law in several aspects. Paul positioned the law as a concubine inferior to Christ Himself (Galatians 4:24-25).

We must include all these aspects to derive a scriptural understanding of this divine truth.

The Psalms are the impressions and experiences of godly men expressed through praise, prayer, and song yet they did not have the benefit of the New Testament to define their impressions. On the other hand we do looking back. Yet in so doing we cannot disregard the psalmist point of view ( a limited forward view). So we see in psalms both the concept of human and divine thought. Psalm 1 shows a clear human appreciation for the law (v2) yet Psalm 2 shows the Divine concept of Christ the anointed one as the center of God's plan or if you prefer He is God's plan.

Brother Lee taught that Christ is our (the believers) Righteousness, that which is out of God based on faith, not the righteousness that is out of the law.

Drake

[aron]

Drake,

Psalm 1 is not about us, nor about the well-intentioned psalmist, but about Christ. I'm not sure how much more blunt I can be. How is that a "maze"?

Suppose Peter had stood with the eleven, gave a talk to the assembled throng and concluded, "This man, who hoped to avoid corruption, was a vain and fallen sinner, whose grave is with us to this day. Sorry. You can all go home now"? (Acts 2:29)

Instead, he went on, "But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." (vv 30-32)

It's not about the "godly impressions" of a vain and natural man, nor about you or I striving (and failing) to keep the law. It's about Christ. How could Witness Lee, who could see "Christ" in type and shadow in the details of Noah's ark, not see Him clearly portrayed here? And where in the NT do we see precedent to wave off Christ? No, rather we see invitation after invitation to "see Jesus", made briefly lower than the angels, and then crowned with glory and honor. But Lee instead saw vanity.

And that goes for the ekklesia, as well. In the midst of the ekklesia I (Christ) will lead hymns of praise to Him (the Father). There it is, in plain words, but Lee was set on the "vanity" and "natural" theme, and on he went. I argue that it wasn't the word of scripture that was composed of natural concepts, but rather the word of the expositor. The revelation of Christ isn't lacking, but the expositor is lacking revelation.

Again I ask, where in the NT do we see the OT text called vain, natural, fallen concepts? On the contrary, it was pointed to again and again and again as indicative of the coming Messiah. And now He was come.

But Lee had his "God's economy" to tend to, and unhelpful scripture simply had to go. It wasn't "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" but rather only those words which were helpful to the metric at hand. There were books to sell, conferences to preside over. So Lee hurried past. No Christ to be found.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And that goes for the ekklesia, as well. In the midst of the ekklesia I (Christ) will lead hymns of praise to Him (the Father). There it is, in plain words, but Lee was set on the "vanity" and "natural" theme, and on he went..

Drake,

I know you'll pull up some great and inspiring message Lee gave on Psalm 22 as "Christ and the church" or Hebrews 2 as some supposedly high gospel, which "not many Christians see". Yes, I know.

But why did this ekklesia in Psalm 22 have revelation of Christ, but the ekklesia in Psalm 1 was shallow and vain? Why cherry-pick the word for types that align with your (ahem) natural concepts, but discard the rest? And where oh where in the NT do we see precedent to treat our source text (the OT) thusly?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, they are having fellowship. What do you call their meeting?

BTW, the NT does not refer to a meeting as "a fellowship".

Getting to know each other better?

Originally Posted by aron

And where oh where in the NT do we see precedent to treat our source text (the OT) thusly?

Hi aron,

The massive quantity of messages given by Brother Lee showing Christ as the fulfillment and reality of all the types, shadows, prophecies, etc. in the Old Testament speak to his great love, honor, labor, and devotion to the Old Testament. Your accusations to the contrary have no merit. If you didn't toss those Life Studies, which Stuttgart considered good inspired stuff up until a certain date, then dust them off, read them for yourself, and refresh your understanding about what he taught.

Then, I will be happy to discuss, engage, or debate any topic concerning what Witness Lee actually taught. It is pointless to discuss teachings he never taught! No one benefits from that no matter what side they are on.

Gott gebe euch Verständnis,

Drake

[JJ]

Is the New Testament's definition of a church in the following verses (1 Tim 3:14-15 Berian Literal Bible)?

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you in a short time, but if I should delay, so that you may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth."

So, if the church of the living God is the household of God and the pillar and base of the truth, what does that say about the way we should treat each other, and what we should be holding up?

How do the local churches stack up? How do the churches us non LCRs attend stack up?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Getting to know each other better?

Are you trying to be cute?

This thread is about what the NT has to say concerning the matter of the church and the gathering of the saints together. A matter which is very important and which according to you, only you are fully aware of the importance.

You say that the church is the army of God. Agreed. But there are many military missions that are best suited for small groups of 3-6 people. Why couldn't a group of 3-6 be a fully integrated and functioning group within this army?

The requirement is they fulfill the 7 ones in Ephesians. But if they did they would be subject to the rule of the one Lord, Jesus. Like any army you need a strong, clear line of command.

This is where all of your fluff about how important the church is gets exposed as nothing but a fig leaf to cover the shame of the damn heresy you are pushing.

You cannot come up with a valid complaint or explanation why your denomination, named by Witness Lee as the best denomination, is somehow superior and therefore disqualifies all other Christian gatherings. This doctrine denies the Lord who bought all those other Christians. Since Jesus is the one who paid the price it is Jesus who gets to make these pronouncements. Hence the reason for this thread. You say that there is such a criteria, yet cannot show anywhere from the NT where this pronouncement was made.

ZNP,

Why aren't you indignant about christians who refuse to meet together because they hold different views about baptisms, gifts of the Spirit, church goverment, etc? If you really belueve that the local churches are a denomination then a consistent position on your part either would be to live and let live or rail agaist them all equally. Baptist, pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and local church are all the same if you hold the view they are all denominations.

If your argument is that the local churches think they are unique in their teaching and practices then I would remind you that every denomination has a unique doctrine, personality, experience, etc. that they consider unique and that is the very reason they exist as an independent entity and are divided from other members of the Body of Christ.

Your point about smaller military units still being part of the larger army is consistent with a similar viewpoint Brother Lee had concerning the vital groups. The vital groups were the small units that functioned in coordination together yet still part of the church in a city. The analogy breaks down when applied to denominations because practically speaking there is no coordination between denominations as there is in an army.

The enemy uses denominations to frustrate God's move knowing if christians do not come together they cannot be effective engaging him in spiritual warfare.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Is the New Testament's definition of a church in the following verses (1 Tim 3:14-15 Berian Literal Bible)?

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you in a short time, but if I should delay, so that you may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth."

So, if the church of the living God is the household of God and the pillar and base of the truth, what does that say about the way we should treat each other, and what we should be holding up?

How do the local churches stack up? How do the churches us non LCRs attend stack up?

I would like to address the portion of "the pillar and base of the truth". (Good question btw).

To me, the pillar and base of the truth is akin to the highest commandment. "Love your neighbor". The paragon for me in the NT, Christ's saving love in dying for the sinful world aside, is Dorcas and the widows in Acts 9. No doctrinal truths are stated, but love is so obviously displayed, an overpouring, irrepressible love, that it is palpably evident.

But on an internet forum what can one say? The only "love" I can try to display on an internet chat room, is to respect those whose views differ from mine, and to remember that they have earned their views with the same price of experience that I've come to hold mine.

So I'll sidestep love, here, and get to, shall we say, doctrine. In that case, the pillar and base of the truth is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Peter, in the first recorded gospel message, didn't (that I recall) go over the virgin birth, the Trinity, the transfiguration on the mountain, or any number of items, all arguably important. No, he and the eleven testified to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead 1) validated God's sending, that He was in fact the Chosen One, the Messiah; 2) meant that death's sting was annulled; 3) meant that His blood now erased our sins and brought us all, the whole world, back to God. Probably more than that but I'll leave it there . . . the blood of the Lamb now opened wide the gateway of salvation to all who would enter. The resurrection made this clear. "God has now made Him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Now, back to our previous program. What happens when a NT expositor starts telling you that the OT scripture is not prophetic of Christ, but vain, fallen, natural man's concepts of himself? What happens to the pillar and base of the truth? And what happens to the testimony of the church?

Here's an example. "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Christ) because He delighted in Me". No, says the Bible expositor, God didn't love nor rescue the sinful psalmist (Psa 18:9; cf 34:4 &c). The sinful psalmist rather saved himself.

Now, the NT says, "This is My Beloved Son, in whom I delight": clearly the Father in Heaven speaking of the Son on earth. Here is the NT "amen" to God's delight in the prophetic utterance of Psalm 18. Yet the invitation to see a Christ's obedience and His Father's delight in the scripture is spurned by the Bible expositor. He doesn't even say, "No, this can't be Jesus, because, X, Y, and Z" He simply says it's a fallen, natural word and moves on. The Bible expositor is blinded to Christ, and his blinded followers go along behind. What happens to the church when the truth is simply dismissed out of hand? What happens to the pillar and base of the truth when scripture is held to be low, fallen concepts of sinful humanity? How do we access the Christ of God? I don't see it. The so-called Bible expositor has slammed the door shut.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP, Why aren't you indignant about christians who refuse to meet together because they hold different views about baptisms, gifts of the Spirit, church goverment, etc?

Why do you ignore what I have said? The seven ones in Ephesians includes "one baptism". "One Spirit" includes the concept of one spirit. One Lord includes the concept of one administration.

My point has been consistent from the first post. I think that the seven ones in Ephesians is the key fellowship from the apostles concerning the definition of the church. This corresponds with the Lord's expression "meet in His name" but just gives us some more details.

All genuine Christians can agree that Jesus is Lord. They do not agree that Witness Lee is Lord. We can all agree on one baptism, no one is going to agree that you have to be baptized in the Catholic church.

Evangelical and Drake claim that the church is a very important topic in the NT, so important that only they truly understand the importance (paraphrasing Evangelical, sorry to paint Drake with the same brush) yet when asked to give a simple NT definition of what the church is and to explain why the things they are certain are so are in fact so. They are unable to give the simplest definition.

Evangelical claims the definition of a church is that they have 2 male elders. This was proved false from the fellowship of the Apostles. He then claimed that they must be able to excommunicate members, a highly questionable requirement as there is no evidence that any apostle required some group to first excommunicate a member before recognizing them as a church.

But even so, Evangelical then used this criteria, you must be able to excommunicate, as evidence that a home meeting cannot be a church since it would likely have a husband and wife. Once again, this has been disproved by the fellowship of the apostles, as Paul refers to a husband and wife and "the church in their house".

How do you have any credibility when you claim that this is such a crucial, important topic, no one but you understands it, and everyone else but you is wrong. Yet when asked for a simple definition you are completely clueless. Is this the fruit of Witness Lee's teaching?

Once again I would say that he is a false prophet and that you will know them by their fruit.

Hi ZNP,

As this discussion unfolded it went deeper into the weeds. Now that you are in the weeds you beg for a simple definition of the church as if it had not already been provided.

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period.

The believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son and though that is deeply profound, yet it is simple. That they may be one even Father as you and I are one. What visible testimony speaks to this spiritual reality? One church, one city, of which every believer is a member of.

Yet, because you do not accept the simple and straightforward answer, and you seemed intent on justifying divisions/denominations, you kept introducing various scenarios, and "what about this and that?", and Evangelical gave as thorough an explanation as is available to your many what-if scenarios.

The absurdity peaked when a city of a million people could, under your definition, have 500K churches of two people each. That makes no sense but it is the logical conclusion of your proposal.

If its complex it is because you have made it so. It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period. . . It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

You could say, "My simple definition of the church is that. . . " But how do you know that was Paul's definition? If you look at Paul's usage in Romans 16, "Greet the church that is in their house", how do you know all the believers in the city met inside that house? You just have to assume so, because it's convenient to your understanding.

Oh, they don't all have to meet together? Like, they can have Meeting Hall A and Meeting Hall B? That's okay? Again, where does Paul say that? Because the word for 'meeting' was the same as the one for church. Ekklesia. So maybe it's simpler than you realized. Because you can't have Church Hall A and B, that is too confusing.

And Paul's travelling companion, Luke: "And with those words he dismissed the church" - oops, sorry, we don't translate 'ekklesia' as 'church' there, because it doesn't fit our definition. . . sorry, fit our concepts. . . sorry. . .

You 'simply' are reading today's understanding, and simply your understanding, back onto the text, and where the text doesn't line up you can just ignore it. Hey, a lot of people have had long and distinguished careers doing that, so rock on.

And, back to the church as the pillar and base of the truth, a la 1 Timothy 3 -- you know what I recently found out? The brother of Jesus was named Jacob. Not James. Can you believe that? Look up the Greek interlinear. "I'acovos". Same as the patriarch in the LXX, translated in English as "Jacob". But they translated the patriarch as "Jacob" and the brother of the Lord as "James". Like the English king. Can you believe that?

If you get a Greek interlinear, and look up Galatians 2:12 "some came from James" and look up Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" and you'll see the word is the same. "I'acov"

I mean, how much truth do we really have? I think a little circumspection is in order, here. Love one another, believe into Jesus Christ, try to go along together. Receive one another. Not just those that meet your doctrinal specs. Don't be greedy for filthy lucre, don't lord over the saints, try not to quarrel over trifles, and please, don't dismiss the Word of God as fallen men's concepts!

Other than that, we shouldn't presume we know so much. It seems we didn't even know the name of Jesus' brother. I didn't, anyway. No one ever told me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

As this discussion unfolded it went deeper into the weeds. Now that you are in the weeds you beg for a simple definition of the church as if it had not already been provided.

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period.

This thread has been consistent from the first post. What is the New Testament teaching.

You and Evangelical have claimed that the city is a key component of the definition. Allegorically I agree, but no one, including you, has provided a black and white definition from the NT that says this. And that, to me is very interesting. How could something so important, as portrayed by you, Evangelical and Witness Lee, be left to an inferred teaching?

Originally Posted by Drake

The believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son and though that is deeply profound, yet it is simple. That they may be one even Father as you and I are one. What visible testimony speaks to this spiritual reality? One church, one city, of which every believer is a member of.

Yet, because you do not accept the simple and straightforward answer, and you seemed intent on justifying divisions/denominations, you kept introducing various scenarios, and "what about this and that?", and Evangelical gave as thorough an explanation as is available to your many what-if scenarios.

Why do you say I don't accept this truth that the believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son. Everything that I have spoken has affirmed this.

One church, one city of which every believer is a member of. I have no issue with this. My issue is with "one administration appointed by Witness Lee". I am not the one who has claimed that all the believers in a city are not in the church, that has been the sole domain of Evangelical.

Originally Posted by Drake

The absurdity peaked when a city of a million people could, under your definition, have 500K churches of two people each. That makes no sense but it is the logical conclusion of your proposal.

My proposal is that according to the NT, according to Jesus word in Matthew 16 and 18, and according to Paul's word in Ephesians the focus of the NT is not on "the true church" as described by Witness Lee but not defined. Rather it is on "the true Jesus".

The first mention of church is when Peter had the revelation of Jesus as the Christ. This is the purpose of the Church, this is when the church is truly revealed, when we have the revelation of Jesus.

Neither you nor Evangelical provided any other valid definition from the NT. You have not defined "church" from the NT other than the meaning of the word -- gathering of the called out ones.

I asked what the minimum number of members could be for a church based on the NT -- no valid answer other than the verse 2-3 from Jesus.

I asked what requirements a gathering of the believers would have to meet to be a church. Again, no valid reason to reject a group as small as 2-3.

I asked what would you call this fellowship of 2-3 that meets the standard of Matt 18 and the 7 ones in Ephesians. No other valid name other than a gathering of the called out ones.

How is it that something so simple as you say, so central to the NT, so key, so important, and you can't even answer the most basic question -- what is it?

Originally Posted by Drake

If its complex it is because you have made it so. It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

Drake

I am asking the simplest and most basic question. What does the NT say that a church is?

If that is making things complex for you then that comes across as someone handling the word deceitfully. How can you tell me that giving a NT definition of a church is my making this "complex" or leading this "into the weeds".

This is hermeneutics 101.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And, back to the church as the pillar and base of the truth, a la 1 Timothy 3 -- you know what I recently found out? The brother of Jesus was named Jacob. Not James. Can you believe that? Look up the Greek interlinear. "I'acovos". Same as the patriarch in the LXX, translated in English as "Jacob". But they translated the patriarch as "Jacob" and the brother of the Lord as "James". Like the English king. Can you believe that?
If you get a Greek interlinear, and look up Galatians 2:12 "some came from James" and look up Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" and you'll see the word is the same. "I'acov"

Interesting find.

Over the years I have run into some who insist on the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, none other for them will do.

Authorized by who? James himself.

Originally Posted by aron

You 'simply' are reading today's understanding, and simply your understanding, back onto the text, and where the text doesn't line up you can just ignore it.

aron,

Denominations are the recent change having proliferated like gang-busters over the last few hundred years. The church for many centuries would have been unfamiliar with the denominational situation of today. If you read the Bible without the filter of denominations it is obvious that there was one church in one city.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You and Evangelical have claimed that the city is a key component of the definition. Allegorically I agree, but no one, including you, has provided a black and white definition from the NT that says this. And that, to me is very interesting. How could something so important, as portrayed by you, Evangelical and Witness Lee, be left to an inferred teaching?

Inferred? Surely you jest.

The black and white definition is so apparent that it is incredulous how anyone with a seeking heart could possibly see it any other way. The only way one could find any justification for denominations from the text of the Bible is by willful ignorance of its plain speaking.

If you still doubt this then I recommend one more possible help. Read Strong's references (#1577) for "church" & "churches" straight through in one sitting. If looking up over one hundred verses is too time consuming then read the abbreviated text in Strong's. The pattern is clear, the weight of the matter is overwhelming, and the intentional meaning is without dispute: There was one church in each city made up of the believers in that city and they were addressed as such. There were churches in a province or a region and they were referenced as such.

Denominations are a relatively new invention. Even where there were divisions in the early churches they still met as the church in that city.

Those are the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion and interpretation but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you trying to be cute? This thread is about what the NT has to say concerning the matter of the church and the gathering of the saints together. A matter which is very important and which according to you, only you are fully aware of the importance...

Not at all. I was just stating the purpose of Paul staying with Peter. It was two (of the best) disciples meeting together yet they would not call their meeting a church service. This is an example of two or three meeting together with the presence of the Lord, yet not really being a church.

My explanation all along has been because it is not a denomination, but the local church, it is therefore superior and disqualifies all other Christian gatherings.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Inferred? Surely you jest. The black and white definition is so apparent that it is incredulous how anyone with a seeking heart could possibly see it any other way...

You appear to think that correlation = causation.

It doesn't. Yes, the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church in one city". But that is not a black and white definition, it is correlation and you must infer the definition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not at all. I was just stating the purpose of Paul staying with Peter. It was two (of the best) disciples meeting together yet they would not call their meeting a church service...

They don't refer to any meeting as a "church service". That is not a NT term.

The word church means a gathering of believers, and that is the term they use.

The verb they use is fellowship.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You appear to think that correlation = causation.
It doesn't. Yes, the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church in one city". But that is not a black and white definition, it is correlation and you must infer the definition.

I do not think correlation = causation as a rule and certainly not in this discussion. Rather, I believe causation can be derived from trends and patterns. Lacking the ability to do primary research (by asking the NT writers directly why they addressed the believers in a city as "the church in..." ) then you are left with the objective citations from the scripture, historical records, contemporary writers, etc. The pattern and trends from the scripture are clear on this topic so we can derive causation - that is, the believers in a city were addressed as the church in that city beCAUSE the inspired writers considered all believers to make up the church in that city.

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

Why?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not think correlation = causation as a rule and certainly not in this discussion. Rather, I believe causation can be derived from trends and patterns. Lacking the ability to do primary research (by asking the NT writers directly why they addressed the believers in a city as "the church in..." ) then you are left with the objective citations from the scripture, historical records, contemporary writers, etc. The pattern and trends from the scripture are clear on this topic so we can derive causation - that is, the believers in a city were addressed as the church in that city beCAUSE the inspired writers considered all believers to make up the church in that city.

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

Why?

Drake

I haven't dismissed anything. However, I do not elevate a pattern to a rule, which is what you have done.

For example, if all believers who meet in a city are aligned with the seven ones in Ephesians it would be fair to call them "one church". Why? Because they have one Lord, they have one God, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism.

My interpretation is that Jesus makes us one. There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt.

Your interpretation is that you have to have a particular name, and certain practices to be a "true church". All of these rules and practices are not directly taught but are derivative of your inferring a rule that is not taught by the Apostles.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

You keep saying that posters here "dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture to justify denominations."

I have not been a part in a "denomination" since I graduated from Catholic high school.

You make it all about "the name." As if God no longer looks at the heart, cares for righteousness, gives a hoot about faith, etc. But where is the evidence that God has discarded every principle He has ever spelled out in the scripture in lieu of a principle not spelled out at all?

If "the name" of the church unlocked all of God's heavenly blessings, then true believers would be willing to die for that name. There is no record of Christians ever dying for that name, unless it is the name of Jesus. As it is, the most they have ever done for that church name is to sue their brothers in court over their name. That happened in both Columbus and Mansfield, Ohio. Ask John Myer, he was there in court. His book opens with that scene.

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."

Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

[aron]

Drake,

The proliferation of denominations is also known as the Protestant Reformation, which many of us think was a positive development. Or are you of two minds about this?

I know that you prefer your history neat, like the Just So Stories of Witness Lee. "Then God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil of China. . ."

But history isn't what you or Lee wish it were. It just is. We may wish that electricity had never been invented. Or powered flight. But it was. Nee and Lee's return to the good old days, pre-reformation, of a proper, normal, true church gave us the Vicar of Christ and his ne'er do well sons running roughshod over the church members, the disparagment of scripture, lifeless uniformity, smearing anyone who had an ounce of vitality as ambitious, and we could go on. Public shaming sold as perfecting. Complete lack of curiosity. Lee told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone for 45 years.

No thanks.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake,

The proliferation of denominations is also known as the Protestant Reformation, which many of us think was a positive development. Or are you of two minds about this?

I know that you prefer your history neat, like the Just So Stories of Witness Lee. "Then God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil of China. . ."

But history isn't what you or Lee wish it were. It just is.

Aron,

The history I was referring to (read my note in context) is the early history of the church. You either misunderstood that or decided to take a shot on an unrelated topic.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

The history I was referring to (read my note in context) is the early history of the church. You either misunderstood that or decided to take a shot on an unrelated topic.

Drake

So the denominations started proliferating around the time Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians?

Your post #177 said they were a recent change, over the past few hundred years. That sounded like the Protestant Reformation to me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."

Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

Oh great, you have responded to my thread. what is the "clear biblical teaching"? This is precisely what I have been asking for.

[NewManLiving]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."
Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

There is no "biblical teaching". Christians were "addressed" according to where they lived. The Holy Spirit makes no mention of locality as a requirement for our oneness. You can derive what you like, but there is no command to do so. I really don't think the apostles gave it much thought either. We are limited by time and space. It would be natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in. You are making a doctrine and calling it a teaching. This is not the case.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

There is no "biblical teaching". Christians were "addressed" according to where they lived. The Holy Spirit makes no mention of locality as a requirement for our oneness. You can derive what you like, but there is no command to do so. I really don't think the apostles gave it much thought either. We are limited by time and space. It would be natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in. You are making a doctrine and calling it a teaching. This is not the case.

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity. This thread is simple, what do the Apostles say in the NT.

No one made you a spokesman for what I believe, much less for what hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

So your point is that the NT "describes" a certain practice of the church which is one church in one city, but doesn't prescribe it?

I would raise three questions to this.

1. What is the description of this practice?

2. Why does WL prescribe something that the apostles only describe and don't prescribe?

3. Why would the apostles only describe something that is crucial for our oneness?

[NewManLiving]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity. This thread is simple, what do the Apostles say in the NT.

No one made you a spokesman for what I believe, much less for what hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

No one made you a spokesman for what the local churches believe either . You and others are painting the whole local churches according to your experiences in individual churches.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So your point is that the NT "describes" a certain practice of the church which is one church in one city, but doesn't prescribe it?

I would raise three questions to this.

1. What is the description of this practice?

2. Why does WL prescribe something that the apostles only describe and don't prescribe?

3. Why would the apostles only describe something that is crucial for our oneness?

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No one made you a spokesman for what the local churches believe either .

Witness Lee is the spokesman for what the Local churches believe. The first post quotes Witness Lee. LSM publishes what the Local church believes. They are very clear on only having one publisher and have excommunicated any that try to publish outside of their authority. They also have made themselves the "spokesman" for what the Local church believes. My quotes come from their websites.

Your cutesy little responses cause you to lose all credibility with anyone who actually reads your posts.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You and others are painting the whole local churches according to your experiences in individual churches.

This thread has nothing to do with our personal experiences in the various localities. The thread has been very narrowly defined -- Witness Lee talked about a "true church" I asked what that is. I would like a NT definition from the apostles.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

Had Witness Lee and the current Blended administration actually served by the principles of oneness supposedly established by the one church, one city model, with much of it highlighted in Nee's book TNCCL, then this discussion, this forum, and all of these painful and tragic stories, would never have happened.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

Nee taught that the elders of each local church were the highest court in the New Testament.

Many joined Lee's movement early on after reading Nee's book. He was after all his closest coworker.

During trying times, Lee reduced the responsibility of the elders to choosing what time to start the meeting.

Such discrepancies undermine their ministries, and cast a huge shadow on their extremely unique and exclusive stance on "the New Testament Definition of a Church."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee is the spokesman for what the Local churches believe. The first post quotes Witness Lee. LSM publishes what the Local church believes. They are very clear on only having one publisher and have excommunicated any that try to publish outside of their authority. They also have made themselves the "spokesman" for what the Local church believes. My quotes come from their websites.

Your cutesy little responses cause you to lose all credibility with anyone who actually reads your posts.

You seem to have a problem when I said this:

For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Does this apply to you or not? If you don't follow Christmas and Easter then I can say "Christianity except ZNPaaneah" if you like. Anyway my statement was not about you, but about Christianity, of which the celebration of Christmas and Easter are part of. My point was about the descriptive view of the Bible regarding the local church.

It is still true that Christianity celebrates and does things which have no descriptive or prescriptive basis in the Bible. No doubt you or others will say the same of the local churches. However at least the city locality church practice has a descriptive basis in the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread has nothing to do with our personal experiences in the various localities. The thread has been very narrowly defined -- Witness Lee talked about a "true church" I asked what that is. I would like a NT definition from the apostles.

My post was not talking about personal experiences, my post was talking about what the bible describes as a NT church. My post was very much "on topic", until you interjected and made it personal by your statement:

"Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity".. "

"No one made you a spokesman for what I believe"...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

It would be based upon the divine fellowship of which Watchman Nee and the Apostle's partook. Does a view of a divided church have the basis of divine fellowship ? Did Jesus tell his disciples they could start different denominations if they wanted to or felt the need, or did he ask them to be unified? Did he divided the 12 into 4 groups of 3 and tell them they were 4 churches?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to have a problem when I said this:

For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Wow. I quoted you saying "no one made you a spokesman for what the Local Church believes". And responded saying that Witness Lee was the spokesman for what the Local Church believes as well as LSM, and yet you somehow thought that what really bothered me was the quote that I didn't reference?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does this apply to you or not? If you don't follow Christmas and Easter then I can say "Christianity except ZNPaaneah" if you like. Anyway my statement was not about you, but about Christianity, of which the celebration of Christmas and Easter are part of. My point was about the descriptive view of the Bible regarding the local church.

No it does not apply to me and no it does not apply to this thread.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is still true that Christianity celebrates and does things which have no descriptive or prescriptive basis in the Bible. No doubt you or others will say the same of the local churches. However at least the city locality church practice has a descriptive basis in the Bible.

This thread is not about Christianity, nor have I held up Christianity as the definition or standard for the church. In fact, from the first post it should have been clear to any reader that Witness Lee's reference to the "true church" indicated that he was not talking about Christianity. The question is quite simple, what exactly is the "true church" based on the NT?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My post was not talking about personal experiences, my post was talking about what the bible describes as a NT church. My post was very much "on topic", until you interjected and made it personal by your statement:

"Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity".. "

You said that "Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter". That is an example of you "speaking for all of Christianity". Please stop.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"No one made you a spokesman for what I believe"...

You said that all of Christianity has a problem with the concept of one church in one locality. When you pretend to be a spokesman for all of Christianity, that included me. You are clueless about what I believe. You have willfully ignored my repeated comments on this issue. So then, stop trying to be a spokesman for what I and hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would be based upon the divine fellowship of which Watchman Nee and the Apostle's partook. Does a view of a divided church have the basis of divine fellowship ? Did Jesus tell his disciples they could start different denominations if they wanted to or felt the need, or did he ask them to be unified? Did he divided the 12 into 4 groups of 3 and tell them they were 4 churches?

Yes, it would be based on that, which is why I have asked for someone to provide that basis. Seems like a reasonable request and all of your gyrations and protestations and misdirections appears to be a deceitful work.

[ZNPaaneah]

Here is the hypocrisy in Witness Lee's teaching.

1. In Taipei they have 26 meeting halls. So having separate meetings in separate halls is not equivalent to having division or a lack of oneness.

2. They don't have a meeting hall in Taipei large enough for everyone to meet so it is very rare for them to have such a meeting. they can rent a large stadium if necessary but for the most part these large meetings are viewed as unproductive, unprofitable and unnecessary.

3. In a city like NYC it is perfectly reasonable to estimate that there are a million Christians, hence there is no meeting hall even remotely close to holding that size crowd. Generally speaking a stadium holding 75,000 is about as large as you could go.

So then, any logical, sane, reasonable person would conclude that having separate meetings was not evidence of a lack of oneness, but rather evidence of being practical.

What then determines which of these meetings is "the true church"? This is a term not in the NT. Instead the NT is incredibly, strikingly vague on this subject. Instead the evidence from the NT is concerning "the true Jesus".

1. When Jesus first mentions the church it is in response to Peter having a revelation of Jesus Christ incarnated and come in the flesh.

2. When Paul has a revelation of Jesus for the first time it results in him having a vision of the Body of Christ. The scales fall off his eyes when Ananias lays hands on him.

3. According to Jesus it merely takes 2-3 meeting into His name for His presence to be there.

4. According to Jesus the sins of Laodicea caused him to leave, going outside and knocking on the door for those still in that meeting to leave and come outside to Him. Since His presence is no longer in that meeting we can conclude that they are no longer "meeting in the name of Jesus". They have violated one or more of the 7 ones. We can also conclude that the warning to Ephesus that either they repent or else they will lose their lamp stand very likely still applies to Laodicea.

The definition of the word refers to a gathering of called out ones.

There is no other word given in the NT for the gathering of the believers. The verb "fellowship" is used to describe the action, but the noun ekklesia is used to refer to the gathering.

Therefore I have concluded, based on the fellowship of Jesus, Paul and John that what makes a church a "true church" is the presence of the "true Jesus".

No person, no ministry, no publishing house, no doctrine determines this. If you gather together into the name of Jesus according to the fellowship of the apostles, primarily Ephesians 4, then the true Jesus will be in your midst, then you can express the incarnated Christ, and then you will be the Body of Christ, the true church.

If you do not deal with the Lord Jesus and repent of anything that He tells you to repent of then you could lose his presence and no longer be a lamp stand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to have a problem when I said this:

For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Does this apply to you or not?

Didn't we discuss the hypocrisy of this statement when I informed you that all the Recovery adamantly follows Chinese New Year?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron,
Denominations are the recent change having proliferated like gang-busters over the last few hundred years. The church for many centuries would have been unfamiliar with the denominational situation of today. If you read the Bible without the filter of denominations it is obvious that there was one church in one city.
Drake

So then the Protestant Reformation was a bad thing, ushering in denominations? And if it was a good thing, at what point did it become a bad thing?

My best answer is, "When Watchman Nee decided it was a bad thing." And not before. The denominations had positional and functional validity to enjoy, represent and express Christ until the moment WN had his first Lord's Table meeting. At that time they became dark, satanic Babylon.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow. I quoted you saying "no one made you a spokesman for what the Local Church believes". And responded saying that Witness Lee was the spokesman for what the Local Church believes as well as LSM, and yet you somehow thought that what really bothered me was the quote that I didn't reference?

Yes I thought that was what bothered you and now you admit that it did:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said that "Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter". That is an example of you "speaking for all of Christianity". Please stop.

So what I said about Christianity following Christmas and Easter was the thing that bothered you. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread is not about Christianity, nor have I held up Christianity as the definition or standard for the church. In fact, from the first post it should have been clear to any reader that Witness Lee's reference to the "true church" indicated that he was not talking about Christianity. The question is quite simple, what exactly is the "true church" based on the NT?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said that all of Christianity has a problem with the concept of one church in one locality. When you pretend to be a spokesman for all of Christianity, that included me. You are clueless about what I believe. You have willfully ignored my repeated comments on this issue. So then, stop trying to be a spokesman for what I and hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

I was not pretending to be a spokesman for anyone. I was presenting my argument on the basis of the bibles descriptive view of the church. Somehow you continuously turn the discussions around to make the discussions personal and about you.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, it would be based on that, which is why I have asked for someone to provide that basis. Seems like a reasonable request and all of your gyrations and protestations and misdirections appears to be a deceitful work.

I will have to repeat my previous response because it remains the same:

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

The basis is: descriptions of the church in the Bible and Nee's spiritual revelation and insight.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is the hypocrisy in Witness Lee's teaching.
1. In Taipei they have 26 meeting halls. So having separate meetings in separate halls is not equivalent to having division or a lack of oneness.

You said in a previous post:

This thread is about what the NT has to say concerning the matter of the church and the gathering of the saints together.

If that is true why are you talking about Witness Lee so much in this thread? Even I have been able to discuss the matter of the church from the Bible without discussing Witness Lee much.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't we discuss the hypocrisy of this statement when I informed you that all the Recovery adamantly follows Chinese New Year?

But we are not the ones who claim to follow or demand "only the prescriptive teaching of the Bible". So we are not being hypocrites on this matter of following the prescriptive teachings of the Bible only. If prescriptive teaching of the Bible is your standard then I bet one could find something you and your church believe and practice which is not according to the prescriptive teaching of the Bible. We consider the Bible, history, and the writings and messages of spiritually enlightened ones. Following the prescriptive teaching of the Bible is not how Christianity started and it was not how Jesus or the apostles lived their lives.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

So then the Protestant Reformation was a bad thing, ushering in denominations? And if it was a good thing, at what point did it become a bad thing?

My best answer is, "When Watchman Nee decided it was a bad thing." And not before. The denominations had positional and functional validity to enjoy, represent and express Christ until the moment WN had his first Lord's Table meeting. At that time they became dark, satanic Babylon.

This is a good example of how church history is written and rewritten in a self serving way. He claimed to be focused on Christ, but really was focused on himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't we discuss the hypocrisy of this statement when I informed you that all the Recovery adamantly follows Chinese New Year?

What is the Biblical link to Chinese New Year celebration? would you say that it is the reference in Phillipians about Epaphroditus gambling his life? Is that the basis for the all night poker games and mah johng games?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Had Witness Lee and the current Blended administration actually served by the principles of oneness supposedly established by the one church, one city model, with much of it highlighted in Nee's book TNCCL, then this discussion, this forum, and all of these painful and tragic stories, would never have happened.

Fascinating how that works. You create a doctrine which is quite good, but the practice somehow morphs into something quite evil. When anyone questions the practice you point them to the doctrine which is quite good.

When they point out the hypocrisy between the doctrine and the practice the argument is that denominations are just as bad. And so you go full circle from "coming out of her my people" to "hey, we aren't any worse than her my people".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

Great points, the concept of "leading apostle" is very big in Witness Lee's sect, yet the way in which the so called super apostle wields his authority is completely different from how Peter or Paul behaved.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is the Biblical link to Chinese New Year celebration? would you say that it is the reference in Phillipians about Epaphroditus gambling his life? Is that the basis for the all night poker games and mah johng games?

Culture! Chinese culture.

As aron has so convincingly proven in his posts.

Lee condemned Christmas because it was Western. It was not even a good time to preach the gospel to our friends and family.

On the contrary, Chinese New Year was a great time to preach the gospel, have the old Chinese dishes, and all those Chinese deserts. With the guests of course. (Just forget about all those pagan customs, with demons and dragons.)

-------------------------------------------------

Listen, I'm not against preaching the gospel on CNY, or any day of the year.

I only protest the double standard of hypocrisy, designed by Lee to separate Americans from their families.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fascinating how that works. You create a doctrine which is quite good, but the practice somehow morphs into something quite evil. When anyone questions the practice you point them to the doctrine which is quite good.

When they point out the hypocrisy between the doctrine and the practice the argument is that denominations are just as bad. And so you go full circle from "coming out of her my people" to "hey, we aren't any worse than her my people".

Exactly!

The innate logic, once swallowed, is so hard to be delivered from. Kind of like Communism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great points, the concept of "leading apostle" is very big in Witness Lee's sect, yet the way in which the so called super apostle wields his authority is completely different from how Peter or Paul behaved.

Read the Bible.

Whenever there was an offering, it was given to the poor, even the poor in Judea, and not to Maximum Brother and his boys.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But we are not the ones who claim to follow or demand "only the prescriptive teaching of the Bible". So we are not being hypocrites on this matter of following the prescriptive teachings of the Bible only. If prescriptive teaching of the Bible is your standard then I bet one could find something you and your church believe and practice which is not according to the prescriptive teaching of the Bible. We consider the Bible, history, and the writings and messages of spiritually enlightened ones. Following the prescriptive teaching of the Bible is not how Christianity started and it was not how Jesus or the apostles lived their lives.

So am I also a hypocrite because of some "prescriptive" sins out there somewhere in Christendom Land?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great points, the concept of "leading apostle" is very big in Witness Lee's sect, yet the way in which the so called super apostle wields his authority is completely different from how Peter or Paul behaved.

Peter caused the deaths of two people I recall when they lied.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Peter caused the deaths of two people I recall when they lied.

Peter "caused" their deaths?

Perhaps the Spirit of God was involved there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

church history is written and rewritten in a self serving way. .

That was my point. The Protestant Reformation is a good thing in Nee or Lee's narrative, because it recovered justification by faith. This validation of the past now validates the teller of the history (Nee, then Lee).

Fifty years later, tellers in the PRC and Brasil used Lee as their validation touch-stones. Once the listener agreed that Lee's a valid messenger of God's 'restored' or 'recovered' truth for mankind, then the teller of the history - in this case the EL or Seven Grades of Servant recruiter in China, or Dong Yu Lan disciple in Brasil - has a hook.

Now, the history-teller reverses him- or herself. Suddenly it's "not so good." Suddenly Lee mis-aimed, or the Bad Blendeds took over and degradation came in, and now the acolyte lets you into the newest 'recovery'. In this the Lee off-shoots follow his methodologies of validating Protestant Christianity, but when Nee showed up it suddenly was "Christless" "dead" "dormant" "lifeless" "satanic" "devilish" and so forth. And then when Lee came to USA he was the "closest co-worker" to Nee; Kaung et al were voided. The only thing that I can see that changed in the narrative was that Nee or Lee showed up. Suddenly all "Other" Christianity was rendered null and void, and God needed "virgin soil", to begin everything afresh.

In this history, a narrative object like Luther goes from representing recovery of essential truth (good) to degradation in taking a name (or, denominating [Lutheranism], not so good), simply because this was convenient to the teller Nee's aims for the story (the genesis of his own indigenous church).

Many cults use this tactic. They simultaneously validate the past (to give themselves credence) and condemn it (to give themselves even more credence). Look at Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc; all accept and even promote some aspect of the Protestant faith experience, but then market a new and improved version upon what they consider the now-hopeless ruins. And the old version is nullified as a valid expression of Christ simply by the teller's arrival. A New Age or Advent has dawned; the new Spiritual Giant (Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or Dong Yu Lan or Mary Baker Eddy) is astride the land.

(And I recommend going back to see the OT citation of 'giants'. It's not a savory one. Why would anyone consciously adopt this model?)

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He claimed to be focused on Christ, but really was focused on himself.

If you manage to stick around, eventually the fig leaf disappears and the flesh appears and you realize it's the Kingdom Of Me.

Google "True Church" sometime and you'll see a number of folks who use this trick. Once they get you to agree to their premise - usually resting on a bowdlerized form of history, some narrow (subjective) definitions and a logical leap or two - then you're in their net. "Everyone's condemned but us".

Once you agree to this story and uncritically accept its key premises, then condemnation inevitably turns and threatens. You must co-operate, and try to please the Ascended Master, or Deputy God, or God's Vicar, or God's Oracle, or the Maximum Brother, else you'll be just like everyone else - in outer darkness, weeping and gnashing teeth. Spiritual, mental, and emotional enslavement follows, sometimes financial and even physical, in the extreme cases.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I will have to repeat my previous response because it remains the same:

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

The basis is: descriptions of the church in the Bible and Nee's spiritual revelation and insight.

And the basis of my assessment of Nee's ministry and his 'recovered' Little Flock is my own observation and insight. Nee grew up in an environment in which Westerners were widely and deeply feared and loathed. A millennia-old Oriental culture was in submission to the rough and oppressive barbarians, the so-called 'foreign devils'. Nee's selective description and thence prescription of a "normal" church allowed Chinese Christians to come out from under the despised foreign yoke, and they did by the tens of thousands.

As they streamed in, suddenly Nee found himself reversing field. Suddenly it wasn't local autonomy he saw, but consolidation. The Jerusalem Principle was discovered. "Get in Line" and "Handing over" were extracted from scripture. And so forth.

Nee's spiritual revelation and insight, so-called, was merely finding apparent solutions for temporal exigencies on the ground, and getting a few or ten or twenty verses to line up. And as conditions changed, the revelations changed. Lee did the same: whatever the situation seemingly warranted suddenly was promoted as a "flow from the throne", and "crucial principles" were either discovered and waved, or summarily ignored, depending on the weather and mood of the day.

Case in point: in the early 90s Lee received, and publicly used, the appellation "Shouters" because it was attached to something like 15 or 20 million believers who supposedly hung on his every word. Suddenly he'd take a name into his house, because it was irresistible. He'd deal with the problem later: maybe it was not a name, just a description?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

And the basis of my assessment of Nee's ministry and his 'recovered' Little Flock is my own observation and insight. Nee grew up in an environment in which Westerners were widely and deeply feared and loathed. A millennia-old Oriental culture was in submission to the rough and oppressive barbarians, the so-called 'foreign devils'. Nee's selective description and thence prescription of a "normal" church allowed Chinese Christians to come out from under the despised foreign yoke, and they did by the tens of thousands.

As they streamed in, suddenly Nee found himself reversing field. Suddenly it wasn't local autonomy he saw, but consolidation. The Jerusalem Principle was discovered. "Get in Line" and "Handing over" were extracted from scripture. And so forth.

Nee's spiritual revelation and insight, so-called, was merely finding apparent solutions for temporal exigencies on the ground, and getting a few or ten or twenty verses to line up. And as conditions changed, the revelations changed. Lee did the same: whatever the situation seemingly warranted suddenly was promoted as a "flow from the throne", and "crucial principles" were either discovered and waved, or summarily ignored, depending on the weather and mood of the day.

Case in point: in the early 90s Lee received, and publicly used, the appellation "Shouters" because it was attached to something like 15 or 20 million believers who supposedly hung on his every word. Suddenly he'd take a name into his house, because it was irresistible. He'd deal with the problem later: maybe it was not a name, just a description?

Westerners were widely and deeply feared and loathed, for good reason. Surely you know how the West pumped the Chinese with heroin under the threat of a gun? Many other bad things done. Based upon what they did, "foreign devils" is an apt description and we would have probably done the same thing in their same position.

Nee was anti-establishment and so was Christ, Luther, many others. That makes him somewhat of a hero.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter "caused" their deaths?

Perhaps the Spirit of God was involved there.

Of course God did the killing. But only after Peter spoke. If Peter had interceded for them, they would not have died, perhaps.

It is ironic that Peter was involved in the deaths of two people for lying, given Peter being a (former) "liar to God" himself:

Matthew 26:74 "Peter swore, "A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!"". As a former liar himself he obviously lacked the Christ-like compassion for the two sinners in his midst, and he contributed to their deaths, rather than seeking their restoration. I am sure that if Christ were present in the flesh, he would have prevented Peter from dealing so harshly with them, just as Christ prevented Peter from using the sword.

I suppose many see this case of Peter speaking forth God's will and judgement, however it could be viewed as an abuse of his God-given apostolic authority. If it happened today in any church I think Peter would be tried for manslaughter or murder, particularly if there were witnesses who heard Peter say "you will die".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nee was anti-establishment and so was Christ, Luther, many others. That makes him somewhat of a hero.

But being anti-establishment doesn't validate his church, nor does it square with he and Lee subsequently demanding absolute submission to church leadership. And when he was with Leland Wang, 7 yr his senior he was all about independence and following the truth. Then when Wang left his mantra became conformity to leadership.

Nee and Lee were rebels until they got power, then they declared rebellion to be the most heinous of crimes against God's throne.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But being anti-establishment doesn't validate his church, nor does it square with he and Lee subsequently demanding absolute submission to church leadership. And when he was with Leland Wang, 7 yr his senior he was all about independence and following the truth. Then when Wang left his mantra became conformity to leadership.

Nee and Lee were rebels until they got power, then they declared rebellion to be the most heinous of crimes against God's throne.

I don't know that is true of Nee, as he did not "get power" languishing in a jail until his death.

As a general observation that is a pattern repeated time and time again. It happened with the whole Protestant movement.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know that is true of Nee, as he did not "get power" .

Nee had unrivaled power until the Communists put him away.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh great, you have responded to my thread. what is the "clear biblical teaching"? This is precisely what I have been asking for.

ZNP,

I have responded many times to your thread. No need to pretend otherwise.

You are intent on demanding a teaching in the Bible and dismissive of teaching from the Bible. The ten commandments or the sermon on the mount being teachings in the Bible. Yet, aren't there many beliefs we believers treasure that are from the Bible but not a direct teaching in the Bible?

For example, JW's and Muslims will never accept that Jesus is God and as they push a Bible in your face demand that you show them where in the Bible by chapter and verse it says "Jesus is God". Now you and I believe Jesus is God even though the exact phrase is absent in the Bible. We can point to John 1, John 20:31, Revelation 1, etc. and many other scriptures yet they will dismiss it as evidence misconstrued. Muslims will further demand that you show them from the "red letters only".

You are conducting your argument in the same way just on a different topic. There are over 100 citations of ekklesia in the New Testament addressed to church in city ("the church in...") or to churches in a region. This is unambiguous by the reading of Strongs #1577. Though there are over 100 references proving there was one church in each city, far more in sheer quantity than those related to the divinity of Jesus, yet you reject the clear facts.

With so many references to one church in each city, instruction against division, and revelation of the oneness of the believers the following scripture may be applied without hesitation:

"All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..." 2 Tim 3:16

... whether you believe it or not and regardless of whether you accept it.

Now, from the Bible, please explain the biblical teaching in support of division/denominations. This is precisely what I have been asking for.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

I have responded many times to your thread. No need to pretend otherwise.

You are intent on demanding a teaching in the Bible and dismissive of teaching from the Bible. The ten commandments or the sermon on the mount being teachings in the Bible. Yet, aren't there many beliefs we believers treasure that are from the Bible but not a direct teaching in the Bible?

For example, JW's and Muslims will never accept that Jesus is God and as they push a Bible in your face demand that you show them where in the Bible by chapter and verse it says "Jesus is God". Now you and I believe Jesus is God even though the exact phrase is absent in the Bible. We can point to John 1, John 20:31, Revelation 1, etc. and many other scriptures yet they will dismiss it as evidence misconstrued. Muslims will further demand that you show them from the "red letters only".

Without rejecting your overall argument, I think the example is poor. I think you can make a very strong and compelling argument based solely on the NT that Jesus is God incarnate. So then who is the comparison of JW's and Muslims to?

Originally Posted by Drake

You are conducting your argument in the same way just on a different topic.

That is what I thought. Lame. If the thread was on the divinity of Jesus I would respond with very many verses from the NT and the OT. They would not merely infer, but state. You have not done that. What you have done is provided a long list of references to "the church in ..." I do not dismiss the inference, but I do point out that it is an inferential teaching and not based on anything more substantial than that.

Are you saying that the teaching of Jesus divinity is "inferential"?

This doctrine is condemned in the NT as being something we should reject. It is despicable to compare a discussion into the NT root of what the church is to the most basic heretical teaching.

Originally Posted by Drake

There are over 100 citations of ekklesia in the New Testament addressed to church in city ("the church in...") or to churches in a region. This is unambiguous by the reading of Strongs #1577. Though there are over 100 references proving there was one church in each city, far more in sheer quantity than those related to the divinity of Jesus, yet you reject the clear facts.

Baloney. I don't reject any "clear facts".

Fact 1: In any locality the "church" should be one. Granted.

Fact 2: The oneness of the believers is based on the name of God, not based on the name of the gathering. (John 17:11)

Fact 3: The Lord has given us His word to accomplish His prayer that we would be one. (John 17:14-21)

Fact 4: The only way that we can come into the fullness of the oneness is because Jesus Christ is in us. (John 17:23).

Originally Posted by Drake

With so many references to one church in each city, instruction against division, and revelation of the oneness of the believers the following scripture may be applied without hesitation:

"All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..." 2 Tim 3:16

... whether you believe it or not and regardless of whether you accept it.

Now, from the Bible, please explain the biblical teaching in support of division/denominations. This is precisely what I have been asking for.

Thanks
Drake

Yes, there is one church in one city, but that is not because of the name of the meeting hall, or in the phone book, or registered with the IRS.

Their oneness is because of the name of God. We all meet into that one name. That is what makes us one. But that is simple, to get into the depths requires that we be sanctified in the truth, the Lord's word is truth. The apostle's fellowship is truth. It is this truth that sanctifies us, protects us from the evil one. We can only truly be one if we are sanctified. Sins like those of PL, WL, and the Blendeds destroy the oneness. To maintain the oneness therefore requires that we deal with these sins, this is done with the word, and this is part of the sanctification process.

But even then we need to express the incarnated Christ who dwells within us. We saw this in our own little history and we have seen this in church history. Standing up to oppression often requires 2 or 3 to stand against the "super apostle" and all of his henchmen. To do that we need the Lord's promise to be in our midst. Without Jesus in our midst we can never attain to the oneness that is expressed by the Triune God. It is Jesus in our midst that makes us one. 2 or even 3 could express this. If they seek out the lost sheep, if they stand up to the arrogant religious leaders that stumble the believers, then their is a promise that Jesus will be in their midst.

Your error is that you think correlation implies causation. One church in one city is not caused by saying "one church in one city". The church is one because of the name we were all baptized into, the washing of the water in the word, and the indwelling Christ.

If you were baptized into another name, if you have a different covenant, if there is another spirit indwelling you, then you will not be one.

This the most despicable and vile response. The cornerstone teaching of Witness Lee's sect is this matter of the Ground of the Church. I ask for the NT basis for his teaching, especially what constitutes a "true church" in reference to Witness Lee's own words. And what is the response? Asking for the NT teaching is like questioning that Jesus is God come in the flesh.

When someone speaks we get to see their teeth. So, when we see your teeth we hear your speaking. Is your speaking a double blessing, full of life? Or do we see two hypodermic needles, dripping with poison, all alone?

To question Witness Lee's teaching is to question Witness Lee. This will cause you to see the snakes fangs and the poison.

[ZNPaaneah]

The Revelation of the Church

1. Seeking a sign

16And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2But he answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the heaven is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day: for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye know how to discern the face of the heaven; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times. 4An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.

If Jesus death was the end of your day and the beginning of your night then you will have peace in the age to come. If the crucifixion of Jesus is the beginning of your day then you will have foul weather. Jesus crucifixion is the sign of the times. Just like Jonah it comes with both the promise of forgiveness and judgement.

2. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees

5And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread. 6And Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, We took no bread. 8And Jesus perceiving it said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have no bread? 9Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 12Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

3. Revelation that Jesus is the Christ and He will build His church

13Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 14And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

Why do these three things go together? Consider Witness Lee and his ministry.

The ground of the church doctrine is an attempt to determine what is and is not “the true church”. The only sign that we should be interested in is the cross of Christ. Do the believers have a genuine experience of Jesus Christ and Him crucified? But what the evil and adulterous generation wants is some kind of good housekeeping seal of approval, this will help them build a monopoly, corner the market and make merchandise of the saints.

This mindset is leaven. Jesus Christ is the flour that was ground, sifted, and broken for us. The attempt to become some kind of “super apostle” with “the ministry” that everyone must buy with a standing order, that is leaven. That is something we need to beware. These people are building their own church. They will make their bread using Jesus as the flour, it is the leaven that they add to this flour that makes it their unique bread. The Ground of the church doctrine and the Minister of the Age doctrine are the leaven that Witness Lee added to the NT flour to make his bread.

In order to enter into the revelation of the true church we need to see that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not the scribes, pharisees, saducees, etc. Jesus is the minister of the Age, not Witness Lee, not Watchman Nee.

For example, consider an analogy of the church. Suppose that we are all iron filings and Jesus is a large electromagnet. We are “one” because of the magnetic field emanating from Jesus. Just like the name of God, the person and work of God is a strong attractor that holds us together. However, if anything were to disrupt the electric current the magnetic field would stop. Therefore it is crucial to do everything to maintain that electric current. The word of truth has been given to us so that we could keep the electricity flowing, this is to “be sanctified”. Ultimately by being in this magnetic field even the iron shavings will also become magnetized.

If you glue the iron filings together that is not the oneness. If you call them by some special name that is not the oneness. Why is there only “one church” because there is only one name that is attracting them, there is only one magnetic field holding them together.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,
For example, JW's and Muslims will never accept that Jesus is God and as they push a Bible in your face demand that you show them where in the Bible by chapter and verse it says "Jesus is God". Now you and I believe Jesus is God even though the exact phrase is absent in the Bible. We can point to John 1, John 20:31, Revelation 1, etc. and many other scriptures yet they will dismiss it as evidence misconstrued. Muslims will further demand that you show them from the "red letters only".

That's very true Drake. They are ignorant of the fact that denominations have no support or basis in the Bible (prescriptive or descriptive, I have been asking for such evidence since I came here and none have given), and yet demand us to show them the "red letters", ignoring the clear descriptive "teaching" of the Bible. They also ignore the revelation of the Spirit and of the vision such as Nee, Lee and many others had. I believe this is because they feel following the "red letters" of the Bible only gives them security and safety and I don't blame them for that.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's very true Drake. They are ignorant of the fact that denominations have no support or basis in the Bible (prescriptive or descriptive, I have been asking for such evidence since I came here and none have given), and yet demand us to show them the "red letters", ignoring the clear descriptive "teaching" of the Bible. They also ignore the revelation of the Spirit and of the vision such as Nee, Lee and many others had. I believe this is because they feel following the "red letters" of the Bible only gives them security and safety and I don't blame them for that.

When you say that denominations have no Biblical support, that’s a given, because they didn’t exist in the Bible. However, to make the argument that denominations are wrong, it requires that there exists a clear form of Biblical practice is both 1) prescriptive and 2) timelessly applicable. BTW, I don’t believe it is the intention of anyone here to make the argument that denominations are desirable. We are just through with badmouthing them.

For sure, some churches in the NT are referred to by city. I also wouldn’t deny that there were cities at that time with a single assembly. But what about the exceptions? How should the exceptions be accounted for if someone wants to construct a model? Paul’s epistle to Philemon addresses the church in a house. Do you know how Lee accounted for this exception? He simply said that the exception doesn’t count without providing any kind of legitimate support as to why he felt that way. I can provide quotes if necessary.

Nee and Lee saw a supposed pattern in the NT. They attempted to emulate the pattern without considering any exceptions to the pattern that are also found in the NT. Even beyond discussion of developing a model, there is the question of whether the model would still be applicable today. Lets say that it could easily be proved that a certain church model exists in the NT. How would we know that it is still applicable in the 21st century?

This is where the whole prescriptive/descriptive discussion comes into play. The NT provides some description (incomplete at that) of what churches were like at that time. I don’t see any indication that such description was intended to be prescriptive. Even at that, I don’t have a problem with people taking a description and developing a model from it. What I do take issue with is insistence on a model without sufficient support for insisting upon it. So we’re not asking you for red letters to ‘prove’ the ground of locality. Just wondering where is the evidence to support insisting on it.

I believe the Bible leads us away from insisting on certain models or places (boundaries) to worship. Consider Jesus’ response when the Samaritan woman asked Jesus about the proper location to worship:

John 4:20-24
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We are “one” because of the magnetic field emanating from Jesus. Just like the name of God, the person and work of God is a strong attractor that holds us together. However, if anything were to disrupt the electric current the magnetic field would stop. Therefore it is crucial to do everything to maintain that electric current. The word of truth has been given to us so that we could keep the electricity flowing, this is to “be sanctified”. Ultimately by being in this magnetic field even the iron shavings will also become magnetized.

If you glue the iron filings together that is not the oneness. If you call them by some special name that is not the oneness. Why is there only “one church” because there is only one name that is attracting them, there is only one magnetic field holding them together.

Jesus gave the prescription for oneness. First, it is revelation of Himself as God's Christ, or Messiah. If you don't get that, I don't know what Bible you read.

Second, oneness is relational. Love your neighbors. Pray for them that persecute. Bear with one another. Forgive. Encourage. Share your hope, etc.

By contrast the oneness of the LC is isolationist. If I get you to sit in a room with me, and do whatever i say, then we are one. That was the MO of both Nee and Lee, in a nutshell.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When you say that denominations have no Biblical support, that’s a given, because they didn’t exist in the Bible. However, to make the argument that denominations are wrong, it requires that there exists a clear form of Biblical practice is both 1) prescriptive and 2) timelessly applicable. BTW, I don’t believe it is the intention of anyone here to make the argument that denominations are desirable. We are just through with badmouthing them...

In a city there may have been multiple assemblies, but they are all the one church in that city.

See:
https://enduringword.com/commentary/philemon-1/

To the church in your house: This means that the church – or a portion of the church – in Colosse met in the house of Philemon. The earliest Christians had no property of their own for church buildings. The Jews had their synagogues, but Christians met in the homes of their members. The Christians of a city would be gathered into different “house churches” with a city “bishop” overseeing the different house churches. House churches are also mentioned in Romans 16:5 and Colossians 4:15.

The church in Philemon's house were part of the church in Colosse.

It is the same in the Recovery. In the Recovery we may meet in many different homes within the one locality but we are all part of the one locality. We are the church in a house and we are the church in a certain locality. The locality is our ground however, the thing that makes us all one (practically). We do not say that if we meet in someone's house we are a different church to people who meet in a different house. This would be to cause a division based upon whose house we meet in. We say we are all part of the same church.

You said that in the Bible some churches are referring to the locality, actually it is most.
I made a post a while ago where I counted the number of times the word church is used in plural or singular. Overwhelmingly (mathematically), the word church is used in the singular when referring to a city. The majority of references to church in the Bible are in relation to the locality. "the church in <place>" etc.

Suppose there are exceptions to the rule like the example you gave. Suppose this means that the Bible supports the one church per city "rule" only 90% of the time, not 100%. If we were to use the Bible for inspiration for a church model, should we choose the model that is supported 90% of the time or the model supported 10% of the time?

We should choose the model that is supported 90% of the time.

You say we cannot insist on the model because of one possible exception to the rule. But I think we can insist with 90% support of the Bible. The Bible supports our view 90%. The Bible supports your view 10%. Our view is more closely matched to the Bible than yours. If we were to choose a model, would we choose the 90% model or the 10% model? We should choose the model that the Bible supports 90% of the time.

Some may say "there is no model". But the numbers disagree. If there was no model, we would not expect to see the same pattern repeated again and again. But we see a model repeated almost 100% of the time. Yet you insist that this model is wrong and that the 1% or the 10% is right. I wouldn't bet on those odds.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When you say that denominations have no Biblical support, that’s a given, because they didn’t exist in the Bible. However, to make the argument that denominations are wrong, it requires that there exists a clear form of Biblical practice is both 1) prescriptive and 2) timelessly applicable. BTW, I don’t believe it is the intention of anyone here to make the argument that denominations are desirable. We are just through with badmouthing them...

Nice. I guess this post completely dismisses the idea that we are "ignorant that Denominations don't have a NT basis".

Also, good point that we have not done anything to justify Denominations as has been alleged rather we have merely stopped pointing the fingers at others.

Also, for the umpteenth time we have a post on this thread that shows we have not ignored WL or WN's observations about the connection between a church and a locality.

The people spouting these lame accusations have proven beyond any doubt that they are not interested in fellowship, only in pushing their very peculiar brand of doctrine to the exclusion and condemnation of all other Christians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus gave the prescription for oneness. First, it is revelation of Himself as God's Christ, or Messiah. If you don't get that, I don't know what Bible you read.
Second, oneness is relational. Love your neighbors. Pray for them that persecute. Bear with one another. Forgive. Encourage. Share your hope, etc.
By contrast the oneness of the LC is isolationist. If I get you to sit in a room with me, and do whatever i say, then we are one. That was the MO of both Nee and Lee, in a nutshell.

Yes.

However, the charge to "love one another" is in the context of "as I have loved You" and also "because Jesus first loved us". This is what I mean in the analogy of the iron shavings becoming magnetized.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

Post #74 is the first post in this thread that mentions denominations. Ohio responded to this in post #75 and I responded in post #76.

My point is very simple, if you say "true church in the city" you are implying false churches. As a result you are implying multiple churches. Yet the NT is very clear that there is one church in one city.

There is no limit to how many gatherings of Christians you can have, nor is there a limit as to how big or small they can be, as long as you have 2 or 3 or more you have a gathering. However, multiple meetings doesn't equate with multiple churches. They are all "one church".

If a group of Christians has "denominated" themselves either by name or by ministry or some other way to separate themselves from the "one church" then Jesus can deal with that. But either they are or are not members of the Body, the sign is the cross of Christ.

So then, when Witness Lee is teaching there is a "true" church or a "genuine" church he is teaching that there is more than one church in a city, one is genuine, the rest are false, not true, or not genuine. But that is contrary to the NT which teaches there is one church in one city.

Why? One God and Father -- if all of these non genuine churches do not worship the one God and Father then they are not churches at all, if they do, then they can be part of the one church.

One Baptism -- if they all entered into the kingdom by being immersed into the triune God then they are the one church, if not they aren't.

One Spirit, One Lord -- etc., etc.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In a city there may have been multiple assemblies, but they are all the one church in that city.

See:
https://enduringword.com/commentary/philemon-1/

To the church in your house: This means that the church – or a portion of the church – in Colosse met in the house of Philemon. The earliest Christians had no property of their own for church buildings. The Jews had their synagogues, but Christians met in the homes of their members. The Christians of a city would be gathered into different “house churches” with a city “bishop” overseeing the different house churches. House churches are also mentioned in Romans 16:5 and Colossians 4:15.

The church in Philemon's house were part of the church in Colosse.

It is the same in the Recovery. In the Recovery we may meet in many different homes within the one locality but we are all part of the one locality...

If what you say is true and Philemon's house church was nothing more than "part of the church" in Colosse, then why would Paul write a separate letter to just the house church? Here is what Paul says at the end of Colossians indicating the letter to the church was also intended for an even wider audience than just the church there:
Col 4:16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Isn't it interesting then, that in the letter to Philemon, Paul doesn't say any of that? If this gathering was indeed nothing more than "part of the church," then we should expect that the letter would be addressed to at least the entire church instead of just the participants of a home gathering. Perhaps there would have also been a request to read it elsewhere too. But we see none of that. As far as I'm concerned, this suggests the assembly acted autonomously with respect to the rest of the city. No doubt, they knew others there, but it seems clear to me that there are these cases of multiple assemblies, even within the city, that act autonomously.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should choose the model that is supported 90% of the time.

You say we cannot insist on the model because of one possible exception to the rule. But I think we can insist with 90% support of the Bible...

Like I said in my last post, the test is two-fold. I don't take issue with the fact that Nee/Lee liked a certain model. The problem is that they insisted on it, and part of the problem with that was a blatant disregard for any consideration as to whether or not the perceived model is still applicable today. I see the early church as being small enough in each city for members to know one another and be familiar with those from neighboring areas. That is not possible today.

Take the city of Los Angeles for instance. The population is somewhere around 3.8 million people. Demographics reports put at least 30% identifying themselves as Christians, so lets take the number of 1 million. First of all, it cannot be reasonably expected that 1 million Christians could know each other, even if part of the same church. So any notion of a commonality in fellowship among that many people is a farce. It won't happen, it can't happen, it simply isn't possible. Secondly, in order to have a unified church leadership structure to serve that many people would necessitate some sort of massive hierarchy (explicitly forbidden by Nee and Lee). It's just not feasible to have the LC model work on a large scale. It would never work.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If what you say is true and Philemon's house church was nothing more than "part of the church" in Colosse, then why would Paul write a separate letter to just the house church? Here is what Paul says at the end of Colossians indicating the letter to the church was also intended for an even wider audience than just the church there:
Col 4:16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Isn't it interesting then, that in the letter to Philemon, Paul doesn't say any of that? If this gathering was indeed nothing more than "part of the church," then we should expect that the letter would be addressed to at least the entire church instead of just the participants of a home gathering. Perhaps there would have also been a request to read it elsewhere too. But we see none of that. As far as I'm concerned, this suggests the assembly acted autonomously with respect to the rest of the city. No doubt, they knew others there, but it seems clear to me that there are these cases of multiple assemblies, even within the city, that act autonomously.

It is possible to write a letter to a group of Christians in one place, without having to address all the Christians in that place. This letter is to request something of Philemon regarding Onesimus. That is why it is more personal. Yet again what you are doing is arguing against 90% of the Bible using this isolated example.


As a side remark - it is a shame that Paul's letter to the Laodiceans did not make it into our Bibles.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Like I said in my last post, the test is two-fold. I don't take issue with the fact that Nee/Lee liked a certain model. The problem is that they insisted on it, and part of the problem with that was a blatant disregard for any consideration as to whether or not the perceived model is still applicable today. I see the early church as being small enough in each city for members to know one another and be familiar with those from neighboring areas. That is not possible today.

Take the city of Los Angeles for instance. The population is somewhere around 3.8 million people. Demographics reports put at least 30% identifying themselves as Christians, so lets take the number of 1 million. First of all, it cannot be reasonably expected that 1 million Christians could know each other, even if part of the same church. So any notion of a commonality in fellowship among that many people is a farce. It won't happen, it can't happen, it simply isn't possible. Secondly, in order to have a unified church leadership structure to serve that many people would necessitate some sort of massive hierarchy (explicitly forbidden by Nee and Lee). It's just not feasible to have the LC model work on a large scale. It would never work.

Even if they cannot know Christians from the other side of the city, at least they should be able to know all the Christians in their street. Yet the situation today is to have many Christians in one street yet all not fellowshipping with each other because they go to different denominations.

Your argument regarding practicality doesn't explain why a church of 50 people next door to another church of 50 people could not get together to form one church of 100. The reason they don't do that is because they are divided by denominational or organizational names.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your argument regarding practicality doesn't explain why a church of 50 people next door to another church of 50 people could not get together to form one church of 100. The reason they don't do that is because they are divided by denominational or organizational names.

Your argument doesn't explain why a church of 100 meeting next to a church of 100 won't acknowledge the other 100 because the second meeting "isn't on the proper ground". What kind of oneness is that?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In a city there may have been multiple assemblies, but they are all the one church in that city.

Your model doesn't explain why a meeting of 50 and another meeting of 50 were both called "ekklesia" in the NT, yet there's only supposed to be one church or "ekklesia" in that city? Your model calls each by different names (meetings, assemblies, versus churches), but the NT calls both the same name. But that doesn't fit your model, apparently.

Your model doesn't explain why the church in New York City came together recently in Madison Square Garden and the local churches of Witness Lee weren't there? Were 99% of Christians in NYC rebellious churches? Only 1% is proper and true, in accord with God's will per the apostle of the age? Maybe the opposite?

By contrast to the isolationist 'oneness' flowing from the Wordsmiths of La Palma, the oneness I see in the NT is relational. The believers get a vision of the Son: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and this draws them to the Father. They see the relation of the Son to the Father: "You are My Beloved Son, in whom I delight". They see the Son's obedience to death, His great love for the Father's will to be done on earth as in heaven. This saving vision of faith is ZNP's proverbial 'magnet' drawing the believers' consciousness's away from every worldly thing. And the drawing is the drawing together.

And in this being drawn together "in Him", we have opportunity aplenty to show grace to one another. To love one another, in deed and not merely word, even as He has loved us. "Receive one another, even as God has received you in Christ Jesus."

And I don't think that the phrase "that the world may know that You have sent Me" is purely random, in John 17:21. What's the scriptural reference? Did Jesus manufacture this idea out of thin air? Look for instance at Psalm 67:1,2.

"God be merciful to us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, so that Your ways may be known upon the earth, Your salvation to all the nations"

When God by His mercy shines the light of glory upon us, and we get a vision of God's saving love in the person of His sent Son, we're drawn "in to Christ" and the drawing together, or assembly, is a testimony to the whole world. Then the world knows God's ways on earth. His ways are Jesus Christ, drawing men and women from every tribe and nation and tongue, into the Father's house. Then in this assembling together in Jesus' name, the salvation of God is known to all the nations.

This is our oneness. Faith in Jesus. We are one, just as He is one with the Father.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is possible to write a letter to a group of Christians in one place, without having to address all the Christians in that place. This letter is to request something of Philemon regarding Onesimus. That is why it is more personal. Yet again what you are doing is arguing against 90% of the Bible using this isolated example.

You accuse me of arguing against the Bible when all I am doing is pointing out a counter-example to what you have stated. I don’t believe in disregarding evidence because it doesn’t support a hypothesis. At any rate, the supporting evidence doesn’t really ‘prove’ anything except that a certain pattern existed, a pattern which has already been acknowledged here.

What if someone suggests that the pattern in Acts 2 of the outpouring of the Spirit should be emulated? It won’t work because there are no longer the same manifestations of the Spirit. Same with having all things in common. In modern times, personal property is defined by law, not by how we wish to define it. So all these ‘patterns’ do not automatically exist as things we are supposed to recreate.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

You accuse me of arguing against the Bible when all I am doing is pointing out a counter-example to what you have stated. I don’t believe in disregarding evidence because it doesn’t support a hypothesis. At any rate, the supporting evidence doesn’t really ‘prove’ anything except that a certain pattern existed, a pattern which has already been acknowledged here.

What if someone suggests that the pattern in Acts 2 of the outpouring of the Spirit should be emulated? It won’t work because there are no longer the same manifestations of the Spirit. Same with having all things in common. In modern times, personal property is defined by law, not by how we wish to define it. So all these ‘patterns’ do not automatically exist as things we are supposed to recreate.

We follow the descriptive patterns in the Bible because we believe that the way Paul did things practically was the way He was inspired to or commanded to by God. We believe that the reason these things are recorded in our Bibles is so that we can follow them. We believe there is a purpose for the bible recording these practical and descriptive matters. So if the Bible says that Paul appointed elders in every city, then we believe that this is God's plan and we should follow this as best we can, rather than ignore it and do things how we feel like. If the Bible says an elder/overseer/bishop must be a husband of one wife, then we follow that and do not consider allowing a woman or a child to be an elder. If we want to only follow the parts of our Bibles which are clear commands, and ignore all of the descriptive patterns, then our Bible will become very small.

You seem to be advocating that we should only follow the prescriptive commands in the Bible and that we should not follow the descriptive patterns as well. I believe this describes a difference in how we should use our bibles. To follow the Bible, to some, means to follow the bits where there is a clear command, and the rest is up to us. To follow the Bible, to others, means to follow the commands and the unspoken "commands", the way things were descriptively done.

Who decides which patterns to follow and which to not follow? Many Christians, at least, follow the New Testament pattern of water baptism, communion, and gospel preaching.

Some, indeed follow the manifestations of the Spirit. Pentecostal movements churches have tried and possibly have emulated the outpouring of the Spirit, and believe the same manifestations recorded in the Bible are possible today.

The Recovery, follow most of these patterns (not the Pentecostal ones really), plus the pattern regarding the practical administration of the church. The pattern which the Bible supports over 90% of the time.

One counter-example does not disprove the 10%, particularly given that this counter-example can be reconciled with the one church per city pattern. This is not an even scale hanging in the balance for which your one counter -example would tip the scales against the 90%. This is a heavily weighted scale towards the one church per city pattern, and you would need to come up an equal number of counter-examples to balance the scales at 50/50, in which case we could not argue for one pattern or the other.

If the one church per city pattern is not to be followed today, then where do we get our inspiration for what church is supposed to look like (practically)? Do we make it up however we like? We read that Paul appointed elders in each church. Does this mean we can ignore this descriptive pattern? There is no command that says each church must have leaders. We don't even need an leader. If we want to , we can appoint an animal to be a church leader if we wanted to - there is no prescriptive command for or against that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We follow the descriptive patterns in the Bible because we believe that the way Paul did things practically was the way He was inspired to or commanded to by God. We believe that the reason these things are recorded in our Bibles is so that we can follow them. We believe there is a purpose for the bible recording these practical and descriptive matters.

If you consistently followed these "descriptive patterns" in the Bible concerning the church, then the Lord might honor your stand, and other Christians might have some respect for convictions. As it is, that is not the case. Repeatedly I have addressed serious inconsistencies and blatant unrighteousness in the leadership of the LC's over the years by those at LSM.

You, however, have consistently ignored those violations of scripture. Hence, you cling to a few obscure and meany scriptures, while ignoring all the weightier matters, in order to maintain your exclusive agenda of Christian superiority.

You can ignore them, but the readers can't.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Your argument doesn't explain why a church of 100 meeting next to a church of 100 won't acknowledge the other 100 because the second meeting "isn't on the proper ground". What kind of oneness is that?..

I think you make a key point which is that we need to have a model, based on the NT definition that does explain the issues you raise as well as the issues that others raise.

If you look at the first mention of Church in the NT you can see the context of "build my church" is in contrast to the Sadducees and Pharisees bringing out deceptive leaven to build their own churches. They are all looking for that "sign" that their church is the true church because they are an evil and adulterous age and that "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" will give them the monopoly they look for.

However, the term "church" means more than a gathering, it was a specific gathering based on the Greek model of a democracy. This gathering exercised dominion in the locality in which they live. So then, things like excommunication would be examples of the exercise of that dominion and a function of a "church".

If we accept that premise, that this word was chosen to include the idea of the exercise of the Lord's dominion, and the book of Ephesians does support this interpretation saying that Jesus is made Lord of all to the church. Then it stands to reason that there is only one church in a city composed of all the Christians in that city. This does not mean there is only one gathering of these Christians. For example, the gatherings could take place at different times, so even in a single day there could be multiple gatherings, in a week there could be multiple gatherings. Nor is it required that every single Christian in a city be present in every single gathering, as Jesus said we can have 2 or 3 and still have Jesus presence in that gathering. In order to exercise the Lord's dominion we need the Lord's presence. We also need at least two or three to demonstrate there is an agreement between the Lord and His body. But with that many you could exercise dominion. Which is the context in Matt 18 where Jesus talks about 2 or 3 and His presence.

No, everyone meeting together at the same time is not the basis of our oneness. The basis of saying that the church is one, and that there is one church in one city is that we all worship the same God, we have all been baptized with the same baptism, we all have the same Lord. The church in Corinth had major sins and shortcomings yet that didn't disqualify them from being a church, same with Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea. These churches all had issues to deal with that Jesus was speaking to them about, yet He still referred to them as the 7 lamp stands.

No, what risks you losing the standing of a lamp stand is if you leave Jesus (forsaking your first love). Laodicea could no longer claim to be meeting in the name of Jesus, because as He said, His presence was no longer in their midst. Instead His presence was calling those remaining in that meeting to come out to Him.

So then, the doctrine of the Ground of the Church is nothing more than the same old story of Pharisees and Sadducees seeking a sign from Jesus that this church is the true church. Jesus realized they did this because they were an evil and adulterous generation. It may not be so easy for us to see this motivation, but in hindsight we should be able to see that this doctrine is the basis for the monopoly that Witness Lee set up. Standing orders, training fees, book rooms, Minister of the Age, etc. So yes, this doctrine builds his little "make merchandise of the saints" empire and reveals an evil and adulterous age.

As the Lord said the only sign that we should seek is the sign of Jonah. Maybe this group of Christians you meet with smells like fish, maybe they look like something that washed up on the shore, but if you can see the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in them then that should be sufficient.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you consistently followed these "descriptive patterns" in the Bible concerning the church, then the Lord might honor your stand, and other Christians might have some respect for convictions. As it is, that is not the case. Repeatedly I have addressed serious inconsistencies and blatant unrighteousness in the leadership of the LC's over the years by those at LSM.

You, however, have consistently ignored those violations of scripture. Hence, you cling to a few obscure and meany scriptures, while ignoring all the weightier matters, in order to maintain your exclusive agenda of Christian superiority.

You can ignore them, but the readers can't.

Good point. Why isn't "love your neighbor as yourself" a descriptive pattern for the church? Why isn't doers of the law and not just hearers a descriptive pattern for the church? Why isn't seeking the lost sheep a descriptive pattern for the church? Why isn't a hospital where the good Samaritans can take those beaten up by Witness Lee's doctrines a descriptive pattern for the church?

If you want to emphasize and reiterate that "one church one city" is a descriptive pattern then why does Witness Lee use that to teach that there are many churches in one city? When Witness Lee teaches you need to stand on the proper ground to be the true church he is indicating that there are other churches that "are not true". Now he won't go so far as to say all other Christians are in "false churches" worshipping a "false Christ" because then they would lose the support of various organizations which call LSM "fundamental". So he waffles. He doesn't define the "True church" and doesn't define the implication for all those who are not "The true church". This ambiguousness is typical of liars. You make this hugely important claim with vast implications yet don't give any definition, any explanation, any clarity that would actually make it meaningful. It is all "wink, wink", where they know what he meant but can't actually say it.

If you ask one of WL's sycophants to actually explain it they will accuse you of being akin to the JW's in denying the divinity of Jesus. (Apparently asking a question about Witness Lee's doctrines is equivalent to denying the divinity of Christ in their bizarro world).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be advocating that we should only follow the prescriptive commands in the Bible and that we should not follow the descriptive patterns as well. I believe this describes a difference in how we should use our bibles. To follow the Bible, to some, means to follow the bits where there is a clear command, and the rest is up to us. To follow the Bible, to others, means to follow the commands and the unspoken "commands", the way things were descriptively done.

I am not advocating that we only follow prescriptive commands. I am urging caution about over emphasizing descriptive things. Christians have enough problem getting along over the things which are explicitly prescriptive. Things like baptism. Even Nee and Lee taught that such things are not worth arguing over. But then they went and took a perceived pattern, and not only emphasized it, but mandated it.

I don't think anyone here would be complaining about locality if the LC simply chose to practice it, not make an issue of it, and not judge other Christians according to it. But the LC does all of that. The result is a divisive practice that does the complete opposite of what it is purported to accomplish. I look at the LC and see the fruit of what is taught, and I know that the outcome does not serve to validate the practice. So you insist on a practice because you see a pattern. We argue against the practice because we see the fruit. Descriptive patterns need to be evaluated this way. You can't just blindly attempt to emulate something because you see it recorded in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am not advocating that we only follow prescriptive commands. I am urging caution about over emphasizing descriptive things. Christians have enough problem getting along over the things which are explicitly prescriptive. Things like baptism. Even Nee and Lee taught that such things are worth arguing over. But then they went and took a perceived pattern, and not only emphasized it, but mandated it.

I don't think anyone here would be complaining about locality if the LC simply chose to practice it, not make an issue of it, and not judge other Christians according to it. But the LC does all of that. The result is a divisive practice that does the complete opposite of what it is purported to accomplish. I look at the LC and see the fruit of what is taught, and I know that the outcome does not serve to validate the practice. So you insist on a practice because you see a pattern. We argue against the practice because we see the fruit. Descriptive patterns need to be evaluated this way. You can't just blindly attempt to emulate something because you see it recorded in the Bible.

The problem is that they take a description that there is one church in one city and from that infer that the boundary of a city is the boundary of the church. They then, create a doctrine that says based on this inference this is how the meeting hall should be referred to. Neither of these conclusions is all that bad except they then use this to condemn 99% of all Christians because the name of their meeting hall is wrong, or they don't recognize this ridiculous boundary theory.

It isn't the doctrine that is evil and adulterous, it is the way in which it is used. The purpose of the doctrine is so that they can proclaim that they alone are right and all others are wrong, hence they alone are the "true church" and all others are not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Has anyone thought about how absurd the doctrine that the boundary of a city is the boundary of the church is?

1. According to this doctrine the world determines the boundary of the church.

2. According to this doctrine the boundary of the church can change at the whim of some city council.

The NT says that Jesus is Lord of all, given to the church. Yet according to this doctrine I have to check with the city council first before I can know what the boundary of the church's authority.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Recovery, follow most of these patterns plus the pattern regarding the practical administration of the church. The pattern which the Bible supports over 90% of the time..

To me there are two separate issues, here. First, what is the pattern of the church in the NT? Second, is that the same pattern we should follow today?

For the first issue, we considered "two or more meeting in the name" having the presence, the power to bind and loose, the testimony. You say, "Oh, but that's not the church". Okay, fine, what is the church?

You say, one church per city, one set of elders, and the name of Jesus. Okay. Now, let's look at the second question.

Is that the pattern for today? One church per city may be good when there is 146 believers in the city. How many believers were in each church in Asia? 46? 55? We don't know. What if there are 3.5 million believers in the city? Why force them into your first-century description?

One set of elders I won't address. Who appoints them? If I remember right, Paul confirmed elders, not appointed them. So it seems like a local issue. Not relevant. One set or 46 sets of elders.

Now, to the name of Jesus. The Lutherans and Methodists and Congregationalists and Catholics all have the name of Jesus.

-But no, that's not the name of Jesus; something added, and wrong. No name but Jesus. "Lutheran" or "Baptist" is wrong.

Okay, but what about "Living Stream Ministry", or "Continuing Steadfastly" or "Bibles for America"? Isn't that a name?

-No, that's the name of a ministry. Not the name of a church. It's okay to name a personal ministry.

But my question is, if you want to follow the first-century pattern, why didn't Paul register with the government? Why didn't John set up a non-profit organization? The Ministry of John the Beloved Disciple?

-No, you see they didn't do that back then.

Okay, but why do we do it today? Why don't we follow the first-century pattern?

Do you see my point? We follow what is convenient for us, especially if we want to condemn others who don't follow the scriptural pattern, then when we come up with novel stuff, taking names for our ministries, registering with the government, non-profit status, full-time training centers, we say, "Hey, times are different now". But guess what? There are 3.5 million believers in the city today, when John wrote to the seven churches there were 50 believers in each church. It's different today. So don't force your "true chuch" model onto people.

Like I said earlier, it's too bad the Great Schism happened in 1054. It's too bad Luther had to split off the Catholics. Too bad that the Crusades and the Salem witch hunt occurred. Failure after failure. Schism after division. Denominations. But Watchman Nee's normal first century church isn't the solution. We've repeatedly shown that it's aligned with, or patterned after, Asian cultural norms, not first century Galilean ones.

Are denominations bad? One could say so. Not perfect, in some abstract heavenly sense. But the pattern we see is: 1) believe into Jesus Christ; and 2) love your neighbor (not just in word, but deed). Isolating yourself in your "pure" or "true" or "proper" church and bad-mouthing everyone else doesn't seem like the prescribed pattern, either in the first century, or today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't think anyone here would be complaining about locality if the LC simply chose to practice it, not make an issue of it, and not judge other Christians according to it. But the LC does all of that. The result is a divisive practice that does the complete opposite of what it is purported to accomplish.

Their hypocrisy shines the brightest when:

1. They migrate to a new city and another church has already taken their proper name.

1. You look at a typical church address list, and most of their members do not even live in the city.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . look at a typical church address list, and most of their members do not even live in the city.

Back in the '70s, after the big migration to take the cities of the earth, you'd see all these local churches in the suburbs. Cuz who wanted to live in the city?

Their excuse was, " It's too expensive to build a meeting hall in the city." But what happened to the first century NT model?

"Too expensive." Plus, the schools were better in the suburbs.

So the local church model became, one church per suburb near a city.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The problem is that they take a description that there is one church in one city and from that infer that the boundary of a city is the boundary of the church. They then, create a doctrine that says based on this inference this is how the meeting hall should be referred to. Neither of these conclusions is all that bad except they then use this to condemn 99% of all Christians because the name of their meeting hall is wrong, or they don't recognize this ridiculous boundary theory.

It isn't the doctrine that is evil and adulterous, it is the way in which it is used. The purpose of the doctrine is so that they can proclaim that they alone are right and all others are wrong, hence they alone are the "true church" and all others are not.

This is so very true. The whole idea of the church being defined by the boundary of the city is a prime example of what happens when people try to read to much into a description. New Testament urban geography 101 shows us that cities were far more spread out than they are today. The map Ohio posted on another thread shows just how spread apart some of the NT cities were: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=281

In NT times, it certainly could have made sense to use the city as a means of identification. Probably more often than not, there was nothing in between cities, and certainly people didn't go live in the middle of nowhere when there was a city nearby. The boundary of the city was naturally the means by which people congregated for anything and everything.

In today's world, especially in the urban areas, cities border one another. As such, city boundaries are simply a legal designation. Quite often it also doesn't make much sense to identify things based on city alone. If I tell someone that we will meet at the Starbucks in Los Angeles, that is being about as vague as possible. Some other means of identification is necessary like a street name.

Also, transportation has served to tear down city boundaries, not build them up. No longer must a person do all their dealings in the city in which they live. Unlike NT times where travel was likely avoided if at all possible, travel is embraced as a way to stay connected. Life in the 21st century is a world apart from NT times. A church model based on city boundaries is particularly absurd.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am not advocating that we only follow prescriptive commands. I am urging caution about over emphasizing descriptive things. Christians have enough problem getting along over the things which are explicitly prescriptive. Things like baptism. Even Nee and Lee taught that such things are not worth arguing over. But then they went and took a perceived pattern, and not only emphasized it, but mandated it.

It is a division and divisive practice for sure. But it is a division between black and white, light and darkness, God and Satan, the Bible way and the do whatever you want way. It is a good kind of division. It is the same kind of division that occurred in the Reformation. That too was a good kind of division. I'm sure at the time some would have said, look at the bad fruit of this guy Luther and how it has caused a division in the church. Yet Luther stood for what he knew to be true from the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Has anyone thought about how absurd the doctrine that the boundary of a city is the boundary of the church is?

This would be especially true in cities like Houston that have undertaken to absorb suburb after suburb for many years. Just think of all the autonomous churches that simply ceased to be under that rule.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is a division and divisive practice for sure. But it is a division between . . the Bible way and the do whatever you want way..

It is a division between the Bible way and the do whatever Lee wants way.

Paul twice told the saints to sing the psalms, saying they were the words of Christ, and they'd be filled with spirit. (Col 3 & Eph 5). Lee mocked the saints who were singing the psalms. Too low, he said. Better to sing verses from Colossians and Ephesians.

But did Paul recommend singing his epistles? No, he recommended singing the psalms. But after Lee corrected us, we sang verses from Paul, and ignored what the verses actually said.

[Evangelical]

Aron, Paul did not even say or recommend his epistles could be considered Scripture. To Paul, of course, the Psalms and our Old Testament were Scripture. To us, Paul is more up to date Scripture than the Psalms.

Why do we sing the Psalms and not sing the New Testament anyway?

Is it because the word Psalm means songs and people think they can't sing anything else?

Is there some rule that says a hymn or song must use words found in the Psalms?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do we sing the Psalms and not sing the New Testament anyway?

Is it because the word Psalm means songs and people think they can't sing anything else?

Is there some rule that says a hymn or song must use words found in the Psalms?

No, we don't mock either OT or NT. Or discourage them by mocking. Lee did to the OT, just that. That is what I object to.

Again, where is the NT precedent for treating OT text thus? It wasn't biblical, it was cultural. It was about control. But I never meant to suggest we must only sing psalms.

What happened was, in about 1973 to 1975 some LC Christians started putting psalms to music. Of course, we also were singing "hymns and spiritual songs" as well.

We'll, it took off like wildfire. You should have heard some of those meetings! If you could hear the Son in the assembly, singing to the Father, it was there. I heard it.

Remember that originally the source text wasn't a series of disjointed aphorisms to be mined for today's sermon. It was a narrative with narrative structure. And the composers in the LC were 'recovering' (pun intended) the narrative. They would set 8 or 10 verses to song & the meeting would get into the heavens.

And that's not the worst of it! The psalms became a vehicle for dreaded Christianity to impinge upon the 'pure' (read: isolationist) LC. I think in particular of Keith Green's psalm 51, "Create in me a clean heart", but there were others as well.

Lee would have none of it. Inspiration must only exist in the LC, and only via his mediatory ministry. So he shut it down. And thus the die was cast: the Psalms were henceforth natural and fallen texts, or 'complex' if you want to be less blunt.

Back to the topic, do you think that if in the Lutheran Church anyone said, "Our brother wanted. .", everyone would understand it was Martin Luther? Or Wesley with the Methodists? But you can bet that if a Blended shows up to your meeting and intones, "It was our brother's dream to see. . ", everyone gets it. The name of Witness Lee doesn't even need to be spoken. So who is denominated, here?

There's a reason Lee's name doesn't get mentioned much in LC meetings much - they don't have to. Everything is understood - "This is what Lee wanted." If that lines up with scripture, which it often did, we'd congratulate ourselves on being biblical. If not, as sometimes happened, Oh well, too bad. It was what Lee wanted.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is so very true. The whole idea of the church being defined by the boundary of the city is a prime example of what happens when people try to read to much into a description. New Testament urban geography 101 shows us that cities were far more spread out than they are today. The map Ohio posted on another thread shows just how spread apart some of the NT cities were: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=281

In NT times, it certainly could have made sense to use the city as a means of identification. Probably more often than not, there was nothing in between cities, and certainly people didn't go live in the middle of nowhere when there was a city nearby. The boundary of the city was naturally the means by which people congregated for anything and everything.

In today's world, especially in the urban areas, cities border one another. As such, city boundaries are simply a legal designation. Quite often it also doesn't make much sense to identify things based on city alone. If I tell someone that we will meet at the Starbucks in Los Angeles, that is being about as vague as possible. Some other means of identification is necessary like a street name.

Also, transportation has served to tear down city boundaries, not build them up. No longer must a person do all their dealings in the city in which they live. Unlike NT times where travel was likely avoided if at all possible, travel is embraced as a way to stay connected. Life in the 21st century is a world apart from NT times. A church model based on city boundaries is particularly absurd.

So Watchman Nee's teaching is distilled from heading of numerous letters in the NT.

But suppose that the header on a letter from the Apostle said "the church in NYC". Couldn't that letter be published in the NY Times? Couldn't pastors and leaders of congregations all over the city read that letter in the congregation and other gatherings?

Why do we infer from this that they all must meet in a congregation that has the same elders? As long as Jesus is Lord what difference does it make?

It seems to me that Watchman Nee's teaching is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to the oneness of the Body.

As long as each congregation reading Paul's letter has one faith, worships one God, and is subject to one Lord then they are one church in NYC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

This would be especially true in cities like Houston that have undertaken to absorb suburb after suburb for many years. Just think of all the autonomous churches that simply ceased to be under that rule.

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

No, we don't mock either OT or NT. Or discourage them by mocking. Lee did to the OT, just that. That is what I object to.

Again, where is the NT precedent for treating OT text thus? It wasn't biblical, it was cultural. It was about control.

Witness Lee mocked and denigrated the books in the Bible that did the most to expose and protect the people of God from false prophets:

James

Proverbs

Psalms

So yes, there is a precedent for this. John warns about those who would take away, add to, or change the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

In Corinthians Paul asks if Christ is divided, or if Paul was crucified for them, or if they were baptized into the name of Paul.

So we can again see that what makes us one is the fact that God is one, that we have one Baptism, we have one faith, and we have one Lord.

Paul rebuked the Corinthian believers because they were carnal and couldn't receive the things of God. He then explained saying that one says he is of this one and another says he is of that one.

What they are missing, what they cannot see, what they cannot receive is that we are of Jesus Christ. It is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God that the church is built on. There is nothing better than that.

Now Paul says he was glad that he didn't baptize lest they should say they were baptized by Paul. You can imagine that this would be some kind of badge of honor "I was baptized by the Apostle Paul" as though that were more special or significant. This is a lack of revelation.

Think about how Paul first got the revelation of the church? What he got was a revelation that Jesus was Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

In the gospels, the Jewish leaders also used geographical boundaries to divide the children of God. They were absolutely certain that their scriptural references were definitive. Though dozens and dozens of verses plainly refuted their supposed conclusions, they were assured that they had sufficient cause to reject their Messiah. Everything else, including common sense, was against their decision. He was healing the lame, giving sight to the blind, and then even raised a four day old corpse from the tomb. Still they refused to budge. After all they were convinced by their geographical basis ...

No prophet could arise out of Galilee. (John 7.52) "Search and see." Check your scrolls again.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the gospels, the Jewish leaders also used geographical boundaries to divide the children of God. They were absolutely certain that their scriptural references were definitive. Though dozens and dozens of verses plainly refuted their supposed conclusions, they were assured that they had sufficient cause to reject their Messiah. Everything else, including common sense, was against their decision. He was healing the lame, giving sight to the blind, and then even raised a four day old corpse from the tomb. Still they refused to budge. After all they were convinced by their geographical basis ...

No prophet could arise out of Galilee. (John 7.52) "Search and see." Check your scrolls again.

Idiots pretending to be experts.

Reminds me of the Dayton Newspaper in Ohio. For years the Wright brothers were testing their airplanes out at a nearby field. Hundreds of residents had witnessed them flying around the field. Yet the newspaper had stubbornly refused to print anything or even send a reporter out to investigate. Later when asked why the editor paused and then said "I guess we were idiots".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

In 1 Cor 14:23, Paul wrote, "So if the whole church comes together" (NIV); I presume that was a practical event of some frequency. Likewise, when John wrote to the church in Ephesus, or Smyrna. . . it might be interesting to see estimates the approximate size of the various churches in the late 1st century.

But what happens when the church is 3.8 million believers? How to shoe-horn that back into the 1st century model? And what is the compelling necessity?

When the LSM did things that deviated from the NT model, they shrugged and said, "Well, times are different". They had to register with the government, for instance, and create non-profit merchandizing centers - sorry, ministries - with all the accoutrements thereof. Because it's the 20th century. Gotta stay with the times. Gotta be practical.

But the church in NYC has to be practically administered as if it were the church in Pergamos, which had maybe 65 or 80 believers? Because that's the NT model? (And even that model is pretty iffy, as discussion has shown).

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

When the LSM did things that deviated from the NT model, they shrugged and said, "Well, times are different". They had to register with the government, for instance, and create non-profit merchandizing centers - sorry, ministries - with all the accoutrements thereof. Because it's the 20th century. Gotta stay with the times. Gotta be practical.

You have a good point. I recall all those very conservative churches which find it wrong to register with the government. I have no opinion on whether it is right or not, but at least in this instance they are more pure than the LC. The churches of the New Testament were persecuted for rejecting government oversight, basically. Why don't the LC emulate that?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You have a good point. I recall all those very conservative churches which find it wrong to register with the government. I have no opinion on whether it is right or not, but at least in this instance they are more pure than the LC. The churches of the New Testament were persecuted for rejecting government oversight, basically. Why don't the LC emulate that?

It's good that you mention this, because indeed the LC is a very hypocritical bunch. The LC is a harsh criticizer of 'organization', yet they encompass exactly what they criticize. I personally don't feel there is anything wrong with some level of organization within a church or even a denominational headquarters. Maybe excessive organization is less-than-desirable, but I would take more issue with a church claiming to not have such things even though it does.

Part of the level of organization seen in churches today is a simply necessitated by modern society. There's no way around that. Once a church gets large enough, it has to incorporate, and one of the basic steps to doing that is taking a name. A church model that claims you can't take a name, but has standard practice of incorporating under a name is completely absurd. In this regard, the only way for the LC to not be hypocritical would be to not register with the government and thereby remain a group of house churches.

If a church wants to rent a building or buy property, they have to have a means by which to do that legally, so it then becomes necessary to register with the government. There's really no way around it. Churches in the NT looked different because there weren't such requirements. Just another reason why people should be careful about trying to emulate the NT church model.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Part of the level of organization seen in churches today is a simply necessitated by modern society. There's no way around that. Once a church gets large enough, it has to incorporate, and one of the basic steps to doing that is taking a name. A church model that claims you can't take a name, but has standard practice of incorporating under a name is completely absurd. In this regard, the only way for the LC to not be hypocritical would be to not register with the government and thereby remain a group of house churches.

Without a name, a church can't even get a phone line.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think when you look into this question seriously and openly you discover that the NT charges us to meet with one another, that the process of meeting with others is very important, that dealing with offenses and sins is very important, but that other than that they don't give any requirements.

1. Do you have to have the Lord's table -- NT says "as often as you eat it".

2. No minimum number for a meeting or maximum number.

3. You could rent a large room, or meet in a home. No requirement concerning the meeting hall.

In fact, the "only sign" given concerning whether the meeting is of God (true church) or not is the sign of Jonah. The members need to have experienced the cross of Christ.

The church in each city is one. But this is not due to some elders, or super apostles, or any other work of man. It is because God is one, it is because they all have one Lord, one Baptism, one Spirit.

Meeting with a church of 1,000 has its own special challenges and benefits, likewise with a church of less than 100. The issue is not the number of people, the name or the meeting hall, the key issue that makes the meeting special is the presence of Jesus Christ.

In fact the initial revelation of the church was based on the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

The initial revelation that Paul had of the church was also that Jesus is Lord.

Carnal Christians cannot see or receive the fact that Jesus is Lord in the church, they need to see a person, whether it is Paul, or Apollos or Peter, etc. This is a revelation that is the central issue in seeing the church and in practicing the proper church life. Nothing else is critical.

[Evangelical]

There are biblical commands around having no divisions:

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Paul wrote this to all the believers in Corinth. He did not write this to an independent house group. Nor did he write this to a particular denomination (division) within that city. He wrote it to all the believers.

The presence of denominations in a city such as Corinth would have violated Paul's command.

Paul would not have agreed with it then and would not agree with it now.

Paul as an apostle of Christ, means that Christ would not agree with this situation either. Whatever Paul said, Christ said.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The presence of denominations in a city such as Corinth would have violated Paul's command.
Paul would not have agreed with it then and would not agree with it now.
Paul as an apostle of Christ, means that Christ would not agree with this situation either. Whatever Paul said, Christ said.

Now you create the opposite of a straw man.You create a straw Paul. Tell me, what would Paul think of the Great Schism of 1054? And, would he counsel Luther to "come out of her" or "in that which each was called, remain"?

It's like you ignore 2000 years of human history, manufacture Paul and his disapproval, then set about your remedy. But tell me, what assurance do you have that Paul would approve of it? I daresay a lot of thoughtful, Bible-reading Christians of today wouldn't think he would, nor would a lot of us who've experienced the proposed remedy.

So what does a current consensus think Paul would approve of, today? Is there any rough consensus? I'd guess something like, believe in the Lord. Gather together and receive one another. Testify of the hope which is in you. I daresay Paul wouldn't transpose 1st century organizational practices wholecloth on the 21st century church. Our organizing principles are faith and love. Not a quorum of elders.

[Evangelical]

I think Paul would have approved of Luther as one trying to get back to the ground of oneness.

Most "red letter" Christians are not familiar with or deliberately ignore Paul's instructions. For example, Paul's instructions about head coverings, female teachers/ministers, desiring to prophesy and the spiritual gifts, and tongues being the least gift and not to be used in a corporate way, and the matter of divisions are some things that most Christians ignore today. According to the Bible we should not only know Christ but also know Paul, for even the demons knew both (Acts 19:15).

Some of these such as head coverings and female teachers can be "explained away" by cultural reasons etc. Not so with Paul's command about divisions.

Many of these divisions are careful to observe things for which Paul or Jesus gave no commands, such as Christmas and Easter. In fact they are very careful to observe things for which Jesus did command, such as taking communion and doing it in a proper way, and baptism. Yet they ignore Paul's instructions about church.

Basically they cannot claim to be biblical churches unless they follow everything the bible says, which includes the matter of having no divisions, between all Christians in the city, not just all Christians whom they agree with.

[ZNPaaneah]

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

There are a few things that we can all agree with one another on:

One God and Father, One Lord, One faith, One Baptism, One Spirit.

No one can infer from this that we have to agree on non essential matters.

To be "perfectly united in mind and thought" requires the three things that Jesus referred to in John 17.

1st -- it requires that we are all worshipping one God.

2nd -- it requires that we heed the instructions in the Bible to deal with sin and the flesh.

3rd -- it requires that we become one with the indwelling Spirit.

These are all a process. There is no one who has fully arrived, hence Paul's word that he had not arrived.

This does not support Witness Lee's doctrine, in fact it condemns it.

1st. -- When you teach something that is not clearly spoken in the NT as a way to condemn and exclude other Christians, you cannot possibly expect all Christians to agree with that. On the contrary that kind of doctrine creates divisions. Witness Lee measures all other Christians by his "Ground of the Church" doctrine, going so far as to say that those who do not receive this teaching are not "true churches". Therefore he has elevated this teaching to an item of the faith. However, no apostles taught it as an item of the faith. Therefore you know there will not be agreement and it will cause division. Therefore the proper response is to drop this teaching so that we can all agree and that there be no division among us.

2nd -- this condemns the practice of "taking the ground". You are charged to agree with the Christians already in the city and that there be no divisions. Your actions are contrary to that charge.

3rd -- Witness Lee's behavior is a direct contradiction to the NT, for example his lawsuits of other Christians. You cannot expect all believers to agree with that action and the obvious result is that it will cause divisions.

4th -- Ignoring the sins of PL and others is not the proper way to deal with sins and the flesh. It has caused lots of strife and division.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Basically they cannot claim to be biblical churches unless they follow everything the bible says, which includes the matter of having no divisions, between all Christians in the city, not just all Christians whom they agree with.

Then why have you divided (isolated, segregated, cut off, ignored, disfellowshipped) yourselves from all Christians in your city? Would Paul approve?

And, why did Watchman Nee cut himself off from Leland Wang, anyway? It looks like manufactured pretense. "We see differently." Then, once Nee had a fully compliant flock, suddenly the call for unanimity issued forth. Same with Lee vis-a-vis Kaung and Sparks. Once they get a proprietary group, suddenly everyone else is called divisive.

[ZNPaaneah]

I like comparing and contrasting 1cor 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man."

with

Matt 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I think the only way you can reconcile these two portions is if the term "judgeth all things" refers to being crucified with Christ. We see that Jesus crufixcion judged sin, the flesh, the world, etc. It is fair to say that "it judged all things". If we receive this, if we are baptized with the Lord's baptism, then it is also safe to say that we also have judged these things as well.

So then, the "one baptism" that we all receive is an example of a spiritual man "judging all things yet he himself is judged of no man".

What is interesting is that the context is about the church and division. Why do we have division? Because believers are not "crucified with Christ".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why do we have division? Because believers are not "crucified with Christ".

Right. I am walking down the street and see a building with a sign on front: "Church of the Redeemer." Further down is, "Church of the Nazarene."

Now, am I divided from them? Or, am I crucified with Christ?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I like comparing and contrasting 1cor 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man."..

This is a good way to look at it. When I consider everything that I was taught in the LC, I realize that the whole problem of division was viewed from a very narrow scope. The mindset was to look at others, and if what they were doing was perceived to be something that was a part of division or divisive, then to stay away from them. Ultimately, it's an attitude of judgment that only intensifies the problem. We don't know other people's hearts, therefore how could we even begin to judge?

Groups like the LC attempt to avoid division just because the Bible says so. And it seems this simplistic mindset is where much of the problem originates. Why? Because it ignores the inevitability of division. Christians have to deal with all kinds of division. Most of it is not our fault, but it is on that basis that we tend to judge. By doing so we build an even bigger barrier than had existed in the first place.

It make sense then why these attempts to 'avoid' division so easily end up becoming a finger pointing game. The quest to identify division becomes a means by which judgment is passed. Those in the LC seem to think that WN/WL were the only ones to 'realize' that Christianity is divided. It's not that others didn't realize it, they just knew better than to go around making an issue out of it. I would argue that making an issue out of existing division is worse than division itself. WL liked to make issues of things he perceived to be true. He said some of the most despicable things imaginable about other Christians. He said the same directed at former coworkers of his.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. I am walking down the street and see a building with a sign on front: "Church of the Redeemer." Further down is, "Church of the Nazarene."
Now, am I divided from them? Or, am I crucified with Christ?

Or think about it the other way. We have two different congregations. There are a few distinctions and differences. Can I meet with one of them? Sure, especially if you are crucified with Christ. Can I meet with both? Sure, if you are crucified with Christ.

Can I be one with all Christians? Sure, if you are crucified with Christ.

Can I agree with all Christians?...

How will everyone know that you are the Lord's disciples -- because you are one. How will you be one? By being crucified with Christ.

This is the only sign that we are given for the "true church". The true church is the gathering of the saints who have been "crucified with Christ".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are biblical commands around having no divisions: 1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought...

First, the term used was "appeal to you" not "command." Dance around this if you like. Even Christ prayed that they would be one. It was clearly a goal. If it was to be a command in the way that the LRC speaks of it, it wouldn't have been overheard by one apostle, it would have been spoken boldly to the group.
But what is it to be one, or "of one mind" with respect to anything. It is evident in Acts 15 that there was not one mind, but that it "seemed good." I have no problem going along with what "seems good" even where I might actually think somewhat differently.

But when you trot out 1 Cor 1 and find a reference to division that says it shouldn't be, you avoid chapter 11 where it says "In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval." I realize that there is the indication that there is ultimately something of God's approval. But on what? Paul himself provides instances of talking on both sides of the same subject. There are clearly issues in which the answer is not simply X and not Y.

And how do you come to arrive a the truth if you do not properly analyze all the possible thoughts on the subject? Consider Acts 15. They didn't simply silence those who suggested Jewish ritual laws. Instead they listened to some speak and then prayed. And what they came up with left a couple of the ritual laws in place. Do you think that was never revisited in any way shape or form? Of course it was. It was not decreed by some kind of oracle of God. It was agreed to by those who prayed about it. that is not the equivalent of the voice of God. But I do believe that it is close enough to agree with. And in "agree with" I mean that I can live with it. I do not subscribe 100% to the doctrinal statement of my assembly. But I can live with it anyway. I can keep any opportunity to teach within the bounds of that statement. It is not something that I am certain about. But I do think there is reason to believe differently. But it does not restrict my fellowship.

For example, the assembly I meet with is very dispensational. But I am not so sold on the whole dispensational understanding of scripture and theology. But I can live with it. There is too much else to agree with to quibble over that little bit of nonessentials.

Can you say that? Or are you bound to toe the complete doctrinal line of nonessentials of the LRC no matter what?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Paul would have approved of Luther as one trying to get back to the ground of oneness....

Luther left the Catholic "ground of oneness" after repeated attempts to assassinate him for trying to reform them.

Paul celebrated the Passover, which Jesus clearly stood against. Which one should we follow?

Paul also gave clear instructions about not suing your brothers which all LC's clearly ignore at LSM's behest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a good way to look at it. When I consider everything that I was taught in the LC, I realize that the whole problem of division was viewed from a very narrow scope. The mindset was to look at others, and if what they were doing was perceived to be something that was a part of division or divisive, then to stay away from them. Ultimately, it's an attitude of judgment that only intensifies the problem. We don't know other people's hearts, therefore how could we even begin to judge?

Groups like the LC attempt to avoid division just because the Bible says so. And it seems this simplistic mindset is where much of the problem originates. Why? Because it ignores the inevitability of division. Christians have to deal with all kinds of division. Most of it is not our fault, but it is on that basis that we tend to judge. By doing so we build an even bigger barrier than had existed in the first place.

It make sense then why these attempts to 'avoid' division so easily end up becoming a finger pointing game. The quest to identify division becomes a means by which judgment is passed. Those in the LC seem to think that WN/WL were the only ones to 'realize' that Christianity is divided. It's not that others didn't realize it, they just knew better than to go around making an issue out of it. I would argue that making an issue out of existing division is worse than division itself. WL liked to make issues of things he perceived to be true. He said some of the most despicable things imaginable about other Christians. He said the same directed at former coworkers of his.

Good points.

Paul addresses these two conditions differently. In Romans 16, he speaks of those who "make divisions," and deceive the hearts with smooth and flattering speech. In Romans 14, however, Paul speaks of those already separated or divided by diverse practices, like the eating of foods or the celebration of days, both sources of contention between Jews and Gentiles, or any of a million other issues which regularly arise between God's children.

When the saints are already at odds with each other, as they were in Rome and Corinth, Paul does not instruct them to "stand on the local ground," but to remember that all of these different practices are nothing, and the Lord is everything. He reminds them that we should not judge others for how they practice the church life because we all must give an account to God. We should not judge one another over these minor items because Christ died for us all.

Concerning the demands to have one church per city, Paul would say, "The faith which you have, have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves."

This last verse strikingly characterizes LSM leadership, past and present. They judge themselves in what they approve, and do not approve. They think so much more highly of themselves than they ought to based on what they approve, and do not approve. They are constantly comparing and contrasting themselves with the whole of Christianity, in a myriad of church items, based on their own self-made analyses, or judgments.

[ZNPaaneah]

Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves.

Ps 133 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Running down on the beard,
The beard of Aaron,
Running down on the edge of his garments.
3 It is like the dew of Hermon,
Descending upon the mountains of Zion;
For there the Lord commanded the blessing—
Life forevermore.

No one is going to dwell in unity, nor is it going to be pleasant, or precious, when you have these ones judging themselves in what they approve.

As soon as someone enters the fellowship they get the 3rd degree -- do they approve the ground of oneness doctrine, do they recognize WL as the MOTA, ooh they visited their family over Christmas (that's one demerit), etc. It is like the drip, drip, drip of acid rain on marble statues.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning the demands to have one church per city, Paul would say, "The faith which you have, have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves."

This last verse strikingly characterizes LSM leadership, past and present. They judge themselves in what they approve, and do not approve. They think so much more highly of themselves than they ought to based on what they approve, and do not approve. They are constantly comparing and contrasting themselves with the whole of Christianity, in a myriad of church items, based on their own self-made analyses, or judgments.

The LC is filled with people who hold deep-seated convictions about the things taught/practiced by the LC. It occurred to me that when it comes to the average member, the reason there is such a strong reaction to criticism or scrutiny of the LC is precisely because they feel so strongly about what they stand for. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but a problem does develop when such strong beliefs are equated with a supposed need to judge others.

I’m not out to tell anyone in the LC that they can’t believe what they want, but I cannot accept any insistence on their way as the only correct way. The issue of judging others based upon things they believe to be absolutes is a compulsive problem in the LC. WL went so far as to call Christianity an “organ of Satan.” That was going way beyond a basic entitlement to believe what he wanted. For WL, his beliefs served as basis for judging others.

Back in the mid-2000’s, the better part of an entire region of the country was excommunicated for not recognizing WL as the MOTA. Not too long afterwards, Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde went on radio with the CRI and told everyone that they don’t claim to be the only church, but just the church. The sheer amount of hypocrisy is stunning. And it seems the double standard can be elusive to most members because of the things that are believed to be absolutes. When the possibility that others will disagree isn’t accounted for, the all the sudden everyone else starts to look like the bad guy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL went so far as to call Christianity an “organ of Satan.” That was going way beyond a basic entitlement to believe what he wanted. For WL, his beliefs served as basis for judging others.

Back in the mid-2000’s, the better part of an entire region of the country was excommunicated for not recognizing WL as the MOTA. Not too long afterwards, Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde went on radio with the CRI and told everyone that they don’t claim to be the only church, but just the church. The sheer amount of hypocrisy is stunning. .

The average LC member will overlook the rolling disaster that's followed the "one church per city" idea since inception, and come back to the well that gave it birth, the "absolute" that's captivated their soul. So you must take the absolute on its own defined terms, because the sold-out (read: captive) ones will tell you that they "have no heart for negative things". They'll just keep coming back to the shibboleth, rub that good luck charm one more time.

So to confront the programme in its entirety, one needs to look at the Bible afresh, again; look at the LC philosopher's stone, and then look at the word of God. Here follows today's attempt.

I recently faced the idea of how much we don't know of the actual book, the Bible, we hold in our hands. This idea came when I saw the Greek spelling of Jesus' brother, the man who got last word in the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem, and who wrote an NT epistle. His name in the Greek Interlinear was "I'acobus" - Jacob. Not our English-named James. If you look at "I'acobus" (or, "I'acov") elsewhere, such as the patriarch, it's rendered in English as Jacob: "Jacob I have loved; Esau I hated". (See e.g. the interlinear of Rom 9:3)

Now, why'd the English translators pick an English name and not the Jewish one, since the Latin 'Vulgate' version also used "Jacobus"? Was it anti-Semitism of the northern Europeans? Or was it something else? I really don't know. And that's my point - I don't know & wonder how much we don't know - transposed to larger Christian discussion and experience - never was I told in any church fellowship (and there were many) that Jesus' brother had the same name as the Jewish Patriarch.

Now, to the English word, "Church" - why is "ekklesia" typically translated as church and not something else? I don't know. But what I do see in context (NT usage) is that the Greek word "ekklesia" meant something quite different than it does to current English readers of the word "church". Ekklesia back then meant meeting, assembly, gathering. It was a group of people convened together. It could be a meeting of Moses and the seventy elders, of the priests in the Temple, in the synagogue of the Second Temple era, of the townspeople (e.g. Acts 17:41; also 19:39).

So when in Revelations 2 and 3 Jesus spoke to the angel of the 'church' in Smyrna or Ephesus or Pergamos or Thyatira, he perhaps (so I surmise) was writing to the "meeting" of the believers of Smyrna or Ephesus or Pergamos or Thyatira. The assembly. In other words, there were probably only such number of Christians, there, that "meeting" or "assembly" and what we today think of as "church" - i.e. the standing body of all believers, assembled or not - was the same thing. (!) If there were only 65 or 85 or 145 believers in a city, then "one church per city" would be quite understandable in all senses of the word, both ancient and modern. As also would, "the church in her house" of Romans 16:5. Not so complex, is it?

Now, how many believers were there, in Ephesus in AD 92, or in Pergamos? Could they and did they regularly all fit in one meeting? If so, then the letter to the church in Ephesus or Pergamos or Smyrna or Thyatira would make sense. But if there were eight or a dozen or fifteen meetings, and those not in close operational contact with each other, then the actual recipients of the letter "to the church" might get more problematic.

I say this because I remember how initially Lee sold us the idea of "one church per city" back in the late '60s and early '70s. He'd ask the question, If John were writing to the church today, to whom would he send it? To the Baptist Church, or the Methodist Church, or &c? But I now wonder if he put modern and arbitrarily chosen (I.e. biased, skewed) understanding of a word, which differs significantly from 1st century usage and understanding, back onto the text, and judging the present condition against that juxtaposition? He created artificial conflict, or false dichotomy, based on skewed (ignorant) understanding?

I remember we all were so impressed with Lee's seemingly impeccable logic: if Jesus wrote to the church today, where would He send the letter? But "the church today" and "the church in Smyrna" might be completely different phenomena; one being 68 or 170 or 235 believers all in close contact (think of Acts 2 where all Jesus' followers were in one upper room - all 120 of them), and one being something entirely different. Entirely different. But Lee convinced us that "the church in Los Angeles" in 1965 and "the church in Smyrna" in the first century AD were, and therefore had to be, the exact same phenomenological entity! He used (our) ignorance to create artificial meaning, and then levered artificial or contrived meaning to craft his argument. And because of our ignorance, we bought it.

And once we bought it, we had to live with all the ridiculous crap that followed it. I know, I know, here come the verses - "There is one Body, the church"; Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, etc, etc - I know. Verses. But this "one" church is not one in number but in spiritual state. And one phone number won't make it one. "We who are many are one." Again, don't assume some rigid, narrow (and presently-defined) understanding to prop up your ideology.

Anyway I'm just thinking aloud here, remembering how easily we swooned under Lee's logic, and how, as I begin to examine what actually lay behind it all, there really wasn't much, there. And I sense, that's really all that held it together: cobwebs, vapours, imaginariums.

[ZNPaaneah]

We are defined by our actions, not our words.

I find it astounding that those who subscribe to Witness Lee's teaching assume that they alone think the church is something critical and important.

Any person who truly views the church as a central and critical New Testament theme knows that the apostle's must define it. Clearly they have not done so in the way we would think, but I have to believe they have done so.

So then, I think that this is what James and Paul said -- we are defined by our actions, not our words.

Be ye doers of the word, not hearers only. The church is those that look into the perfect law of liberty, and continues in it.

According to Paul -- the church of God at Corinth is composed of all those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, all those that call on the Lord Jesus in every place. They are the ones in whom the testimony of Jesus was confirmed.

Both Paul and James are defining the church by the actions, not by words.

[Evangelical]

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.

Completely bogus response, Evangelical.

Zondervan only prints and sells books.

LSM, however, trains, appoints, and removes elders. LSM holds FTT seminaries for ALL promising young people. They are the SOLE ministry resource for all church meetings, children's thru college meetings, conferences, trainings, retreats, and even home meetings.

Your statement here about LSM is either absolutely naive or totally disingenuous and deceptive.

Sorry but that's the truth.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The average LC member will overlook the rolling disaster that's followed the "one church per city" idea since inception, and come back to the well that gave it birth, the "absolute" that's captivated their soul. So you must take the absolute on its own defined terms, because the sold-out (read: captive) ones will tell you that they "have no heart for negative things". They'll just keep coming back to the shibboleth, rub that good luck charm one more time.

So to confront the programme in its entirety, one needs to look at the Bible afresh, again; look at the LC philosopher's stone, and then look at the word of God. Here follows today's attempt.

These word ring true. In the LC, they talk a lot about 'vision'. When outcome deviates from the supposed vision (as it always does), then there is always talk of needing to see a 'fresh' vision.

In all of this, what is never called into question are the ideals themselves. That is because the vision/ideals are percieved to be absolutes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

These word ring true. In the LC, they talk a lot about 'vision'. When outcome deviates from the supposed vision (as it always does), then there is always talk of needing to see a 'fresh' vision.

In all of this, what is never called into question are the ideals themselves. That is because the vision/ideals are percieved to be absolutes.

I concluded there was no heavenly vision. The only "vision" I knew of was to stick it out no matter how bad things got, otherwise why would they conclude about every departing brother, "he lost his vision."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I concluded there was no heavenly vision. The only "vision" I knew of was to stick it out no matter how bad things got, otherwise why would they conclude about every departing brother, "he lost his vision."

In the LC, 'vision' is basically a test of who can ignore the facts the longest, and it's ironic. The vision that Paul saw was, in part, a vision that caused him to stop persecuting the church. He came to terms with what he had been doing. It was a true reality check.

Any 'vision' that prompts people to label fellow Christians as 'degraded' or 'satanic' is a delusion and is the exact opposite of what Christians should be doing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, 'vision' is basically a test of who can ignore the facts the longest, and it's ironic. The vision that Paul saw was, in part, a vision that caused him to stop persecuting the church. He came to terms with what he had been doing. It was a true reality check.

Any 'vision' that prompts people to label fellow Christians as 'degraded' or 'satanic' is a delusion and is the exact opposite of what Christians should be doing.

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

But what if they are standing on the local ground of oneness?

Doesn't their proper standing trump any deficiencies in their spiritual condition?

We heard this for years, and you have repeated it.

This error primed the Recovery for the second coming of Philip Lee.

He was as degraded as they come, yet purported to be his dad's closest and invaluable coworker.

Fully qualified to run LSM and rule all the LCs!

[ZNPaaneah]

Excellent point. This forum has taken issue with many examples of how those taking the lead in the LC churches or the LSM ministry were living and walking as unbelievers. But the response we have heard from the LRC cheerleaders is that Christianity is degraded.

They define degraded as "living and walking as unbelievers" so then does this mean the LRC is degraded Christianity?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of one city per church is meant to be about freedom from the religious institutions. If we leave "Babylon", believers in each city is what remains.

This is more idealistic theory based on arbitrary definitions. What's a "religious institution?" As with most LCM definitions, "religious institutions" and "Babylon" are always something other than the LCM. You're kidding yourself if you think the leadership of the LCM is not as much a religious institution as most others you might cite.

The LCM sees what they think is the ideal, generously considers themselves part of that ideal, and stingily denies all other movements and groups any of it--all based on proprietary and self-serving definitions of terms like "oneness," "division," "religion," "church" and so forth.

Ideals are great. The problem with the LCM is they use their ideals to aggrandize themselves and condemn everyone and everything else. I just don't think much of Christians who use their view of God's best to prop themselves up and put everyone else down. It's just not a proper Christian attitude. It's the attitude of seeing the speck in everyone else's eyes and ignoring the log in one's own.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.

Because I also lived in the LC bubble for too many years, almost every believer I saw "walking like unbelievers" was in the LC.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.

In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded. Googling, we can find that this old book makes reference to degraded Christians:
The New Testament, Arranged in Historical and Chronological Order

"The error of Arius and the usurpations of the Church at Rome were the two principal sources of all the corruptions which have degraded Christians"

In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But what if they are standing on the local ground of oneness?

Doesn't their proper standing trump any deficiencies in their spiritual condition?

We heard this for years, and you have repeated it.

This error primed the Recovery for the second coming of Philip Lee.

He was as degraded as they come, yet purported to be his dad's closest and invaluable coworker.

Fully qualified to run LSM and rule all the LCs!

There is no such ruling of the LC's by an individual. That is ridiculous.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded. Googling, we can find that this old book makes reference to degraded Christians:
The New Testament, Arranged in Historical and Chronological Order

"The error of Arius and the usurpations of the Church at Rome were the two principal sources of all the corruptions which have degraded Christians"

In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.

You are clearly offering a false dichotomy. One in which there is the "local churches" and one in which all the others are guilty of certain serious errors that you can find in some group somewhere.

(I know that you just claimed that there are other Christians, not of your group and neither backslidden nor false. But you dismiss even those by ignoring their existence and not considering whether that constitutes the majority of Christianity or just some minority.

But by your terminology, it would appear that you do not consider yourself to be part of Christianity. If that is true, then you still separate from those "OK Christians" because you think you are something different.)

Going back to your false dichotomy . . . for example, the fact that there is any group that has decided to accept open, practicing homosexual persons into fellowship does not taint the myriad of groups that do not. Further, the fact that there is a linkage in name with other groups does not taint the whole of those with that name. For example, there are multiple groups that share the names Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopal), Baptist, etc. And there are some groups that have a somewhat common name but no overarching administration or headquarters, therefore no ability of the actions or decisions of one to have impact on another.

Yet you generally lump everything that is not part of the so-called "local churches" into a single classification of "degraded Christianity." The problem is that most are no more degraded that the so-called "local churches." And in some ways, less so.

The church is the church. No amount of posturing will make yours "the church" and others simply "degraded Christianity." That huge body of Christians that you demean with your "degraded" terminology is the body of Christ.

Just as you are. No more. no less.

Not IF they join your group or listen only to the sound of the "one trumpet" that was sounded by Lee and is replayed forever by the LSM.


Now if you really want to claim that you don't consider all Christians to be degraded, then why don't you actually take a stand on what would qualify as not degraded (and not simply social or false Christians). Anything? Anyone? An assembly here and there, but (of course) not anything with a (gasp) name.

And there is the bugaboo. They all have names, so you can dismiss them all (as you fool yourself into thinking you don't have a name).

So it would seem that the potentially includable groups don't really exist.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

Of course it looks strange to you, that's because you have never seen the body.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no such ruling of the LC's by an individual. That is ridiculous.

How do you know? Were you at LSM during the 70s and 80s?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do you know? Were you at LSM during the 70s and 80s?

No I was in denominations but today the LSM is not like that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are clearly offering a false dichotomy. One in which there is the "local churches" and one in which all the others are guilty of certain serious errors that you can find in some group somewhere.
(I know that you just claimed that there are other Christians, not of your group and neither backslidden nor false. But you dismiss even those by ignoring their existence and not considering whether that constitutes the majority of Christianity or just some minority.
But by your terminology, it would appear that you do not consider yourself to be part of Christianity. If that is true, then you still separate from those "OK Christians" because you think you are something different.)

I maintain the distinction between the body of Christ and the denominations (or systems of Christianity) which you seem to find difficult to distinguish from the organic body of Christ.

If I say the Roman Catholic system is degraded that does not mean every Roman Catholic is degraded and it does not mean the body of Christ is degraded, unless you believe the body of Christ includes Roman Catholicism.

If I go to a Lutheran church that does not make me a Lutheran and if I go to a baptist church that does not make me a baptist.

Your insistence on identifying Christians by the name where they meet proves you are worldly (1 Cor 3:3).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No I was in denominations but today the LSM is not like that.

That's what we all thought until their corruption smacked us in the face.

Your time is coming soon.

[Evangelical]

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.
A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I maintain the distinction between the body of Christ and the denominations (or systems of Christianity) which you seem to find difficult to distinguish from the organic body of Christ.

LSM and the LC's are a denomination and a system of Christianity. There is nothing about them which is "organic." Who in their right mind would look at a room full of "tape recorders" and think to themselves, "How wonderfully organic!"

They can't even read the Bible anymore without some accompanying footnote, Life Study, and HWfMR.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM and the LC's are a denomination and a system of Christianity. There is nothing about them which is "organic." Who in their right mind would look at a room full of "tape recorders" and think to themselves, "How wonderfully organic!"
They can't even read the Bible anymore without some accompanying footnote, Life Study, and HWfMR.

I'll believe you when I see that from them in writing. So far, not. One is clearly a ministry, the other is clearly a local church. I have never heard one member say they are a Local Church Christian, they say "just Christian".

Despite what some people believe, that the Bible plus their mind plus God's Spirit is all they need to arrive at spiritual truth, I don't think that it makes them a better theologian at all. Just like if little Johnny studying for the math exam thinks he doesn't need his teacher's notes, just the textbook will do, will probably fail math.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded.
...
In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.

It seems that you fail to understand that Lee’s statements were bound to be taken the wrong way. His statements were provocative on purpose. Lee (or his defenders) tried to claim he separated the ‘system’ of Christianity from the people. Christianity is composed of Christians, it’s as simple as that. So phrases like degraded Christianity, without qualification, just serve as blanket statements. I could point out numerous similar blanket statements that Lee made. I must ask, what was his purpose in making such statements? Was he truly concerned for others, or just out to discredit them? It seems he was intent on creating an us vs. them mentality.

We know for a fact that there is some amount of ‘degradation’ among Christians. But is that really the issue? Is it worth mentioning? The real issue is our own state, or at a broader level, the state of those whom we are associated with. In Rev 2-3, there are the seven churches, all with differing states. In the address to each church, notice what it ends with. It speaks of overcoming, and this includes the message to Philadelphia, the faithful church. The admonition to Philadelphia is “hold fast what you have.”

So if a Christian group feels that they are particularly faithful to the Lord according to what they teach or practice, that’s fine, they can continue on doing what they’re doing. Why would there be any need to point fingers at others and concern themselves with the perceived shortcomings of other groups?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems that you fail to understand that Lee’s statements were bound to be taken the wrong way. His statements were provocative on purpose. Lee (or his defenders) tried to claim he separated the ‘system’ of Christianity from the people. Christianity is composed of Christians, it’s as simple as that. So phrases like degraded Christianity, without qualification, just serve as blanket statements. I could point out numerous similar blanket statements that Lee made. I must ask, what was his purpose in making such statements? Was he truly concerned for others, or just out to discredit them? It seems he was intent on creating an us vs. them mentality.

We know for a fact that there is some amount of ‘degradation’ among Christians. But is that really the issue? Is it worth mentioning? The real issue is our own state, or at a broader level, the state of those whom we are associated with. In Rev 2-3, there are the seven churches, all with differing states. In the address to each church, notice what it ends with. It speaks of overcoming, and this includes the message to Philadelphia, the faithful church. The admonition to Philadelphia is “hold fast what you have.”

So if a Christian group feels that they are particularly faithful to the Lord according to what they teach or practice, that’s fine, they can continue on doing what they’re doing. Why would there be any need to point fingers at others and concern themselves with the perceived shortcomings of other groups?

Creating an us vs them mentality? Who exactly has the us vs them mentality? Is it the local churches who state the truth about the state of Christianity, or is it the thousands of denominations that is already an "us vs them mentality" and has been for some time now. I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

And this excuses Witness Lee, who made it an art form?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Creating an us vs them mentality? Who exactly has the us vs them mentality? Is it the local churches who state the truth about the state of Christianity, or is it the thousands of denominations that is already an "us vs them mentality" and has been for some time now. I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

A prejudiced person is always blaming others for their prejudices and projecting his own upon them. (Romans 2.1)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'll believe you when I see that from them in writing. So far, not. One is clearly a ministry, the other is clearly a local church. I have never heard one member say they are a Local Church Christian, they say "just Christian".

You won't see it in writing because they know it would hurt recruiting efforts. Like the mafia Don who says, "Something must be done" about the rival family. It is implicitly understood, but still deniable.

And, "We are just Christians" means, We are just Christians who meet in the local churches affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and, by the way, we refuse every other ministry as corrupt and degraded.

The local churches are Living Stream Ministry franchises. But to sell it that way isn't palatable. So they cover and deny. But eventually you'll hear some variation like RG to BM: "We do what we are told." Or, "Philip Lee is the Office." Eventually you'll get it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Despite what some people believe, that the Bible plus their mind plus God's Spirit is all they need to arrive at spiritual truth, I don't think that it makes them a better theologian at all. Just like if little Johnny studying for the math exam thinks he doesn't need his teacher's notes, just the textbook will do, will probably fail math.

Then little Johnny goes to school, and the teacher uses 85 year-old textbooks, says everyone but her is hopelessly corrupt, won't be subject to peer review. . . what kind of school is that?

You create a false dichotomy. Believe it or not there are real scholars out there. But Lee received no peers, and had to be the big fish in a tiny pond. So, who was it that stayed home, with his textbook and his imagination?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You won't see it in writing because they know it would hurt recruiting efforts. Like the mafia Don who says, "Something must be done" about the rival family. It is implicitly understood, but still deniable.

And, "We are just Christians" means, We are just Christians who meet in the local churches affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and, by the way, we refuse every other ministry as corrupt and degraded.

The local churches are Living Stream Ministry franchises. But to sell it that way isn't palatable. So they cover and deny. But eventually you'll hear some variation like RG to BM: "We do what we are told." Or, "Philip Lee is the Office." Eventually you'll get it.

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A prejudiced person is always blaming others for their prejudices and projecting his own upon them. (Romans 2.1)

I was not blaming others. I was pointing out that claiming the local churches have an 'us and them' mentality is silly considering the present state of Christianity with its thousands of denominations. Anyway, people like you, ignorant of the real state of Christianity and too gutless to speak out against it, are the reason why almost all churches will be marrying homosexuals in a few years time.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

And this excuses Witness Lee, who made it an art form?

Just pointing out that Christianity has had an "us and them" mentality long before Witness Lee came along. If fact you and others on here have an us and them mentality against the local churches, that makes you a hypocrite. You are a sad individual with nothing better to do than criticize the local churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

The New Testament church is a gathering of those who have been redeemed by Jesus shed blood. They gather into the name of Jesus. This name includes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They recognize Jesus as Lord and they all share the common faith delivered to us by the apostles.

Since there are very many gatherings, some are genuine, some are counterfeit it is important to know what sign to look for to identify the genuine from the counterfeit.

One sign has been given to us, the sign of Jonah. You should see the personal experience of the cross of Christ and His resurrection. The members may smell like fish, they may look like they just washed up on the beach, but if they have real experiences of the cross of Christ then that is the only sign you need.

In this age the sky is red, ever since Jesus crucifixion. If that death was the end of your day you will have peace in the next age. If it was the beginning of your day then you are part of a very foul worldly system.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?

The ones stuck in a time warp are running the show in Anaheim. They are the only ones who survived the purges of the '80s. The rest, who exited, and left written documents (i.e. testimonies) pointed out unoquivocally that these were, and by extension still are, ministry churches. The critiques of 1978, 1988, and 2007 still stand. Nothing has changed.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just pointing out that Christianity has had an "us and them" mentality long before Witness Lee came along. If fact you and others on here have an us and them mentality against the local churches, that makes you a hypocrite. You are a sad individual with nothing better to do than criticize the local churches.

Christianity had problems long before Nee and Lee came along. But Nee's "normal" was anything but.

Here's an example. Look at how the culture of the Jews avoided publicly shaming others unnecessarily. Jesus echoed this. Go to your brother privately, if possible, and clear things up.

By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame, and "whitening the face". In the local churches of Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry it is called "perfecting" and "training". Believe me, it does not perfect your soul, but distorts it.

It merely puts you in your place in the LC hierarchy. Everyone knows who gets to shame whom. It is completely blatant. I've seen the Blendeds come by, hold conferences, and call out brothers from the podium. But this calling out is never ever reciprocated; that would be "rebellion"; the most heinous of crimes. But because they are blind to their own culture, they can go on and on about the splinter of "degraded Christianity" and not see the beam in their own eye. That's why I said Lee made it an art form.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?

Since his hand-picked successors are still running LSM, you could say that Phillip Lee is still in charge.

Why is it that you have license to condemn all of Christianity for its millennial old sins, but LSM's sins in my life time are old news, and off limits?

Originally Posted by aron

By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame, and "whitening the face". In the local churches of Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry it is called "perfecting" and "training". Believe me, it does not perfect your soul, but distorts it.

It merely puts you in your place in the LC hierarchy. Everyone knows who gets to shame whom. It is completely blatant. I've seen the Blendeds come by, hold conferences, and call out brothers from the podium. But this calling out is never ever reciprocated; that would be "rebellion"; the most heinous of crimes. But because they are blind to their own culture, they can go on and on about the splinter of "degraded Christianity" and not see the beam in their own eye. That's why I said Lee made it an art form.

This is the Recovery "way" of leadership. Yes, "whitening the face" does produce short term benefits, much the same as the inquisitors "perfected" their captives. The system in place from Darby to Barber to Nee to Lee to Chu to your local elder exists, not to serve the Lord or shepherd His people, rather for the maintenance of a ministry power structure. It is a lust for power and control, lording over the elect.

The program turns beloved brothers into bullies. There are numerous stories I have heard about Lee and Chu going off on some tirade just to make it "perfectly clear" who was in charge. Lee, by numerous accounts, would have weekly "ice baths," berating the audience of leaders endlessly. All of his students have learned the same pattern from their mentor.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is a lust for power and control, lording over the elect..

It's the way of the gentiles. I point out its oriental aspect not to make it seem worse than the Caucasian gentiles, but to show that it isn't a system free of human culture, as Lee claimed. His ground for criticising "fallen Christianity" was nil.

And the local churches "affiliated with the ministries of Nee and Lee" were of men, just as were those claiming to be of Cephas and Paul and Apollos.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.

Right. "The local churches" are an idealistic abstraction which the less-than-ideal LCM uses to condemn everyone else.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

Again "denominations" is your self-serving, proprietary term. As long as groups, whether you call them denominations or something else, are not attacking each other there is not a big problem. Everyone knows there is one Body and most have seen it. The LCM, and you, are in the classic error of denominations (which most of them avoid now) of defiantly claiming your way is the the best or only way. That is what you doing and that is what was always the worst thing about denominations. All they are now is different flavors, while the LCM remains one of the antagonists. The Body is not hindered by people having differing interpretations of the Bible and living according to them in peace. The Bible allows this and even insists we honor it (Romans 12). It is your insistence on your interpretation of matters which are not clearly stated or prescribed in the Bible which is the current problem. Anyone who hasn't seen this hasn't seen the Body.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Look at how the culture of the Jews avoided publicly shaming others unnecessarily. Jesus echoed this. Go to your brother privately, if possible, and clear things up...By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame

So Paul was wrong to shame Peter in public and by the logic of your argument he was Chinese too!



Drake

[UntoHim]

Drake,

Nice try. Your retort is comparing apples to oranges. Paul wasn't "shamming" Peter, but rather he was rebuking him for his "conduct not being in step with the truth of the gospel". (Gal 2:14)

The shamming aron speaks of is the unbiblical practice in the Local Church as practiced by Witness Lee, who no doubt picked it up from Watchman Nee. It is still practiced in the movement to this day. Rather than handling matters in a righteous and upright manner, public shamming is used.

-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Drake,

Nice try. Your retort is comparing apples to oranges. Paul wasn't "shamming" Peter, but rather he was rebuking him for his "conduct not being in step with the truth of the gospel". (Gal 2:14)

The shamming aron speaks of is the unbiblical practice in the Local Church as practiced by Witness Lee, who no doubt picked it up from Watchman Nee. It is still practiced in the movement to this day. Rather than handling matters in a righteous and upright manner, public shamming is used.

-

What is the difference between a public rebuke and shaming?

When Jesus rebuked Peter and called him Satan in front of others was he not shamed for his thoughts and desires? Was not Peter also shamed with just a look from the Master after he denied Him?

The cultural argument that Jesus was a Jew and therefore echoed Jewish traditions as aron argues has no merit. Did He not shame the religious leaders of His day also? Did He not shame the money-changers when He turned their tables over?

So if the objection is about the public rebukes that Brother Lee is being credited with, there is no basis for it being a Jewish or Chinese thing. There is no scriptural support for that. It's just a made up argument.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So Paul was wrong to shame Peter in public and by the logic of your argument he was Chinese too!



Drake

Huge difference. Paul addressed an action by Peter which had public consequences, which were contrary to the truth, and damaged the gospel.

The public shamings we are speaking of had nothing to do with errors committed by the recipient. (1) For example, one dear brother in Cleveland who was bald would regularly be called "hard-head" and "stiff-necked" by Titus Chu. The entire audience would laugh, but the brother remained silent. It was so regular, that everyone expected it, and no one ever spoke up in his defense. (2) Another brother was constantly chastised for not quitting his job and serving full-time. The whole GLA would look at this elder with that in their mind, rather than the immense respect he deserved. (3) Another brother John Myer stopped going to Cleveland for TC's conferences because he grew tired of explaining to the younger brothers why TC treated him such. (4) Another dear brother was constantly blamed publicly for every church problem to the point that some young full-timer almost beat him up, believing what TC said was true.

Don't get me started on all the horrific abuses I have witnessed and heard of in the LC. And, if you think TC was unique, then read the stories about Lee and Son, or if you think it only happened to brothers, then read Jane Anderson's testimony about what Benson Phillips did to the sisters.

No, brother Drake, this kind of shaming was not scriptural, nor was it isolated, rather it was very much systemic, abusive, controlling, brutish, and exclusive to the Recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

What is the difference between a public rebuke and shaming?

Drake

For starters, a public rebuke addresses a specific action or teaching. It protects others from harm or error. Public sins by public figures require public rebukes. No one laughs during a serious rebuke.

Shaming tears down the integrity, reputation, and character of the person. It is used to bring all under subjection, so that all know "who is the boss." It is strictly an exercise of power, to lord it over others. Shaming often includes mocking and laughter, but is not necessary. Shaming has utility in a military setting, but not in the household of God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huge difference. Paul addressed an action by Peter which had public consequences, which were contrary to the truth, and damaged the gospel.

The public shamings we are speaking of had nothing to do with errors committed by the recipient. (1) For example, one dear brother in Cleveland who was bald would regularly be called "hard-head" and "stiff-necked" by Titus Chu. The entire audience would laugh, but the brother remained silent. It was so regular, that everyone expected it, and no one ever spoke up in his defense. (2) Another brother was constantly chastised for not quitting his job and serving full-time. The whole GLA would look at this elder with that in their mind, rather than the immense respect he deserved. (3) Another brother John Myer stopped going to Cleveland for TC's conferences because he grew tired of explaining to the younger brothers why TC treated him such. (4) Another dear brother was constantly blamed publicly for every church problem to the point that some young full-timer almost beat him up, believing what TC said was true.

Don't get me started on all the horrific abuses I have witnessed and heard of in the LC. And, if you think TC was unique, then read the stories about Lee and Son, or if you think it only happened to brothers, then read Jane Anderson's testimony about what Benson Phillips did to the sisters.

No, brother Drake, this kind of shaming was not scriptural, nor was it isolated, rather it was very much systemic, abusive, controlling, brutish, and exclusive to the Recovery.

The kind of shaming you described by Titus Chu is not something I have been exposed to directly.

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Denominations is an apt description of what they are. That is what they are.
The Bible makes clear there is only one way to God and it is a narrow way. There are important things, matters of faith, of which there can only be one.
The Bible is clear that there is only one Body (Eph 4:4). Do we see one body? No we see many different bodies. Automatically this rules out your notion of "many different ways".

You may say that the local churches are an idealistic abstraction. Likewise, it seems your notion of different groups being one Body is an idealistic abstraction. The reality is quite different. Christ came to earth not with peace but with a sword (Matthew 10:34 ). Christ came to cause division between those who would follow Him and those who would not (Matthew 10:38). Just because denominations are in peace with each other does not make them the Body, nor solve the problem. Christ is not interested in peace but in dividing between those who follow Him and those who don't.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

There was a video on youtube (I think it has since been taken down) where WL had a translator read/translate one of his outlines in English in front of the people in the meeting. The translator spoke the phrase "God's economy" instead of "the economy of God," and then WL went off on him. It seemed like such a petty thing for WL to make an issue about.

When you say that sometimes issues need to be addressed directly, yes I agree to that. But I don't think this means leaders can choose to make issues out of petty things just because. If issues are being addressed publicly that shouldn't be, or someone is making issues out of things that aren't issues at all, then there is a problem.

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

There is no pecking order in the churches.

You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

Drake

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no pecking order in the churches.
You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

That's just a general observation I made, but I did see various times where church meetings were used to unnecessarily put someone on the spot for whatever reason. Anyhow, I don't know that it's so easy to separate the local churches from their trainings because the two are hopelessly intertwined. By the way, I saw plenty pressured to attend the FTTA or semi-annual trainings in a way where they didn't attend in an enthusiastic manner.

Back to the subject of shaming. Shaming is shaming regardless whether it happens in a meeting hall or training center. I think the concerns that others have relayed here are due to the fact that such a practice can easily qualify as spiritual abuse, and I don't think that concerns about that kind of practice 'distract' from anything. They are 100% valid.

When I think of all the instances where I saw someone put on the spot, I can't see really any of those situations as having been necessary. Putting people on the spot like that, or shaming (the extreme method) always serve the purpose of showing who's in charge. That's why I say that there is a pecking order. Visible or not, if shaming is taking place, it's a clear sign that there are people trying to assert themselves as being above others.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no pecking order in the churches.
You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

Drake, As to the question of their being a pecking order, we don't think of the church life in that way but we should come to know that our leaders have read Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee and all the messages he gave on authority after the resumption of his ministry in 1948. / Later, during the late 1980s turmoil under Brother Lee's leadership, that book was reprinted and renamed Authority and Submission, with key chapters left out in order to amplify Nee's word on submission to authority.

Authority and Delegated Authority
“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.
Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.”

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee and the global authorities who he mentored.

The Testimony of the Body – Everybody Should Submit
Nee said: Living the church life demands our very life. The first thing we have to do is not to think, but to submit. The saints should present all the problems to the elders, and the elders should present the problems before God. In this way the saints can come to God through the elders, and God’s authority can be realized among the saints.

We have to ask God to do one thing today: If a person rejects the leading in the Body, he will be deprived of all leadings. The Lord’s leading in the work is manifested in the Body. If we pay our attention to our individual ways, we will miss God’s leading. )The principle of service in the church is that all the one-talented ones have to rise up. But as soon as they rise up, the flesh rises up also. Hence, in order for the church to become the church, all the one-talented ones have to rise up. However, in order to deal with the flesh, there must also be the exercise of authority. Here the only solution is for man to listen and obey. If you think that something is right, you should obey. If you think that something is not right, you should nevertheless obey. Everyone should rise up, and everyone should learn obedience.

If we would rise up as a whole Body, the whole of China will be taken; no one will be able to withstand us. At the time of Martin Luther, God began to take the way of recovery step by step. For the past four hundred years, God did some recovery work every fifty years. During the past one hundred years, His Work has been especially strong. It seems as if the last few decades have seen the peak of recovery. There has never been a time when the church has been as rich as it is now. . . . The ultimate work among all these works may very well be the recovery of the Body testimony.

Witness Lee, ultimately copied at the end of his ministry what Nee did at the end of his ministry. The reins of leadership were given over to Br. Lee as the universal leader in the world-wide movement of churches under him, as both the head of the work and of the church. This was not a move of the Lord but a huge cloud cover rolling in from another source to obscure our view of the church, oneness, and proper ground for meeting.

[Drake]

Indiana,

The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.

This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.

This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.

Drake

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana,
The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.
This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shortening it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.
This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.
Drake

That's good, thanks Drake.

From book on Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu:. “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

[Drake]

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

[NewManLiving]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

Christ alone is the head. Any other head and you have a human organization. How quickly both Lee and Nee forgot. In WL book, The Spirit and the Body ch 14 Lee forgets the unique headship of Christ by including the head in his analogy of the body. However, the Head is Christ "from whom" the whole body... So the ears and eyes belong to Christ alone. In days past God spoke through the fathers and prophets. Today He speaks through His Son, the Head of His Body the Church. Unfortunately Nee and Lee resort to the Fathers and Prophets to make an argument for their authoritarian movement. Today is no different - the Ministry supersedes the headship of Christ

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals." W. Nee

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

Here we go Drake.

Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu: “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals".

Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

[least]

Originally Posted by Drake

The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.
This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.
This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.
Drake

One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent.
those given charge over the flock deal with that flesh when it comes in? Horrible words. That rings a bell. Some one on this forum said according to his own experience that 'my shepherd has become my butcher'.
I can see WL messages became LSM bible; and LSMLCs one talent bring the flesh and LSMLC 'those in charge' taught to be shepherds turn butchers.
*
"The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body."
These are words in the LSM bible and can be defended by vampire scholar orthodoxy. Your organisation, your authority to overnight promote anyone to whichever 'positions'; and whoever smart enough to be in line with 'the body authority' save climbing the 10 years long ladder.

This is 'EXACTLY'- turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The kind of shaming you described by Titus Chu is not something I have been exposed to directly.

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

Drake

But what TC does is the same as what WL did, and both practiced this regularly.

Were you exposed to that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no pecking order in the churches. You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

The pecking order has long existed at LSM among the workers in order to control the LC's. Because you have not seen it doesn't mean it has not existed over the years.

Many precious ministering brothers left the Recovery because they wanted no part of the "pecking order." After they left, the Chief Peckers declared them "ambitious," and "rebellious," and part of a "vast global conspiracy." The greatest Pecker of all was Lee's own son Phillip, who ran LSM. Perhaps you didn't know that.

No elder, deacon, or full-time worker "just enjoys the church life." They all must participate in endless trainings run by headquarters. That is where shaming regularly occurred, and not so much with the general public, but with the more mature brothers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fascinating how that works. You create a doctrine which is quite good, but the practice somehow morphs into something quite evil. When anyone questions the practice you point them to the doctrine which is quite good.

When they point out the hypocrisy between the doctrine and the practice the argument is that denominations are just as bad. And so you go full circle from "coming out of her my people" to "hey, we aren't any worse than her my people".

Interesting as it relates to CRI and the local churches. CRI would touch the local church doctrine, but wouldn't touch the practices.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The pecking order has long existed at LSM among the workers in order to control the LC's. Because you have not seen it doesn't mean it has not existed over the years.

Let's call it what it is, a hierarchy. Though subtle and hidden, the local churches do have a hierarchy. Edicts or asking for permission are generally referred to as "fellowship". Localities need to get approval from blended brothers in order to welcome former elders.
Case in point was one I raised a hypothetical question to an elder regarding Bill Freeman who was still living at the time. The elders response was "they need to check with Anaheim". Another instance was a former, but long time elder who made frequent trips driving from the NW to Southern California. Often visiting a particular locality in Northern California who seemed to welcome him. Point was most of the brothers and sisters welcomed this former elder and his wife, but not the localities' elder. He squashed any more potential visits. This goes into another mindset.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Let's call it what it is, a hierarchy. Though subtle and hidden, the local churches do have a hierarchy. Edicts or asking for permission are generally referred to as "fellowship". Localities need to get approval from blended brothers in order to welcome former elders.
Case in point was one I raised a hypothetical question to an elder regarding Bill Freeman who was still living at the time. The elders response was "they need to check with Anaheim". Another instance was a former, but long time elder who made frequent trips driving from the NW to Southern California. Often visiting a particular locality in Northern California who seemed to welcome him. Point was most of the brothers and sisters welcomed this former elder and his wife, but not the localities' elder. He squashed any more potential visits. This goes into another mindset.

It's amazing how much disconnect LCers have between their teachings and their practices.

"We have no hierarchy," says the LC elder, "but let me call Anaheim," when the saints desire to invite a brother they all know well, but had been blacklisted for speaking his conscience concerning corruption at LSM.

All manner of hierarchy will hide itself as a "protection" for the simplistic.

Didn't Nee in his book TNCCL specifically teach that the "highest authority in the church is the elders?"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Here we go Drake.
Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu: “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.
"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals".
Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.
Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

Indiana,

The "head", little h, in this section refers to the many members in the body as an illustration of the many members of the Body.

"In the Body we are authorities one to another."

In this section Brother Nee uses the physical body to illustrate that the members of a person's body have a ministry that renders help to the rest of the body. The ministry of that member, an eye or an ear for example, has authority based on its function or ministry. The head in our physical body directs the members. An eye has authority in seeing, an ear in hearing, etc. That is why he says we are authorities one to another.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by least

One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent.

The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it.

The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But what TC does is the same as what WL did, and both practiced this regularly. Were you exposed to that?

No. Not the way you have characterized it.

Have I observed public correction or rebuke by Brother Lee? Yes, especially in trainings and then mostly in testings.

Have I personally ever been the focus of public correction by Brother Lee? Yes, and not just in a training.

You may characterize it as shaming, I did not.

However, your description of Titus Chu's shaming is not what I observed or experienced with Brother Lee.

Drake

[Ohio]

Then the differences in our descriptions is purely subjective. You are in the program, while I have left, which alters our point pf view.

There are many, many dear brothers who were berated by WL and TC and eventually left the system. Later it would be said that they, "had a problem with WL, or had a problem with TC." These were usually coded words from public shaming. Why is it that the victim has no recourse for such abuses? Why is it that Lee or Chu did not speak privately to him?

Both Lee and Chu had a way of making enemies out of beloved brothers, and why is that? Why is it that so few brothers have left the Recovery peacefully, without being bad-mouthed by those who remain?

Have you read Don Rutledge's account of being abruptly chastised with John So? If not, i can link it or copy it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that Lee or Chu did not speak privately to him?

I don't recall the specifics in that situation but sometimes it is needful and better for the benefit of others to address a matter openly. There could be any number of reasons for that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't recall the specifics in that situation but sometimes it is needful and better for the benefit of others to address a matter openly. There could be any number of reasons for that.

There you go again, Drake. Always justifying bad behavior. Read this account.

Here is the story. The LSM office had seemly come out of nowhere and began setting the direction for the individual local churches. This was raising some alarm bells. The booklet, "The Beliefs and Practices" was announced after a morning training session. John So and I had scheduled a lunch that day. We both had gotten a copy and were very troubled by several matters. Not the content, but the authorship, "The Co-Workers of the Lord's Recovery." Here was an entity and group of which we had never heard. To us, the Lord's recovery was a spiritual activity originated in the third heavens at the throne of God rather than some group or organization on earth.

Also who are these seemingly self anointed emissaries? In addition, we were not happy that the brothers and sisters could just hand someone an official publication, as was promoted with the announcement of the booklet, rather than being ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them. In addition, how could you not say that we now had a head quarters which could speak for all the so called Local churches?

As we spoke and walked to the diner, other brothers began to join us, kind of like Luke chapter 24. Francis Ball, Ned Nossaman, and James Barber were with us. I am pretty sure that Dick Taylor was also there. They all agreed that they had a bothering. Francis as an elder in Anaheim prayed with WL before every meeting. He proposed that he set up a private fellowship with him after the evening session. We all agreed. James was in total agreement with John and me and expressed his desire to be in that meeting and to express his concerns to WL.

Right after the meeting James informed John So and I that WL was very upset. Francis had tipped off James. WL did not want to have a quiet private talk but chose to dress the two of us down in the hall for all to see. As soon as the meeting was over, we two were marched to the front. Chairs were rearranged. John and I set by ourselves facing WL and about 50 brothers including James Barber who set behind WL in support of him. Scores of the attendance milled around the little court room and became an audience. WL never asked us to open our concerns but immediately launched into a tirade against us and issued a general warning that if we continued to question what the office and the ministry was doing we would cause a lot of damage to the saints and we would damage ourselves. I can never forget the glare of despising we got from Ron Kangas as WL continued for about 10 minutes with the rebuke. Then he dismissed the meeting and we all went home. Was I ever in shock!!! So was John So. I was taking hospitality with Ned. On the ride home he laughed and laughed. He said this regularly happened to the elders in Orange County California.

James had that sheep eating dog look while WL defended the booklet, the LSM and warned John and I to keep silent. After that night, there were no more auras around the WL coordination for me. I determined I would never be bullied again. I still held to the vision of Christ as Life and the Oneness of the Body of Christ is a vital matter, but the personality cult was broken for me. I did backslide and allowed myself to get drawn into the lawsuit for a while. But I never jumped again when WL or one of his cadre yelled frog. I never again promoted the activities from Anaheim as something all the members in Dallas should plunge into. We begin to shepherd the church according to the need of the members. I decided to take what was helpful and leave alone what was some wild hare. Shortly after this I learned of the secret bank account of WL and LSM being run by Benson and an elder in Dallas. Yet it still took several years for my direction and loyalties to change. Whoa I am getting way ahead of myself.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

As to the question of there being a pecking order, we don't think of the church life in that way but we should come to know that our leaders have read Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee and all the messages he gave on authority after the resumption of his ministry in 1948. / Later, during the late 1980s turmoil under Brother Lee's leadership, that book was reprinted and renamed Authority and Submission, with key chapters left out in order to amplify Nee's word on submission to authority.

Good point, and I should clarify that this is what I meant by “pecking order.” The LC heavily emphasizes authority, and what that emphasis may not happen in an overt way, it is make clear who is in charge and what boundaries shouldn’t be crossed. It seems a lot of what Lee did in the way of shaming others was done behind the scenes in elders meetings. No doubt, the elders took this ‘example’ to heart when it came to leading the local churches they were overseeing.

The principle of service in the church is that all the one-talented ones have to rise up. But as soon as they rise up, the flesh rises up also. Hence, in order for the church to become the church, all the one-talented ones have to rise up. However, in order to deal with the flesh, there must also be the exercise of authority. Here the only solution is for man to listen and obey.

I think this quote highlights a lot of the authority problem in the LC as it relates to the average member. Like least said, the problem with the one talented member wasn’t the ‘flesh’, it was hiding the talent. The LC encourages everyone to function, but all too often that opportunity is really a just short leash and choke collar in disguise. What do I mean by this? An opportunity to ‘function’ is sometimes presented to someone (someone in desperate need of feeling like they have value), but the true purpose of the 'opportunity' is really to give the elder a chance to correct/perfect that person.

This isn’t just a hypothetical that I’m making up. It is something I’ve experienced firsthand. I remember one situation where an elder asked me to help some with cleanup after a meeting. As soon as I got started, he was there to ‘perfect’ me, telling me that I was doing it all wrong. In that situation, it was just basic cleanup, so there was no ‘correct’ way to do the cleaning. Everyone was doing their job their own way, and there had been nothing wrong with how I had been doing it. He was just being petty, and that’s exactly what he had wanted by asking me to participate in cleanup. He wanted the opportunity to ‘correct’ me, to make it clear who was in charge. And this leads to what is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the blatant abuse of authority in the LC. Most who are being taken advantage of have no intention of rivaling the person in charge. The vast majority of the rank and file are completely happy being such persons. Regardless, leaders feel the need to constantly reiterate who’s in charge.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC heavily emphasizes authority, and what that emphasis may not happen in an overt way, it is make clear who is in charge and what boundaries shouldn’t be crossed.

It seems a lot of what Lee did in the way of shaming others was done behind the scenes in elders meetings.

No doubt, the elders took this ‘example’ to heart when it came to leading the local churches they were overseeing.

The vast majority of the rank and file are completely happy being such persons. Regardless, leaders feel the need to constantly reiterate who’s in charge.

Note the progression here. I never put this all together, until I stepped away and read others' accounts. The so-called "way" in the recovery is not God's Economy, but this pattern of abuse of spiritual authority.

When the reader learns this, then everything else begins to make sense. All my "why's" began to be answered.

Aron constantly interjects Chinese culture into the mix. There are reasons why the philosophy of Confucius was essential to facilitate their dynasty dictatorships.

[Drake]

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

The straightforward reading shows two prominent brothers who were vocally upset and disgruntled with decisions that had been made without them and who believed the local churches were being compromised.

A correction in the presence of 50 leading brothers was apparently deemed needful for Don and John but also for the other brothers. Perhaps an actual transcript of that 10 minute correction would show something else but just based on the account from Don I think it is no more complicated than that.

I understand it was difficult to be openly corrected or rebuked but dissenting viewpoints should be done with the right spirit and in fellowship. I am not saying that the leaders are always right nor that their decisions are always right. I am saying that the lesson here is attitude and approach are important to the outcome.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

Let me share my own example of this "pecking order". Ed Marks and I both came into the church in 1978 in Houston. We were in Houston together until we both moved to Irving from Houston in the summer of 1981. We were both in Irving together for a year an a half. After the Peter training I moved to Odessa Texas. Years later I was in Taipei working with LSM as a trainer (I was sent by the church in NYC and was the only representative at the FTTT that NY had) while Ed was in Anaheim also working as a trainer. When I returned to the US I stopped by Anaheim and took Ed and Francis Ball to lunch. My point is that I have known Ed since 1978.

In 2015 Ed came to NYC on a Monday night to have some fellowship. Prior to the meeting they had a very small gathering in the basement to eat dinner together, about 20 or more of us. I went to the meeting with my son. Dennis Cooley was there and we talked a little about his brother (I was with him in Odessa) and about our kids (they both went to the same HS). I went up to Ed during this meal to talk to him relatively privately. Other than his wife no one else would have overheard our conversation without intentional effort on their part.

I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet.

Ed then left to go to the elders room to fellowship and I stayed behind talking to several saints that I had not seen for many years. I was still there talking to one brother I had known since 1978 when Dennis Cooley came up to me (I used to live in corporate living with Dennis' brother, I loaned Dennis my car while I was in Taipei with the FTTT and I had known Dennis since 1978).

Up to that point it seemed to me like the appropriate, Biblical, and proper. But then it got strange. Dennis Cooley, a brother who has been in the leadership of the church in NY since 1979 (and someone who I knew very well since that time) came up to me and asked "how dare I speak to Ed?" He told me to leave the meeting hall at the behest of all the elders.

Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

The straightforward reading shows two prominent brothers who were vocally upset and disgruntled with decisions that had been made without them and who believed the local churches were being compromised.

A correction in the presence of 50 leading brothers was apparently deemed needful for Don and John but also for the other brothers. Perhaps an actual transcript of that 10 minute correction would show something else but just based on the account from Don I think it is no more complicated than that.

I understand it was difficult to be openly corrected or rebuked but dissenting viewpoints should be done with the right spirit and in fellowship. I am not saying that the leaders are always right nor that their decisions are always right. I am saying that the lesson here is attitude and approach are important to the outcome.

Drake

I already have undeniable and irrefutable proofs, it's you who are in denial.

Think about it. Two brothers watching LSM beginning to take over control of the LC's. There was no need for "correction or rebuke," as you say, since they had done nothing wrong or inappropriate. They were only voicing the bothering of the Spirit within. They were being faithful to the Lord. Others also had the same bothering, so they too wanted to fellowship with WL.

Francis Ball, who publicly proclaimed that he would rather be "an ostrich with his head in the sand" rather than be faithful to the truth, then plays toady to WL in order to score points. He was exposed for playing the man-pleaser. Same with James Barber. How about the glare of despising we got from Ron Kangas? Then Nossaman laughed it off saying this kind of stuff was a regular occurrence. He probably had a turn last month. Lee was simply displaying his true colors. The apostles never behaved this way.

Drake, look at how everyone here acted and reacted. Quite telling, don't you think? Don and John got crucified with Christ and suffered on behalf of righteousness. The more I read this account, the more each one's heart was made public. If that's the kind of people you want to be associated with, then fine with me, but don't think God was expressed thru any of them except John and Don.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

Brother ZNP, how dare you bother Ed's conscience?

It's so much easier to bribe a dark conscience with esoteric doctrines and man-exaltations.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana,

The "head", little h, in this section refers to the many members in the body as an illustration of the many members of the Body.

"In the Body we are authorities one to another."

In this section Brother Nee uses the physical body to illustrate that the members of a person's body have a ministry that renders help to the rest of the body. The ministry of that member, an eye or an ear for example, has authority based on its function or ministry. The head in our physical body directs the members. An eye has authority in seeing, an ear in hearing, etc. That is why he says we are authorities one to another.

Drake

I want to come back to this matter of Spiritual Authority but first to extend a challenge to you, brother Drake, the same as I did privately.

I share here briefly a response to your post to "least", a new forum member.

************************************************** ****
This should resonate with everyone. Do whatever good you can for us. A lot of people are looking on.

"The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it. [Drake]

"The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested. [Drake]
_________________________________

I am interested in our line of fellowship and just came on the forum and will read thru. Again, many saints and seeking ones are reading what we are saying and how we say it. I have invited the blending brothers to come on to have fellowship with us as you are doing in a very good way to put forth what you have inside. They will not come on, no time for us or interest, but actually there is much for them to respond to and to become accountable for. I was ready to call for someone, anyone, to come on and talk specifically with me about how I am wrong in the writings I have presented over a 15 year period. Not one person has done it. It is because I speak the truth and they know it. They cannot respond - intelligently, fairly, or at all - or they will get caught. If not by me, then by Ohio or another one who addresses the other side of the story as to what the churches have heard from the mouths of Local Church leadership. I am ready to concede to anything or to anyone who can make the argument strong and solid that I am one of the most evil speakers on the internet, etc. I was going to get off the forum and now see what you have to say and what you still believe because of the things still being taught that no one, NO one will concede is wrong. And you inspire me to stay. There are three evil books I that I address point by point and no one refutes what I say and no one concedes either and admits publicly that these books were wrong. But they wait for and expect others to capitulate to them. I have one writing that I just noticed two days ago in reading it again that I think was my evil speaking, in part; I went too far. I think I will address this and show that I am willing to capitulate when I am wrong. Anyway, you are here, Drake. Are you one who will capitulate to the truth before God and man? If so, you will be the first LSM defender to do so!

Instead of capitulating over the years, they condemn anyway, and marched out a modern version of the falsehoods of our church history in publishing Sail On, a book endorsed by Minoru and Andrew Yu, totally avoiding addressing their three books of defamation and now add a fourth one. Who will speak the truth? - will you, Drake, and capitulate to it when it comes to you and you see it, and recognize - this is TRUTH. What a man you would be!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother ZNP, how dare you bother Ed's conscience?

It's so much easier to bribe a dark consciences with esoteric doctrines and man-exaltations.

Wasn't it Evangelical who said that the definition of the church should be that they deal with sin (excommunicate)?

In that case I was told by the elders in NY that Ed "doesn't want to deal with this now". Does that mean they are not a true church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wasn't it Evangelical who said that the definition of the church should be that they deal with sin (excommunicate)?

In that case I was told by the elders in NY that Ed "doesn't want to deal with this now". Does that mean they are not a true church?

Oops, have you forgotten that Ed Marks is with LSM, which is a ministry, and does not need to follow the rules of a church.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Christ alone is the head. Any other head and you have a human organization. How quickly both Lee and Nee forgot. In WL book, The Spirit and the Body ch 14 Lee forgets the unique headship of Christ by including the head in his analogy of the body. However, the Head is Christ "from whom" the whole body... So the ears and eyes belong to Christ alone. In days past God spoke through the fathers and prophets. Today He speaks through His Son, the Head of His Body the Church. Unfortunately Nee and Lee resort to the Fathers and Prophets to make an argument for their authoritarian movement. Today is no different - the Ministry supersedes the headship of Christ

I believe that this healthy word by NewManLiving is in stark contrast to the history of practice of Local Church leaders, which can be seen in the following link along with my letter to them.

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

My burden is that Local Church leaders actually become who they say they are - a true expression of the Body of Christ on the earth - a preposterous claim in their unrepentant state and denying of a litany of falsehoods.

[Drake]

Ohio) "Drake, look at how everyone here acted and reacted. Quite telling, don't you think"

Well, frankly no Ohio. You react pretty much the same way on every topic. There is a predictable landing zone with every conversation where we will always end up. That's okay, not complaining, just an observation.

I understand why you see that situation with the two brothers as you do. I'm not denying that it happened. I am rejecting the explanation that it was shaming for the sake of shaming, some Chinese thing, some power play to toy with the masses, or whatever explanation is getting the Likes this week.

At least one if not both brothers had direct access to Brother Lee. Why not go directly? If you look at all the major issues what do they have in common? There was some kind of back office chatter as a forerunner. Of course we are only hearing one side but even at that it s pretty obvious what the issue was.

Drake

[Ohio]

Yeah, maybe you're right.

[least]

Originally Posted by Drake

The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it.

The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested.
Drake

hey Drake,
I was angered by what you said that: one talent functioning will bring the flesh. And I responded to that.
" Originally Posted by least,
One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent."
Now you change tone to explain that 'one talent must not despise his portion'.
Twist and turn.
Jesus said the parable of the master and his servants (whom were given different talents), concerning the kingdom of Heaven.
'the whatever Body' that you said will be manifested "When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent' ...Phew! ...
That's your bible.
And the discussion was not about the 'one talent' in particular.
I will not continue to argue.
I call on the Lord... Lord, I anger no more before the sun goes down. Thank you Lord for your love and grace and mercy.

[Drake]

Sorry least. No offense intended.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

[Post 340 -- question asked of Drake] Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

Drake -- ?

[Drake]

ZNP ) "Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?"

ZNP, if you are asking my opinion based on what you wrote my observation is that there is no hierarchy but you apparently crossed a line here:

"I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet."

If you were not meeting with the church in NYC in 2015 but showed up at this gathering with Ed and proceeded to regurgitate a decades old issue and pushed an Internet letter at him then you would be viewed as an opposer. If you were meeting with the church in NYC at the time of that meeting then your actions would be considered bad form and unwise. In either case, it would have been better for you to leave since that was not the purpose of his coming.

Apparently the brothers in NYC placed a different value on that topic than you did.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I want to come back to this matter of Spiritual Authority but first to extend a challenge to you, brother Drake, the same as I did privately.

I share here briefly a response to your post to "least", a new forum member.

************************************************** ****
This should resonate with everyone. Do whatever good you can for us. A lot of people are looking on.

"The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it. [Drake]

"The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested. [Drake]
_________________________________

I am interested in our line of fellowship and just came on the forum and will read thru. Again, many saints and seeking ones are reading what we are saying and how we say it. I have invited the blending brothers to come on to have fellowship with us as you are doing in a very good way to put forth what you have inside. They will not come on, no time for us or interest, but actually there is much for them to respond to and to become accountable for. I was ready to call for someone, anyone, to come on and talk specifically with me about how I am wrong in the writings I have presented over a 15 year period. Not one person has done it. It is because I speak the truth and they know it. They cannot respond - intelligently, fairly, or at all - or they will get caught. If not by me, then by Ohio or another one who addresses the other side of the story as to what the churches have heard from the mouths of Local Church leadership. I am ready to concede to anything or to anyone who can make the argument strong and solid that I am one of the most evil speakers on the internet, etc. I was going to get off the forum and now see what you have to say and what you still believe because of the things still being taught that no one, NO one will concede is wrong. And you inspire me to stay. There are three evil books I that I address point by point and no one refutes what I say and no one concedes either and admits publicly that these books were wrong. But they wait for and expect others to capitulate to them. I have one writing that I just noticed two days ago in reading it again that I think was my evil speaking, in part; I went too far. I think I will address this and show that I am willing to capitulate when I am wrong. Anyway, you are here, Drake. Are you one who will capitulate to the truth before God and man? If so, you will be the first LSM defender to do so!

Instead of capitulating over the years, they condemn anyway, and marched out a modern version of the falsehoods of our church history in publishing Sail On, a book endorsed by Minoru and Andrew Yu, totally avoiding addressing their three books of defamation and now add a fourth one. Who will speak the truth? - will you, Drake, and capitulate to it when it comes to you and you see it, and recognize - this is TRUTH. What a man you would be!

Indiana,

Happy to address any particular point or if there is a post in an existing thread you want to reference.

As stated I am not speaking for anyone but myself and I am no one special. If that's ok with you then i will address specific points to the best of my ability.

Drake

[least]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry least. No offense intended.

Drake

I was not offended by you. No offense was intended, I knew that.
I was angry.
Once upon a time, I faithfully read many messages, that by now, I can see that in that period of time, the messages were 'my bible'.
The Holy Spirit 'whirlwinded' me out of that environment, overnight, and the next morning THE BIBLE is 'my bible'. Hehe, was immediately reported to headquarter in Anaheim, and 'these people' were guarded with 'fire' and 'sword' from using, accessing or buying LSM published bibles and hymnals. Hahaha ... how wonderful.
No need to know who and where 'these people' are. The Lord told Elijah "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him."
Amazing LORD I have. The LORD my God. Saviour.
Kiss the Son.

[Indiana]

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.

Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.” 10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension from his ministry. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee, and then the global authorities he mentored succeeded him with order "in the Body" on auto pilot, a movement of "one accord".

We need to determine what Nee meant by the "head". In the work is one brother being the head ok, but not in the church. Who would ever say that Nee was the head of the church? This is clearly wrong to say. But when referring to the work, is it ok to exhort the brothers to find out who is "ahead of you" and who you should submit to? Or is this a capital way to blur the work and the church? With everyone submitting to the ones above them, by the time you get to the top you have the head, Watchman Nee. You can get away with that when talking about the work; but once it is established who the head of the work is, it is understood that he is the leader in the church or the head of the church.

Nee then interchanges the spellings of Head and head in his rhetoric to the brothers so that the Head is Christ but it is also Nee, the concepts become blent as to who is the head. And the work and the church becomes blurred as a result. If you take away the work altogether and throw it into the ocean, you are left with only the church. And it is clear in the Bible Who is he Head of the church, Christ. But, according to one LSM leader, Paul Hon, it is ok to have an hierarchy in the work, but not in the church. However, in actuality whoever was head of the work became head of the church. Nee in his time and Lee in his did have the reins of the churches in their hands. Moreover, both introduced the concept of the minister of the age to the co-workers and to the church. And it was clear who held the distinction. It followed, then, that Lee could become the Commander-in-chief for "the Lord's new move", which involved both the work and the churches and a signed pledge of 417 brothers to follow Witness Lee and his leadership.

Dear Brother Lee:

After hearing your fellowship in this elders training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth. We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." (February 1986, Elders' Training, Anaheim)

The One Accord Movement

Witness Lee
"If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The Socialist party stresses socialism. Any political party has its own “ism”. They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge” (One Accord For The Lord’s Move, W. L., pp. 97, 99-100)


Global Authority Today

Those that grasp the global leadership today, the blending brothers, still follow Brother Lee and his blueprint for "the Lord's new move" which has actually been a movement for a long, long time to propagate the ministry around the world and establish "ministerial churches" (Nee)under their head, Witness Lee.

Senior Taiwan co-workers with Prominent Elder John Ingalls 1989

"One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord. This is how denominations are formed. But the Lord had preserved some for Himself. This situation did not develop suddenly, and we cannot expect it to clear up suddenly."

Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP ) "Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?"

ZNP, if you are asking my opinion based on what you wrote my observation is that there is no hierarchy but you apparently crossed a line here:

"I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet."

If you were not meeting with the church in NYC in 2015 but showed up at this gathering with Ed and proceeded to regurgitate a decades old issue and pushed an Internet letter at him then you would be viewed as an opposer. If you were meeting with the church in NYC at the time of that meeting then your actions would be considered bad form and unwise. In either case, it would have been better for you to leave since that was not the purpose of his coming.

Apparently the brothers in NYC placed a different value on that topic than you did.

Drake

What does this mean "not meeting with the church in NY"? I was in the meeting on Sunday and shared a testimony. I also came Monday night.

Why do you use the derogatory term of "regurgitate". This matter had not been dealt with and never had. As Ed and the elders in NY relayed to me "Ed does not want to deal with this now". So yes, it is decades old, yet he has never to this date dealt with it. It is despicable to pretend that you can ignore a sin and after a certain period of time it has "expired" and can no longer be an issue.

What does "viewed as an opposer" mean? I am a brother, with a relationship with this brother for 30+ years trying to deal with a sin and help those offended by it. Since when are people who try to be faithful to the Lord to deal with sins viewed as "opposers"?

My actions are considered bad form? Pray tell us all what "good form" looks like? This is a joke. Ed by his own admission behaved as a monkey that saw no evil for the sole purpose of pleasing man (Witness Lee to be precise). He apologizes to a sinful man on behalf of the church, knowing that this would hurt and offend many saints in Anaheim that had been harmed by this man. He has never (by his own admission) dealt with this sin. And my actions are considered bad form? Do you guys have any fear of the Lord Jesus at all?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does this mean "not meeting with the church in NY"? I was in the meeting on Sunday and shared a testimony. I also came Monday night.

Why do you use the derogatory term of "regurgitate". This matter had not been dealt with and never had. As Ed and the elders in NY relayed to me "Ed does not want to deal with this now". So yes, it is decades old, yet he has never to this date dealt with it. It is despicable to pretend that you can ignore a sin and after a certain period of time it has "expired" and can no longer be an issue.

What does "viewed as an opposer" mean? I am a brother, with a relationship with this brother for 30+ years trying to deal with a sin and help those offended by it. Since when are people who try to be faithful to the Lord to deal with sins viewed as "opposers"?

My actions are considered bad form? Pray tell us all what "good form" looks like? This is a joke. Ed by his own admission behaved as a monkey that saw no evil for the sole purpose of pleasing man (Witness Lee to be precise). He apologizes to a sinful man on behalf of the church, knowing that this would hurt and offend many saints in Anaheim that had been harmed by this man. He has never (by his own admission) dealt with this sin. And my actions are considered bad form? Do you guys have any fear of the Lord Jesus at all?

ZNP,

You solicited my view on your encounter using your version of events. Having provided the feedback you sought you now act like I was the one who asked you to leave!

I'll give this another try assuming you really wanted to know my point of view on your question and perhaps I just didn't say it well. But don't get indignant if you don't like the feedback. It's just that, feedback.

Seemed to me, based on their reaction, that they did not think your question and the letter from "the Internet" was appropriate in that setting and at that time. Perhaps if you had fellowship with them ahead of time there may have been a way to present it but I doubt it because the issue is decades old and the only place it is really still alive is here. So they probably put two and two together and figured anyone who prints off a letter from the Internet and didn't fellowship about it in advance may not have the best intentions. You clearly caught everybody off guard.

In short, your perceived reason as "hierarchy" is highly unlikely and an alternative and highly plausible explanation is provided above as requested.

Since that incident occurred last year and you know Dennis did he offer an explanation afterwards? Ask him.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

The problem is there is a long history with this particular event. People did ask for fellowship and were denied. Some sent letters, some sent the letters by registered mail, some sent them via courier, etc.

Therefore I consider this idea of "if you asked in advance" to be nothing but one in a long line of excuses. Yes, some might try and present that as the explanation, but it is nothing more than a superficial excuse.

In my opinion if someone has offended you then it is up to you to let them know. This is what the Lord told us to do. However, the way the Lord said it the onus is not on the offended one.

Matt 5:23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister[i] has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister,[j] and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court[k] with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Yes, I reminded them, and they were all reminded that their brothers and sisters have something against them and that they have not been reconciled.

They can view me as an opposer for reminding them of their offense, they can accuse me of "regurgitating" this offense, they can say that it was "bad form" or that it was inappropriate, or they could even argue that the only place the issue is still alive is with those who were injured and harmed.

I would say that they are in danger of this being resolved at the judgement seat of Christ.

Let me give you the background on how I came to be in that Monday evening meeting. I left the meetings in NY in 1998. I returned for a funeral service for a sister that I knew and had lived with at Dunton house. Also, since my children had a relationship with some saints there I had visited once or twice in addition to that. But other than that I had not been to the meetings since 1998. Then in the summer of 2015 I became very bothered inside to return. I dreaded it, came up with every reason not to go, and ultimately began visiting other churches in the area, telling myself that what the Lord really wanted was for me to visit other congregations. Ultimately I felt I was cornered and had no other choice so I went to the meeting Sunday with my wife and son. When the meeting was over I stood up in line and shared a testimony at one of the microphones. After the meeting a number of saints came up and talked to me. I was on very good terms with everyone, in 1998 I did not leave under any kind of discipline or request from anyone. I left in 1998 because I felt something was wrong and by this time in 2015 I felt the church was terribly off and couldn't see why I would endanger my family getting entangled in the meeting. However, after the meeting they announced that Ed was going to be there Monday night. I felt the thing was sovereign of the Lord so that I could see Ed and talk to him. Ed should take heart because to me that shows the love and mercy of the Lord that He would still send someone to him. For me I was thankful because many years ago Ed had given me a car and I felt this was a chance for me to repay him. I felt I had a debt to him. My thought was that if he could deal with this offense now, in this life it would be far, far better for him. So it seemed so perfect to me by the Lord, it showed the Lord's care and love for both of us.

But I would say that the risk is that they harden their heart, in which case this will just be one more witness against them. I fear the price they will have to pay will be very high. If they choose to take this path of "bad form", "opposer", "caught us off guard", "we're not ready".

The Lord's word is to "come to terms quickly". They will be without excuse. They can't say they didn't know. They can't say they were faithful to the Lord.

[Drake]

ZNP,

Perhaps the Lord's sovereign arrangement of those two nights was for you to receive healing.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The devil can quote scripture, as can you.

Yes, but you can't quote anything lol. I'll give you some help, this is a page that lists all the bible verses about denominations:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

I cannot see one verse that allows or prefers a conglomeration of denominations as representing the Body.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,
Perhaps the Lord's sovereign arrangement of those two nights was for you to receive healing.

My personal experience of PL was very limited. I met him once while serving in Irving on the meeting hall. I took an instant aversion to him and realized that this was not a man of God.

Also since I was in Houston I did see the sister that moved from Anaheim to Houston due to PL, though we were only told the vaguest of explanations of what took place and had no idea of the details or that it involved PL.

No, I think I have a very clear understanding of the Lord's sovereign involvement of myself and would characterize it from Matthew 18. When I first came to this forum it was the first I had heard of many of these things and concerning others I learned far more details than I had known. If you look at my posts at that time you can see that I was arguing for a clearer presentation of the evidence and a fair presentation of both sides. I see myself as the 2-3 that the offended parties were supposed to go tell, who then were supposed to help those harmed. Read my testimony, I have had very positive experiences of my LRC experience which include full time and part time service in LSM for many years.

But I will say that this experience, now more than six years, with this forum has enlightened me quite a bit. I am not referring to the realization of the reprehensible and hypocritical behavior of many saints in the lead. Many of whom I have worked closely with for years. I would not characterize that as "enlightenment" only a slow, sad realization of their depravity. For example, after giving Ed a copy of the letter to jog his memory and make sure we were both talking about the same thing he requested the envelope as well. That was when I realized he wanted to figure out who else might be involved in having the audacity to hope for a repentance. He talked to me in a way to indicate he felt remorse while at the same time he was already planning on taking retribution. No the enlightenment was to see the position and importance of the book of James. I think I can find every little bit of enlightenment from my experience with the errors of the LRC elegantly expressed in that book. It is amazing to me to think that every Bible student knows the significance of the "first mention" principle, and yet ignores the fact that since James is the first NT book it literally should be viewed as the first mention for every verse in that book.

It has also enlightened me to much that the Lord shared. For example I see the wonderful wisdom in Matthew 18. I can imagine that those who were directly harmed by this person, then saw the elders in Anaheim forced out, replaced by a rubber stamp for Witness Lee (I am paraphrasing Ed Marks words to me) and then seen the church they had given themselves to apologize to the person who had abused their wives and sisters, for those brothers and sisters I can imagine how difficult this would be.

Here you are 20+ years later, no one has repented and you are told to stop regurgitating that old story. Or you are told that you didn't realize anyone still cared about that. Or you are told that you are an opposer. The mistake is with you because didn't write first. Of course when you did write they ignored the letter. They ignored the registered letter. They ignored the courier delivered letter. Nope, the person in "bad form" is not the man molesting the sisters, nor is it the man apologizing and cow towing to the molester, but it is you for bringing this up. That is what is so brilliant about the Lord. I don't have a dog in the fight, I am not outraged and incensed. If that was my daughter or my wife I couldn't continue to repeat this and go through this fight. But since it isn't I am more than happy to shout this from the rooftop. There is a very nice progression and Jesus anticipates that they "will not hear you". Let's be honest, that is what is happening here. They have spent 20 years coming up with excuses for why "they will not hear you". But what do you do then? You tell it to the church. Check, done that. They should be as heathens and publicans to you. Check, done that. This is a strong basis for my building the case that Witness Lee was a false prophet, that the Blendeds are the fruit of a false prophet, and that the LRC is Laodicea with Jesus on the outside knocking for any remaining believers to open the door and come outside to Him.

No, I would not describe this as "Receiving healing" but rather as "overcoming Jezebel and Balaam".

Remember the Lord's judgement on Jezebel, "in the pool where the prostitutes wash the dogs will lick your blood". When the sins of these cults like the church of scientology are exposed it is on the front page of newspapers. They bring this judgement on themselves. The people that tried to deal with the sins acted in a way that was proper, polite, dignified, discreet, etc. Yet they always had an excuse for why they had come in the wrong way, at the wrong time, to the wrong person, with he wrong attitude, etc. 20 plus years they do that until there is no other way but to hash this out on a public forum, like a newspaper or internet forum.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes, but you can't quote anything lol.

I've referred to the Bible a lot. Your statement is disingenuous. And honestly I'd rather not quote the Bible than misuse it as you do. But I have quoted and referred to it many times, as I do below. You are just being dishonest.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'll give you some help, this is a page that lists all the bible verses about denominations:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

I cannot see the word "denomination" used in any of these verses. You are going to have to do better than this.

I certainly am against true division. But I don't see that denominations as they exist today necessarily constitute division. You have created ordinances against names that the Bible does not cite. Even so, simply not taking a name and saying you embody the oneness of the Body would not be enough anyway. You need to have an inclusive attitude. And you certainly don't. No matter what words you use, your attitude is divisive as far as I can tell.

James and John thought they were on the side of righteousness when they asked Jesus about calling fire and brimstone down on the Jews. But Jesus said they were of the wrong spirit and put them in their place. I see you the same way. You think are on the the Lord's side, but really you are just like James and John as far as I'm concerned.

And I see the LCM as much more divisive than any major denomination I can think of. Like you, their spirit is wrong. You might be able to make a superficial argument about your stand for "oneness." But that's not what's important in this matter. What's important is one's true spirit, and the spirit of the LCM is divisive as far as I'm concerned.

Clean it up and you might be able to brag. But you certainly have no ground to brag now. Take the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in others'.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see one verse that allows or prefers a conglomeration of denominations as representing the Body.

I cannot see one verse that says it wouldn't. But actually your whole idea is misguided, because the idea of "representing the Body" is not Biblical. The Body is the Body. No one "represents" it. We are all just it. The church is not a Republic; we don't have representatives. The LCM's idea that they "represent the Body" is just another way they prop themselves as something special and discount everyone else.

Actually the idea of representing the Body is counter to your whole argument. We are God's ambassadors, not the Body's. We go in his name, not the Body's name. To say you "represent the Body" is to say you've taken the Body's name, not the Lord's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I see the LCM as much more divisive than any major denomination I can think of. Like you, their spirit is wrong. You might be able to make a superficial argument about your stand for "oneness." But that's not what's important in this matter. What's important is one's true spirit, and the spirit of the LCM is divisive as far as I'm concerned.

The Bible condemns those who make divisions and causes of stumbling serving their own bellies and deceiving others' hearts. (Homework assignment: Look the verses up.) We cannot apply these verses to those who grow up e.g. in a Baptist church. The verse never applied to them.

If names were so wrong, then we must condemn every man of God for the last two millennia who departed from the Catholic "oneness" church. What do we do with those named after their leader (e.g. Hussites or Waldensians) or some practice (e.g. Baptists) or teaching (e.g. Pentecostals)? Often it was not the leader, but the papists who initially named them, much the same as the believers were named "Christians" by their opposers.

Do you really think the Lord Jesus will say to some at the judgment seat: "You followed and promoted the reprobate PL a known molester, you lied and smeared Ingalls' et. al. reputations to cover up sins, but all is OK because you had the correct church name. Well done!"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

James and John thought they were on the side of righteousness when they asked Jesus about calling fire and brimstone down on the Jews. But Jesus said they were of the wrong spirit and put them in their place. I see you the same way. You think are on the the Lord's side, but really you are just like James and John as far as I'm concerned.

No one is talking about calling fire and brimstone down on the denominations. We are talking about Christians coming out of Babylon. But it seems that you prefer your brothers and sisters in Christ to remain in idolatry. That is not love Igzy. It is not loving to prefer that your brothers and sisters in Christ remain in the idolatrous denominations, especially Catholic. If you truly cared about your brethren, if you truly stood for Christ, you would wish them to come out of that. But you "don't see a problem", because you are living in your mind. I doubt you've ever asked the Lord whether He approves of Catholicism, for example. I doubt you've bothered to hear His answer. You certainly have not found it in His written Word. Can you find a verse that supports Catholicism?

The whole website is about denominations. Anyone, even those outside of the recovery can see that the verses apply to denominations which are divisions. It seems as if you think that denominations are simply a different building to meet in with a different name of the one Body. But actually they are divisions. There was a good reason why Luther separated from Catholicism. And there is a good reason why the Recovery separates from the denominations. When I was a Protestant, and we knew of any who attend Catholic, we would lovingly and concernedly see if they would come out of Catholicism. Now that Protestantism has followed the idolatrous path of the Catholics, I would say the same to any in Protestantism.

I know you refer to the Bible, but on this topic of denominations you cannot find a verse to support your view that denominations are acceptable. When you say denominations are acceptable you are saying that Babylon is acceptable. You are saying that Roman Catholicism is acceptable with all of its idols and various things (Catholicism is the major denomination, remember).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yet you justify the hundreds of names LSM uses, saying it is a ministry and not a church. That is most hypocritical. Where is the scriptural support for these ministry names? There is none. What legal entity (DCP) or attack publication (A&C) did the apostles ever startup?

You also have not provided any scripture to show denominations are okay. The website I posted about denominations is sufficient.

In Matthew 6:18 Christ said he would build his church (singular, not plural).

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The fact you say "churches (plural).. with a name" proves you don't understand the Body and believe in division. You are in Babylon and in Babylon you "roam". With the Catholics and the LGBT churches and all the other denominations which you love.

I don't think any person in their right mind would consider DCP or A&C or LSM a denomination. By your logic, then Zondervan would be a denomination, and the Christian Research Institute" is also a denomination.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible condemns those who make divisions and causes of stumbling serving their own bellies and deceiving others' hearts. (Homework assignment: Look the verses up.) We cannot apply these verses to those who grow up e.g. in a Baptist church. The verse never applied to them.

The Baptist pastors "cause division" every time they choose to attend their own church rather than the different church right next door.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Baptist pastors "cause division" every time they choose to attend their own church rather than the different church right next door.

Why do you not apply that to the pastors and members of that different church next door?

And if you do, then on what basis do you think they should or must meet together? If there are nearly too many for a reasonable meeting in either one, then two is almost assuredly called for. What do you now have to dig down into for the purpose of deriding them? That they disagree over how communion/Eucharist should be labeled, observed, and how often? Over the mode of baptism? That one is truly Calvinist while the other is less so? Would you insist that the two forget it all and just constantly mix among themselves so as to make the differentiation immaterial?

What would you then say about the need for a unified message? A clear sounding of the trumpet to put it in LRC terms?

The fact is that the two groups sitting across the street from each other allow for peaceful meetings without conflict over unimportant things. You will generally find that the two groups are not so "divided" to use your terminology. They are both clear that the other is part of the body of Christ. And they are typically clear that their differences are not a bar to salvation or to actively joining together for the work of Christ in the world.

The "division" that you insist is there is not really so divided. Nothing like the problems going on in Corinth.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When you say denominations are acceptable you are saying that Babylon is acceptable. You are saying that Roman Catholicism is acceptable with all of its idols and various things (Catholicism is the major denomination, remember).

Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.

Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?

But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.

The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.

[Evangelical]

You do not have the proper perspective on this issue. A denomination is a degradation away from the practical oneness of the body. The cycle of leaving one denomination and joining or creating another is the problem. There is no good reason why the Lutheran church for example had to exist just because Luther recovered the truth that we are saved by faith alone. Today, everyone knows salvation is by faith alone and we do not need the Lutheran church to tell us that. But they still exist today, 500 years later, why? What is their purpose in the world? Why do they still exist? Why have they not joined the Baptists which are much better? Why have the Baptists not joined the "community churches" which are better yet again? Because they don't see themselves as part of the one body.

There are many who see this who are not in the Recovery. For example, these posts agree with what I am saying:

http://christianity.stackexchange.co...-denominations

The longer you say denominations are OK by the Bible the longer you are in denial. I agree with one posters comment
" "Denomination" isn't some sort of victorious mantra. It's admitting some level of defeat. It's descriptive of our fallen nature rather than prescriptive of what the church should look like."

So by accepting denominations you are accepting defeat. You are not striving for the victory which Christ enabled for us on the cross.

[Drake]

ZNP,

I too have had disagreement with some of the things that have happened. I didn't always agree with what was shared by the brothers. Sometimes I was publicly left blinking and blushing. There were times I believed I wouldn't be able to go on in the Lords Recovery unless something changed. There were periods I stayed away.

However, whenever I reached out to talk to the leading brothers or Brother Lee they never turned me down, they were always genuinely concerned about my concerns, and I always received help from them, and was restored in my heart to the fellowship in life.

I love these brothers with all their faults, shortcomings, and missteps. Not just because of the personal help that draws me closer to Him, but because the love they have for the Lord, their consecration to the ministry of life, and their willingness to suffer in this life for the reward of the future. I really consider them as brothers and as such I never broached an issue with them in the way of demanding answers or expecting them to clear something up to my satisfaction. Rather, I shared what was bothering me and how it was impacting me. They always stepped into the gap with a healing word or an offer for fellowship.

Don't misunderstand, there were brothers or sisters that I knew were to be avoided or ignored. I figured those dear ones needed more life, just like me. Sometimes I had to deal with something head on. But an attitude of standing for the truth coupled with a heart to restore and a view to the judgement seat of Christ usually carried the day. When it didn't I just trusted the Lord so that I did not carry the offense in me. He has not commissioned me to straighten everyone else out. Eventually He will set everything and everyone in order.

Grace,
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So by accepting denominations you are accepting defeat. You are not striving for the victory which Christ enabled for us on the cross.

I refer you to a post by brother Drake here where he defends his not calling out bad behavior by leadership in the LCM:

"Sometimes I had to deal with something head on. But an attitude of standing for the truth coupled with a heart to restore and a view to the judgement seat of Christ usually carried the day. When it didn't I just trusted the Lord so that I did not carry the offense in me. He has not commissioned me to straighten everyone else out. Eventually He will set everything and everyone in order."

I don't think denominations are ideal. But I do see the Lord working in and through them. I sense his presence in gatherings there. If He's willing to do that I think my complaints should be tempered. And I do see his work and the landscape changing. Names and affiliations are much less important than they were 30 years ago. Progress toward more unity is happening and its being done by the Lord, not by self-righteous rock throwers. Pastors in our city from various types of groups and denominations meet regularly to pray and fellowship. As Drake said you can't fight or win every battle. You seem to be jousting windmills as they existed half a century ago, i.e. as Witness Lee described them. I don't see that as very productive. That coupled with the fact that you turn a blind eye to your own group's failings leads me to take you less seriously.

My chief complaint about the LCM is how it condemns other groups and people while soft-peddling its own failures and how it indoctrinates its members with fear of leaving the group. Much damage has been done by these practices. I know there is a certain edification in the LCM. I don't argue with that. My problem is with the claims and teachings that have manifestly done monstrous damage to many, including myself. My aim is narrow. I don't shoot with a scatter gun as you do at what you vaguely describe as "denominations" and "Christianity."

[ZNPaaneah]

This was my attitude 6 years ago. But when I realized that Watchman Nee was actually guilty of having a mistress, that the elders that disciplined him were not keystone cops, that the entire story fabricated by Witness Lee was a sham, then I considered 2Peter 2 again:

2 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not.

I don't want to "regurgitate" the entire thread on this, but I have concluded that

1. Witness Lee's teaching was a destructive heresy. I consider all "schools of thought" to be heresies, no doubt Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were a school of thought. I feel that this elevates to "destructive" or "damnable" when they teach divisive teachings like the ground of the church, MOTA and one trumpet.

2. Denying the master is absolutely critical -- I consider that the MOTA teaching does this. WL uses types of Jesus in the OT and applies them to Watchman Nee and by extension himself. The One Trumpet is another. Lawsuits are a third. Parsing the Bible to decide what is and is not the word of God is a fourth.

3. Lascivious doings are a very clear sign that these are not men of God. Surely you knew PL, how do you reconcile a "man of God" like WL, RG and BP submitting themselves to PL and allowing him to run the ministry? The Sister's rebellion shows the lengths WL would go to in order to cover for PL. The exit of the Anaheim elders demonstrates that this is a very serious matter of the conscience.

4. The way of the truth has been evil spoken of due to WL and his lawsuits and his slander of all other Christians, ministries, teachers, etc.

5. Feigned words, or fabricated words clearly refer to the story Witness Lee told us about Watchman Nee's discipline by the elders. Why would he do that? The only credible explanation that I can accept is out of covetousness. If he was WN's closest coworker, the one to carry on his ministry, then WN's sins taint him as well. On the other hand the "martyr" and "inept elders" creates a narrative that serves his purposes for creating a monopoly for his ministry. Daystar, Tennis rackets, Blue chairs, Standing orders, Training fees, lawsuits, seizing church property, MOTA, One Trumpet -- these all are ways to make merchandise of the saints.

Hence my conclusion that Witness Lee was a false teacher.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I love these brothers with all their faults, shortcomings, and missteps. Not just because of the personal help that draws me closer to Him, but because the love they have for the Lord, their consecration to the ministry of life, and their willingness to suffer in this life for the reward of the future. I really consider them as brothers and as such I never broached an issue with them in the way of demanding answers or expecting them to clear something up to my satisfaction. Rather, I shared what was bothering me and how it was impacting me. They always stepped into the gap with a healing word or an offer for fellowship.

Brother Drake, my question for you is whether you have witnessed brothers (or sisters) badly hurt by LSM/LC leadership? And I'm not talking about a stray brother who had his feelings hurt, but a trail of wounded spanning time and space. Ones who were slandered, falsely-accused, and bad-mouthed as they were ushered out the door.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.

Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.” 10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension from his ministry. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee, and then the global authorities he mentored succeeded him with order "in the Body" on auto pilot, a movement of "one accord".

We need to determine what Nee meant by the "head". In the work is one brother being the head ok, but not in the church. Who would ever say that Nee was the head of the church? This is clearly wrong to say. But when referring to the work, is it ok to exhort the brothers to find out who is "ahead of you" and who you should submit to? Or is this a capital way to blur the work and the church? With everyone submitting to the ones above them, by the time you get to the top you have the head, Watchman Nee. You can get away with that when talking about the work; but once it is established who the head of the work is, it is understood that he is the leader in the church or the head of the church.

Nee then interchanges the spellings of Head and head in his rhetoric to the brothers so that the Head is Christ but it is also Nee, the concepts become blent as to who is the head. And the work and the church becomes blurred as a result. If you take away the work altogether and throw it into the ocean, you are left with only the church. And it is clear in the Bible Who is he Head of the church, Christ. But, according to one LSM leader, Paul Hon, it is ok to have an hierarchy in the work, but not in the church. However, in actuality whoever was head of the work became head of the church. Nee in his time and Lee in his did have the reins of the churches in their hands. Moreover, both introduced the concept of the minister of the age to the co-workers and to the church. And it was clear who held the distinction. It followed, then, that Lee could become the Commander-in-chief for "the Lord's new move", which involved both the work and the churches and a signed pledge of 417 brothers to follow Witness Lee and his leadership.

Dear Brother Lee:

After hearing your fellowship in this elders training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth. We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." (February 1986, Elders' Training, Anaheim)

The One Accord Movement

Witness Lee
"If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The Socialist party stresses socialism. Any political party has its own “ism”. They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge” (One Accord For The Lord’s Move, W. L., pp. 97, 99-100)


Global Authority Today

Those that grasp the global leadership today, the blending brothers, still follow Brother Lee and his blueprint for "the Lord's new move" which has actually been a movement for a long, long time to propagate the ministry around the world and establish "ministerial churches" (Nee)under their head, Witness Lee.

Senior Taiwan co-workers with Prominent Elder John Ingalls 1989

"One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord. This is how denominations are formed. But the Lord had preserved some for Himself. This situation did not develop suddenly, and we cannot expect it to clear up suddenly."

Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.

Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?

But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.

The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

[COLOR="darkslateblue"]“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

I find it interesting that the thread on the definition of the church must come to this idea of delegated authority.

I believe this is why Paul told us that there are 7 "ones" regarding the church, and one of them is "one Lord".

For example a policeman is a delegated authority of the locality that he is serving, but so is a fireman and so is a postman. Who has authority over who? The town has authority over all. A policeman could stop a postman for a traffic violation, he has violated the regulations that the policeman has been delegated to enforce. But, if that postman is also a volunteer fireman and a fire alarm has been sounded, then that authority supersedes the authority of the policeman, etc.

Jesus is the only one that is "Lord of all". As long as you are being faithful to the Lord you are a delegated authority and that authority will apply to all. For example, if the Lord sends me to talk to Ed Marks, and then Ed Marks and the NY elders respond "how dare you talk to Ed Marks" it is not for me to deal with that, it is for the Lord who sent me.

Yes, the NT talks of "delegated authority" but never once does it suggest that any brother or sister is not under Jesus. It is very clear that Jesus can send a small brother to lay hands on Paul so that he could receive his sight.

What we need most of all is to be able to hear the Lord's voice. That is far more important and far safer than learning that brother so in so is in charge and you dare not speak to him. This is how I knew that PL was not a spiritual man, according to his "position" he should have been. If you judged him according to the flesh (son of WL, in the recovery his entire life, president of the LSM) you might assume he was. But to submit to this fornicator would have been a shameful thing to do.

This applies to everyone. We were not saved by WL regardless of how much RG wanted to claim we owed WL for our very lives. We were saved by Jesus redeeming blood. Now WL could teach wonderful truths that enlightened us, but the minute he tries to usurp the Lord's position, perhaps by saying that a prophet like unto Moses was Watchman Nee, teaching that at any given time in History God only has one person he is speaking through (so far this is true) and that during Watchman Nee's ministry it was Watchman Nee (that part is the usurping of the Lord's authority -- during this age Jesus is the one person that God is speaking through), that is the minute he needs to be rebuked.

When WL teaches that the ground of the church is typified by the ground of the temple, the same ground where Abraham offered up Isaac in a type and where David paid for a sin and peace offering (so far this is true), and that today this ground is inferred to be the boundary of a city (this part is false -- we don't need to "infer" what the ground is. The ground was purchased with Jesus blood on the cross, not by a city council, when we stand on His redeeming work we are standing on the proper ground to meet with God. There is no background check requiring a good mailing address, receiving Christ's redemptive work is the only requirement for standing on the proper ground). Once again WL and all of his cronies should be strongly rebuked for this damnable heresy.

When WL teaches that the NT uses the trumpet call of an army to typify the word of ministry (this is true) and that this word needs to be clear and precise (this is true) therefore there should only be one publisher among us (this part is false). The orders for the trumpet come from the Lord Jesus, not LSM, not WL, not PL, etc. The Bible is very clear that "many are those that publish". The analogy that he is using is also very clear -- any army would have many, many trumpets. You could be sounding retreat in one theater at the same time you are sounding attack in another. Anyone speaking for the Lord is a trumpeter, the key requirement is that they can hear the Lord's commands clearly, being distracted by LSM's commands would be counter productive, even evil. This is just another example of WL usurping the Lord's authority in the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was my attitude 6 years ago. But when I realized that Watchman Nee was actually guilty of having a mistress, that the elders that disciplined him were not keystone cops, that the entire story fabricated by Witness Lee was a sham, then I considered 2Peter 2 again:

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?

The Bible never uses the term. The Bible never prohibits a group naming itself. The fact that the Bible doesn't give examples of a church naming itself does not mean it is wrong.

The question should come down to what is truly divisive. Division in the Bible is always associated with a kind of animosity. I don't live with my cousins, I rarely see them, but I'm not divided from them. I have no animosity toward them. I think you need to start concentrating on real animosity and stop obsessing about these technical and arbitrary characteristics that the Bible doesn't even prohibit.

As for having a brand, if the LCM isn't a brand nothing is. The LCM is Witness Lee. His image dominates its expression. Do you think because his churches call themselves the church in whatsit city that makes them any less of a brand? That's delusion.

I understand the attraction of generality. Lee once taught generality. But the LCM is now anything but general, and really never was truly general. The church I attend now has much more generality and reception than the LCM ever had. We understand oneness, and insisting others follow your way is not it.

Your attitude toward the Lutherans is out of line. You don't know what benefit individuals have received or what work God may have done through Lutheran congregations. You are not omniscient and once again you are displaying the wrong spirit.

You sound quite immature, like the kid whose parents get him the best bike in the neighborhood (he thinks) and he goes around bragging and putting down all the other kids' bikes. The Lord had a word for that spirit in Revelation 3:17.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.

No. It was a young woman. The elders were not keystone cops.

But you did hear that story from Witness Lee and others in the LRC. However, you won't find it written anywhere, he was too careful for that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.

No. It was not his mother. Only a bunch of imbeciles would have done what Lee claimed they did and excommunicated Nee, but these were elders hand-picked by Nee himself.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

PARAGRAPH CHANGE AFTER READING IGZY POST
Yes, I agree with you in the quote, brother Drake, but I basically don't get into hierarchy discussion. I am more comfortable to talk about the misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual authority and its the devastating effects.

The establishing of a universal leader became clearly evident by the writing of a letter to Witness Lee signed by 417 leaders of churches. The movement accelerated with this collective pledge and agreement in the churches to follow Witness Lee absolutely as their leader.
www.twoturmoils.com

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No. It was a young woman. The elders were not keystone cops.

But you did hear that story from Witness Lee and others in the LRC. However, you won't find it written anywhere, he was too careful for that.

The story as Lee told it went something like this:

It was rumored that Nee was living with a woman not his wife. The elders came to him and asked "are you living with a woman?" To which Nee replied with one word. "Yes." The elders then, supposedly, ran with that and excommunicated Nee for immorality. Turns out, said Lee, that stoic Nee felt not to "vindicate" himself by further elaborating that the woman was his mother.

Common sense tells us this story is highly questionable on several fronts. First that the elders would act so impetuously and second that Nee would hold back such crucial information. Lee's story sounds more like the improbable plot of a TV show than real life. You know, one of those shows where characters inexplicably hold back important information or don't rationally ask for more information, just to heighten the drama.

The details of what probably really happened are explained in the book "My Unforgettable Memories" by Lily Hsu.

The most believable story is that Nee had a mistress. That the LCM would cover up sexual sin among leaders was confirmed with the Philip Lee situation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

This is one of those ideas that easily flows from the mouths and fingers of those in the LCM but really does not have support in the Bible. Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it.

What is really so bad about hierarchy? Where exactly does the Bible condemn it? Paul had authority. He had co-workers who submitted to him. Those co-workers, like Timothy, would represent him to others. That's a three-level hierarchy right there.

Wives submit to husbands, kids submit to mothers (sometimes). That's a three-level hierarchy, too. Oh, the evil!

Servers in Texas cities submitted service group leaders, who submitted to elders, who submitted to the lead elder, who submitted to Benson Phillips, who submitted to Lee. That's a SIX-level hierarchy! Babylon!!

The same thing happens in trainings, conferences, the LSM office, Bibles for America, and on and on. It's unavoidable. Yet here you guys are waxing all grave about how hierarchy is threat. "Everything must be done to avoid it" says Drake. Oh, yes, of course, yes, yes, let's get right on that.

Seems to me hierarchy is just another red herring/boogyman that Lee presented so he could criticize works of the scale that he could never muster. Another reason might be that he really wanted to control everything, and even a hierarchy would be a threat to his control. The LCM has never dealt with or managed to not have any hierarchy. The reason being that you can't have any halfway complex collective human effort without it.

The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it. The ironic fact is the only possible way to try to avoid hierarchy is to completely trust individuals to follow the Lord's leading without expecting them to clear everything with leaders, something leaders who read books on spiritual authority by Lee and Nee would never allow.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it. The ironic fact is the only possible way to try to avoid hierarchy is to completely trust individuals to follow the Lord's leading without expecting them to clear everything with leaders, something leaders who read books on spiritual authority by Lee and Nee would never allow.

"The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it." This sums it all up.


I am much more comfortable to talk about spiritual authority than hierarchy.

But former leaders could speak to it and did during the late eighties turmoil, which "shows the problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way to caught up in it."


John Ingalls
"In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably.

Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows:

1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) “We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) “Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.

An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows.

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.” A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to Brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, ”No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy.”

When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand.

Many aspects of the training bothered us considerably. Elders who attended the training in Taipei were instructed explicitly to carry out the same training in their localities. Pressure was exerted upon the churches and elders to follow, implement, and conform to everything that came out in Taiwan. Failure to do so created problems. The effect on so much emphasis on ways, methods, and practices – all externals – resulted in a wilted wilderness condition among many of the saints.

Many faithful older saints were rebuked and given the impression that because of their age they were through. All official assertions to the contrary, the full-timers became a special class of people, and the full-time training was exalted above the churches, which were considered to have grown decrepit and were at best “better than nothing” (Andrew Yu, in Voice of the Young Heart). The elders were publicly degraded and blamed for all the ills. And yet the churches with the elders, and especially many of the older saints who were somewhat despised, gave generously and sacrificially to support the training. Their money was gladly accepted. In fact some of the churches were drained financially due to the heavy burden of supporting their full-timers and other projects that were promoted. (Speaking the Truth in Love, J. I. 1990)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Indiana

PARAGRAPH CHANGE AFTER READING IGZY POST
Yes, I agree with you in the quote, brother Drake, but I basically don't get into hierarchy discussion. I am more comfortable to talk about the misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual authority and its the devastating effects.

The establishing of a universal leader became clearly evident by the writing of a letter to Witness Lee signed by 417 leaders of churches. The movement accelerated with this collective pledge and agreement in the churches to follow Witness Lee absolutely as their leader.
www.twoturmoils.com

Brother Indiana,

I understand a difference between hierarchy and spiritual authority. I don't see a substantive difference between a hierarchy and the idea of making someone the head of a hierarchy....a matter of position in the hierarchy.

If someone appoints themselves as "head" that is not spiritual authority, is it? At least I don't understand how the two are compatible.

So is the discussion whether God's arrangement in the Body included Watchman Nee in a position of authority and where? Or is the discussion about whether Watchman Nee grabbed the reins of power in a hierarchy that men formulated?

To me, these are two different starting points.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Drake,

For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad? If you are assuming that by definition a hierarchy is incompatible with true spiritual authority then you really haven't said anything interesting. Just saying a hierarchy works against the Body sounds good, but it isn't necessarily so. It's just one of those vague pronouncements that seem profound only if you don't examine them closely.

What unquestionably works against the Body is abused power. Why you worry about hierarchy and not that is a mystery to me.

Again, if you mean a hierarchy is evidence of false spiritual authority, then all you are really saying is that false spiritual authority is not real spiritual authority. Like I said, not interesting. But actually you are also subtly planting a seed which allows you to dismiss any power arrangement you don't like as a "hierarchy" and thus ignore it. Thus Christianity has "hierarchies" whereas the LCM has "God's arrangement in the Body," even though, as I've shown, the LCM has hierarchies as well.

This kind of equivocation was a common tactic of Lee and it seems you've copied it, perhaps unwittingly?

[Drake]

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"

Igzy,

It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.

And yet there was always some amount of hierarchy. It was practiced with love and as servants. Well at least mostly. But some of the letters written by John and others dealt with some who wanted to lead in a different way.

There were always leaders. We read the whole Bible. But Jesus didn't speak everything to everyone. Some of it was specifically for the 12 (11) that he was sending out as the top of the heap. And they were viewed as such from the very beginning. But not in a "lord it over anyone" way.

Then in Acts, the layered-in the deacons. Certain apostles worked with certain churches. Not officially, and not exclusively. But it was true. So the apostles were somewhat over the local elders. Even if they didn't force anything on them.

The bit about stifling the function of the body is based upon the whole idea that the entire church is a mouth. It has never been so. The only place that was anywhere near that was a three ring circus that Paul had to put some limits on. Two or three speak in tongues and only if an interpreter. Two or three prophets. (All can prophesy has a context. To declare that it made every one a prophet is to overthrow the entirety of the preceding verses.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.

Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion.

If there is a head of children's ministry, and coordinators of certain age groups who report to him or her, and teachers that report to them, that is a hierarchy. How does that annul the functioning of the members of the Body? Whose functioning is annulled? Trust me there are plenty of opportunities to serve in children's ministry all over the place. Volunteers are always needed. No one is being turned away, unless they are completely undesirable.

Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?

[Drake]

OBW) "The bit about stifling the function of the body is based upon the whole idea that the entire church is a mouth."

Not at all. We express our experiences through our mouth but that does not equate to everyone being a mouth.

We may do things in service with our hands but that does not mean everyone is a hand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy: "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered. Drake

Then why does Paul say, "And He gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ, until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God ..."?

These gifted members obviously help the members of the body to function and grow.

And why were elders and deacons established in churches? In your scheme, elders and deacons are hierarchy.

Originally Posted by Igzy

What unquestionably works against the Body is abused power. Why you worry about hierarchy and not that is a mystery to me.

Jesus and the apostles never condemned hierarchy, neither in Judaism or in the church. They condemned rulers lording it over the elect, ruling as the gentiles. They condemn hypocrisy, unrighteousness, serving your own belly, adulterating and peddling the word of God, etc.

It's just amazing that you establish your own balances in order to judge Christians, balances and standards not accepted by the scriptures.

p.s. I can find numerous verses to provide support for so-called hierarchy, and hundreds of verses about bad leadership, but none that say or even implies that "hierarchy annuls the functioning."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion.

That's alright Igzy. Feel free to ignore.

As I read your recent notes I also realized that our assumptions and understandings are so far apart that I couldn't see how we could bridge the gap. And since you tend to characterize posters who disagree with you disparagingly and their posts as less than thought out I think we will just agree to disagree on most things without ever engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Case in point:

" Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it. "

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why does Paul say, "And He gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ, until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God ..."?

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much.

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion."

Drake,

Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it? I'm sure you've heard people do that. The reason I challenged you is because I see you as an intelligent person. Trust me I've seen people come through here who do nothing but quote Nee and Lee. I hoped and thought you were different. So my challenge was actually a compliment.

Trust me, most observers do not understand what you mean when you say a hierarchy nullifies the Body. A hierarchy is only a organized arrangement to get work done. I don't see how your general dismissal of one holds.

Sorry, if I come on strong. I apologize. But I really think the forum deserves an elaboration of your general declaration, whether you think I do or not.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it?

No Igzy, I'm not saying that. That probably has happened on both sides.

But you were referencing my post so it mattered more to me.

But seriously, I am happy to discuss these topics with you or anyone else. Everyone has different experiences and beliefs shaped by a multitude of variables. If anyone thinks differently from me, in kindness or vehemently, I have no objection. However, I was agreeing with you in that I will ignore posts or assertions when I find them outrageous, too confusing to understand, too complex to unpack, when hostility prevents rationale conversation, etc. We all reserve the right to ignore for whatever reason. So when you said to make my case or else you would ignore my assertion I thought, why should either of us be obligated to such terms and conditions? We are sharing viewpoints here at a round table of equals.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much.

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake

To paraphrase Lee, it goes something like this -

Consider the shoulder and the arm. The shoulder is higher than the arm, the function of the shoulder is to lead or "tell" the arm to move. The arm cannot move without the shoulder. The shoulder is higher (in function) but not more important than the arm. If the shoulder thinks it is more important than the arm, this is hierarchy.

In the church there is no problem with the "shoulder" members telling the "arm" members to move. The problem is if the "shoulders" think they are more important than the "arm" as evidenced by, for example:

special privileges, eg places of honor, etc (Luke 14:8)
ruling over and flaunting authority (Matt 20:25).

The shoulder may think it has the authority over the arm and can rule over it. Actually the shoulder can be considered the arm's servant and vice versa.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?"

Igzy et al,

When I say hierarchy annuls the building of the Body of Christ I mean that because the work of building is performed by the all the members and not just a few gifted members a hierarchy interrupts that functioning. Ohio rightly said that the gifted or stronger members enable the smallest member to function to build the Body, not replace their function.

Specifically, this means that the experiences of Christ provide each member grace to meet their situation and need. That grace is meant not just for that specific member but for other members in the Body. That member must have a way to minister their portion of Christ, as grace, great or small, in order to build the Body of Christ. Grace could be a speaking, song, scripture, enlightenment, an experience, etc. but it is not just for the member that receives it.

Hierarchy gives priority to a few gifted members. Rank controls.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To paraphrase Lee, it goes something like this -

Consider the shoulder and the arm. The shoulder is higher than the arm, the function of the shoulder is to lead or "tell" the arm to move. The arm cannot move without the shoulder. The shoulder is higher (in function) but not more important than the arm. If the shoulder thinks it is more important than the arm, this is hierarchy.

In the church there is no problem with the "shoulder" members telling the "arm" members to move. The problem is if the "shoulders" think they are more important than the "arm" as evidenced by, for example:

special privileges, eg places of honor, etc (Luke 14:8)
ruling over and flaunting authority (Matt 20:25).

The shoulder may think it has the authority over the arm and can rule over it. Actually the shoulder can be considered the arm's servant and vice versa.

Excellent.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?

There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.

Why churches have to name themselves? I wonder what is wrong with the name Christian. Why a church doesn't just identify itself as Christians? Is Christ not a name? It is because they see themselves as different from the other Christians in their city. Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.

I think you need to define some terms as well. You use the term "community church". What does that even mean? The Lutherans are a community, we, the local church, are a community. Are we not in the same community as the "community church"? So why are you distinguishing between them and us? Why don't you define what is the difference between a community church and a local church? What does the community church have that the local church does not have? What does the community church have that the Lutheran church does not have? The "community church" can be just as divisive as a named denomination. For example, the community church would feel like home for those in the community but outsiders and visitors who are not part of that community may feel excluded. Therefore to name a church as a "community" church is just as divisive as calling it a Lutheran church.

Maybe you can tell me what spirit does the Lutherans have that the Baptist don't? What does the Lutherans add that the Baptist don't already? What can the Lutheran church contribute to the locality that the Baptist cannot? I question why the Lutherans have not joined the Baptist churches since the Baptist churches are more up to date with their revelation. If we address the reasons why the denominations exist and continue to exist, we will find that the root cause is division which Paul spoke against. Denominations are division not merely a group of local Christians calling themselves by a certain name.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?"

Igzy et al,

When I say hierarchy annuls the building of the Body of Christ I mean that because the work of building is performed by the all the members and not just a few gifted members a hierarchy interrupts that functioning. Ohio rightly said that the gifted or stronger members enable the smallest member to function to build the Body, not replace their function.

Specifically, this means that the experiences of Christ provide each member grace to meet their situation and need. That grace is meant not just for that specific member but for other members in the Body. That member must have a way to minister their portion of Christ, as grace, great or small, in order to build the Body of Christ. Grace could be a speaking, song, scripture, enlightenment, an experience, etc. but it is not just for the member that receives it.

Hierarchy gives priority to a few gifted members. Rank controls.

Drake

Providing grace or ministering grace is not a concept many understand. Most think that grace is something amazing or something one says before a meal. In a typical denominational church, the only thing people know how to get or minister to others is food and money.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much.

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake

Elders are not a "function." Shepherding, marrying, burying, those are functions.

Elders are a recognized position in the church which comes with certain recognized authority.

Hence they are, by definition, at least one half of a two-tiered hierarchy. Once we add in deacons, we now have a three-tiered hierarchy.

Perhaps this is too complicated for you.

[Drake]

Ohio,

I realize I do not have your superior intellect, but bear with me.

A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.

When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.

It's hard to explain you just have to see it but once you see it you never forget it. It's like watching a gymnast whose body is in complete coordination. It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Drake

[Evangelical]

A large proportion of Christians and denominations believe that leadership in the Bible is positional and heirarchial - the church is head together by vertical relationships.

A smaller yet significant proportion of Christians (house church movement, organic church movement etc), believe that leadership is relational.

The early church writings showing early church history prove that functional authority and not positional authority is the correct way of leadership in the church.
Ironically, the heirarchial and positional authority structure comes from following the Bible and the early church fathers. This is despite the claims of some that the Bible is their sole authority. Actually if they hold to a heirarchial authority structure, their authority is also the early church fathers. A very good analysis and explanation can be found here:
http://www.house-church.org/earlychurch_parttwo.htm

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion."

That's alright Igzy. Feel free to ignore.

As I read your recent notes I also realized that our assumptions and understandings are so far apart that I couldn't see how we could bridge the gap. And since you tend to characterize posters who disagree with you disparagingly and their posts as less than thought out I think we will just agree to disagree on most things without ever engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Case in point:

" Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it. "

Thanks
Drake

I view these issues like a violin. A violin string is pulled between two ends, one is immovable, the other can be tightened or loosened until the string is tuned. I consider your position to be the immovable one and Igzy's position the adjustable one, and Indiana is complaining about when the strings pop and snap and how when that happens you can get stung by that.

We have already all agreed that a church can be composed of hundreds of members with many different ministries and functions, administrations, responsibilities, etc. The term responsibility necessitates authority and hence hierarchy. That authority can certainly and undeniably be abused but on the other hand it is very difficult to imagine a large church with hundreds or even thousands not having some hierarchy. The issue is that it needs to be tuned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I realize I do not have your superior intellect, but bear with me.

A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.

When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.

It's hard to explain you just have to see it but once you see it you never forget it. It's like watching a gymnast whose body is in complete coordination. It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Drake

I have witnessed outsiders from headquarters, both Anaheim and Cleveland, coming in to destroy the beautiful coordination of a "gymnast" in a local church. I watched this occur in both lc's I migrated to help start. In both cases the principal ministering brothers (names withheld) were targeted to be "drafted" for some "special operations". Our idea of the "body" (and both brothers too) was vastly different than headquarters self-serving view of the "body."

The brothers suffered, their families suffered, and the churches suffered, but both headquarters (and let me spell this out for you with actual names -- Witness Lee and Titus Chu) had the "right to fight over their rights" because the brothers had both been coerced into full-time service, thus forfeiting their own God-given liberty to serve the Lord according to His leading. That's manipulation, hierarchy, and control of the worst sort, all legitimized by distorted teachings about that para-church doctrinal entity called "the work."

Sorry, brother Drake, I have seen far too many things in the lc's contrary to some beautiful vision you have seen. Perhaps what you saw was a "sweet dream" of olden days.

Perhaps you could talk to outsiders or newcomers about your wonderful dreams and visions of the beautiful "gymnast" in the lc's, but not with former members who have seen thru the facades and hypocrisies.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it?"

No Igzy, I'm not saying that. That probably has happened on both sides.

But you were referencing my post so it mattered more to me.

But seriously, I am happy to discuss these topics with you or anyone else. Everyone has different experiences and beliefs shaped by a multitude of variables. If anyone thinks differently from me, in kindness or vehemently, I have no objection. However, I was agreeing with you in that I will ignore posts or assertions when I find them outrageous, too confusing to understand, too complex to unpack, when hostility prevents rationale conversation, etc. We all reserve the right to ignore for whatever reason. So when you said to make my case or else you would ignore my assertion I thought, why should either of us be obligated to such terms and conditions? We are sharing viewpoints here at a round table of equals.

Drake

I respect that. My point was that if you couldn't come up with more evidence that a hierarchy hurt the Body then I did not feel obligated to believe it is true. I know from experience that folks in the LC tend to accept WL's teaching without question. My feeling is if they learn to think more critically about what they are taught they might find they disagree with some of those teachings. One way to get them to do that is to ask them to explain their assertions rather than just making them. Because if you can't explain in detail why you believe something then you really don't know why you believe it.

Again to me an organizational hierarchy is just like any other tool, its supposed to help get a job done. I can see where a hierarchy can help and I can also see where it might be a hindrance. But I don't see how they are categorically opposed to the Body. If they are we've got a big problem because to do any complex collective job they are unavoidable.

But you are free not to answer. Just realize that most people need more evidence that something is true than "Brother Lee said..."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio, A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.
When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.

I don't understand the difference between submitting to a church elder because he is an elder and saying he has rank over you. Eldership even in the LCM is a position. It's official. That's a rank.

I totally agree that our dynamic moment-to-moment functioning in the Body should be according to the Spirit. Paul said Ephesians 5:21 we all should submit to each other. What did he mean? How can that be? He meant that at any moment the Lord could lead through any member. Yet, at the same time there is a official organization in effect that everyone should recognize. Everything can't be spontaneous all the time. The human body is dynamic, but it is also organized in a particular way. The foot just can't turn into a heart. That doesn't happen. Yet, the human body has the freedom to react in several ways to stimulus. There is some spontaneity. But there is also position. But a seemingly more crucial position does not imply an individual superiority. This is what Paul implied in 1 Cor 12.

Here's an example. The elders are meeting in a room because they are the elders. They know they have that rank. Everyone else knows it too. They meet to decide courses of action. Most of the time they follow the inputs that come from their elder circle. But today a young brother comes to deliver refreshments and says something. The elders realize that God is speaking to them through that young brother. Because they practice the commandment to submit to one another, they hear and recognize the Lord's speaking and obey it.

So there you have it. The spontaneity of the Body operating within the organization of the Body. That's really the way it works. It isn't either/or. It's both/and.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.

Analogies are interesting. They can demonstrate something that is true. But they cannot make something true because you can find a similarity between something in life and something in the analogy.

Just because there was a place where power was translated from a word from which we get "dynamo" does not make a modern electrical system with the power plant, the wires, and the electricity a good metaphor for what was being spoken of. So such a system is pointless to analogize what was talked about in the Bible because no such thing was contemplated.

And it is truly something "new" to suggest otherwise. And not in the Bible.

The same goes for the effects of marriage on the name of the wife. This is a matter of tradition. And in different cultures, this tradition is not followed in the way that it has been in Western society of recent history.

Besides, "the Church in [City]" is a name and it does not in any place say "Christ" on only say "Christ." So if your analogy is to have any meaning, then it must apply to you as well.

You argue that you don't call yourself (your assembly) the Church in [City]. But you do. You have registered your name with both the federal government and with the State, and probably the city. Under that name you may be exempt from certain taxes, but not all.

You argue that you don't generally call yourself that, but then most of the time the others don't either. They don't say they are going to [fill in the name of an assembly], but to church or to the meeting. (And take a poll. Even those who say "I am going to church" do not presume that the place or the building is church, but the meeting. That superiority of thinking that you only say "I am going to the meeting" is a meaningless gesture.)

But if someone wants to clarify where they are going, they will typically say that they are going to [name], and if that is not clear enough, they will state the address or general location.

When you speak of only meeting as the church in [City] you are interjecting a somewhat false impression in your words. You are not meeting any less specifically within the city than any other assembly of Christians. You do not simply meet as Christians in the city. Your history is full of arriving in a new city to find a group already meeting in that way, though not associated with the group that you come from. They will make an effort to meet with those persons, but always be looking for reasons to be able to declare that they are no proper so that thy can part ways with them and start a separate meeting. Why? Not because you actually have a meeting of Christians with no other defining factors, but because you have very defining factors that those others do not have.

And your defining factors are:

• An insistence upon what is an acceptable name.
• Adherence to the teachings as provided by Witness Lee. (The fact that he got anything from others is irrelevant because only those things brought by him are acceptable.)
• The belief that there is only one minister in any age and that Lee was such a person. (Funny that the rule lasted for just under 2,000 years and then has been abandoned.)

I could go on, but it would be a waste of space.

Go look at the doctrinal statements of most evangelical places and you will not see anything about persons. Individuals are not raised up to such heights of authority. Nothing as extreme as what Authority and Submission would have you follow. No, the doctrinal statements look more like:

• We believe in One God, expressed in three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, came to earth, born of a virgin, lived and taught for 33-1/2 years, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
• We believe that he is coming again and will judge the living and the dead.

Some will put in statements about how they do baptism. I even saw one that had a statement about angels. Probably none of them say it how I just said it. My intent was not to be theologically perfect, but to get the points out there.

The meeting I attend has piano and organ, and they sing hymns, both old and new. Others attend meetings that have a variety of music styles.

Some pattern their meetings in certain ways with a more strict adherence to format and content. Others have a looser style and at least some sense that it is being "winged." There are good arguments for either. Some use pre-written prayers while others ad lib. Some find a middle ground and rely on both the well founded truth in older prayers, such as in the Book of Common Prayer, and on speaking from the heart as moved.

How any of it is done is not part of the faith.

And it does not make any particular group deficient or reprobate. And yours is no different in this matter. It names itself just like the others. It has doctrinal distinctives that it holds to as opposed to others. And underneath it is a core of belief that we all agree on.

Stop thinking of yourselves more highly than you ought.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.

Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I respect that. My point was that if you couldn't come up with more evidence that a hierarchy hurt the Body then I did not feel obligated to believe it is true. I know from experience that folks in the LC tend to accept WL's teaching without question.

Back in the late 70's, there was a "flow" out of Anaheim that we are all members of the body of Christ, there is no hierarchy, we can all function, no one can control, we can all drink the Spirit and speak for the Lord, yada yada. I was fairly young at the time, and it was all pretty exciting. We were drunk on the Spirit. Pretty good, eh?

The ones "who came from Anaheim with Brother Lee's burden" actually came with another agenda, however. Their talk was all about "members functioning, etc." but their goal was to destroy all elderships, as if the elders were the root cause of every religious evil. What they sought was not harmonious functioning but chaotic anarchy. And they nearly succeeded.

Eventually, Titus Chu stood with the elders and spoke up in the midst of the din. He used the example of a family. "If you walk into a home, and you don't know who the parents are, what kind of family is that?"

So you wonder why I don't trust LSM's teachings anymore concerning the "one body" and "all the members functioning."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."

Ok to the definition of denomination.

The word denomination or de-name-iation means "to give a name to" (see Mirium Webster dictionary) and considering the origins and original meaning of the word shows the clear connection between names and denominations.

A denomination is therefore a group of Christians who have given themselves a name. Paul says:

1 Cor 1:13 ".... were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Since Christians were baptised in the name of Christ, we should not take another name. In fact a common belief in denominations is that when a person is baptised in a certain denomination (e.g. Lutheran) they are "baptised as a Lutheran". They are baptised as something other than just Christian.

Now you know why we focus on names being a problem. Names and denominations go hand in hand.

But a denomination is not just a group with a different name. We have to consider why they decided to do that, and why they exist. One reason was they considered themselves to be different in some way from every other Christian, when the Bible says we are all the same in Christ.

The Lutherans for example decided to name themselves after Luther because they follow his teachings and practices. They wanted to distinguish themselves from Catholics and other protestants.

We both believe in spiritual unity yet we have have different ideas about how that can be accomplished in practice. From a human perspective all of the various attempts at Christian unity are good and it is very good to have denominations. It is better to agree than to disagree. Unfortunately few are willing to go the full step to identify themselves as nothing but just the church.

Denominations have become so much the norm that denominational-free churches must define themselves as "non-denominational" rather than "just the church". The church in the New Testament was not non-denominational it was just the church.

Is a community church a denomination? it depends if it has a name or not. If it is called the "Life Community Church" (for example), this has given itself a name that distinguishes it from all the other Christians in the city. Then it must be a denomination according to the definition of "giving a name to".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Since Christians were baptised in the name of Christ, we should not take another name.

I was following you right up to here and then it was as though you just crashed right off the highway and burst into flames.

Reasons why we should have another name:

Identification -- If every boy is named Nick, and every girl is named Mary it becomes very confusing when referring to people. The same would be true when referring to a meeting, etc.

Address, Phone number -- these are ways to identify people, groups, buildings, locations, etc. Imagine that in the phone book everyone had the exact same name? It would be useless.

Just because we have one city doesn't mean we all have the same function and meet in the same meeting. Police have their meeting, Firemen have their meeting, Post men have their meeting, teachers have their meeting, etc. We need names to identify what is what, who is who, where is where.

Your doctrine is so unworkable as to be idiotic. Even the LC knows it. What is the "Elder's meeting"? That's a name. Where is that meeting held, the "elder's room". How about the Book room meeting, the young people's meeting, the training, the conference, etc., etc., etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Identification -- If every boy is named Nick, and every girl is named Mary it becomes very confusing when referring to people. The same would be true when referring to a meeting, etc.

Why should we distinguish male and female? Bible says there is no male or female. According to this teaching, we should all take the same name -- "Christ."

I guess that fits into Lee's teaching that we are all "gods."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Cor 1:13 ".... were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

So a better interpretation of 1Cor 1:13-15

There are two aspects of this -- some may require that you get baptized in their church to be saved. I think most Christians have discarded that practice, but I could be wrong. Perhaps Catholics still hold to this. I think we all agree with Evangelical that if a local congregation requires that they baptize you before allowing you to take the Lord's table then that of course would be divisive.

Along those lines many regard infant baptism as baptism, so I think we can also agree that we are referring to baptism as a step of faith, so if you were baptized as an infant that does not qualify and in that case encouraging you to be rebaptized would not be seen as divisive but according to the truth of the gospel.

There is also the aspect of 1Cor 1:15, "Lest any man say they were baptized in my name". It is natural and fleshly to assume that if you were baptized by a "spiritual giant" it holds more weight. This whole divisiveness is closely linked to having respect of persons. Of course the LC doctrine concerning having respect of persons is the doctrine concerning the "Minister of the Age" and the doctrine concerning "delegated authority".

Again, both of these doctrines do have a scriptural basis. Jesus is the minister of the age. When we refer to "respect of persons" we are not referring to having respect of Jesus. Rather we are referring to those who would usurp the Lord's position and take verses that apply to Jesus and apply them to themselves. This is seen in the Lord's word where two or three gather together into His name. When you have a "big name" preacher or evangelist or singer you run the risk of not meeting in the Lord's name but rather into the name of the "apostle of the age".

Likewise, delegated authority does have a scriptural basis, but if Ananias can be delegated by the Lord to lay hands on the Apostle Paul so that he could receive his sight, and if Paul could rebuke the Apostle Peter to whom the keys of the kingdom had been given, then this shows this is a fluid matter. Peter was not the "delegated authority". Rather when he spoke God's word it conveyed God's authority. If the Lord has told you to speak a word He has also delegated you. Hence the NT says that when you reject one of these you reject the Lord who sent them.

But nowhere could we interpret this verse in 1Corinthians to imply that we shouldn't have names. Peter, Paul, Jesus, they all have names. Many of the names were given to these ones directly from Jesus. Simon's name was changed to Peter by Jesus, Saul's name was changed to Paul. There is absolutely nothing in the NT condemning the use of names. This doctrine is idiotic.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, brother Drake, I have seen far too many things in the lc's contrary to some beautiful vision you have seen. Perhaps what you saw was a "sweet dream" of olden days.

I'm an American. The vision of America and implementation of that vision do not always appear aligned. Nevertheless, our way of life and the basic premise and promise of that vision is real for most Americans. Thats not say there are not problems, issues, and struggles.

The New Testament revelation of the church likewise shows a vision and the issues. Both are present since the beginning and still to this day. I'm not talking about a "sweet dream of olden days". What value is that? But then, what value is there to living in the bad old days and allowing bitterness to settle in and possess us?

I have thought about this Ohio, and I still don't understand why our experiences though being similar, yet the outcome is so different. I think it might be that our expectations were different and when men fail or did not live up to those expectations we reacted differently. It's complicated and will likely never be resolved in this life. The judgement seat of Christ will be the final arbiter.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But you are free not to answer. Just realize that most people need more evidence that something is true than "Brother Lee said..."

Can't argue with that. Even Brother Lee said "don't say "Brother Lee said...""

Oops!

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't understand the difference between submitting to a church elder because he is an elder and saying he has rank over you.

That is because you regard elders as possessing a rank and I don't. Perhaps it helps to understand my view with this experience. I knew a brother who was a hard working painter, one of those 16 hours a day kind of folk who had little time for anything else except painting. Often he missed meetings, service, and other church functions. He was not an elder or a deacon, did not teach classes, or anything like that and had no title. However, he was gifted at gospel preaching. Once we were walking down the street and encountered a boisterous group of teens. He crossed the street like a man on a mission and started speaking to them and in about two minutes they were subdued and wanting to hear more about the Lord. What did I do? I would have preferred to stay on our side of the street but I submitted to him in the gospel preaching and when he prompted me I did what he said. When he said go, I followed. When he said speak, I spoke. He had the authority, clearly. He preached the gospel liked that often.

Yet earlier that day, and the reason we were together, was because he sought me out for fellowship on practical matters about jobs, living arrangements, family, etc..I did tell him what to do but he recognized my counsel as more than personal opinion.

We submitted to each other not because we had some sort of rank or position, rather it was based on knowing the Lords spiritual authority. Not hierarchy. I recognized his gift, his talent and he recognized and regarded mine.

A hierarchy creates an artificial structure that annuls the function of all the members and promotes the more gifted or desirable. Sometimes, elders sought me out for fellowship and followed my direction. Or maybe I would initiate a meeting with elders to sort something out. I certainly have no rank. I have been blessed as the elders I've known were real shepherds and I submitted to their authority in their function. The painter had spiritual authority based on his gift and function.

To illustrate further, the rank of elder as a position is assigned to the Mormons who knock on your door. Often they are just kids really. When you talk to them you realize their is no spiritual authority there, just positional. Zealous, committed, faithful to their mission but no spiritual authority. Of course, they are heretical too so this is not the perfect example. Yet, rank and title of elder has no reality.

There is no hierarchy in the Body of Christ just as there is no hierarchy in our physical bodies.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

It is more than just this one verse. No church or assembly in the Bible took a name, and such was the case for hundreds of years in Christianity. God never named the church. Naming the church is a human invention, not found in the "fellowship of the apostles" (using ZP's terminology). I would go so far as to say it is easier to justify homosexual marriage or rock music from the Bible than to justify naming the church, because we can find examples of homosexuality, love and music in the Bible, but we cannot find any examples of naming a church.

A view that names are just for identification is somewhat naive. Names carry meaning. According to the Bible, according to God, names are more than just for identification. The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament shows that God puts importance on names. Examples: God sent angels or prophets to tell people what their name will be or will be changed to (Jesus, John the Baptist, Sarah, Abraham, Jacob, Simon/Peter, Saul/Paul) because the names have meaning.

If "no names" causes disunity, is not because of us who take no names, but of those who insist that we must have a name. Those that insist that those without a denomination be known as "non-denominational". It is these who are the truly divisive ones, not the ones who wish to be free from all of that "name calling". It is the ones who wish to name the church (which is already has its identify in Christ) who are the divisive ones. These people are like strangers insisting that your wife be identified by another man's name, when the fact is she is already identified by your name. If you or your wife agrees with this name calling, it would cause division in the marriage. So similarly, there must be a correlation between name calling and division in the Church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The word denomination or de-name-iation means "to give a name to" (see Mirium Webster dictionary) and considering the origins and original meaning of the word shows the clear connection between names and denominations.

Actually, it is not that simple.

The definition in the online Webster dictionary indicates in definition 3 that it is

A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians

This is not the same as being the act of giving a name. It is like all of us being called Christians. People began to call us Christians during the first century. We did not call ourselves that. The RCC called that German offshoot "Lutherans." But as Igzy has noted at least a couple of times, continuing to have the name does not mean that they are intentionally trying to be divided from other Christians. But if you want to avoid conflict over doctrines, you can use that name to find "birds of a feather." That is what you do when you go to another city. you don't just meet with anyone as being church because there is only one church in a city. You meet only with those who agree with your understanding that it is a doctrinally correct thing to do. and you know them because of their name, or the form of their name. They only use city names and the word "church" whereas some others use other names that have locations, communities, the word "Bible" or other things in their names. There is no more or less naming or differentiating in it that there is for your little group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, it is not that simple.

The definition in the online Webster dictionary indicates in definition 3 that it is

A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians

This is not the same as being the act of giving a name. It is like all of us being called Christians. People began to call us Christians during the first century. We did not call ourselves that. The RCC called that German offshoot "Lutherans." But as Igzy has noted at least a couple of times, continuing to have the name does not mean that they are intentionally trying to be divided from other Christians. But if you want to avoid conflict over doctrines, you can use that name to find "birds of a feather." That is what you do when you go to another city. you don't just meet with anyone as being church because there is only one church in a city. You meet only with those who agree with your understanding that it is a doctrinally correct thing to do. and you know them because of their name, or the form of their name. They only use city names and the word "church" whereas some others use other names that have locations, communities, the word "Bible" or other things in their names. There is no more or less naming or differentiating in it that there is for your little group.

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations. This Catholic website presents a good analysis of the meaning of denominations, and points out clearly, their sectarian and divisive nature:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership.

With the rise of Protestantism and the consequent disruption of the Christian religion into numerous denominations, the use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians. It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression "sectarian" (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word "in no invidious sense" ("A Study of the Sects", Boston, 1891, p. 4). This extension of the term to all Christian denominations results no doubt, from the tendency of the modern non-Catholic world to consider all the various forms of Christianity as the embodiment of revealed truths and as equally entitled to recognition.

This website is basically saying that Protestants don't see themselves as divisions, as sects, but that is what they are in reality. This is evident by the difficulty they have in defining what is a sect, and a sect according to them is any group which differs significantly from themselves and their view of the truth, rather than from the absolute truth. To those who hold the absolute truth - a sect is any group which departs from this absolute truth. As we know that the absolute truth, the revealed standard in the Bible, is one church in each locality, any who do not hold to this is a cut or division in the Body.

Example: The Lutherans think they are a church but to Catholics they are a cut, a sect. To the state churches, Anglican, Lutheran, etc, any division is considered a sect. Baptists and other English dissenters were considered sect of the Anglicans etc. The Recovery - is it a sect or a denomination? No, because it is not cut from any other denomination. It is a return to "just the church". A denomination is any cut from the "just the church". Any group that cannot say "we are just the church", must be a sect. There was no good reason for baptists to call themselves after baptism (every church baptises, cannot every church be considered 'baptist'?), or for the pentecostal churches to name themselves after the outpouring of the Spirit (don't all churches have the Spirit?), etc. These names in and of themselves are divisive, because the names have meaning.

Example: I knew of people who were offended by pentecostals because Pentecostalism implies that they are the only ones with the experience of Pentecost or the Spirit. Similarly, it may be offensive to a Lutheran to say one is "Baptist" because it implies that Lutheran's don't baptise properly.

You may say -
"Aren't the Catholics being so divisive by insisting the various offshoots and sects of Christianity return to where they came from?" Yet this ignores the fact that the various sects/denominations of Christianity are divisions in and of themselves, regardless of their non-divisive intentions.

You say they are not trying to be divided. I would say they are not trying to be unified. Not trying to be unified is the reason why 500+ year old denominations still exist today, such as the Lutherans, and they have not joined with the updated and improved Baptists.

You are spot on when you say we seek "birds of a feather", to avoid doctrinal conflicts. The thing is, this defines a social church, not a genuine biblical church. Then church becomes more about getting together with your like-minded friends, than assembling together for the Lord's purpose. The doctrinal conflicts are in many cases based upon non-essentials. For example the difference between the Lutheran and Baptist doctrines is trivial - one does infant baptism by sprinkling and the other baptizes by immersion. Both believe in the Trinity, Christ, salvation by faith, etc. So I question why the Lutherans, for example, have not unified yet with the Baptists. Without seeing much evidence of this happening, we should not pretend that there is no division between denominations.

I believe the following statement from the Catholic website rings true (replace Catholic Church with local church):
It is not in the further rejection of truth that the divisions of Christianity can be healed, but in the sincere acceptance of what has been discarded; the remedy lies in the return of all dissenters to the Catholic Church.

The Recovery is in the process of accepting and returning to what has been discarded, not by returning to any human organization but the proper ground of Christ and the locality. This can accomplish genuine practical oneness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If "no names" causes disunity, is not because of us who take no names, but of those who insist that we must have a name.

This is an example of why it's so hard to have intelligent discussions with some people. No one is insisting that you must have a name. No one said "'no names' causes disunity."

The problem is not names or no names. The problem is pushing non-essential teachings so hard that they become sources of conflict. I don't care whether you take a name or not. I just mind when you start saying other churches are not churches because they have names. The Bible does not give you enough ground to declare that a church is not a real church because it has a name or doesn't "meet on the ground of locality."

One of my weaknesses, which I've been discovering lately in negotiations with my wife, is that I tend to naively give people credit for being reasonable and rational. You represent a very small, obscure and insignificant school of thought. At some point you should have asked yourself if what you believe about oneness is so true and crucial, why have so few Christians seen it? The only answer you could have come up with is that they aren't as pure as you, which, similar to your views, is very unlikely. The LCM is not small, obscure and insignificant because people are not pure enough to accept it, but because believing in it depends on an irrationality that only exists at the fringes of society.

Regardless, you are not really much of a threat overall. But the people you threaten matter to me and I'm in a position to help them. I don't post here to try to convince people like you. I post for the reasonable and rational seekers who are watching (and admittedly because bullies rub me the wrong way). But ultimately the people watching are the ones who matter. And given the way things have been going in these discussions, I'm happy about the impression you've been giving.

So keep making statements like the one I quoted. The people who matter are getting the message.

[Evangelical]

They aren't churches because a church is characterized by oneness of all believers meeting in Christ's name (not Luther and not a mode of baptism or mutual doctrinal understanding) and names distinguish between believers who are already one. As OBW implied, names make people feel like they cannot fellowship at a church that disagrees with their doctrinal belief, when he said "You meet only with those who agree with your understanding". So these churches are grounded on "mutual understanding" not on Christ. A person will seek out a church that has the right "name", for a reason and that reason is that if the church has the right name, they expect it to have the doctrine which they can agree with. And churches have names, to tell people what (non-essential) doctrines they sell. They do not practice a belief that all Christians have the same name, because they go to the church of their preference, rather than just "the church". Having names will contribute to division. Those with names, are sects, or "sub-churches".

Example: Suppose the church is a "drink stand". You put up a sign that you sell lemonade only, then others who prefer Cola will find another drink stand. Automatically you have divided by setting up a name. The church should just call itself the "drink stand", and not name itself after the various types of drinks it sells (Lutheran, baptist, etc).

When I start seeing denominations merging, particularly the oldest ones like Lutherans who have been around for so long, yet unwilling to merge with modern churches, then I will believe you that denominations are not divisions. I mean, not even the oldest denominations have managed to unify with a modern one. That's some unity! Taking 500 years to unify, wow, that's some division.

It is characteristic of someone who has lost an argument to resort to personal attacks. We all do it, just wanted to point out that this is the content of most of your post, rather than any sound argument. And I don't mind, because it shows you care about what you believe. To me it's obvious that denominations are cuts or divides in the body, sects, as the Catholics would put it. You just can't handle that. There are other believers, not part of the Recovery, who unlike you agree wholeheartedly with what I say about denominations, because they like me have seen common sense. So I know you are not speaking for everyone outside of the Recovery when you pretend that denominations are not divisions. You are just one like me, who posts on this small and insignificant discussion forum, and to tell you the truth, despite being in the Recovery for many years, and a frequent Googler, I only discovered this website recently, which shows how insignificant and obscure this forum really is. It's not even coming up in Google searches lol. A funny thing is, if you google "witness lee local church" it won't come up in the top 10 hits. But if you google "I hate Witness Lee", it will come up. And aren't you glad I did find it ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is characteristic of someone who has lost an argument to resort to personal attacks.

It is a characteristic of someone who hears a point that hits too close to home to call it a personal attack.

There was nothing personal in my post. The indisputable fact is you adhere to a school of thought that is small, obscure and insignificant. That is not personal. It's just a plain fact.

People who adhere to small, obscure and insignificant schools of thought while thinking they have some kind of special revelation are almost always irrational, and often worse. That is not personal. It's also just a fact. The odds say it is highly unlikely that you are actually on to something. That's not personal either. It's just good sense. I believe in playing the odds, and the odds don't favor you.

If you can give an reasonable explanation why your school of thought, which almost no one in history has adhered to and which though it has existed in the US for over 50 years has no caught on and is still only small, obscure and insignificant, then let's hear it. Otherwise, perhaps you should consider that people don't agree with you for good reasons.

But it's a little weird for you to be acting like what you believe should be common sense when clearly good sense has ruled it out.

But please stop hiding behind accusations of being victim to personal attacks.

[Evangelical]

Common sense, says that if the Bible says there is one body of Christ, we should not be able to see multitudes of groups with different names in Christianity.

Common sense asks, why the Lutherans have not yet joined the Baptists after 500 years? What's the hold up? Why is it taking so long? Where is the unity? What's the problem? Are they are not all brothers and sisters in Christ, with the same God and Spirit? You claim they all believe that, yet they still meet separately. A Lutheran will travel to the other side of the city on a Sunday to go to a Lutheran church instead of meeting with the Baptist church next door. They are virtually identical except for their beliefs about baptism.

You cannot answer that, because you know there is no good reason for the division, and it does not help your case to admit that. Anyway, I know the answer, and it's because Lutherans are a division and they are divisive. Did you know that many Lutherans will not take communion in another church?

I think a logical and rational person would be able to see that a denomination is a division and continuing one is divisive. A logical and rational person would also see that to name something which does not need a name, is illogical and irrational. For example, there is no need to name one's wife by someone else's name just because she has a different viewpoint. Yet that is the reason why groups, denominations have different names. They believe that if one has a different viewpoint, it is okay to call themselves by a different name. They do not have the vision or the understanding of the one body of Christ.

A view which says they are somehow in unity and one and the name is just a type of identification is not grounded in reality. It is just as idealogical as some have claimed about the local churches view of one church per city.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we all agree with Evangelical that if a local congregation requires that they baptize you before allowing you to take the Lord's table then that of course would be divisive.

Not just that. But this - if one is baptized in certain denominations they are considered members of that denomination more than the wider body of Christ. This is evident in their speech when they say "I was baptized as a Lutheran". Saying, " I was baptised as a Lutheran Christian" is something to which Paul would say "were you baptised in the name of Luther?, did Luther die for you?".

The fact that a number of denominations do not practice open communion or recognize baptism from other churches is a clear sign that denominations are divisions and not just groups with different names. Example:

The Lutheran Church has a variety of practices, depending on denominational polity. Some branches of Lutheranism, such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, do not practice open communion; they exclude non-members and require catechetical instructions for all people, even members from other Lutheran churches, before receiving the Eucharist.[27] This generally stems from an understanding that sharing communion is a sign of Christian unity; where that unity is not present, neither should Eucharistic sharing be present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_c...utheran_Church

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you can give an reasonable explanation why your school of thought, which almost no one in history has adhered to and which though it has existed in the US for over 50 years has no caught on and is still only small, obscure and insignificant, then let's hear it.

Igzy,

This "small" argument you make is not compelling.

Jesus had 120 disciples.

There were few churches stretching from Rome to Jerusalem and they had a small membership comparatively (even including the 1000's saved at and around Pentecost they were dispersed back into their countries).

Size or popularity is not a valid factor for determining the significance of whether something is of God. Actually, God seems to take delight in the few.

If size matters then we would all join the Roman Catholic Church.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is an example of why it's so hard to have intelligent discussions with some people.

I tend to naively give people credit for being reasonable and rational.

believing in it depends on an irrationality that only exists at the fringes of society.

I post for the reasonable and rational seekers

bullies rub me the wrong way

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is a characteristic of someone who hears a point that hits too close to home to call it a personal attack.

Igzy,

In a short post you have managed to cast Evangelical as unintelligent, unreasonable, irrational, living on the fringe of society, and a bully. Did I miss anything? Then when called on it you claim Evangelical did it because you were winning the argument. Apparently, he is desperate too.

I don't think so, not on any of those points.

Assuming that you are not personally attacking Evangelical your comments are quintessential ad hominem arguments. When you do that you are directing the force of your argument to the person and not the subject under discussion. You often interleave both subject argument and ad hominem in a single post.

I understand it is easy to fall into that and it is always temptation but it is a logical fallacy argument. Ad hominem attacks become layers or mixtures that obfuscate any valid points that you might have made. In politics they do it to purposely divert from the topic and make it personal about an opponent to win over fence sitters or gain favor with their constituents. That's all they care about.

I'm sure you really care about the subject but you force readers to make decisions about the merits of your posts other than than the argument itself when you add the logical fallacy of ad hominem into the mix. I think it works against you.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Our discussion has become very rancorous over this issue.

There is no doubt that there are valid claims made by both sides of this debate.

What I find fascinating is that Matt 16 begins by Jesus condemning the Pharisees because they are seeking a sign. He calls them an evil and adulterous generation and says that this is the motive in them seeking a sign.

You have to compare that with Matt 24 where the disciples ask Jesus for a sign of His coming and He doesn't rebuke them, doesn't say that is evil or adulterous, but rather spends the entire chapter providing signs of His coming.

So this is where I think this goes off the rails, the issue Jesus is making is not that signs or names are evil. Rather, it is the motive. He contrasts the Pharisees seeking for a sign from God with Him building "MY church". They were seeking to put a sign from God outside of their gathering to prove that God was with them. That is evil and adulterous. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus to shepherd "His church" and therefore needed to know the signs in the same way you might print out the directions before taking a long road trip.

Names have been used to build little kingdoms to various people -- that is evil and adulterous.

On the other hand God has provided signs and wonders as a testimony. The biggest one of course is the sign of Jonah.

Arguing that "this is the correct name that indicates God's presence" that is evil and adulterous. The only name given to us is Jesus. If you are meeting into the name of Jesus there is no other name necessary nor will a name on the meeting hall, or in the phone book going to short circuit that.

Looking again at Post#1, Witness Lee said "No particular name" is the first criteria. Those who have taken issue with Witness Lee argue that the Local Churche's name is the most particular name. They have built an entire doctrine on the name so that you can't meet properly with Jesus unless you have this particular name.

On the other hand Evangelical has taken issue with Denominations for having a particular name.

Therefore I think we can find agreement that claiming that meeting on the proper ground requires you have to have a particular name for your meeting (gathering of the called out ones, hence church) is evil and adulterous.

[Cal]

The early Church was small only at the beginning. The Church grew exponentially in only a few decades, and in an age without the communication, recording, travel and other technologies we have had at our disposal in the last 50 years.

Given the technological advantages the LCM has had, if it really was God's move it should have caught on more. Yet it has gained very little traction, and is still small, obscure and insignificant. What do you think is going to happen to change that? Deux ex machina?

Size doesn't matter at the beginning. But at some point it does, and that point has long since passed for the LCM. Eventually you have to stop rationalizing and ask yourself, What is the problem? All the LCM can ever come up with is that they are more pure than 99.99% of other Christians. Do you really think this is likely?

God delights in whomever pleases him. But to say God prefers a few to many is to fall into the rationalization of remnant theology. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say God wants the "Recovery" to take over the earth and also say that he's happy with a few.

Again the odds are stacked against the likelihood that your message and yourselves are what you believe them to be. This is not an ad hominem attack. This is just getting down to brass tacks.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Assuming that you are not personally attacking Evangelical your comments are quintessential ad hominem arguments.

I disagree. This isn't about Evangelical. It is about an argument so-called that I've heard over and over from many voices. It goes like this:

Our obscure interpretation of oneness is an indispensable truth, but we cannot explain why so few down through Church history have seen it.

It is not ad hominem to examine history and see and point out that people and groups falling into this pattern of thought the LCM embraces are usually quite mistaken. Small, fringe groups claiming to have special revelation that is (1) not clearly corroborated by the Bible and (2) has never been embraced by any significant number of Christians, churches or teachers, do not have a good track record in Church history.

This is a legitimate issue to bring up and discuss. I'm sorry doing so threatens to put you in the category of a mistaken fringe group. But since history tells us that is likely, shouldn't you consider it?

This doesn't mean that overall you aren't well-meaning. It just means you've gone to some extreme. Evangelical can continue to make his argument about why his view of oneness is correct. But it is not going to catch on, not because he has special revelation which other people aren't pure enough to see, but rather because most people see the flaws, contradictions and even hypocrisies in it, as have the vast majority down through history.

I have no problem with pushing for unity. I have a problem with people who push unity in a divisive way. As long as the LCM continues to do that kind of thing it will remain a small fringe group. I don't mind you having your beliefs. I mind you needing to tear everything else down to have them. I don't think that is good for God's people or kingdom.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is not ad hominem to examine history, see and point out that people and groups falling into this pattern of thought the LCM embraces are usually quite mistaken.

I agree, history can be insightful and helpful to an argument.

I listed what I considered your crossing into ad hominem in a previous post. Your post below was forceful without the level of disparagement.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree, history can be insightful and helpful to an argument.

I listed what I considered your crossing into ad hominem in a previous post. Your post below was forceful without the level of disparagement.

Thanks
Drake

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

[Cal]

You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that? Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

Well, by the same token the vast majority of Christians don't think much of your prescriptions for oneness. When you start insisting that those who don't go along with you are divisive you just have to look at what your reaction would be to a more insistent Ecumenical Movement to understand how they feel.

[Drake]

Igzy) "You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that?"

Would not bother me in the least, Igzy.

Igzy) Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

No, no, and no.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

..despite being in the Recovery for many years, and a frequent Googler, I only discovered this website recently, which shows how insignificant and obscure this forum really is. It's not even coming up in Google searches lol. A funny thing is, if you google "witness lee local church" it won't come up in the top 10 hits. But if you google "I hate Witness Lee", it will come up. And aren't you glad I did find it ?

The main reason this forum is supposedly insignificant and obscure is the tiny little sect of the Local Church of Witness Lee is insignificant and obscure. There are single location evangelical churches with as many or more attendees than all the Local Churches in America put together. Of course we'll never know this for sure because the Local Church of Witness Lee is extremely secretive about the true number of regular attendees. From all accounts, the growth in the movement here in America is pathetic at best, and the number of regular attendees at most locals is either stagnant or less than 25 years ago. If anyone knows any different please feel free to post publicly available information that shows any different.

Oh, and you're dead wrong about googling "I hate Witness Lee". This forum does not come up. Did you think I wasn't going to check?
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not just that. But this - if one is baptized in certain denominations they are considered members of that denomination more than the wider body of Christ. This is evident in their speech when they say "I was baptized as a Lutheran". Saying, " I was baptised as a Lutheran Christian" is something to which Paul would say "were you baptised in the name of Luther?, did Luther die for you?".

The fact that a number of denominations do not practice open communion or recognize baptism from other churches is a clear sign that denominations are divisions and not just groups with different names. Example:

The Lutheran Church has a variety of practices, depending on denominational polity. Some branches of Lutheranism, such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, do not practice open communion; they exclude non-members and require catechetical instructions for all people, even members from other Lutheran churches, before receiving the Eucharist.[27] This generally stems from an understanding that sharing communion is a sign of Christian unity; where that unity is not present, neither should Eucharistic sharing be present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_c...utheran_Church

How is this different from your position? You said that you have separated yourself from other Christians as a statement to them. This is what a sect of Lutherans have done. Interestingly Lutherans make up less than 2% of US Christians. Still they represent at least 20 times as many Christians as the Witness Lee sect.

Witness Lee's sect is very clear not to have Eucharistic sharing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Common sense, says that if the Bible says there is one body of Christ, we should not be able to see multitudes of groups with different names in Christianity.

Common sense asks, why the Lutherans have not yet joined the Baptists after 500 years? What's the hold up? Why is it taking so long? Where is the unity? What's the problem? Are they are not all brothers and sisters in Christ, with the same God and Spirit? You claim they all believe that, yet they still meet separately. A Lutheran will travel to the other side of the city on a Sunday to go to a Lutheran church instead of meeting with the Baptist church next door. They are virtually identical except for their beliefs about baptism.

You cannot answer that, because you know there is no good reason for the division, and it does not help your case to admit that. Anyway, I know the answer, and it's because Lutherans are a division and they are divisive. Did you know that many Lutherans will not take communion in another church?

Who are you talking to? Whose case?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think a logical and rational person would be able to see that a denomination is a division and continuing one is divisive. A logical and rational person would also see that to name something which does not need a name, is illogical and irrational. For example, there is no need to name one's wife by someone else's name just because she has a different viewpoint. Yet that is the reason why groups, denominations have different names. They believe that if one has a different viewpoint, it is okay to call themselves by a different name. They do not have the vision or the understanding of the one body of Christ.

A view which says they are somehow in unity and one and the name is just a type of identification is not grounded in reality. It is just as idealogical as some have claimed about the local churches view of one church per city.

We are well aware of the analogy of a wife's name. This analogy is based on the NT reference to the church as the Bride of Christ. That is fine.

But we are trying to define what the "true local church" is that Witness Lee referred to. How do you identify it? How is it different from "something without the church as a standing"?

I think we all agree that if you divide yourself (what you refer to as "denominate yourself") from other Christians with a particular name and a particular set of beliefs that this is divisive.

But how does this address the question? Have you found a NT definition? Have you found a NT way to identify this "true church"? Have you identified the NT distinction between a gathering of believers and a gathering with "the church as a standing"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is this different from your position? You said that you have separated yourself from other Christians as a statement to them. This is what a sect of Lutherans have done. Interestingly Lutherans make up less than 2% of US Christians. Still they represent at least 20 times as many Christians as the Witness Lee sect.

Witness Lee's sect is very clear not to have Eucharistic sharing.

It's not different. But it is an example of how denominations are not in unity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that? Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

Well, by the same token the vast majority of Christians don't think much of your prescriptions for oneness. When you start insisting that those who don't go along with you are divisive you just have to look at what your reaction would be to a more insistent Ecumenical Movement to understand how they feel.

We don't say it like that "if you don't join us you are divisive".

I don't think much of it not because of its aims for unity but because I think it does not achieve much. I have noticed that the ecumenical movements are something done more by the church leaders than the church members. It is something arranged by the church leaders from an organizational strategic point of view much like competitor companies would come together on common industry issues - rather than a groundswell of congregations demanding or asking that they join with other churches. Most in the denomination I used to attend thought it was stupid. We would say, why bother having a service with the catholics when they still pray to Mary? we canot agree with that. Genuine unity involves compromise. I had to compromise much when i joined the Recovery. I gave up beliefs and ways of doing things i held dear in the denominations. I saw the greater goal as more important than my individual likes and dislikes. I do not see much compromise in ecumenical services. I have never seen an ecumenical baptism or an ecumenical communion for example. It would violate so many "rules", because they have such strong views about the nature of the bread and wine, for example, or the way that baptism should be done. Usually, the ecumenical services I have attended involved some singing songs or hymns and then a church leader from each church would get up and speak a short message.

I have participated in ecumenical services before I even knew about Nee/Lee and then I just thought it was hypocritical for everyone to come together occasionally and pretend to be in unity. Everyone comes together sometimes but the denominational distinctions remain. If the ecumenical movement achieves unity by breaking down the denominational barriers I would think that is great, however I have not seen any evidence of any denominations merging or joining another because of that movement. Plus I have read about the corruptive influences affecting that movement in regards to human sexuality and other religions. Ecumenical easily becomes multi-faith in the sense of muslim, jew and christian and buddhist all worshipping together.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who are you talking to? Whose case?



We are well aware of the analogy of a wife's name. This analogy is based on the NT reference to the church as the Bride of Christ. That is fine.

But we are trying to define what the "true local church" is that Witness Lee referred to. How do you identify it? How is it different from "something without the church as a standing"?

I think we all agree that if you divide yourself (what you refer to as "denominate yourself") from other Christians with a particular name and a particular set of beliefs that this is divisive.

But how does this address the question? Have you found a NT definition? Have you found a NT way to identify this "true church"? Have you identified the NT distinction between a gathering of believers and a gathering with "the church as a standing"?

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Our discussion has become very rancorous over this issue.

There is no doubt that there are valid claims made by both sides of this debate.

What I find fascinating is that Matt 16 begins by Jesus condemning the Pharisees because they are seeking a sign. He calls them an evil and adulterous generation and says that this is the motive in them seeking a sign.

You have to compare that with Matt 24 where the disciples ask Jesus for a sign of His coming and He doesn't rebuke them, doesn't say that is evil or adulterous, but rather spends the entire chapter providing signs of His coming.

So this is where I think this goes off the rails, the issue Jesus is making is not that signs or names are evil. Rather, it is the motive. He contrasts the Pharisees seeking for a sign from God with Him building "MY church". They were seeking to put a sign from God outside of their gathering to prove that God was with them. That is evil and adulterous. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus to shepherd "His church" and therefore needed to know the signs in the same way you might print out the directions before taking a long road trip.

Names have been used to build little kingdoms to various people -- that is evil and adulterous.

On the other hand God has provided signs and wonders as a testimony. The biggest one of course is the sign of Jonah.

Arguing that "this is the correct name that indicates God's presence" that is evil and adulterous. The only name given to us is Jesus. If you are meeting into the name of Jesus there is no other name necessary nor will a name on the meeting hall, or in the phone book going to short circuit that.

Looking again at Post#1, Witness Lee said "No particular name" is the first criteria. Those who have taken issue with Witness Lee argue that the Local Churche's name is the most particular name. They have built an entire doctrine on the name so that you can't meet properly with Jesus unless you have this particular name.

On the other hand Evangelical has taken issue with Denominations for having a particular name.

Therefore I think we can find agreement that claiming that meeting on the proper ground requires you have to have a particular name for your meeting (gathering of the called out ones, hence church) is evil and adulterous.

Probably you are the least divisive person on here ZP because you try to consider both sides of the argument. Thankyou for that. Many topics in Christian easily revert to a two sided argument. Calvinist vs Arminian, free will versus no free will, saved by grace or saved by works.. etc. Probably this is the case here as well. The solution to a two-sided argument is a third option. That third option is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the only thing (or person rather) that unites two sides of the argument together.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

I have clearly offended you (and others too probably). For that I apologise. I don't recall Lee or Nee teaching us to push unity to divide people. You have made me realise I have probably being doing that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

There are several reasons for naming a meeting hall.

1. If you want to put a listing in the phone book you will need a name.
2. If you want a phone for the meeting hall you will need a name.
3. If you incorporate, which is an ideal way to set up based on our tax laws and laws of having a mortgage, or hiring a construction crew to build the hall.
4. If you want tax exempt status so that people who put money into the offering can write it off on their taxes and so that the church doesn't have to pay taxes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have clearly offended you (and others too probably). For that I apologise. I don't recall Lee or Nee teaching us to push unity to divide people. You have made me realise I have probably being doing that.

I appreciate that very much, Evangelical. If I've offended you I'm sorry, too.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

By examining motive you are basically making the same argument I have been making, just in a different way. While I don't think the important thing is the name, I do think the important thing is the attitude of the group toward other groups.

But I think one answer to your question is in the wife name analogy you often cite. The wife takes the surname of her husband, but she also has her own first name, for identification. Even if we went back to the Puritan days where wives were identified even by their husbands as, say, "Mrs. Jones," there is still the uniqueness of the "Mrs." part. Perhaps over time that title would evolve into the affectionate nickname "M.J." Would that be bad? When I was in the LCM I lived with an elder who called his wife "Scooter." I always thought that was sweet.

Names are for identification and convenience. Not only Christians want to name things. Everyone does. Why? Because doing so is convenient and natural. There's nothing insidious about it. A distinction is not a division.

These days, not having some kind of name just confuses people and practicality makes it hard to pull off in any kind of effective way. People are going to call you something. At least when you have a name you can have some control over what you are called. You certainly don't want to be called by neighbors "that strange group that meets in that building without a sign." And calling yourself the "church in New York" for example when you only have 300 members is so presumptuous as to be misleading. Regardless, eventually "The Church in New York" becomes your name, whether you like it or not.

Also, you kind of fudge on the no-name thing by using the term "Lord's Recovery." Isn't that a name? I realize you can probably say that it doesn't refer directly to the church and other unconvincing arguments like that. But if "Lord's Recovery" doesn't refer to the Church what does it refer to? Does God have some other work other than building the Church?

And there is a big exception to your rule that the church is never named. The holy city in the end of the Bible is named "New Jerusalem." One city and one name, admittedly. But the name is not the Lord's name. It's another name. Perhaps the Lord will nickname us "N.J."

Again, I really don't think the Lord has the problem with names that you do. I don't think names are the cause of division, I think attitudes are. Let's face it. We are divided over the issue of whether names divide us. Isn't that ironic?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

And I'm asking, If this is true then why have so few believed it over the centuries? Why has God not revealed this "crucial truth" to his people?

Do you really think that the vast majority of God's people are so evil and compromised that almost none of them have realized over the years that churches cannot have names and so during the entire church age there have been, relatively speaking, almost no "true churches" on the earth?

That just makes no sense. God's sole purpose in this age is to build the Church but you are saying he has had almost no "true churches" ever? And has very few now? Really? You really believe that?

So if there are no "true churches" doesn't that imply the Church has no true presence on the earth to speak of? So the Church itself has nothing to do with all the salvations, prayers, changed lives, growth, mission works, transformations, sacrifices and even martyrdoms that have taken place? All of this is occurring outside the Church? What entity is doing the work then? And, meanwhile, where is the Church?

Like I said, what you are saying does not add up. It just doesn't make sense.


While I think the central question of this thread is acceptable for discussion, I don't think a clear and precise answer is possible. I don't think the Lord intended us to be judges of what is and isn't a valid church. The parable of the wheat and the weeds* tells us do not presume to judge who is a real Christian or not. It seems to me the same wisdom should be generally applied to churches. There are no instances in the NT where a "false church" is identified. Although we can cite some characteristics of a church, we cannot say we know enough to declare that a church which, say, has a name or doesn't meet on the ground of locality is not a church. And I think presuming to be able to do that is HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE**.

No offense, Evangelical, but I think the idea that little-old-you is wise enough to decide in every instance what is and isn't a church is not reasonable, to say the least. Why should I agree with you when almost no one down through history has? What makes you special?

*Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

** “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
Matthew 13:24-30

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations.

First, the fact that the dictionary uses the word sect does not prove that it applies. It is generally said that sects are, like cults, the fringes. Therefore, many groups that have been given various names over the years are not referred to as sects.

In any case, the fact of the giving of a name was not generally that of the group that was named, therefore the presumption of being a sect was not of their own doing. It was of those who determined to set them aside as somehow deficient.

You are caught squarely in an error of forcing your preferred definition onto things without any consideration for whether it actually has any real meaning to the discussion. It merely is useful for you in making your points without reference to whether it has any true merit. Baptists, Bible churches, community churches, Matt 29 churches, Presbyterian churches and so many others are not "sects" with respect to each other. Sects are generally groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who openly separate from others and even declare themselves as the one true church and others to not be.

Sounds a lot like the LRC. You have to force names to be serious offences (and ignore your own names) so that you can exist that the one true expression of the church. It is a gross mishandling of the Word to do what you do and it demonstrates the lack of qualification for your founder(s), teachers, elders, etc. They are not qualified to hold their positions leaving you are sheep without a shepherd wandering in a quagmire of false teachings.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations.

You keep making the assertion that names divide, without any proof they actually do. You are just modifying the definition of "division" to accommodate your particular solution to end "division."

It's like the question of what is "provocative" clothing for women. If you approached that question like you do this one you would keep insisting that certain clothing is provocative, and implicitly modify the meaning of "provocative" to match what you want it to mean, so that your opinion of how women should dress would win out.

Ultimately your definition of "division" is whatever is contrary to Lee's prescription to end it (i.e. local ground, no name, etc). It's a kind of circular reasoning, one which starts and ends not with the Bible, but with what Lee and you want to believe.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, the fact that the dictionary uses the word sect does not prove that it applies. It is generally said that sects are, like cults, the fringes. Therefore, many groups that have been given various names over the years are not referred to as sects.

In any case, the fact of the giving of a name was not generally that of the group that was named, therefore the presumption of being a sect was not of their own doing. It was of those who determined to set them aside as somehow deficient.

You are caught squarely in an error of forcing your preferred definition onto things without any consideration for whether it actually has any real meaning to the discussion. It merely is useful for you in making your points without reference to whether it has any true merit. Baptists, Bible churches, community churches, Matt 29 churches, Presbyterian churches and so many others are not "sects" with respect to each other. Sects are generally groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who openly separate from others and even declare themselves as the one true church and others to not be.

Sounds a lot like the LRC. You have to force names to be serious offences (and ignore your own names) so that you can exist that the one true expression of the church. It is a gross mishandling of the Word to do what you do and it demonstrates the lack of qualification for your founder(s), teachers, elders, etc. They are not qualified to hold their positions leaving you are sheep without a shepherd wandering in a quagmire of false teachings.

That is not true that sects are those that declare themselves to be the true church. That is taking the true meaning of the word and spinning it around.

The Catholics and even Orthodox for that matter view the word sect as meaning any Christian group deviating or dividing from the true church. Catholics consider all break away denominations to be sects. I believe this is the true and original meaning of the word.

Over history, the Lutherans consider themselves the true church, then the Church of England etc. These groups considered breakaways from themselves as sects. Each of these groups has redefined what the word sect means, and now I agree with you it does mean a group that does not really hold to Christianity orthodoxy such as the Trinity, but a group which is not bad enough to be considered a cult. However this is not the original and true meaning of the word. Let's call denominations what they are, in reference to the true church - they are sects. There is the Lutheran "cut" and the baptist "cut" and many other "cuts".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You keep making the assertion that names divide, without any proof they actually do. You are just modifying the definition of "division" to accommodate your particular solution to end "division."

It's like the question of what is "provocative" clothing for women. If you approached that question like you do this one you would keep insisting that certain clothing is provocative, and implicitly modify the meaning of "provocative" to match what you want it to mean, so that your opinion of how women should dress would win out.

Ultimately your definition of "division" is whatever is contrary to Lee's prescription to end it (i.e. local ground, no name, etc). It's a kind of circular reasoning, one which starts and ends not with the Bible, but with what Lee and you want to believe.

If you want proof that names divide, then why not start calling yourself by a muslim name or a woman's name and see what effect that would have amongst your church, family and friends. See if they will treat you the same as before or if they will treat you differently. If a kid has a weird name at school they will get bullied, that will cause a division due to bullying. It should be obvious that names divide because names have meaning. It is often said in Christianity that words have power, well names are a word so names have power too. In the secular world consider all of the importance put on brand names and trademarks etc. Names are powerful and names have value. It is the same in the church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

What does that mean? Is there a modern day example of this that you can show us?

If a person receives Christ today, where do they meet?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does that mean? Is there a modern day example of this that you can show us?

If a person receives Christ today, where do they meet?

They can meet with us of course.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you want proof that names divide, then why not start calling yourself by a muslim name or a woman's name and see what effect that would have amongst your church, family and friends. See if they will treat you the same as before or if they will treat you differently. If a kid has a weird name at school they will get bullied, that will cause a division due to bullying. It should be obvious that names divide because names have meaning. It is often said in Christianity that words have power, well names are a word so names have power too. In the secular world consider all of the importance put on brand names and trademarks etc. Names are powerful and names have value. It is the same in the church.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? By the way, you offered no explanation of why you and yours are capable of such brilliant insights while almost no one down through church history has agreed with you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By the way, you offered no explanation of why you and yours are capable of such brilliant insights while almost no one down through church history has agreed with you. What do have that they don't?

Perhaps a profound realisation that in the bible no one calls a church anything, anywhere. Some struggle over this question -am I a Lutheran Christian or a Christian Lutheran. Some people struggle over that. Those in denominations have an identity crisis, they don't know to which or what they belong. They cannot clearly articulate "I belong to Christ", without referring to their denominational name. Overcoming culturally accepted norms in society is not something that happens overnight. In our environment we consider many different named churches normal. Sadly that is the thing that will happen in future when children are born into an environment which considers homosexuality as normal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They can meet with us of course.

But then I have to close my eyes to the abuses, bullying, deceptions, craftiness, politicking, hypocrisy, and unrighteousness.

But, Evangelical, how do I get past all those hidden things of shame? (II Corinthians 4.2)

(I don't really expect you to answer me, since I have brought up this issue dozens of times already, and you consider these to be merely "divisive" comments from a so-called "opposer.")

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps a profound realisation that in the bible no one calls a church anything, anywhere.

I'm sure many have realized that fact. They were just smart enough not to jump to the conclusions you do.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that it's extremely unlikely that you have some kind of special revelation that's been hidden from so many for centuries. I am convinced that if what you believe is so true and important then more Christians would have embraced it down through the years. The true essentials of the faith have been long known and agreed upon, why has this one remained so obscure? No, a "true church" as defined by the LCM is little more than a rouse to uplift themselves and discredit others. That's my find word on this subject. I'm done with this discussion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But then I have to close my eyes to the abuses, bullying, deceptions, craftiness, politicking, hypocrisy, and unrighteousness.

But, Evangelical, how do I get past all those hidden things of shame? (II Corinthians 4.2)

(I don't really expect you to answer me, since I have brought up this issue dozens of times already, and you consider these to be merely "divisive" comments from a so-called "opposer.")

I can point to numerous churches in the Recovery that have nothing to do with these abuses etc you mentioned. If one attends one of these I am sure they can have a rewarding and fulfilling Christian life without the troubles you mentioned. There are many excellent churches in the denominations too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm sure many have realized that fact. They were just smart enough not to jump to the conclusions you do.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that it's extremely unlikely that you have some kind of special revelation that's been hidden from so many for centuries. I am convinced that if what you believe is so true and important then more Christians would have embraced it down through the years. The true essentials of the faith have been long known and agreed upon, why has this one remained so obscure? No, a "true church" as defined by the LCM is little more than a rouse to uplift themselves and discredit others. That's my find word on this subject. I'm done with this discussion.

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They can meet with us of course.

No doubt that is Jezebel who is laughing. But, OK, how do they do that? Do you have a phone number? A street address? Is there a name of someone I can refer them to? (I am not going to go, like Paul I feel they should come and apologize to me, a brother in good standing who served the Lord and the ministry faithfully. I was kicked out without being condemned of any offense, secretly. As a citizen of the kingdom I have a covenant with Jesus that they violated.) But please help me know what to do about this new one. Thanks

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

Brother Evangelical,

Do you really believe that noone was justified by faith, noone was born of the Spirit, noone was a genuine child of God ... Until Martin Luther, the first MOTA, came along???

Let me recommend a few good church history books for you. First, start with wiping your "hard disk" clean of all church history you have learned from Lee. (Even some "bad" church histories are better than the one you got.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can point to numerous churches in the Recovery that have nothing to do with these abuses etc you mentioned.

I doubt.

Did you forget that I spent several decades in the Recovery?

Didn't they all sign up for that frivolous Heritage House Lawsuit and then pay for LSM to take it to the SCOTUS?

Why do you think that Apostle Paul always exercised to keep a good conscience void of offense? That was essentially needed for him to lay the foundation of Christ in the Gentile lands. For God to honor all of Lee's new and exclusive teachings, don't you think he should be able to make similar claims?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

It caught on like wildfire during Luther's lifetime. It was such a problem that the RCC used violence to try to stop it, which didn't work. And this was in an age without mass communication and the internet as we have now. In contrast the LCM locality/no name message has been around for over half a century, and much longer if you count the Brethren, with barely a blip of effect. So your analogy is specious.

I don't doubt that the Lord would like to have more generality, fellowship and cooperation among churches. But the fact is that is happening and has been for some time. The Lord is doing it, not you. The LCM model of city churches only with no name (with their ministry in charge of course) is not going to happen through the means they are using. If city churches happen, which I very much doubt will, it will be through cooperation of churches which become more and more open and general, but which never quite completely dissolve. Because as we said someone will always feel the need to branch from the status quo, which is a healthy thing.

But we will NEVER have a situation where one group of elders in association with LSM presumes to be in charge of a whole city and most of the Christians in the city goes along with them. That's NEVER going to happen, IMHO.

Also, you fail to see how city churches with one eldership will likely ossify and become stagnant and perhaps corrupt. The only way the Lord could go on would be to reform the eldership (which we've seen in the history of the LCM doesn't happen) or to allow people to split and branch off. This has always been the way the Lord has gone, and the idea that this will not be needed anymore when we arrive at this magical situation of city churches you dream of is just a fantasy. It will probably be needed even more because entrenched, unchallengable leadership usually leads to degradation.

One church per city is not a legality. It's a reality that is really just a reflection of the universal church. It need not be reflected in everyone knowing each other or meeting together or having the same name. That's the superficial oneness of the RCC, which has been around for a long time and doesn't impress anyone.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But we will NEVER have a situation where one group of elders in association with LSM presumes to be in charge of a whole city and most of the city goes along with them. That's NEVER going to happen, IMHO.

Also, you fail to see how city churches with one eldership will likely ossify and become stagnant perhaps corrupt. The only way the Lord could go on would be to reform the eldership (which we've seen in the history of the LCM doesn't happen) or to allow people to split and branch off. This has always been the way the Lord has gone, and the idea that this will not be needed anymore when we arrive at this magical situation of city churches you dream of is just a fantasy.

How ironic is it that the only example of this which we have in our lifetime failed. Even Witness lee himself declared it a failure in 1985. Up until then, Taipei had one eldership for almost two dozen meeting halls, and thousands of saints. Overnight, Lee fired them all and appointed 80 new elders. Another failed Lee experiment, and he even called the church in Taipei his "baby."

Prior to that, back in Nee's day, it was Shanghai which was the biggest church with many halls under one eldership. How did that work out? They disciplined Nee for moral impropriety, saying he could not partake of the Table, so he took his marbles home and got into the drug industry. After being reinstated, he demanded that they turn over all their money to him. Apparently Nee "learned" from his "mistake." So much for hand-picked elders, who operate autonomously.

If every time the Recovery version of the "one church -- one city -- one eldership" model was a failure, perhaps we need to examine the teaching itself. Btw, the exclusive Brethren ecclesiastical teachings modeled the same pattern. I recently read about how eventually the large city of London had 24 gatherings that each claimed to be the "true" New Testament Definition of a Church. Did someone say that "if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

This is a very poor example because the Bible was written in a language that the common man could not read, and was not widely published at the time of Martin Luther. Even so, there were quite a number of priests and monks who did read it and saw the truth and were then branded as heretics.

However, today there are hundreds of millions of Bibles, maybe even billions of Bibles available to people all over the world in their language, yet only 0.0001% of those people have seen this light.

That is not what happened during the reformation. The only people who didn't see the light were those who had a financial incentive in not seeing the truth.

To me there are several different reasons that a person would want a name that says they are the true church.

1. A new believer who doesn't know anything but would like to enter the fellowship of genuine believers rather than some cult, sect, division, etc. The sign that I would give to this person is the sign of Jonah.

2. Jezebel who wants to convince the naive believers that her church is the true church. This is the person that Jesus referred to as being evil and adulterous. He refused to give her such a name, rather saying the only sign given is that of Jonah. If Jezebel will go through the cross of Christ, being crucified and resurrected, then fine, otherwise forget it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a very poor example because the Bible was written in a language that the common man could not read, and was not widely published at the time of Martin Luther. Even so, there were quite a number of priests and monks who did read it and saw the truth and were then branded as heretics.

However, today there are hundreds of millions of Bibles, maybe even billions of Bibles available to people all over the world in their language, yet only 0.0001% of those people have seen this light.

Precisely. When just a drop of the light of justification by faith came out through one man, Martin Luther, the light caught fire because it was the TRUTH and it resonated in the hearts of believers.

Yet now, with bibles available everywhere and millions upon millions of people reading it, studying it and praying over it--trained and untrained, layman and professional, in groups and alone, no one is seeing the "light" that the LCM sees. Nothing is catching fire.

You have to ask why, and the answer is most likely that the LCM doctrine of locality and no name is not the Truth they think it is. You have to conclude if the Lord wants to achieve more unity, he will not take the LCM way.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have to conclude if the Lord wants to achieve more unity, he will not take the LCM way.

What Witness Lee and his followers never seem to get is that it is not the "one city - one church" doctrine that is the problem for most Christians, it is all the other unorthodox non-essentials that are stuffed down your throat along with it. There are too many to list all of them right here, but the few main things would be: The One Publication, God becoming man so that man may become God, The Processed Triune God, and Lee's neo-modalistic teachings regarding the Trinity (The Father becoming the Son, the Son becoming the Spirit).

For some comic relief, check out this Youtube video:
St. Patrick's Bad Analogies
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It caught on like wildfire during Luther's lifetime. It was such a problem that the RCC used violence to try to stop it, which didn't work.

Contrary to the Recovery story line of history, it was the backing of German nobility which enabled the Bible and justification by faith to "go public." The RCC held all under fear of death in order to maintain their unwavering support of Mary, the Pope, and the lucrative sales of indulgences. It was political and military support which freed Luther to translate the Bible and freed the people to believe its message. John Hus, though he preached the same message as Luther, lacked the military support to protect him from papal thuggery .

The Reformation was not the "re-discovery" of long lost truths, as we were told. Granted, the RCC suppressed the truth at every opportunity, but the common people were only willing to believe the message of the gospel if they were willing to be martyred, and so many were. Also, prior to the Reformation, Christians had little opportunity to school their youth and develop the teachings of scripture. When your life is on the line, one needs little more doctrine than God's love, the cross of Christ, and the indwelling Spirit of God.

Think about how many LC members would be willing to risk their lives for a whole host of esoteric LCM teachings like one eldership per city?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is not true that sects are those that declare themselves to be the true church. That is taking the true meaning of the word and spinning it around.

You are allowing Webster's to force what groups do or do not do. In short, I don't think that you are thinking. Just taking a definition (probably one of several) and running with it as being proof of anything.

The problem is that you are using the word "sect" in situations in which the definition that you are insisting upon is not applicable. In certain circles, a Christian sect is any division for any reason. In others, it is used to mean those who would claim to be Christian but are so marginal or exclusive that they do not abide within the standard orthodoxy in some material way. You are simply going with a more extreme meaning and insisting that if the word is used, that is all that it means.

It is a form of equivocation. Writers and speakers who want to sway their audience are often adept at taking words with multiple meanings and then using them in one way while knowing that their audience is understanding it in a different way. Part of Karl Marx's sales pitch for communism was through equivocation on the word "exploit."

[ZNPaaneah]

It really bothers me that people who are well versed in the Bible, and who have thought long and hard about this topic cannot give a simple definition to the church.

We all agree that the church is a very big topic in the NT. Surely it must be something that we can define.

This is not a vain exercise. You can imagine that every single believer needs to meet with others, so on some level they have decided who to meet with. Surely there must be some very clear guidelines from the Apostles.

Likewise there are cults, false teachers, false prophets, Jezebel, etc. This is not fear mongering. We should be able to identify when a group is clearly not a group to meet with.

[OBW]

Add to it that just because there are two or three Christians, or even 100 doesn't make it a church. There is more to the assembly than mere proximity. I have heard discussions about features that considered (by the speakers) as either very important, somewhat important, or not important in identifying a group as a church.

Some consider it in the context of differentiating between a ministry and a church. Or a mission and a church. All valid considerations.

Something like "an assembly of believers joined for the purpose of living and expressing the corporate aspects of the Christian life." Vague as all get-out. People could drive a truck through it. But something like that might be as close as we get to "defining" the term.

One thing is for certain. The definition is not an assembly of Christians who hold to the premise that all Christians within a geographical area that comprises a city are part of that one assembly, and who are under elders appointed by the leadership in Anaheim that are associated with the LSM . . . yada, yada, yada.

Wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It really bothers me that people who are well versed in the Bible, and who have thought long and hard about this topic cannot give a simple definition to the church.

I think it would bother me too. That's why I'm in the Recovery, we know what the church is, thanks to Nee/Lee and others. All believers in each locality, that's the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are allowing Webster's to force what groups do or do not do. In short, I don't think that you are thinking. Just taking a definition (probably one of several) and running with it as being proof of anything.

The problem is that you are using the word "sect" in situations in which the definition that you are insisting upon is not applicable. In certain circles, a Christian sect is any division for any reason. In others, it is used to mean those who would claim to be Christian but are so marginal or exclusive that they do not abide within the standard orthodoxy in some material way. You are simply going with a more extreme meaning and insisting that if the word is used, that is all that it means.

It is a form of equivocation. Writers and speakers who want to sway their audience are often adept at taking words with multiple meanings and then using them in one way while knowing that their audience is understanding it in a different way. Part of Karl Marx's sales pitch for communism was through equivocation on the word "exploit."

I am not going with an extreme meaning, I am going with the basic and simple and original meaning. A sect is a cut, division or offshoot. We are not talking about grey areas such as the rapture or predestination. So you cannot take the true meaning of the word and sugar coat it. There is a right and wrong answer about this, black and white, like 2+2 = 4. There is no grey area here on the definition of a sect. Another definition of sect is an offshoot of a larger group. So Lutherans were a sect as an offshoot of Catholic, etc etc. The Catholic website I posted before explains how the meaning of sect has been distorted over the years, by sects. For example, Anglican does not consider itself a sect but to the Catholics they were and probably still are a sect. Anglicans would be considered a sect by the apostle Paul for sure. A denomination whose existence and origins was to fulfill the lusts of the King of England.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Evangelical,

Do you really believe that noone was justified by faith, noone was born of the Spirit, noone was a genuine child of God ... Until Martin Luther, the first MOTA, came along???

Let me recommend a few good church history books for you. First, start with wiping your "hard disk" clean of all church history you have learned from Lee. (Even some "bad" church histories are better than the one you got.)

Very few, possibly. Just like very few Gentiles would have been saved during the Old Testament period. Luther was the first to see that justification was not by works but by faith. Today Catholics still deny it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_f...in_of_the_term
He became convinced that the church was corrupt in its ways and had lost sight of what he saw as several of the central truths of Christianity, the most important of which, for Luther, was the doctrine of justification—God's act of declaring a sinner righteous—by faith alone through God's grace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Very few, possibly. Just like very few Gentiles would have been saved during the Old Testament period.

Luther was the first to see that justification was not by works but by faith.

Nonsense.

Have you never read that Luther took his teachings from John Huss, who took his from Wycliffe?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nonsense.

Have you never read that Luther took his teachings from John Huss, who took his from Wycliffe?

Who did Wycliffe get it from? Just replace Luther with Wycliffe then in my previous posts, my point still stands.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

When you think about it, really, there were no "local churches". Ever. If they were truly local, why did the Corinthians receive the extra-local letter from Paul? Why should Paul tell the Colossians to read the letter to the Laodiceans (4:16), and vice versa? Why should the Colossians care about something outside their location? Because they weren't local. None of them were. If Paul were local, he'd only care for those in his location. But he didn't, nor did anyone else.

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Nee and Lee sold localist utopianism, but it vanished into the nothingness from whence it came, and they blamed the victim. Supposedly we hadn't been absolute enough, pure enough, or zealous enough. We needed to re-consecrate ourselves to the extra-local programme, the so-called "vision of the age". I was there, and heard this kind of stuff. We were upbraided for being dull, dormant, stagnant.

There never was a local church. It was an illusion, a conjurer's trick, separating the flock and eventuating mass deception and delusion. All courtesy of the extra-local ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church, give them the ministry.

Even Lee made it perfectly clear that local elders could make "crucial" decisions like when to start their prayer meeting.

Ever wonder why so many church meetings got replaced by "training" meetings?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church. .

The extra- local minister was never supposed to promise them the church but he did. And when he couldn't deliver (as he knew) he gave them the ministry and the work. The church belongs to Christ- it is His handiwork, His masterpiece. The church should resolutely focus on Christ. We got localism. That's why I say it was merely an illusion, part of a spell to bring us under someone's control.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it would bother me too. That's why I'm in the Recovery, we know what the church is, thanks to Nee/Lee and others. All believers in each locality, that's the church.

That is an objective definition, not a practical one. I cannot tell a new one to go meet with all believers in a locality if you are defining a locality as a city. There is no meeting hall in NYC that would facilitate that.

On the other hand if you are saying to meet with "all believers" in the sense of any and all, well that is something that you have seemed to condemn up to this point, and it is the point that the rest of us have been making. Perhaps we do agree.

Likewise, if you are saying locality as in the area around which you live, that also would be quite practical. You may not be familiar with NYC but there has to be a really good reason for me to go to Staten Island or the Bronx because those two parts of the city are very far away and hard to get to. But, if by locality you mean my little part of NYC, well that is what I do.

I also like that you do not have any precondition for the name to be "the church in..." nor do you talk about them having taken the ground, or the one eldership, or accepting the one ministry, or recognizing the MOTA, etc.

I think we can all agree that "all the believers in a locality" are the church in that locality.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not going with an extreme meaning, I am going with the basic and simple and original meaning. A sect is a cut, division or offshoot. We are not talking about grey areas such as the rapture or predestination. So you cannot take the true meaning of the word and sugar coat it. There is a right and wrong answer about this, black and white, like 2+2 = 4. There is no grey area here on the definition of a sect. Another definition of sect is an offshoot of a larger group. So Lutherans were a sect as an offshoot of Catholic, etc etc. The Catholic website I posted before explains how the meaning of sect has been distorted over the years, by sects. For example, Anglican does not consider itself a sect but to the Catholics they were and probably still are a sect. Anglicans would be considered a sect by the apostle Paul for sure. A denomination whose existence and origins was to fulfill the lusts of the King of England.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a neighbour (who isnt from the Lord's Recovery)

He asked about the church I went to, and which denomination it was. After I said non-denominational, he asked how the Sunday service/meeting was like.

After I told him, there was no pastor etc, his response was simply along the lines of "Aah, it's Brethren then".

I had to go to the internet to read more about brethren churches, but to this day, I wouldn't blame anyone who came to the conclusion that the Lord's Recovery is an offshoot of the Plymouth Brethren.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we can all agree that "all the believers in a locality" are the church in that locality.

The question is if the church in a city is a abstraction, like the universal church, or is it something that is strictly organized.

The lack of the bible prescribing city churches plus its multiple citings of house churches lends enough reasonable doubt to the city church model to make insisting on it unreasonable. Therefore even if you believe in the city church model you should be tolerant of other interpretations of how church can be practically realized. Calling other manifestations of the church "false" is a reckless position.

Add to this the uncertainty of how the organization of the city church should be maintained. Who picks the elders? What if the entire leadership becomes corrupt? How are members to follow their consciences and split off from bad leadership? Ultimately the LCM model leads to a kind of dictatorship, where Christians have no choice to submit to whomever seems to be in charge. And it gives the leaders total power to condemn whomever they want to.

Even so there is, in a sense, one church in the city. Just like there is one church on earth. But like the universal church this city church can be realized as smaller churches, as the citing of house churches in the Bible implies. The error of the LCM vision of church is equating church with eldership (always theirs). That is, you must follow their eldership to be in the church. But we are all in the church regardless. You cannot leave the church. Being in the church is a reality. Thus the LCM's real beef is with people who don't submit to their eldership. It's a power thing. The "local ground" is just a tool they employ to try to force this. This is proven by the many times they have encountered groups which met as the church without a name, urged them to merge, and when a group said something reasonable like, no thanks, we don't think following leaders who follow Witness Lee is a good idea, the LCM church proceeded to discredit them and presume to be the "true church" in the city.

To the LCM there can only be one king of the hill and that's gotta be them. Thus their take no prisoners attitude.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who did Wycliffe get it from? Just replace Luther with Wycliffe then in my previous posts, my point still stands.

The apostles, passed down thru faithful men.

[Cal]

So despite their claim of simply insisting on high biblical principles, the LCM is really about being in control of the church in every city they enter. This has been shown time and time again. The LCM currently does not recognize any group meeting as the church in a city which does not align itself with their movement and their ministry (LSM). There are many examples, but Toronto is a striking one. When the orders came down from headquarters to obey the "one publication" edict churches in the Midwest including Toronto resisted. The result was LSM sent reps to Toronto and set up a new church which claimed to be the "true" church in Toronto, discrediting the existing church.

The point isn't that the existing Toronto group was the "true" one. Neither were in the way the LCM mind works. The point is the hypocrisy, and silliness, of the whole thing.

This is the kind of activity that has gone on almost since the beginning of this movement. The "local ground" does not achieve oneness, it just changes how different groups fight over the spoils. As it exists today, it is mostly just a bragging point for the LCM because hardly anyone else cares about being seen as the "true church" in the city. So they can crow about being right, conveniently ignore competitors, and condemn "Christianity." But if the city church idea caught on you would see in every city many groups without a name each endlessly coming up with reasons why they were the "true church" and the others were "false."

[Cal]

So ultimately the LCM's sense of being right does not extend from the local ground, it extends from the idea that they are following the right apostle and are the right movement. The local ground is just a tool by which they discredit others. But it's really all about Lee and the "Recovery." Thus they have little compunction about bastardizing the local ground as much as needed.

At the end of the day, it's really about nothing more than they are them and no one else is.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is if the church in a city is a abstraction, like the universal church, or is it something that is strictly organized.

The lack of the bible prescribing city churches plus its multiple citings of house churches lends enough reasonable doubt to the city church model to make insisting on it unreasonable. Therefore even if you believe in the city church model you should be tolerant of other interpretations of how church can be practically realized. Calling other manifestations of the church "false" is a reckless position.

That is definitely something that any reasonable Bible expositor would conclude. The NT does not prescribe it. Their is a mention of functions (overseer, prophets, teachers, evangelists) but there is no prescription of how a church must be organized, administered, meet, etc.

"One city one church" is a reasonable abstraction from the NT, but certainly not a prescription.

Having elders is certainly Biblical, but also not a requirement.

Having a large enough meeting so that verses like "women having their heads covered and men not" along with doing things in order, one speaking at a time, makes sense for a church, but again there are other verses that give full credibility to a meeting of 2 or 3.

It is like "a family dinner". What does that mean? Could it be 2 or 3? Could it be 200? Sure it should be done in good order. There should be elders. But other than that its seems that as long as Jesus is sitting at the table it is a legitimate family gathering.

[Drake]

ZNP) "simple definition to the church."

His Body, the fullness of the One Who fills all in all. (Ephesians)

Though that question is different from the one posed in the topic title.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The apostles, passed down thru faithful men.

So why did no one realize these things until Wycliffe?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Just pointing out that your understanding of the locality doctrine does not match what Lee/Nee taught. It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others. This is more of a Baptist concept. The localities are various expressions of the one church.

Each church was local. But ministry was extra-local like Paul's ministry. In the New Testament, all the churches that Paul established had the same ministry. He gave the same instructions to them all:

1 Cor 7:17 "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP) "simple definition to the church."
His Body, the fullness of the One Who fills all in all. (Ephesians)
Though that question is different from the one posed in the topic title.
Drake

Well, how are we to answer Witness Lee's question in Post #1 "How are we to tell if you are taking the stand of the true church?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others.

Local but also not local, not that local. Like, God but not God, not the Godhead God.

Words have an interesting life in the Nee/Lee ministry. They are neither fish nor fowl. One day they seem like a fish, but they're not really a fish, not that fish. Next day they seem to be fowl but not really; not that fowl. They're merely whatever the ministry needs, to satisfy today's agenda.

I prefer plain, 'conventional' usage, and consistent meaning, and repeat that the local churches aren't local; they're ministry marketing outlets, or ministry stations.

[Evangelical]

Yes, not so local that they could not distribute Paul's messages. It's as simple as this - the church is local and the ministry is global. Distribution of Paul's letters among the churches was his global ministry. The same with Lee/Nee. It was not breaking any rule against churches being local. Notice how Paul never said to distribute writings of the local church elders. Suppose an elder in one church wrote letters and distributed them to all the churches with instructions from him for them. That elder would be violating the principle of church locality. Paul however, as an apostle with a ministry to the churches but outside the churches, did not violate anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So why did no one realize these things until Wycliffe?

It was Lee's false historical narrative that made you believe this.

Like I said, read some good church history!