What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ahhh ... This explains why Lee and Sons never needed to meet any of the qualifications for elders in the books to Timothy and Titus.

Just call yourself a minister and you can get away with breaking all the rules. Even the English language no longer applies to you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was Lee's false historical narrative that made you believe this.

Like I said, read some good church history!

Until the reformers it was Orthodox and Catholic, both did not believe in salvation by faith alone, and still don't believe that. So I wonder who you are referring to, to fill that thousand year gap? Is it the obscure non-Catholic and non-Orthodox groups?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?"

There are two conversations. Maybe three. One is about the church... That is the one church universal. Then there is the definition of a church, that is, the many local churches. Perhaps a third is about how to tell if a church is taking the stand of the true church. Or maybe this third question from Brother Lee is his bridging from the universal to the expression.

But what question are you wanting to answer in this thread? Have we missed what you wanted to discuss here?

Drake

[aron]

Evangelical,

I do see the logic, here. But it doesn't extend past the vanishingly small realm of theory. As soon as it confronts the real world, that of actuality, or what really exists and has continued to exist, the Nee/Lee 'locality' corpus falls apart. It's an idealization, a subjective dream world. The local church as Nee & Lee imagined doesn't exist. It never has been an actual fact or objective reality as described by them.

For example, Mary McDonough wrote a treatise on the "Three Parts of Man" in Brookline Massachusetts USA in 1922. When this tract began to circulate, was she then in error? Or did her extra-local ministry make her an apostle?

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

How come Jessie Penn-Lewis' extra-local "War on the Saints" makes her an apostle, when she can't even be an elder in a local church?

The problem I have with the Nee/Lee school is that if you accept it uncritically as a kind of Kiplingesque "Just So Story" it's all well and good, but if you try to critically engage it, or conversely to implement it somehow, then it quickly becomes quite thin. But in the LC you don't critically engage the Ascended Master's oeuvre. You passively receive, and let the Blendeds worry about implementation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Post #1 -- 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"?

I quoted Witness Lee saying these things concerning the true local church, vs "some isolated thing". That is the context of the discussion, what is the difference, how do you know, based on the NT. Thanks.

[Evangelical]

So are you really saying that in the early church period before Roman Catholicism, the local church was not an objective reality?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Until the reformers it was Orthodox and Catholic, both did not believe in salvation by faith alone, and still don't believe that. So I wonder who you are referring to, to fill that thousand year gap? Is it the obscure non-Catholic and non-Orthodox groups?

Witness Lee himself, especially during the early days in the USA, often spoke of Miller's Church History. Andrew Miller was a long-time associate of J.N. Darby, thus on our "approved" reading list back in the 70's.

The following quote, with highlights provided, was taken from Miller's Introduction. It is quite telling concerning his own burden to write, and the actual history of God's church. It is even quite prophetic of Lee's Recovery Version view of "Christianity," written at a time when the exclusives around him held similar views about the greater body of Christ.

Read this intro several times. It was not written carelessly. It says a lot to our current discussion.

The Mistakes Of Historians In General

Some historians, it is sorrowful to say, have not taken into account this sad mixture of evil vessels with the good — of true Christians and false. They have not themselves been spiritually minded men. Hence they have rather made it their chief object to record the many unchristian and wicked ways of mere professors. They have dwelt at great length, and with great minuteness, on the heresies that have troubled the church, on the abuses that have disgraced it, and on the controversies that have distracted it. Much rather would we endeavour to trace, all down through the long dark pages of history, the silver line of God's grace in true Christians; though at times the alloy so predominates that the pure ore is scarcely perceptible.

God has never left Himself without a witness. He has had His loved and cherished though hidden ones in all ages and in all places. No eye but His could see the seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, in the days of Ahab and Jezebel. And tens of thousands, we doubt not, even from the darkest ages of Christianity, will be found at last in the "glorious church," which Christ will present to Himself, on the long-looked-for day of His nuptial joy. Many precious stones from the rubbish of the "middle ages" will reflect His grace and glory on that crowning day. Blessed thought! even now it fills the soul with ecstasy and delight. Lord, hasten that happy day for Thine own name's sake!

The truly godly are instinctively humble. They are generally retiring, and for the most part but little known. There is no humility so deep and real as that which the knowledge of grace produces. Such lowly and hidden ones find but a small place on the historic page. But the insinuating or zealous heretic, and the noisy or visionary fanatic, are too clamorous to escape notice. Hence it is that the historian has so carefully recorded the foolish principles and the evil practices of such men.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So are you really saying that in the early church period before Roman Catholicism, the local church was not an objective reality?

Not as defined by Nee and Lee. The Nee/Lee definition of the ground of locality is a human assessment of reality, shot through with ignorance and subjectivity. That's why attempts at universal application, stretching now at a century and spanning continents and generations of naifs who've come in and been "wrecked" for the local church (many literally) has produced ennui at best, with paralyzed "local church saints" passively waiting for the next extra-local edict from GHQ, and "storms" and "turmols" and "rebellions" at worst, as people realize they've been had by the Nee/Lee daydream and try to come to grips with it. It's no different from the absolute of Marxist Communism, so elequently put forth by Karl Marx that it swayed millions, but produced nothing but wreckage in its implementations. Cuba, Albania, Cambodia; many tried. So it is with the Nee/Lee ethos.

And Marx' critique of capitalism was pretty good, by the way. There was a lot wrong with capitalism. But the Worker's Paradise never successfully replaced it. So it has been with the Local Church. Nice try. Good idea, but sorry, bad idea.

You know, there's an interesting book, by Jessie-Penn Lewis. I'm sure you've heard of it.

War On The Saints is an extremely detailed discussion of the daily realities of our life: and how those realities indicate our level of subjection to evil spirits and heretical doctrines. It pries into every area of our inner-lives; calling us to give account to ourselves about our dreams, our social habits, our recurring thoughts, our persistent fears, the state of our health, the things that provoke us to anger, and etc.

This is the only book I ever read that I approve and recommend, while at the same time, I always approach it fearfully: for every time I read this book, I am forced to account for something that is going on in my life that frightens me. She makes no accusations, nor does she damn anyone for having these problems; but does hold the reader 100% accountable for every breach of peace or holiness in their life. EXAMPLE: if you have an evil dream, it's because you yet cherish some thoughts and considerations in your heart, upon which the evil dream is built. The demons play to your prejudices, and appeal to your own judgments, in order to foist upon you something you would finally reject, by appealing to the roots of those things, that you haven't yet rejected. You may not be willing, FINALLY, to commit adultery; but you yet secretly cherish a little "looking to lust;" maybe just a tiny little bit. [Note from the Editor: Mrs. Lewis calls these concessions "Ground"] The demons fasten on that concession to sin, and starting there with that which you WILL allow, they build a scenario which leads ever onward to the main sin. Upon being confronted in the dream with the main sin, you revolt (hopefully), and wake up: but the little root from which the appeal was made is still with you, so at another time, you have a somewhat similar dream, which while taking a somewhat different path, is still leading to the main sin. You revolt, and wake up; but still haven't renounced and rejected the little teeny sin in that area that you allow. So you have another dream sometime, with a different scenario......and here we go again.

Mrs. Penn-Lewis has it that you are both victim and responsible for every evil intrusion in your thought life, and she turns over every rock in your psyche, and exposes all the little vermin that we all try so hard to ignore. She posits that clinging with the mind and confessing with the tongue to the particular verities of the Word of God is our chief weapon of defense against these influences, and that a lack of escape from the problems she describes is the chief symptom of embracing false doctrine. Therefore, unlike most others who address these things, she does not leave you with ONLY "Appealing to God" to deliver you from said problems, but has it that God has already provided the means of relief in The Word; and that those who, thinking to "skip" past this, and demand that God prove Himself faithful by a fiat of deliverance, are only purchasing despair; since for God to ignore your ignoring of His Word, is tantamount to denying His own righteousness and faithfulness. Ergo: hungry child says: "Dad, I'm hungry." Dad says, "There's a bag of fried chicken in the kitchen, go eat that." Child responds, "Dad, I'm very hungry." Dad repeats his instructions. Child now says, "Dad, I'm so hungry, don't you love me?" The next answer is either silence or rebuke.

I bolded the little part in question. "The little root is still within you." As long as people don't realize they received uncritically several false assumptions, they'll go round and round. Always wondering where is the promised revival.

In the case of the Nee/Lee programme, they don't realize that ekklesia were perhaps much more local than they could ever have imagined. "Whenever two are gathered, I am there" and "with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'". The ekklesia was probably so local. It could vanish as they dispersed. It was a meeting! There could be dozens of ekklesia all over the place! Nee never realized that, so he built a figurative church that wasn't local, but was. (If you know what I mean) And this ideation has never come to pass, no matter the attempts.

As long as you allow the Nee/Lee programme the "Ground" in you it will have power over your thinking. But it was just a dream. It wasn't real. It was an idea that didn't correspond to reality.

[Cal]

The problem I have with seeking to discover which group or movement if any is the "true" one is that it so easily degrades from genuine seeking (if it ever was that) into wanting to believe and trying to prove, based on fallible knowledge, that one's own group or way is IT, which necessitates saying others aren't it, which is destructive.

I think ZNP's question was really rhetorical. He asked for a definition of a "true church" in anticipation that a clear one could not be given. If so, he was right so far. It hasn't been given, at least not one that is useful.

The LCM city church model is untenable for reasons given. There is no way to decide who the elders should be, there is no way to recover from corrupt elders, there is no way for people to act on their consciences and leave a corrupt organization. The LCM model empowers a handful of men to control thousands of Christians, and gives God no way, aside from striking them dead, to free people from them if they go bad.

Thus the conclusion must be that the Lord never meant to require city churches to be strictly organized under one group of specific elders. Hence the citing of house churches in the NT. Christians have the right to follow the leaders they feel the Lord is showing them to follow, and to reject leaders they feel are bad. No group of leaders has the right to expect an entire city of Christians follow them. The city church then is an abstraction, like the universal church, and within that Christians are free to follow their consciences.

If we allow others that freedom, and focus on what we have in common, the result will be not uniformity, but it will be a genuine unity. We can see that happening now. Even some in the LCM are coming this way, though some are holding out, still jealous for their self-declared status of "true."

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it is becoming obvious that this is true. The term "the true church" vs some random meeting implies so much, as though there is a set of requirements which must be met before the gathering reaches the lofty heights of "the church". It is a term that is puffed up, every bit as much as the MOTA. Deputy authority may be a true Biblical principal, but it is used as the nozzle by which they puff up the MOTA, the elders, the "true church". These are like giant floats in the Thanksgiving day parade.

The one criteria we have been given to meet is the cross of Christ. If you have that and all it implies (redemption, salvation, resurrected Christ, baptism, one Lord) then you have met Jesus requirement for a meeting. You could have two or three and you will still have Jesus in your midst. You might have an elder, might not, doesn't matter.

On the other hand you could call yourself "the church in...", you could have a big ceremony of "taking the ground", you could have puffed up elders appointed by a puffed up apostle, and none of that has a NT basis to legitimize your meeting or delegitimize anyone else's meeting.

The sign of Jonah is the only sign given by Jesus to legitimize a meeting.

But there are many signs of sin, and falsehood. This false doctrine is all summed up in one word: leaven. What does leaven do? It puffs up the bread.

Witness Lee's doctrines are all designed to "puff up" the church. According to the NT whenever 2 or 3 gather together in the Lord's name He is in their midst, but WL refers to that as "some isolated thing" without a standing.

Who is he to disrespect the Lord Jesus like that? That "isolated thing" is a meeting in Christ. Their standing is Jesus Christ and the work He did on the cross.

According to Witness Lee it is the apostle (i.e. him) that gives a "true church" it's standing. It is such a despicable heresy, it is damnable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is becoming obvious that this is true. The term "the true church" vs some random meeting implies so much, as though there is a set of requirements which must be met before the gathering reaches the lofty heights of "the church". It is a term that is puffed up, every bit as much as the MOTA. Deputy authority may be a true Biblical principal, but it is used as the nozzle by which they puff up the MOTA, the elders, the "true church". These are like giant floats in the Thanksgiving day parade.

In his final words on earth, written to Timothy (2.20), Paul likens the church to a great house. It is great because it is the house of God. Yet this house had all kinds of vessels, some precious, yet some earthen, some honorable, yet some dishonorable. All kinds, good and bad, just like the church today.

Like the parable of the tares, God accepts this reality, and let things be, just as it seems today in the greater body of Christ. Yet in the subsequent verses, and so many places elsewhere in scripture, the Spirit calls on the children of God to "cleanse ourselves." It is like the call to each of the 7 churches in Revelation to "overcome."

How different is this to Lee's way. He builds a walled city, declaring all insiders holy to God on the proper ground, and condemns all outsiders as degraded and hopeless. He refuses to admit that we are all part of the same house. He mistakenly thinks that the wall keeps all the degraded things out, and all the holy things in. Sorry, sounds good, almost like the New Jerusalem, but it doesn't work that way in this age. There is no "true" church, only cleansed vessels. "Flee youthful lusts" rather than flee the house of God.

At the time I departed from the Recovery, I was overwhelmed with how much degradation was INSIDE the walled recovery, especially among the leaders in the "work." When I started meeting elsewhere, I discovered how many holy blessings were OUTSIDE the walled Recovery. After all, we all are fallen. Fallen Christians living inside the walled Recovery are just as prone to the "dishonorable" side of God's house as those without. Perhaps more so, fueled by pride and arrogance. How else do we get endless lawsuits, motorhome scams, excommunications, etc.? There's far more honor outside of those walls.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How different is this to Lee's way. He builds a walled city, declaring all insiders holy to God on the proper ground, and condemns all outsiders as degraded and hopeless. He refuses to admit that we are all part of the same house. He mistakenly thinks that the wall keeps all the degraded things out, and all the holy things in. Sorry, sounds good, almost like the New Jerusalem, but it doesn't work that way in this age. There is no "true" church, only cleansed vessels. "Flee youthful lusts" rather than flee the house of God.

At the time I departed from the Recovery, I was overwhelmed with how much degradation was INSIDE the walled recovery, especially among the leaders in the "work." When I started meeting elsewhere, I discovered how many holy blessings were OUTSIDE the walled Recovery. After all, we all are fallen. Fallen Christians living inside the walled Recovery are just as prone to the "dishonorable" side of God's house as those without. Perhaps more so, fueled by pride and arrogance. How else do we get endless lawsuits, motorhome scams, excommunications, etc.? There's far more honor outside of those walls.

I think he knew what he was doing. So he refers to "the true church" and this is "not some isolated thing" and it sounds great, scriptural. But there is no scripture to it, nor does he ever provide any.

Of course he has to define the church and identify issues for the basis of a division, but does he ever define "the true church"? No. Does he ever define what he meant by "some isolated thing"? No.

So everyone in the church knows how important oneness is, they understand we shouldn't divide the body of Christ, and yet they are referring to themselves as "the true church" and condemning others for being "some isolated thing". Think of the irony for one of the smallest and least significant sects condemning others for being "some isolated thing". Is there any group more isolated than Witness Lee's sect?

[ZNPaaneah]

I was just struck by the use of "illegitimate church" by Evangelical in the thread on degraded Christianity.

Illegitimate refers to a child born out of wedlock. Something that is not authorized by the law. Outside of the accepted rules.

Clearly the "legitimate" birth of the church was at Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. You can point to the first Lord's table as the conception, though to be fair I am not that clear as to when the legitimate church appeared first (when Jesus breathed into the disciples?)

So then, by illegitimate I think he is referring to the fact that a man, other than Jesus, formed his own special fellowship. These men would be equivalent to what Paul refers to as "super apostles", those who are puffed up. You would expect to see evil and adulterous behavior associated with these men.

But then it gets thorny. Can you really say that Martin Luther "formed his own special fellowship" or stood for righteousness and refused to tolerate Jezebel? Perhaps it was those that followed Martin Luther, the ones who had been blended with him, that really made it a special fellowship of a man.

But if you carefully consider this you would realize that the one who would be most vocal in calling Martin Luther illegitimate would be the Jezebels in the Catholic church. The word Jezebel means "chaste". This is her MO, she wears the disguise of someone who is chaste while condemning others for being "illegitimate". She wields the law as a tool to abuse, usurp, defame, and swindle others.

What is it that gives me legitimacy? It is the name of Jesus.

But according to Jezebel what makes the churches illegitimate is not that they don't lift up Jesus as Lord, but that they don't lift her up as Lord.

I think there would not be any objection to Witness Lee if it wasn't for the fact that he lifted himself up as Lord and condemned every single group of Christians that did not recognize him as such.

Once again we can return to Ephesians 4 to see that the definition of the church is the 7 ones. If we have Jesus as the one Lord then we are legitimate. If we lift up any other man whether it be Watchman Nee, or Witness Lee or the Blendeds then we are illegitimate.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Localism as defined by Nee & Lee was an ideational template superimposed upon scripture. An ideal that never existed. And this ideation has never come to pass, no matter the attempts.

As long as you allow the Nee/Lee programme the "Ground" in you it will have power over your thinking. But it was just a dream. It wasn't real. It was an idea that didn't correspond to reality.

The Localism idea as put forth was hugely successful. Suddenly Nee had dozens of groups, people streaming in out of the denominations. I believe the success of "Chinese Brethrenism" was a reaction to decades of ugly and loathsome Western domination. The foreign god Jesus was attached by not too many degrees of separation from the foreign devils who sent their troops to the Peking Legation to storm the Old City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Peking_(1900)

So Nee's idea offered a way out. But my point has been that it had no extrinsic reality of its own save by its successful appeal to many, any more than Joseph Smith's revelations from the Angel of Moroni are validated by the millions today who adhere.

And Lee likewise; his appeal to the thousands of young people in the 1960s was based on ignorance, and disaffection. I posted a testimony by Arthur M Casci, who was going to join Moses Berg's Jesus Family, and was warned off by a friend. A couple of weeks later he met some friends who were caravanning to a Local Church conference, and he was "in the church life". But the success of the movement rested on such unsuspecting naïfs, who didn't challenge the presumptions and pre-suppositions that lay behind the message.

Until you break it down to its constituent components, and see the illogic that lies behind it, the "local" appeal can still run your thinking. The whole thing rests on a strange, subjective dualism, where the local churches are "local" but not that local. Sorta local. "Local Church" local. As long as you swallow that disjunction, they can lead you by the nose forever. And even if you physically leave due to some bad events or personalities or just general disgust, the impact on your thinking won't abate. Your scorn for all Christian assemblies, or the vast majority of them, will continue. You'll go on forever looking for that legitimate church, as defined by someone else.

[Drake]

ZNP) "The word Jezebel means "chaste". This is her MO, she wears the disguise of someone who is chaste while condemning others for being "illegitimate". She wields the law as a tool to abuse, usurp, defame, and swindle others."

ZNP,

Revelation provides a direct charaterization of the woman Jezebel. She leads people into spiritual fornication as the real Jezebel did with the nation of Israel.

Was she Israeli, a member of the beloved people of God? What does ispiritual fornication mean as applied to the church?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The word Jezebel means "chaste". This is her MO, she wears the disguise of someone who is chaste while condemning others for being "illegitimate". She wields the law as a tool to abuse, usurp, defame, and swindle others.

What is it that gives me legitimacy? It is the name of Jesus.

But according to Jezebel what makes the churches illegitimate is not that they don't lift up Jesus as Lord, but that they don't lift her up as Lord.

I think there would not be any objection to Witness Lee if it wasn't for the fact that he lifted himself up as Lord and condemned every single group of Christians that did not recognize him as such.

As one who spent untold hours reading both sides of the quarantine debate, I definitely agree with this conclusion. The "One Publication Bull" mandated by LSM was never about oneness. It was only about exalting Lee and his works. Oneness was merely the disguise JezebeLSM wore to appear "chaste," so that she could condemn Chu, Tomes, and Dong and others as illegimate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As one who spent untold hours reading both sides of the quarantine debate, I definitely agree with this conclusion. The "One Publication Bull" mandated by LSM was never about oneness. It was only about exalting Lee and his works. Oneness was merely the disguise JezebeLSM wore to appear "chaste," so that she could condemn Chu, Tomes, and Dong and others as illegimate.

The pope used similar tactics for centuries on God's real people.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Until you break it down to its constituent components, and see the illogic that lies behind it, the "local" appeal can still run your thinking. The whole thing rests on a strange, subjective dualism, where the local churches are "local" but not that local. Sorta local. "Local Church" local. As long as you swallow that disjunction, they can lead you by the nose forever. And even if you physically leave due to some bad events or personalities or just general disgust, the impact on your thinking won't abate. Your scorn for all Christian assemblies, or the vast majority of them, will continue. You'll go on forever looking for that legitimate church, as defined by someone else.

Localism as defined by Nee was an excuse and an opportunity for various Alpha Dog scenarios to play themselves out: Nee, Lee, Chu, Freeman, Dong, Blendeds. And that doesn't include the craziness on the Mainland that followed the LSM. Until you see it for what it is, it has power over you.

If the local church were truly local, they'd take the fellowship from Anaheim as only that, fellowship. And they'd also receive fellowship from Duluth and Decatur. If they were truly local they'd receive all the saints in their locality, not just those affiliated with the ministries of Nee and Lee. If they were truly local they'd love their neighbour. Etc etc.

The localism of Nee and Lee produced ministry propagation stations, not local churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Localism as defined by Nee was an excuse and an opportunity for various Alpha Dog scenarios to play themselves out: Nee, Lee, Chu, Freeman, Dong, Blendeds. And that doesn't include the craziness on the Mainland that followed the LSM. Until you see it for what it is, it has power over you.

If the local church were truly local, they'd take the fellowship from Anaheim as only that, fellowship. And they'd also receive fellowship from Duluth and Decatur. If they were truly local they'd receive all the saints in their locality, not just those affiliated with the ministries of Nee and Lee. If they were truly local they'd love their neighbour. Etc etc.

The localism of Nee and Lee produced ministry propagation stations, not local churches.

Many of the saints in the Recovery's early days in the US, were profoundly affected by Nee's book TNCCL. Now I don't agree with everything in that book, (e.g. only the Apostle can appoint elders in every city) but numerous safeguards were spelled out in great detail to preclude ministry abuses. Unfortunately, at least in the minds of Nee, Lee, and Chu, the book was simply bait to catch the better fish.

I have heard of various accounts, concerning both Lee and Chu, where brothers actively approached them with serious and numerous discrepancies between their actions and those prescribed in Nee's book, and they were shut down. Famously, Lee said, "don't tell me about that book, I was there." Nee himself also violated his own book once restored to the ministry. The stories about Darby and the Exclusives violating their own principles have also filled many books.

Thus the so-called "recovery" of localism was a ruse, never implemented. This so-called long-lost-missing-link of divine revelation according to some God-ordained pattern has never worked, at least not in real life. It only reads well in a book. Kind of like communism -- hard to argue its theories, yet in practice, only dictators use it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thus the so-called "recovery" of localism was a ruse, never implemented. This so-called long-lost-missing-link of divine revelation according to some God-ordained pattern has never worked, at least not in real life. It only reads well in a book. Kind of like communism -- hard to argue its theories, yet in practice, only dictators use it.

Another good analogy.

[aron]

If the LC assemblies were really local they'd have resisted the extra-local money-making schemes put upon them by Witness Lee. Under his leading, parishioners became investors, later renamed donors when the business collapsed. If the church were local these kinds of fiascos would not spread like a plague across the body.

But we all know the answer - the LC local churches are local, but not that local. Not really, truly local. Just LC local; a different kind of local.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If the LC assemblies were really local they'd have resisted the extra-local money-making schemes put upon them by Witness Lee. Under his leading, parishioners became investors, later renamed donors when the business collapsed. If the church were local these kinds of fiascos would not spread like a plague across the body.

But we all know the answer - the LC local churches are local, but not that local. Not really, truly local. Just LC local; a different kind of local.

Funny

Kind of like the progressive mantra, "think locally, act globally."

[OBW]

While I have not been a regular participant here for quite some time now, I often return to see how things are progressing, and sometimes to look back through the list of old threads and how certain topics were addressed then.

I was reading something a couple of days ago (not on this forum) and the question of what constitutes a church came up. And, as is often the case, the "two or three gather in my name" idea was raised. While it was mostly ignored in what I was reading, I decided to see what we had done with the whole topic over the decade + that we have been here. And sure enough, there was a thread titled "What is the New Testament Definition of a Church" that began on October 14, 2016. While the opening thread tended to indicate that the LC determination of what was a true church was at least partly the real thing to be considered, it did quote Matthew 18:20 as follows:

What is the church?

. . . .

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

The reason I was looking was that I noticed something in what I reading the other day that I was curious to see if it had come up before.

If you read the portion of Mathew 18 that includes this one verse, it is actually 6 verses (15 – 20). This is where Jesus tells the disciples about how to help another brother (or sister) with sin. You first tell them. If they don't listen you bring one or two more. If they still don't listen, you tell it to the church.

Let's see . . . me plus one or two = two or three. Yet we are not presumed to be the church and must then take it to the church if they still do not listen. So simply having Christ in our midst must not be synonymous with being (the/a) church.

I realize that this does not preclude that as being possible. But it would seem that if such a thing were intended to be commonplace, then bringing one or two more with you to confront the sinning brother/sister would often be the end of the story. No further "take it to the church" step required.

The point is not to say that two or three cannot be a church (in the assembly sense of the word), but rather that it does not appear that this was considered to be the normal case and the context of this popular verse would tend to support that conclusion. I admit to being a little hard-pressed to agree that two or three can be the church, and that I have always had a problem with the idea. But depending on practical circumstances, I would not say it is impossible. Just not a basic definition of the church.

[Robert]

I think that many Christians make basic mistake in approaching to this matter.
First of all to define anything we should have that " anything" in our hands.
Lat's take sunflower for example. This size, this colour, these particular characteristics.
Jesus gave us very simply words. "gathered in my name...".
One person can not show love for himself. This kind of "love" we call "selfishness". Isn't?
We can be humble and kind and loving only toward other person.
That is why Jesus said:" two OR three..." Other words, number does not matter.
What is more important, He said "in my name".
What does really mean "in my Name"? What is His name?
Is that name meaningless? Or less important from "Sunflower"?
Jesus means: The One Who Exist Saves.
If we only meet together because of our real salvation and our real experience of being born from God that means Jesus is really among us.
Jesus described reality which John repeated later:
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death.
1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
3:16
Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
3:17
But whoso hath the world`s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?
3:18
[My] Little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.
3:19
Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him:
3:20
because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
3:21
Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God;
3:22
and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.
3:23
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.
3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.

We should really have deeply in our minds that "church" means " the called ones" or " congregation of people".
Numbers or defining gives nothing if we do not experience fellowshipping even with one or two others.
Would be amazing with 300 or 3000! But we have certain reality and circumstances so talking about something which does not concern to us gives nothing.
I do not belong now to any congregation. But I do meet with believers having real fellowship. For many Christians I do not belong to any church. In their meaning yes! But in Jesus meaning?
I was very faithfull and carefull listener of WL.
When I started to apply in my live all what he wrote, saints had left me.
There is many good points in books. About practice. I guarrantee to all that after they start to act according his words all churches will seperate from Anaheim and LSM.
But thanks God, I have better example to follow than WL and his books.
In my short live I have to apply only my master's teaching.
I do not see any intention in His teaching to define any organisation. Rather Organism.
Our words should fit to reality. One Sunflower in hand then word:" one Sonflower".
Local churches are any more local. They are "company subsidiaries" in fact.
The more we talk having no cover in facts, the more we become Empty Talkers. 98% of LC members are Empty Talkers.
I am very thankfull to God for each particular believer every day he gave me.
Where is love, there must be longing and utual desire to meet and help each other in daily life. That is it! Very, very simple!

[Sons to Glory!]

Does anybody else read or get (emailed) the T. Austin Sparks devotional, "Daily Open Windows"? In these devotions he often brings up topics around what is the church and errors around forming a local church. Many times when reading these it seems he is speaking directly to those who formed "The Local Churches" that are discussed on this forum. (although I acknowledge that LC people would say that is not their name)

Just a couple days ago, there was a Sparks devotional on this topic, which I've copied below. (BTW - these are all taken from other materials of his, as cited at the bottom)

July 21
________________________________________

To those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:12,13 NIV)

What, in the thought of God do Christians exist for? What does the Church exist for? There is only one answer. The existence and the function is to be an expression of Christ. There is nothing less and nothing more than that. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, and all between! Let that be the starting point; let that be the governing rule and reality in all matters of life and work, and see at once the nature and vocation of the Church. This vast, incomprehensible heavenly system, of which Christ is the personal embodiment, touches every detail of life, personally and collectively. But remember only the Holy Spirit sees and knows how it is so; hence, as at the beginning, there has to be an utter submission to and direction by the Lordship of the Holy Spirit. What the bloodstream is to the human body, the Divine Life is to and in "the Church which is His body." What the nerve system is in the physical realm, the Holy Spirit is in the spiritual. Understand all the workings of those two systems in the natural, and you begin to see how God has written His great heavenly principles, first in the person of His Son, and then in His corporate Body.

As an individual believer is the result of a begetting, a conception, a formation, a birth and a likeness, so, in the New Testament, is a true local church. It is a reproduction of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Man cannot make, form, produce or "establish" this. Neither can anyone "join" or "enroll," or make himself or herself a member of this organism. First it is an embryo, and then a "formation" after Christ. So, all talk about "forming New Testament churches" is nonsense. The beginning is in a seeing of Christ.

By T. Austin-Sparks from: According to Christ - 1


(This email is from the Austin-Sparks.Net Daily Open Windows message list. Daily Open Windows messages have been selected and compiled by Austin-Sparks.Net from the works of T. Austin-Sparks. In some cases they appear in abridged form. The introductory verse and its associated Bible version have been selected by the editor and did not always appear within the original message.)

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

“As such, many nominal believers will remain forever nominal and will not know salvation nor be edified to grow spiritually. This kind of work where one is ordained to manage a whole congregation and where the whole congregation, whether it be thirty people or three hundred people, is assigned to the hands of one person alone as the "flock" under him, with no one else who can interfere or have any say in the matter, is the result of the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”

CWWN, vol.4, “ The Christian meditations on Revelation,” Ch.5: Pergamos— the Corrupted Church.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Unregisteredfromusa

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

That is precisely what they did. One of their earliest groups was even called the "Little Flock."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregisteredfromusa

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

Yes, exactly. The stench of their hypocrisy rivals the Pharisees of old.

Both Née and Lee long condemned the “speaking of one man” only to replace it with the “speaking of one man.”

[Robert]

I want to encourage all to make Bible STudy on word ecclesia, crowd, multitude, Bride.
My way is to find all verses, read all of them in context. Then I can clearly see what Bible says and how God sees it.
Let's say I reject for a while such a word like "church" for sake of this study and take only real greek meaning, then I can be free from all concepts of degradated Christianity.
"So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally mambers one of another." Rom 12:5
This is description of spiritual reality. We are spiritual. But it must have any expression in love. In acts. In daily life. That's it!
Why should I be bothered by any vision of global "church" or "body" or " one new man" if I, she or he can not be one!
It must be experienceable!
That is why I claim that Christians spend too much time on definitions of something closer unknown in context of already existing concepts or "churches".
Personally I do care only about fellowship in Holy Spirit. Day by day, with this or that brother or sister. I can not create or recreate anything which is out of us. It is we, who are ( or not) mambers connected to head.
Definition of gathered crowd is... people!
Just try to read all verses with "church" with replaced word " gathered called out". With strong imagination of real people which we know personally.
This is how I do, read and apply Word of God.