Re-learning the ABCs (Assembly, Body, Church)

[YP0534]

The so-called vision of the so-called "universal church" is the EXACT problem with the Local Church.
It is also, not coincidentally, the unique fundamental problem of Catholicism and every descendant denomination.
Probably 99% of the independent and free groups as well.

How can there be hierarchy and ambition?
How can there be neglect and abuse of the local saints?
How can there be issues regarding finances spanning the globe?
Indeed, how can there even be the divisions and denominations?

These things ALL exist because of a heretical teaching called "universal church".

Thinking back to the earliest days among the Local Church saints.
My, how wonderful those meetings were!
We still hear the word concerning the glorious meetings at Elden Hall.
Here were a people who were FULLY focused on being absolute for Christ and having nothing BUT Christ in their meetings and He was there.
And they knew all the verses and lots of good practices. He manifests among them regularly, constantly.
They truly have the reality of "the local churches" among them in those days. Christ is there!

What happens?

Well, even at Elden Hall, there's been a creeping problem among them for a long time, each particular issue tracing its roots back to this same source.
The saints pass through all sorts of smaller issues together, all sacrificing their opinions and objections, even all of themselves, toward a larger goal.
I think you see what I mean.
What is that larger goal?
What do they call it? What do they intend it to be?

The Church!

At least at a certain point, Lee decides it's time to expressly focus on the increase. The numbers are too low after too many years.
His focus is on what?

According to his great vision, building up the "universal aspect of The Church," of course!

The elders and co-workers all sign on for this thing. All the saints get very excited, too.
Let's all work to gospelize and truthize first Taiwan, then the US, and then the rest of the world!
We will bring the Lord back because He will have His builded Bride, The Great Universal Church!
Hallelujah! Too GLORIOUS!

But something went wrong.
Nothing got gospelized or truthized.
A lot of activity, some small gains in numbers that don't remain, and right back down to no growth, no increase.

Lee died and things are seriously off kilter among them now.
They've built a seminary and we can perceive grave errors regarding oneness in the Body among them.
The stories come out about all the side effects of these efforts over the years.
The responsible parties cannot even see where they erred and if they do they are unrepentant.
Perhaps not incorrectly, when cornered they take the blood and move on, but they make no adjustments to their course.
The casualties continue to mount and they become even more concerned about uniformity and control of dissent.
If we are not one, we could never have the builded Church!
If you are not one with us, just shut up or get out, preferably both!
We will not look back like Lot's wife to mourn your loss and be under a curse!

How did they come to a place where they could throw the saints themselves under the bus of the Local Church?

They were focused on building up The Church.
They believe that God desires a builded Universal Church.

But what God really wants is only a little builded assembly, here, there and everywhere, where He can be manifest upon the earth.

Surely the Lord desires to see the Body built!
But the way that happens is very simply and practically through the glorious and small meetings of the saints.

The use of this devilish word "universal church" brings up the possibility for ALL the other issues to come in.

And they never STOPPED using this term.
It has been there from the very beginning, from Constantine at least.

The assembly is just(!) a practical manifestation of the very God in the meeting believers.
"The Church" is something of organization and religion that eventually manifests nothing but fallen humanity.

If somewhere lurking in the back of our minds is a concept of a larger purpose, that's just going to frustrate the Lord.
And we are almost genetically predisposed to look for a larger purpose in all that we do.
But the Lord's purpose is a very small purpose, writ large only from a certain, practically meaningless point of view.
Not to say that the BODY is meaningless, of course! But the Body is only manifest because of and in the assembly.
If you want to really know what is the universal Body of Christ, you need to get to know what is the reality of the local assembly.

And the problem with "blending" we can recognize now is that this is a just human-sized version of the Universal Church idea.

I think I may have even seen this vision of the assembly before 20 years ago but the Universal Church idea covered it over in time.

The problem with the elders' letter in 1986 was not precisely that it established a denomination, per se.
The problem is that it manifested their allegiance to the Universal Church notion, this time as expressed by Witness Lee.
Probably the best expression of that doctrine to date, but still fundamentally off and unsound.

The ASSEMBLY is the goal of the Lord's heart's desire.

It is so simple and so clear.


The assembly is the practical manifestation of the very God in the meetings of the believers.
Or, more precisely, the assembly exists wherever there is a meeting of the believers with the practical manifestation of the very God.

Turned around one more way - that kind of meeting is the \ekklesia\ - nothing more and nothing less.

Most of us here can immediately identify with the meetings where the room seemed brighter as God's glory shined upon and among us, but those were the special times. Except that that should be the ordinary experience of our assembling. Just exactly WHO do you think that shining was? Christ is THERE in those meetings. The assembly is the very house of the Living God, you see. This is how we are built together into God's dwelling place. Our job isn't to worry about the universal Body. We have a wonderful Head for that. We just need to focus on our little assembly and make sure He always appears and that we do not run Him off by our foolishness.

When we come together with our individual portions to testify of and share our experiences of Christ in practical oneness as the assembled saints, Christ Himself is manifest among us in the shining glory that can actually be seen by ourselves, any visitors, and even the principalities and rulers in the heavenlies.

I would say it this way: there are lots of Christian meetings in the world, but they are NOT the assembly and mostly cannot be the assembly for a variety of reasons. But to have the assembly really isn't difficult at all and it happens all over the place in small little places and ways all the time. Truly, when two or more are gathered in the right atmosphere, He is there and can be seen in His shining manifestation. The thing is we cannot establish the assembly by means of anything at all. The assembly exists in the practical manifestation of Christ in the gathered believers and in an abiding fashion in those believers who are constantly meeting in little ways all the time. The divisions are bad because they hinder the practical manifestation.

The reason there is no "universal aspect" is because for there to be a Body useful to the Head, there needs to be a "local aspect." The entire purpose of the universe is to have this "local aspect" because that is where you can actually see the very God of the universe manifested on the earth.

The Triune God is going to work to nourish and cherish the assemblies of the believers, or more particularly, the assembly in the particular place, because His purpose in the entire universe is to be manifest in it and through it.

In a sense, we see our small meetings as some pitiful little gathering in an obscure place. But in reality, God has been very satisfied in it because THAT is all He is looking for. He got manifested that day and, as it turns out, it's not so easy for Him to accomplish that. This is the reason we also have to share His burden. He can create the vastness of the universe with billions of galaxies into infinity but He cannot force even two believers to come together in oneness to give expression to Himself. And to be clear, it is NOT merely the gathering of Christians as believers in oneness that is His goal. It is the manifestation of Himself, as we have all seen, which might happen from time to time in gatherings of believers who don't really understand what they are doing and why, but which needs to happen in a continuing way by believers who share God's goal.

Here is the thing: in the Local Church, we took The Church and even the local church as our goal. We knew all the verses. We learned some good practices. We had some revelation. And truly Christ was manifest sometimes. But somehow, none of us ever saw that the practical meetings with the other saints where Christ was manifest as the real and present shining One was what we were actually talking about.

But that's it.

THAT'S what we're talking about.

The assembly is just the meetings where the Shining One visits with us.
Our goal is to figure out how to never have a meeting where He isn't clearly seen.

The ones who meet this way might be referred to as "the assembly" while not assembled but only because they will assemble again.
Ones who no longer assemble could not be referred to as "the assembly," could they?

It's not a club you can join or quit.
It's a living activity.

The incorporeal reality of divinity perceptibly displayed in the gathered redeemed humanity.

Think about that.

Think of the knucklehead atheist professors at the university.

They want to be able to see God before they will believe.
Well, guess what?

That's the plan.

And especially in the early stages ("early" after 2000 years!) it's still somewhat laughable.
But it's not funny.
It's serious and it's real.
Just as real as anything else in the universe.
And they will certainly one day see it.

The builded Body as the One New Man will cast the enemy into the Lake of Fire and remain the manifestation of God in eternity.
And it all started from that one little meeting in Jerusalem where the Lord began building it with Peter and his revelation...

[aron]

I contend that Lee fell into the same error Luther and Wesley had fallen into before him. They all organized.

Lee's other errors (I say this not to judge; we all have numerous faults) would not have ballooned the way they did, and would not have swallowed so many, if he had not been compelled to organize his vision.

To state the same thing from the other side: how can you successfully organize the Spirit? You can't. When you put the 'wind' into a box it is no longer the wind. It's sole purpose is to flow freely...

Thank you YP. Your 'speaking' resonates with me. Being 'local' is a great salvation, and preservation. When we are local, God gets to be universal. God wants to be the One who fills all in all, and He needs your square inch to do so. Do that, leave the rest to Him, and all will be well, I believe.

[countmeworthy]

Great Thread !

I want to make a comment however in response to Aron's thoughts..and that is... PRIDE! What an evil, evil thing that is! So many people who God uses mightily end up with big egos.

It's a two fold problem. God uses people mightily and people begin to drool all over themselves because of what God has shown them through these Evangelists/Preachers/Prophets/Teachers.

I think part of the reason Nee didn't fall under the category as Lee did is because he was in prison much of his adult life.

This problem is epidemic in the church...many, many people are being used by God but have become celebrities themselves.

So as I see it...people 'worship' a great teacher but won't say they are. And the teacher/preacher/prophet/evangelist then succombs to his popularity.

I can't wait for the day when all we see JESUS face to face & to see JESUS in one another.

Be back later to submit more thoughts.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

This problem is epidemic in the church...many, many people are being used by God but have become celebrities themselves.

You can't get to be too big of a celebrity in your own locality alone and any problems usually would be limited to that one place.

Whenever you go bigger than where you are, it's possible to make things up.

Aron's insights about extralocality are very helpful here.

It IS an epidemic in "the church."

[Peter Debelak]

YP:

Excellent post. I have considered the nature of "ekklesia" much as of late. There is such an immediate quality to that word. It was not used as a "group title" or status.

One interesting thing from 1 Cor. 11:18 is “when you come together as a church.” Huh? Are they not “a church” when they don’t come together? It seems that only in Ephesians and Colossians does Paul refer to “ekklesia” in a sense other than “an instantly assembled group.” Why did Paul use this word? He could have used thiasoi (religious clubs) or synagogai (assemblies or synagogues). These words seem to me to more like “titles” or group labels. On the other hand, there is a quality to ekklesia that makes it “instant” and “immediate” – not a “status” or a title. It is, by nature, a description of people coming together.

That said, Paul does seem to use the word "church" in a broader sense on some occasions (I'll post some of these in another post). Words can take on new or broader meanings. The question is, does or should that affect what we perceive ourselves to be "building" - if we are to be "building" in a conscious way at all...?

More food to add to the delicious schmorgesborge (sp?) of thought already here...

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

YP:

Excellent post. I have considered the nature of "ekklesia" much as of late. There is such an immediate quality to that word. It was not used as a "group title" or status.

One interesting thing from 1 Cor. 11:18 is “when you come together as a church.” Huh? Are they not “a church” when they don’t come together? It seems that only in Ephesians and Colossians does Paul refer to “ekklesia” in a sense other than “an instantly assembled group.” Why did Paul use this word? He could have used thiasoi (religious clubs) or synagogai (assemblies or synagogues). These words seem to me to more like “titles” or group labels. On the other hand, there is a quality to ekklesia that makes it “instant” and “immediate” – not a “status” or a title. It is, by nature, a description of people coming together.

That said, Paul does seem to use the word "church" in a broader sense on some occasions (I'll post some of these in another post). Words can take on new or broader meanings. The question is, does or should that affect what we perceive ourselves to be "building" - if we are to be "building" in a conscious way at all...?

More food to add to the delicious schmorgesborge (sp?) of thought already here...

Peter

Well, you aren't going to like this resposne probably but, open your understanding to permit that "ekklesia" just always means "local assembly" and read prayerfully those places where we've always been taught that they are "broader" meanings. Don't assume what Paul meant. Suspend that for a few minutes and see if you aren't touched with something real and solid in its place. There is no place that REQUIRES a "universal aspect" definition.

I tell you, it's our practical assembling that the enemy hates and, as it turns out, it's the universal doctrine which is the best way to prevent it and it has been that way for nearly 2000 years....

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, you aren't going to like this resposne probably but, open your understanding to permit that "ekklesia" just always means "local assembly" and read prayerfully those places where we've always been taught that they are "broader" meanings.

Actually, that's exactly the kind of response I like: one that requires me to go back to the Word and challenge previously unchallenged assumptions.

Another adventure in the Word... I'll get back to you.

Thanks.

Peter

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

You can't get to be too big of a celebrity in your own locality alone and any problems usually would be limited to that one place.

Whenever you go bigger than where you are, it's possible to make things up.

Aron's insights about extralocality are very helpful here.

It IS an epidemic in "the church."

I don't think we're on the same page YP...... I was thinking of the TV evangelists/preachers...not the LC elders.

However.....it seems the LC is gathering around videos during 'meetings'. They are watching and sharing what the BBs are sharing over the big screens.

The 'elders' of each locality seem to be proxies it seems. Don't know for sure.

[djohnson]

I think both ideas: local and universal are somewhat abstract. Practically speaking the church is people. When we build up the church we build up people. Or put another way: we disciple people and help them grow.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Actually, that's exactly the kind of response I like: one that requires me to go back to the Word and challenge previously unchallenged assumptions.

Another adventure in the Word... I'll get back to you.

Thanks.

Peter

well, good!

I've seen this far but I have no idea what comes next.

I think aron said he's been working on the same theme for awhile now.

The interesting thing is that this reading really makes clear that Lee obviously saw something at one point but never really got very clear on it as a result of this very issue.

In other words, he saw the "local church" but his failure to divest of the "universal church" meant that most of the stuff got all jumbled up.

Check this one out, for instance:
In "Practical Expression of the Church" (itself a problematic statement!) Lee says that the Body of Christ is the expression of the (universal) "Church."
The thing is, and I think we all pretty much know this already, the local assembly is the real expression of the Body. But Lee gets this exactly upside down because he has to give a place for the "Universal Church" in his ecclesiological system.

The key is to realize that the verse reads "the assembly, which is His Body" but that doesn't mean that His body IS the (universal) Church. When you touch the assembly, you touch the Body. Clearly, no argument there. But you'll never see the entire universal Body and the only way to get a universal "assembly" equivalent is to invent one. Problem is, \ekklesia\ basically means "town hall meeting" and it's just nonsensical to try to discuss an international town hall meeting.

[Peter Debelak]

I was working on a compilation and analysis of several mentions of "church" thorought Acts and the Epistles, but realized that perhaps its too much to chew at once. Instead, for now, I'll take a look at a dichotomy Watchman Nee drew, based on his understanding of the "universal Body" versus the "local assemblies." Here is Nee's distinction between "gifts to the whole church" versus "gifts to the local church." From Assembly Life (beginning on page 47):

“Every believer has at least one talent. There is no slave who does not have any gift. First Corinthians 12 says that to one is given one kind of gift and to another is given another kind of gift. Therefore, everyone has a gift. Every regenerated person has a gift. But not everyone has the same kind of gift. According to Ephesians 4, there are only five kinds of gifts that build up the whole church. But as to the gifts that are for the growth of the local church, we have those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. Not every believer has the gifts of Ephesians 4, but they may have one of the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12.”

…

“Ephesians 4 refers to people, while 1 Corinthians 12 referes to things. Ephesians 4 says God gives some apostles, prophets, evangelishts, and shepherds and teachers; these are five kinds of people. First Corinthians 12 says that God gives some the ability to prophesy or speak in tongues. Paul was a gift given by God to the church; he was an apostle. But Paul also had other gifts, such as prophesying, speaking in tongues and healing.

To my observation, Brother Chi Yung-tung looks very much like a pastor. Let me take him as an example. God has given a gift to the church in Soo-chia-tsui, which is Chi Yung-tung. The whole church in Soo-chia-tsui should then receive brother Chi as a gift given to them by God. At the same time, Brother Chi has the pastoral gift. His gift is the gift of a pastor. If anyone asks what gift Paul had, we would answer that he had the gift of an apostle. But if anyone asks what gift God has given to the church, we would answer, “The apostle Paul.” All five kinds of people in Ephesians 4 are gifts given by God to the church and they are for the whole church. First Corinthians 12 mentions the various gifts that God gives to individual believers; the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 are for the local churches. Paul was a gift given by God to the church for the purpose of building up the whole church. Therefore, the gift which was released through Paul has benefited men of all times and places; his work did not pass away; it remains even until today.”

I glean that Nee is saying, the people, who are gifts given by God, in Ephesians 4 are gifts to the whole Body of Christ – while the “things” (such as prophesy) are gifts given by God to individuals for the local assembly. Is this right?

I just don’t see that dichotomy (between the “whole church” versus the “local church” in these passages). In 1 Corinthians 12, it says

“But the one and the same Spirit operates in all these things [the gifts mentioned], distributing to each one individual as He purposes. For even as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of the body being many are one body, so also is the Christ.” (vv. 11-12).

From this, it seems that the gifts given to each member are for the whole body.

Similarly, in Ephesians 4, it is not obvious that only a select few are given as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, sheherds or teachers” to the whole church. In face, verse 7 says

“But to each one of us was given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Sure, it could be said that the gifts in verse 11 are different and a specific subset whose specific purpose is “for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the Body of Christ” – but later in the chapter Paul says that “Out from whom all the Body, fitted and knit together through every joint of the supply, according to the operation in measureof each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.” As such, each one part does the work of “building up the Body” and thus “each one part” is parallel to to the work of the gifted ones in verse 11 whose work is “unto the building up of the Body of Christ.”

What do you all think? First, does Nee's distinction hold up? Second, even if it doesn't - are these gifts for the "whole Body of Christ"? If so, is that the same as being for the "whole church universal"? If not, why not? I have a hard time reading the "Body" references here as being purely local. That doesn't mean individual members must concern themselves with anything more than "the Body" as expressed in their local assemby, but the verses still seem to refer to a larger entity, no?

Peter

P.S. YP, I anticipate that you will say, yes - there is a difference between saying "universal Body" versus "universal church." You made this point in your first post. However, I guess I don't see the distinction. Is it because "church" is something that is "built" and thus to think we must "build" the "universal church" causes us to focus on something God never intended -whereas the "Body" is organic and therefore, if you "grow" the local assembly, the "universal Body" is necessarily increased? If so, I get the distinction. But I just wonder if its a distinction without a difference. Cf. Ephesians 2:19-22 where it seems Paul is discussion the universal entity which is "build" - including "God's household," a "holy temple," and a "dwelling". Though I do note that "to build" in these passages is always passive... (sorry, too many thoughts jammed into a small space - I'll unpack it later...).

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. YP, I anticipate that you will say, yes - there is a difference between saying "universal Body" versus "universal church." You made this point in your first post. However, I guess I don't see the distinction. Is it because "church" is something that is "built" and thus to think we must "build" the "universal church" causes us to focus on something God never intended -whereas the "Body" is organic and therefore, if you "grow" the local assembly, the "universal Body" is necessarily increased? If so, I get the distinction. But I just wonder if its a distinction without a difference. Cf. Ephesians 2:19-22 where it seems Paul is discussion the universal entity which is "build" - including "God's household," a "holy temple," and a "dwelling". Though I do note that "to build" in these passages is always passive... (sorry, too many thoughts jammed into a small space - I'll unpack it later...).

And I'll hopefully have time to address your other comments later.

The Ephesians 2:21-22 are excellent because they actually draw the distinction between the universal and the local without using either "Body" or "assembly."

I hear you on the "distinction without a difference" analysis but that is exactly what I'm trying to overcome here.

If there truly is no Biblical foundation for "universal church", and you surely have to agree that at least the fundamental and clearest denotation of the term "ekklesia" *is* the local, I'd challenge you as to why you think the distinction doesn't make any difference. Try this: make a study of WHY we have come to associate the concepts of "universal church" and "Body" with such ease and notice the surprising lack of scriprtual basis for the equation.

What I'm testifying to you is that it makes a huge difference because to read "church" and EVER think "universal" guts the very meaning of the passage by superimposition of a foreign concept.

God's heart's desire in the \ekklesia\ is on account of His ability to MANIFEST there. He needs this practical gathering to be glorified in the saints and to the universe. The Body, while real and universal, is ONLY ever seen through the practicality in the \ekklesia\.

By "spiritializing" away the term "church" in any place as "universal church" there become passages of Scripture dealing with the practical local assembly which are NEVER made practical. That lack of practicality, in turn, hinders God's ability to be MANIFEST in the assembly.

Pray over Ephesains 2:21-22 regarding what I'm saying and see if you don't see what I'm talking about there and there may be an opening for you to see that same issue is going on in the rest of the book. The local is contrasted with the universal, or more precisely, the assembly is displayed as the practical expression of the Body. But the universal is BODY not CHURCH. If you say universal is CHURCH, then those instances of CHURCH are never local and you have done damage to the verse that just ever just said "assembly" in the first place.

If we stick to Body for universal and assembly for local, we're going to do fine. But the first time you transform "assembly" into "universal church" you have already subconsciously nullified your own ability to understand the real importance of the local manifestation of Christ in the Body as revealed in the scriptures.

The REASON the \ekklesia\ is the house of the Living God is because when we meet together (without all the hindering things,) HE Himself is manifest among us in glory! If you think the house of the Living God is the "universal church" you'll NEVER see that manifest because you're distracted by an unscriptural notion that descended from perhaps the earliest error of the Body.

Confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness, but we speak with regard to Christ and the assembly, my brother...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

And I'll hopefully have time to address your other comments later...

I will spend some time considering what you've posted, but as I read, one thing occurred to me. The "church," it seems to me is the only word for God's corporate expression which isn't a metaphor. The metaphors lend thesemves to "universals". The church, however - well, tt just is what it is - the ekklesia. The 'body', the 'house', the 'temple', the 'dwelling', the 'one new man' - all of these, though real, are metaphors. The 'church', however, is a concept that means just what it is - the gathering of believers.

No conclusions here, just a thought that occurred to me as I read your post.

I'll get back to you after some more time in Ephesians, among other passages...

Grace to you,

Peter

[Old Rasputin]

There is such an immediate quality to that word.

I'm no Greek scholar, but the Greek text for Acts 19 verses 39 and 40 is fascinating. Ekklesia is used to refer to formal courts of law as well as an impromptu mob. Verse 40 is certainly a good example of the immediacy Peter senses.

Personally, I have no problem with considerations of a universal church, but that is the realm of the abstract rather than the practical. That is to say, we shouldn't try to do or be or act as the universal church; we should just recognize that it is there and that God is doing something bigger than our own little assembly.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I will spend some time considering what you've posted, but as I read, one thing occurred to me. The "church," it seems to me is the only word for God's corporate expression which isn't a metaphor. The metaphors lend thesemves to "universals". The church, however - well, tt just is what it is - the ekklesia. The 'body', the 'house', the 'temple', the 'dwelling', the 'one new man' - all of these, though real, are metaphors. The 'church', however, is a concept that means just what it is - the gathering of believers.

No conclusions here, just a thought that occurred to me as I read your post.

I'll get back to you after some more time in Ephesians, among other passages...

Grace to you,

Peter

I'm not sure those terms are properly called metaphors in this context.
The place where God abides is His abode and synonyms aren't much of a problem, at least, to be considered literal rather than metaphorical. He dwells in His dwelling, He is housed in His house, and being that He is God, He is worshiped in His temple. Certainly a temple could be an ediface but mostly it is the place to worship. And I'm sure could say more because He is embodied in His Body, isn't he?

I follow your thought but I'm not sure it's a useful distinction at the end of the day to say these terms are metaphors and assembly is not. Yet there is clearly something qualitatively different about those more abstract terms and the concrete term "assembly," which is just us assembled unto Him, that I think both you and I are trying to key in on here.

I'm going to sleep on it and see if I can point more clearly to the distinction I think you've identified in the morning.

Thank you for sharing your thought on this!

Like I said, I don't know what comes next....

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I glean that Nee is saying, the people, who are gifts given by God, in Ephesians 4 are gifts to the whole Body of Christ – while the “things” (such as prophesy) are gifts given by God to individuals for the local assembly. Is this right?

I just don’t see that dichotomy (between the “whole church” versus the “local church” in these passages). In 1 Corinthians 12, it says

“But the one and the same Spirit operates in all these things [the gifts mentioned], distributing to each one individual as He purposes. For even as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of the body being many are one body, so also is the Christ.” (vv. 11-12).

From this, it seems that the gifts given to each member are for the whole body.

Similarly, in Ephesians 4, it is not obvious that only a select few are given as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds or teachers” to the whole church. In face, verse 7 says

“But to each one of us was given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Sure, it could be said that the gifts in verse 11 are different and a specific subset whose specific purpose is “for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the Body of Christ” – but later in the chapter Paul says that “Out from whom all the Body, fitted and knit together through every joint of the supply, according to the operation in measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.” As such, each one part does the work of “building up the Body” and thus “each one part” is parallel to to the work of the gifted ones in verse 11 whose work is “unto the building up of the Body of Christ.”

I think I get what you're saying and it's more or less a corollary to what I'm suggesting. The accurate translation of \ekklesia\ I think will yield additional light on this and related topics. The only way you get to a use of "assembly" in an allegedly universal aspect is to ignore the practical impact of all of these gifts and create an abstraction where none exists. The abstract idealism in turn becomes merely the foundation for darkness, degradation and denominationalism. Loosely dealing with the translation is not criminal but it makes understanding these other things much more difficult. Local assembly and universal Body.

The local assembly is the universal Body, as the Scripture states plainly, because the universal Body needs to have a real presence on the earth somewhere. But the simple inverse isn't the case because the universal Body includes all the believers everywhere and the local assembly is only these believers here. Yet, the local assembly is of far greater real consequence because God is not manifested everywhere; God is manifested HERE. And with reference to your observation, the gifts touch the local assemblies. They have no impact upon the Body except therein.

So, I don't think Nee's analysis holds up very well under close inspection and essentially for the very reason I'm continually suggesting at the moment - the "universal church" concept clouded his ability to perceive what it seems you locked onto immediately. I mean, surely he knew these surrounding verses as well, right? How could he miss that?

I feel there is a lot of fresh light like this just under this ancient veil...

[aron]

I think brother YP may be on to something here. Consider Ephesians chapter one. The well known phrase, "And He subjected all things under His feet and gave Him to be head over all things to the / assembly /, which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all."

Now, according to our concept, this must be the 'universal church', right? Only the universal church could match the word "Body". But the gathering, the assembly of the believers is the Body. Not in it's entirety, of course, but the gathering is our part of the Body.

God is universal. We are in time and space. We meet one another, receive one another, encourage and strengthen one another, in time and space. When we attempt to step into the 'universal' aspect of God's Body, we depart from the realm of our purview and the results, as we have seen time and again, are not so good.

If I take care of my cubic centimeter of space in my moment of time, God can take care of the "...fills all in all" part. We come together and get filled together. God has given us His Spirit. We come together, assemble, like little children trading baseball cards (I guess today it's Pokemon or some such) and 'trade' our spirits with one another. God is well equipped to deal with the universal aspect, the eternal aspect. If we take care of the 'here and now' part, God will have full rein to deal with the universal aspect.

Consider Philip and the Ethiopian, meeting on the road. Philip traded a bit of his experience into the willing and open vessel. They both rejoiced. They both went on their separate ways. Philip didn't charge him to contact headquarters every 3 months. Philip went off to another meeting somewhere else, and you know what? So did the Ethiopian. There is today a christian community in Ethiopia, an island in the Muslim sea, which traces their lineage back to those ancient days. The children have to learn to read the Psalms before they can start school. That is their 'entrance exam' to start schooling. The Lord was fully capable of going on with the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian wasn't under the line of Paul, LSM's version of the 'minister of the age', but I daresay he did just fine. God is in control.

Peace to all and thank you for letting me share. aron

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I will spend some time considering what you've posted, but as I read, one thing occurred to me. The "church," it seems to me is the only word for God's corporate expression which isn't a metaphor. The metaphors lend thesemves to "universals". The church, however - well, tt just is what it is - the ekklesia. The 'body', the 'house', the 'temple', the 'dwelling', the 'one new man' - all of these, though real, are metaphors. The 'church', however, is a concept that means just what it is - the gathering of believers.

No conclusions here, just a thought that occurred to me as I read your post.

I'll get back to you after some more time in Ephesians, among other passages...

Grace to you,

Peter

Sleep is a good thing and I wish I got more of it.

The distinction is corporeal vs. incorporeal, tangible vs. intangible, or if I might employ my own metaphor, real estate vs. intellectual property, which I think makes an interesting and well-textured comparison.

I was thinking the other day about the McDonald's Corporation when my attention was focused on Acts 9:31. The verse is interesting because it is basically impossible for us to know no whether the

You cannot get a burger at the McDonald's Corporation, i.e. the universal body of McDonald's. If you want a burger, you need to go to your local restaruant. There is no such thing as a universal retaurant and the very concept is kind of bizarre.

The burger they serve in every locality is the same as the one in the very first restaurant. The one restaurant at the very beginning has spread and become the many restaurants all around the world. Still it remains that there is no universal restaruant because the only way for the McDonald's corporation to manifest a burger is in a particular place.

There is of course no problem whatsoever with a universal Body, for that is what it truly is without dispute. I only take issue to confounding this matter with the assembly.

The assembly is the only way for you to touch the Body. To speculate about a universal assembly only impedes our ability to even see and much less touch and display the reality of the the assembly in Christ.

Praise the Lord!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

I'm no Greek scholar, but the Greek text for Acts 19 verses 39 and 40 is fascinating. Ekklesia is used to refer to formal courts of law as well as an impromptu mob.

Rasputin, then could we say that those naughty ones in Columbus and Mansfield, who disrupted meetings and became nearly an unruly impromptu mob to the point of calling 911, were just a local "ekklesia" in the truest sense of the word?

Very interesting!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rasputin, then could we say that those naughty ones in Columbus and Mansfield, who disrupted meetings and became nearly an unruly impromptu mob to the point of calling 911, were just a local "ekklesia" in the truest sense of the word?

Very interesting!

Ohio:

The nearest concept to \ekklesia\ that we have in ordinary American English is "town hall meeting." (The assemblies of the believers are different, of course, but this is the starting point of the definition.)

I don't know about politics in your part of the world but those assemblies are likely to descend into unruliness at times because of all the different opinions.

We shouldn't just hide the different opinions (old way) or try to "blend" them away somehow (new way). We need to go on together in Him in brotherly love despite the differing opinions and earnestly exercise to remain in the true oneness, i.e. being dilligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.

For some reason, this scene reminds me of the relationships in the village in Fiddler on the Roof. The whole town could be tossed into an uproar by a single statement yet they always remained tightly bound together as a community by their common heritage.

I would suggest that among the assemblies of the Lord Jesus, we don't have a tradition of either behaving so as to require involvement of the secular authority nor of usurping the Lord's Headship by involving it when not required. Either seems fairly obviously to be more fleshly than ought to ever be displayed in the meetings!

But I wasn't there that day so I don't really know what happened.

[YP0534]

Can anyone direct me to the verses that show that the believers who die in Christ remain in the "universal Church"?

While you're at it, let's gather those that identify them as remaining the the Body as well.

Thanks.

This morning's light is that the problems with the "universal aspect" are not only in terms of locality but also in terms of temporality.

The assembly exists in space and time.

The "universal aspect" is divorced from both.

[Shawn]

Hey YP!

I hope you and your family are well, I am thankful for the little correspondance we had a short while ago!

In my understanding, the universal church has little impact on us, but it is how our God and Father views the church, eternal over time and space; a place we are not at yet. For us, till we are with Him in glory our practical experience of the church is local; with whatever brothers and sisters the Lord has placed beside us in our community.

There has been a recent teaching however that blurrs this distinction, that states the local aspect of the church is only a procedure; the universal church (ie. the body of Christ) is the real goal.

It is this teaching that has spawned the great division that is being witnessed among the "local churches" today, in rejecting the local aspect of the church as merely the procedure and emphasizing the universal aspect of the universal body of Christ being the final authority; as long as you remain in "the feeling of the body," as declared by the responsible brothers who believe they are God's deputy authority.

The practice of the universal church should be left in the capable hands of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Who intercedes for her and longs to be with her as His bride; our attempts to practice the universal church usurps the One who truly is in control of her destiny and by His grace will perfect her without spot or blemish, at the coming of our lord and Saviour Jesus!

Grace to All!

FF oppps, I mean Shawn!

[YP0534]

Thanks, Shawn!
Praise the Lord for the recovery of the reality of the local assembly!

I would only ask, concerning your belief that the "universal church" is something that our Father views, where did this teaching come from?

I do not think this is in the Bible, is it?

That's my point. There is a Body and there is a Temple and there is a City. But there isn't a "Church".

However, you are clearly on target with a view of "universal" supplanting "local" and turning everything on its head.

This is why this teaching of "universal" is such a problem - this is what it will always lead to...

[Ohio]

YP, this has been a sore spot for me for many years. When I read I Cor. all the "body" talk is member-to-member, not church-to-church. It is NOT the universal ageless "thing" LSM teaches -- for entirely self-serving motives I might add.

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

[YP0534]

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

But, Ohio.

LSM isn't the only group who teaches universal and ageless.

I thought you said you used to be RCC?

[Ohio]

Yes I was, but I don't understand your point.

My comments were supporting yours.

[YP0534]

I followed you.

I'm just pointing out that problem isn't at all unique to LSM and the LC....

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... could we say that those naughty ones in Columbus and Mansfield, who disrupted meetings and became nearly an unruly impromptu mob to the point of calling 911, were just a local "ekklesia" in the truest sense of the word?

Anyone who breaks up the meetings of the saints are not the "ekklesia", that's for sure. I mean, the "ekklesia" is the meeting, right?

I am assuming Ohio's remark is some kind of double entnendre. But a mob ain't a meeting! Think of the Jews shouting and throwing dust up in the air when Paul was trying to make his defence.

A meeting is impromptu, and immediate, but it has a beginning, a structure, and an end. Something is being discovered, uncovered by mutual group exploration. Everyone gets to uncover a piece of it. And at the end, everyone leaves with something new.

In a riot, nobody gets to talk, to discuss, to explore, to learn. Somebody is afraid of change and they get hysterical and whip everybody else into a larger version of thier disease.

I imagine Ohio is more or less onto all of this, but some of our readers may not get his sense of humor, so I want to cover him here from the charge of sedition.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The body is not composed of "many LC's," but many "local members." A great argument could be made for equating the body of Christ with the local assembly.

Sleep is a great thing.
I always see more clearly after sleeping on it.

Thank you!

In other words, Ohio, you're suggesting that there's no "universal Body" either?

Interesting to say the least!

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

What I have realized in this discussion, but hadn't stated yet, is that the reason the assembly is the Body of Christ is because the body is the substantial and tangible part of the person.

What you suggest here is that the Body is the same thing.

It sounds like a tautology but it isn't:
The Body of Christ is the body of Christ.
In other words, the Body of Christ is Christ's physical presence.

I think this might really be so, Ohio!
And I haven't even gotten my being around "assembly" yet!

Praise the Lord!

But if "church" just means "assembly" and "Body" just means "the physical part of a person," where did this "Universal Church" thing even come from???

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

There is a verse that says the body is composed of many members. See Romans 12:4-5. (not churches)

The Gk word which is translated as "assembly" or "church" simply means "called out." I think that we, over time and through tradition, have come to attribute a much more complex meaning to this word. The Bible says he "called us out" of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9), out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of the son of His love.

This whole problem had been solved for me by this simple understanding. Whenever and wherever the called out gather in his name that is a gathering of the called out. If every called out one that has ever been called out, past present and future could gather that would be a universal gathering of the called out.

I think the whole thing is much simpler than we have made it. I wonder who is behind that?

Thankful Jane

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Thanks, Shawn!
Praise the Lord for the recovery of the reality of the local assembly!

I would only ask, concerning your belief that the "universal church" is something that our Father views, where did this teaching come from?

I do not think this is in the Bible, is it?

That's my point. There is a Body and there is a Temple and there is a City. But there isn't a "Church".

However, you are clearly on target with a view of "universal" supplanting "local" and turning everything on its head.

This is why this teaching of "universal" is such a problem - this is what it will always lead to...

Hey YP,

The verse that jumps out to me is in Matthew where the Lord Jesus declared, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

This verse is according to Jesus, as God, declaring something that has not come into being yet, but from His perspective, has existed from before the foundation of the world. It is from such a verse and others where Gods perspective is seen (like Ephesians chapter 5), that the universal church, as compared to the local church, is seen.

Sorry got to run to fellowship this morning!

in His love,

Shawn

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I am assuming Ohio's remark is some kind of double entnendre. But a mob ain't a meeting! Think of the Jews shouting and throwing dust up in the air when Paul was trying to make his defense. I imagine Ohio is more or less onto all of this, but some of our readers may not get his sense of humor, so I want to cover him here from the charge of sedition.

Hey Aron, Double entnendre? Duhhh! Help me out here Speaker! What he say? Not even ol' Merriam-Webster has heard that one!

But ... yes ... duhhh ... mine was a sarcastic comment about justifying bad behavior in Ohio churches as genuine "ekklesia" after reading Old Rasputin's comment about an "impromptu mob." I found his comments just too tasty to pass up.

I suppose if I had more smiley faces available at the time, it would have been "clear." :rollingeyes2:


OK, OK not all my bad. You "mispelt" it. Double entendre is figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. -- Wikipedia.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hey YP,

The verse that jumps out to me is in Matthew where the Lord Jesus declared, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

This verse is according to Jesus, as God, declaring something that has not come into being yet, but from His perspective, has existed from before the foundation of the world. It is from such a verse and others where Gods perspective is seen (like Ephesians chapter 5), that the universal church, as compared to the local church, is seen.

Sorry got to run to fellowship this morning!

in His love,

Shawn

I'm sorry.

I don't see what you are saying supported by the verse you have cited at all.

The verse says "I will build My assembly" but this does not show that the "Universal Church" is something that our Father views, which is what I asked about.

Likewise, I am, of course, aware of all the Ephesians verses, but I do not know of one that says that the "Universal Church" is something that our Father views.

I think you need to slow down and really look at the verses and not just rely upon all the teachings. My point is that the verses don't actually support the teachings we've all heard about.

This is my goal.
To know the truth of the Bible and not the teachigns.

I'm glad you are fellowshipping with me in it!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But ... yes ... duhhh ... mine was a sarcastic comment about justifying bad behavior in Ohio churches as genuine "ekklesia" after reading Old Rasputin's comment about an "impromptu mob." I found his comments just too tasty to pass up.

I suppose if I had more smiley faces available at the time, it would have been "clear." :rollingeyes2:

I guess I needed the smiley also.

Now I get it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey Aron, Double entnendre? Duhhh! Help me out here Speaker! What he say? Not even ol' Merriam-Webster has heard that one!

But ... yes ... duhhh ... mine was a sarcastic comment about justifying bad behavior in Ohio churches as genuine "ekklesia" after reading Old Rasputin's comment about an "impromptu mob." I found his comments just too tasty to pass up.


OK, OK not all my bad. You "mispelt" it. Double entendre is figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. -- Wikipedia.

Yes, it seemed as if Ohio was saying that mobs and riots and such, as 'impromptu, immediate gatherings' can fall under the 'assembly' category and thus, somehow fulfil God's (not Satan's) purpose. But my point was that the unruly crowd are actually frustrating a peaceable assembly of seekers, and are 'anti-ekklesia'.

All of which seems fairly obvious, anyway. And humor is useful by creating some tension in the hearer, or reader, which is resolved when they solve the apparent paradox, or contradiction, and "get it" and have their little smiley face moment. I guess I was worried that someone without your sense of humor would take you at face value.

That was probably a bad (inappropriate) use of the phrase "double entendre". I like trying out new things when I speak and write, because it seems that we have to be willing do do things wrong (speak, write, walk, think, chew, play a saxaphone, ride a bicycle) for a while in order to do it right. I'm often not a careful writer; instead of writing and editing I will write and then go back later and try to explain what I was trying to say...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

In other words, Ohio, you're suggesting that there's no "universal Body" either? Interesting to say the least!

Can anyone suggest a verse that shows that the Body is composed of the many assemblies or is this also another fallen concept of catholicity?

YP, I am not sure at this point, but you have me thinking!

I can say for sure, that the majority of scripture indicates that the body is many members, and the body is the local assembly, mainly from 1 Cor.

The thought of the universal church comes from vv. like Mt 16, "I will build My church" and Eph 1:23, "To the church, His body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all.

YP, I encourage you to flush this one out. Take your "hunch" to the word of God. Such searching reaps great rewards and the best understanding of scripture. Let's look at what the Bible says about this. I now question much of what I used to be convinced I knew.

As a corollary to your thought. Can we possibly have "many churches, but one body" without some fallen human oversight? Call them RCC monseigneurs, bishops, cardinals, and popes or LSM FT'ers, co-workers, BB's, and oracles -- what's the difference?

But if we have "many members, but one body," then we have a local assembly, with elders and deacons, now that I have seen in my Bible!

[aron]

There are a couple of interesting examples of what I call "extra-locality" in the New Testament. By extra-locality I mean an extra-local activity, an activity in which one assembly tries to influence the gathering of believers elsewhere. God has moved them to follow the Spirit and collectively acknowledge Christ, God has moved another group of believers elswhere to do the same, and now the first group attempts to influence the second. The first group are not content with the 'local' aspect of their fellowship, and attempt the 'extra-local' activity, the ongoing practice of which I would term "extra-locality."

The first example I was looking at was in Acts chapter 15. Some went from Jerusalem to Antioch and tried to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised. This caused some dissension there and eventually a meeting was convened in Jerusalem, the result of which was a message sent out to Antioch saying, "Congratulations. God has favored you with precious faith. We receive you as our own. Those who came out from us and troubled you with rules and regulations; pay them no heed. Merely abstain from sin and go on in the faith."

I will cite my second example and make my comments after. My second example is in Galatians chapter 2. In Antioch, "some came from James" and caused the Jews, most notably Peter, to shrink back from fellowship with the Gentiles. Paul accused Peter of being able to live like the Gentiles (apart from the law) but requiring the Gentiles to live like the Jews (keeping the law).

Apart from Jewish customs, traditions, statutes and ordinances being terminated on the cross, I see something else here, which echoes Acts 15. I see people in locality A trying to get people in locality B to live, and worship God, in a certain way. Paul says pointedly, "some came from James". These people didn't just wander in. They came in with purpose, to get someone else to do something (keep the law) that they were not presently doing.

Lee says something interesting in one of his footnotes here. He says it's okay for Headquarters to boss around the hinterlands, but what they were trying to get them to do (keep the law) was wrong. I disagree; I say that the area A trying to become headquarters and boss around area B was wrong on its face. It doesn't matter if you are trying to get others to be circumcised, or go along with what you call "God's New Move on the Earth Today", or some such grandiose title. You may be in a bigger city, you may have gotten the blessing of God's promise first (God does, after all, work sequentially in time and space in His move on earth), but all you can do is receive and encourage others. Apart from the few essentials (i.e. avoid sin), admirably spelled out in the message to the assembly in Antioch in Acts 15:23-29, we have no purview on other believers in their living and worship of God.

This is where my comment on the "Dying God" I prefaced in the title comes in. When we move outside of our assigned territory and into the 'universal' aspect of God's person, it is as if we think that the God who created heaven and earth and sent His Son to save us all is now faltering and needs our rescuing hand. Thus far God has done all, but now His hand is weakened and it is our turn. No. God is quite capable of saving people over there in Antioch just as he did here in Jerusalem.

In fact, if the people in Jerusalem had looked in the mirror instead of meddling with the affairs of others, they might have noticed that they had tacked on a bunch of extraneous, irrelevant, and distracting things to the process of 'salvation'. They had their own 'beam in the eye' to work on at home. Leave the neighbor's affairs alone

In John chapter 10 Jesus said that He had the power to lay His life down, and the power to raise it up again. We who have faith have seen that this is reality; we know that it is so. Our testimony is an affirmation of Jesus' claim there in John 10. He is the Dying God, but He is also the God who lives forever. He is Eternal Life. We should not tempt Him by doubting His capacity to move in the lives of others. If we meddle we show that this is in fact the case. We doubt the power of God and we interject our own version of "how things are supposed to be." It doesn't matter that we have good intentions, that we dress it up with titles and embellish it with scriptural verses.

God has given you a portion; and He has likewise favored your neighbor with a portion of the faith, equally precious. If you take care of the God who is now burning brightly within you, beyond dark death forever, God can likewise take care of that other person. Don't impose your version of "God's move" on them. Look at Acts 15 and Galatians 2 as cautionary examples of that.

It may seem that this post doesn't belong on this thread, but I think it does. Each local assembly is equally precious to God. God has favored you with faith, and gathered you together with your fellows. Rejoice! But if you try to run other assemblies from afar, you have lost sight of your portion, and risk stumbling others by imposing your errors on them. You say you believe but seem to have lost sight of your faith.

p.s. I made an error in my comment about Lee's footnote in Acts 15, verse 2, footnote 2. He does not say that Jerusalem was the headquarters. Please see my post #42 for clarification. Sorry about that.

[djohnson]

YP call me ignorant but I don't see the overriding concern of this issue. Clearly in the NT there was no such thing as a "universal church" in terms of administration, organization, etc. The RC and LCS ideas regarding this are simply ludicrous. And frankly I don't think anyone really considered Jerusalem as the HQ. They were the source of some turmoil and so Paul went there to address the issue at the source. The idea of a HQ came after the apostles died with the advent of Rome as the organizational and judicial and theological center for all Christians. And the main reason it occurred was to "preserve the truth" i.e. many heresies arose in the early church and local leaders were often not equipped to handle their spread so they appealed to a center where the seat of truth was so to speak. This center grew in influence and power. Does any of this sound familiar?

I am all in favor of the local assembly answering directly to God however with the added caveat the when the assembly leaders start to lead the flock astray or down a path I in good conscience cannot take then I can freely walk across the street and assemble with other Christians.

[YP0534]

There is a "universal body".
"one Body, one Spirit, as also you were called"

it took me awhile but there you go

but clearly, there is no verse that says "one church"....

[YP0534]

My overriding concern with this issue, and feel free to ignore my stammering musings, but I'm awakening to how important the local assembly is in God's heart for manifesting Himself to the universe through the gathered believers and simultaneously how distracting the seemingly good notion of a spiritual "universal church" can be in stealing the meaning out of the verses, such as in Ephesians, where we get to know exactly how precious God's manifestation is to Him.

In other words, when we relegate the "universal aspect" verses to some theoretical other place and time, God's real purpose in a practical manifestation among the believers is hidden over and clouded by religious notions.

The first salvation to me was to reject the translation of \ekklesia\ as "church" for "assembly," as brother Darby did in His translation. (By the way, I now have it on good authority that "church" was selected for the RcV at least in part as a way to be distinguished from The Plymouth Brethren!) The second salvation to me was to reject that there was ever intended by any New Testament writer a "universal aspect" called "The Church" and that this is just a distraction from what happens with us here in our localities when we assemble together as God's called-out ones in our Christian meetings in oneness.

So, I'd say I'm publicly marvelling at the multifarious wisdom of God.

I realize I may never actually get over it but I do suspect that I'll move on from the topic eventually.

Please be patient.
God isn't finished with me yet!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

My second example is in Galatians chapter 2. In Antioch, "some came from James" and caused the Jews, most notably Peter, to shrink back from fellowship with the Gentiles. Paul accused Peter of being able to live like the Gentiles (apart from the law) but requiring the Gentiles to live like the Jews (keeping the law).

Apart from Jewish customs, traditions, statutes and ordinances being terminated on the cross, I see something else here, which echoes Acts 15. I see people in locality A trying to get people in locality B to live, and worship God, in a certain way. Paul says pointedly, "some came from James". These people didn't just wander in. They came in with purpose, to get someone else to do something (keep the law) that they were not presently doing.

Lee says something interesting in one of his footnotes here. He says it's okay for Headquarters to boss around the hinterlands, but what they were trying to get them to do (keep the law) was wrong. I disagree; I say that the area A trying to become headquarters and boss around area B was wrong on its face. It doesn't matter if you are trying to get others to be circumcised, or go along with what you call "God's New Move on the Earth Today", or some such grandiose title. You may be in a bigger city, you may have gotten the blessing of God's promise first (God does, after all, work sequentially in time and space in His move on earth), but all you can do is receive and encourage others. Apart from the few essentials (i.e. avoid sin), admirably spelled out in the message to the assembly in Antioch in Acts 15:23-29, we have no purview on other believers in their living and worship of God.

Please cite Lee's note specifically, aron.
I'm not seeing it.

I don't disbelieve you.
I just want to see it for myself in proper context.

I agree with your review, although I think you're too generous about what came out of the synod.

But, I'm not grinding an axe against Jerusalem here, either.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Please cite Lee's note specifically, aron.
I'm not seeing it.

I don't disbelieve you.
I just want to see it for myself in proper context.

I'm not grinding an axe against Jerusalem here, either.

I made a mistake; I hastily and erroneously misread the negative in Acts chapter 15, verse 2, footnote 2: "It was not because Jerusalem was the headquarters of God's move...etc" I read that as "Jerusalem was the headquarters, but their directive through the Judaizers in Antioch was in error and thus was not right, etc". But the footnote really meant that Jerusalem was not the headquarters; the conference was held there because the Judaizers came from there. Thank you for the question, and I apologize to all. I will amend the other post with a 'postscript' stating the error.

I do have an axe to grind against Jerusalem; the same axe I have against Rome and Anaheim. It is the axe the Lord has laid against the root of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that sets man over one another.

If Jerusalem was not trying to be the headquarters, why are they sending out people and not vice versa? Same with Rome, and now Anaheim. You don't see any saints from Peoria or Kankakee Illinois going to Anaheim and training them in the "New Way". Anaheim sends the emissaries; Anaheim is in control of the other assemblies, pure and simple. Same as Rome, and to a lesser degree, Jerusalem before that.

The assembly in Jerusalem was 'franchising' Jerusalem, with all its errors. They were 'universalizing' their local assembly, and going beyond God's sovereign allowance. This presaged Rome, and later, Anaheim.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by YP0534

My overriding concern with this issue, and feel free to ignore my stammering musings, but I'm awakening to how important the local assembly is in God's heart for manifesting Himself to the universe through the gathered believers and simultaneously how distracting the seemingly good notion of a spiritual "universal church" can be in stealing the meaning out of the verses, such as in Ephesians, where we get to know exactly how precious God's manifestation is to Him.

In other words, when we relegate the "universal aspect" verses to some theoretical other place and time, God's real purpose in a practical manifestation among the believers is hidden over and clouded by religious notions.

The first salvation to me was to reject the translation of \ekklesia\ as "church" for "assembly," as brother Darby did in His translation. (By the way, I now have it on good authority that "church" was selected for the RcV at least in part as a way to be distinguished from The Plymouth Brethren!) The second salvation to me was to reject that there was ever intended by any New Testament writer a "universal aspect" called "The Church" and that this is just a distraction from what happens with us here in our localities when we assemble together as God's called-out ones in our Christian meetings in oneness.

So, I'd say I'm publicly marvelling at the multifarious wisdom of God.

I realize I may never actually get over it but I do suspect that I'll move on from the topic eventually.

Please be patient.
God isn't finished with me yet!

The view that God has of His church is is is.... awesome!

He sees the beauty of each believer in each century, in each nation and of every race, tribe and gender perfect and perfected in His grace!

What He sees, we are building in our assemblies.

What He sees is universal, beautiful and complete; What we see is local, still a work in progress and sometimes discouraging.

But we build in faith; knowing that our Saviour God sees the completed building and that He is perfecting us into that wonderful building!

The universal church takes nothing away from the local aspect; it is just two views of the same thing; one view from our communities, the other from the third heavens, outside of time and from His throne!

Shawn

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Shawn

The universal church takes nothing away from the local aspect; it is just two views of the same thing; one view from our communities, the other from the third heavens, outside of time and from His throne!

I just continue to disagree. (gruesome deadhorse smiley goes here)

The doctrine of "universal church" is illogical, impractical and unscriptural and the superimposition of the concept on all the verses concerning the assembly becomes a distraction and even an annulling of the reality of the assembly.

If you think that verse is the "universal church" you never consider what it means that it really just speaks concerning those gathered around you.

And what God sees from His throne is the New Jerusalem which surrounds Him.

There is no "universal church" in eternity...

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I just continue to disagree. (gruesome deadhorse smiley goes here)

The doctrine of "universal church" is illogical, impractical and unscriptural and the superimposition of the concept on all the verses concerning the assembly becomes a distraction and even an annulling of the reality of the assembly.

If you think that verse is the "universal church" you never consider what it means that it really just speaks concerning those gathered around you.

And what God sees from His throne is the New Jerusalem which surrounds Him.

There is no "universal church" in eternity...

Which is all well and good, except the Lord did not say I will build my New Jerusalem and the gates of hades will not prevail against it!

Don't worry about the dead horse thing, we are quite joined in Spirit as brothers who Love our Lord and Savior, how we understand some things differently is quite acceptable; The Lord be gracious to you!

Shawn

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I do have an axe to grind against Jerusalem; the same axe I have against Rome and Anaheim... If Jerusalem was not trying to be the headquarters, why are they sending out people and not vice versa? Same with Rome, and now Anaheim. You don't see any saints from Peoria or Kankakee Illinois going to Anaheim and training them in the "New Way". Anaheim sends the emissaries; Anaheim is in control of the other assemblies, pure and simple. Same as Rome, and to a lesser degree, Jerusalem before that. The assembly in Jerusalem was 'franchising' Jerusalem, with all its errors. They were 'universalizing' their local assembly, and going beyond God's sovereign allowance. This presaged Rome, and later, Anaheim.

Aron, yes, Amen, absolutely, right on, si senor!

And the Apostle Paul rightly called them all "dogs" and "evil workers."

[djohnson]

Aron I think you may be confusing James and a certain group within Jerusalem with the church there as a whole. Peter was from Jerusalem and he was already in Antioch visiting when they came from Jerusalem. So he didn't sent anyone. It doesn't say they came from the apostles or from the elders or from the church but from James. And further it doesn't even say that James told them to cause any trouble. It was Peter who was afraid and acted out accordingly.

I get no impression from reading the NT that Jerusalem thought they were a mother church or the head church or the central church or that anyone else thought of them as that either. I do think that there was a lot of cultural and religious Jewishness in the early church which was natural considering Jesus and the original apostles plus Paul were all Jewish. And many saved on the day of Pentecost were Jewish. To instantly shed their Jewishness was not easy.

So to me Jerusalem is quite different than Rome and Anaheim. The formers issues were related to natural cultural differences that took time to clarify and adjust. The latter two are more related to the idea of a consciously centralized organization set up purposely as an official seat of authority that all must heed to.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Aron I think you may be confusing James and a certain group within Jerusalem with the church there as a whole. Peter was from Jerusalem and he was already in Antioch visiting when they came from Jerusalem. So he didn't sent anyone. It doesn't say they came from the apostles or from the elders or from the church but from James. And further it doesn't even say that James told them to cause any trouble. It was Peter who was afraid and acted out accordingly.

I get no impression from reading the NT that Jerusalem thought they were a mother church or the head church or the central church or that anyone else thought of them as that either. I do think that there was a lot of cultural and religious Jewishness in the early church which was natural considering Jesus and the original apostles plus Paul were all Jewish. And many saved on the day of Pentecost were Jewish. To instantly shed their Jewishness was not easy.

So to me Jerusalem is quite different than Rome and Anaheim. The formers issues were related to natural cultural differences that took time to clarify and adjust. The latter two are more related to the idea of a consciously centralized organization set up purposely as an official seat of authority that all must heed to.

Interesting points!

It seems likely that the original assembly in Jerusalem was, because of the context, initially considered the unique assembly. Because of the location of the Temple, the tradition of coming to the Temple to worship, and the fact that there were so many there immediately on the day of Pentecost, it would not have been an irrational mistake. God's sovereignty following this should have clearly testified otherwise to those saints - first through the persecutions of Saul and later through the destruction of the Temple itself.

But it shouldn't be considered the fault of the assembly at Jerusalem that the Jewish error was being spread to other places. The New Testament recorded just who it was who was causing the problems. I'd also note that we have no idea who the actual sent ones are - we only know that they were sent from James and that Peter changed his thinking as a result of receiving that teaching from James! This really goes to emphasize the gravity of the responsibilty that falls upon those who lay burdens like these upon the saints.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Which is all well and good, except the Lord did not say I will build my New Jerusalem and the gates of hades will not prevail against it!

Well, that is true, Shawn, because the City is already built.
John saw it.

Originally Posted by Shawn

Don't worry about the dead horse thing, we are quite joined in Spirit as brothers who Love our Lord and Savior, how we understand some things differently is quite acceptable; The Lord be gracious to you!

Shawn

Amen!

The goal of my speechifying has been to strongly emphasize the importance of the real and present meetings of the saints in their local assembly in accomplishing God's plan to have His presence in the universe manifested here on the earth among us.

Even if someone continues to see a "universal church" where I am now clear none is intended, I would encourage them to exercise to see that even the verses they believe are the "universal aspect" can be and must be understood as applying also to the real and present local assembly and not merely to some nice spiritual concept that remains forever nebulous.

But of course, the goal is for us to remain in fellowship in oneness!

How foolish it would be to make divisions in the name of oneness!

Praise the Lord!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I get no impression from reading the NT that Jerusalem thought they were a mother church or the head church or the central church or that anyone else thought of them as that either. I do think that there was a lot of cultural and religious Jewishness in the early church which was natural considering Jesus and the original apostles plus Paul were all Jewish. And many saved on the day of Pentecost were Jewish. To instantly shed their Jewishness was not easy.

I just can't agree with this. The conflicts Paul continually faced were more than a little "Jewishness." He was hounded by "dogs" from place to place, fearing for his life, yet you would have us believe that these were just random acts of cultural unkindness.

The comment "some came from James" is quite telling. (see Galatians 2) These ones were representatives from headquarters who reported back to James. Peter obviously knew who they were, and he feared them. What power they possessed! Peter was literally "spooked" by them, and began to shrink back from the truth of the gospel. He "feared those of the circumcision." He feared those who were "from James." He feared those "from headquarters."

Peter's fears were justified. The power of religious zeal is frightening indeed. Perhaps even the greatest of the "twelve" was no match for these "ambassadors." How do you think James rose to prominence, except for this legal zeal which had taken over Jerusalem. Was James the one who "secretly brought in the false brothers?" Who else could do it? Who else could override the concerns of the other apostles, except James. Were these "false brothers" used as spiritual "thugs" aka "judaizers" who were sent out into the Gentile world? Did James "set up" Paul, requiring him to partake of the vow, and that after Paul delivered financial gifts from gentile churches. How could they recognize Paul whose head was shaved? Was Paul betrayed in the same way Jesus was?

Lots of questions here. Some of this is my speculation. But how do you read the NT? Why else would Jerusalem be destroyed, except for its corrupting influence as "command central" of the early church? Just as with the Lord's own passion, the Jewish zealot leaders manipulated the Romans in order to "eliminate rivals." Jesus and Paul were their chief rivals. The only two who refused to yield to their power in Jerusalem.

I have also read far too much church history under the domination of Rome not to see its connections. Of course, Anaheim's power to punish is much restricted, when compared to Jerusalem and Rome, but their beginnings were all the same. Each place was initially considered by the common believers as the "protectors" and the "guardians" of the "truth." The revered leaders, the founding fathers, resided there. How could they be bad? It was Paul who had "forsaken" the law of Moses, it was Luther who was the "heretic" of the holy mother church, it was TC who "teaches differently."

And I might add, the power of "command central" coincides with the ignorance of its members. Only the truth can set us free from "headquarters."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The comment "some came from James" is quite telling. (see Galatians 2) These ones were representatives from headquarters who reported back to James. Peter obviously knew who they were, and he feared them. What power they possessed! Peter was literally "spooked" by them, and began to shrink back from the truth of the gospel. He "feared those of the circumcision." He feared those who were "from James." He feared those "from headquarters."

...And I might add, the power of "command central" coincides with the ignorance of its members. Only the truth can set us free from "headquarters."

Yes, amen. See John's gospel for corroboration. John 7:5 says, "For not even His brothers believed into Him". Jesus' brothers did not see His earthly ministry. They even opposed Him to His face; see the 2 verses preceeding verse 5. They missed Jesus' earthly ministry. And yet by Acts 15 one of them, James, was in a leading position, if not THE leading position, in Jerusalem. Church history tells us that he was followed by Jude. See Eusebius' history for details. The details are not encouraging.

Why did John insert this little parenthetical 'aside' into his gospel? John was with Jesus basically from day one. He and a few others saw Him intimately for over 3 years. Yet soon after Jesus' resurrection, the men who'd been daily with Jesus, seeing the miracles, soaking in His teachings, failing and repenting and even weeping under His care, were pushed aside by an odd mixture of bureaucrats and zealots, who were then in danger of infecting the entire enterprise. I don't think the troubles in Antioch were at all isolated; rather they are an example. We may talk about Mansfield or Toronto, but the trouble is not limited to them. Rather, they are exemplars of a larger issue. I am trying to point out the larger issue. It presaged events of today -- people not trusting in God, and trying to run others' affairs. It is hard to have an assembly when you are meeting not under the leading of the Holy Spirit but under the iron grip of Headquarters.

Look at the risen Lord's appearances in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15.

Paul sets out a chronological sequence as he discusses the resurrection.
Verse 5: "He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Verse 6: Then to 500 brothers at one time;
Verse 7: Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
Verse 8: And last of all He appeared to me also..."

But then go to...

Acts 1:14 "These all continued steadfastly with one accord in prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers"
Some time between Jesus' resurrection at the end of the gospels, and His outpoured Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Jesus appeared to James (The brothers of Jesus are conspicuously absent at the crucifixion; see the lists of His followers observing His death). Jesus' brothers missed His earthly ministry. Of itself, no problem; I did too as did many others.

But why are they running the show in Acts chapter 15, displacing those who were actually with Him? Strange, no? If anyone should have been "in charge" it should have been "the twelve", no? I think John's chapter 7 insertion into his gospel record is in this line. John did not write without purpose, he deliberately placed into the gospel record things that had thus far not been presented to the assemblies of saints. I think it odd that someone who missed the entire earthly ministry of Jesus, who had in fact opposed Him, would so soon be de facto in charge, to the point that emmisaries from such are causing the assemblies elsewhere to shrink back from one another in fear.

I am not against James, or Jude, or anyone, including Benson P. or Ron K. or Ray G. or anyone else. There just seems to be a curious coincidence: religious zealots take over assembly A and then send emmisaries to assembly B and cause dissension, fear, division, shrinking back. If you don't see it you don't see it. Perhaps I see too much. I am willing to be corrected.

John repeatedly writes in his "Revelation" letters to the saints in Asia, "Let him who has an ear, let him[or her] hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies of the called-out ones." Either you see what I see or you don't. I am merely stressing the 'local' nature of the assemblies, and the disaster that befalls when the gatherings are hijacked by people with 'control' issues.

Thank you for bearing with me. I hope to calm down eventually.

[djohnson]

Ohio I would say lots of speculation on your part!

James set up Paul to take a vow? Paul was in Ephesus and insisted on going to Jerusalem to keep his vow. Even when the Holy Spirit via a prophetess warned him he ignored the warning and still went. Paul was Jewish. That was his Jewish culture coming out.

As far as James "running the show" in Acts 15 again speculation on your part. And a reading of verse 24 is quite telling: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not against James, or Jude, or anyone, including Benson P. or Ron K. or Ray G. or anyone else. There just seems to be a curious coincidence: religious zealots take over assembly A and then send emmisaries to assembly B and cause dissension, fear, division, shrinking back. If you don't see it you don't see it. Perhaps I see too much. I am willing to be corrected.

John repeatedly writes in his "Revelation" letters to the saints in Asia, "Let him who has an ear, let him[or her] hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies of the called-out ones." Either you see what I see or you don't. I am merely stressing the 'local' nature of the assemblies, and the disaster that befalls when the gatherings are hijacked by people with 'control' issues.

Thank you for bearing with me. I hope to calm down eventually.

I don't see a point of correction yet but I'll let you know if and when I do...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I would say lots of speculation on your part!

James set up Paul to take a vow? Paul was in Ephesus and insisted on going to Jerusalem to keep his vow. Even when the Holy Spirit via a prophetess warned him he ignored the warning and still went. Paul was Jewish. That was his Jewish culture coming out.

As far as James "running the show" in Acts 15 again speculation on your part. And a reading of verse 24 is quite telling: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Ahhhh .... DJ .... speculation? ... whaaat? .... it's just so surprising to hear this from you. I still remember your entrance to the other forum ... filled with GLA/TC speculations ... ahhhh .... but, I digress into "thread tangencies" ... please forgive me.

But, of course ... you are right DJ, I have speculated, and I should have expanded my post to include more supporting evidence, and possibly some modifications. Perhaps I am guilty of a little "LC hyperbole." But ... in the meantime ... please allow me and my friends to "speculate" a little here.

[djohnson]

Actually Ohio I think my comments on GLA/TC have been well founded. I think the latest news regarding Peter's father only serves to confirm what I knew and articulated about TC and the atmosphere in the GLA. If that is changing then all I can say is: good! But now that Nigel Tomes and John Myers are touching the "sacred cow" of Witness lee and his ministry let's see what happens. Should be quite an interesting spectacle!

And might I add: the crazy history of the LCS is not the bible. To speculate on it is one thing. To speculate on the bible is quite another matter especially when there are clear texts that counter your speculation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I would say lots of speculation on your part!

James set up Paul to take a vow? Paul was in Ephesus and insisted on going to Jerusalem to keep his vow. Even when the Holy Spirit via a prophetess warned him he ignored the warning and still went. Paul was Jewish. That was his Jewish culture coming out.

As far as James "running the show" in Acts 15 again speculation on your part. And a reading of verse 24 is quite telling: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said."

OK, DJ, then please clarify me in my speculations --

First, Paul was in Ephesus with the intention to celebrate Pentecost in Jerusalem with his gentile gifts. Where is the talk about the vow in Ephesus? Is there any mention of a vow before James brought up the subject?

Secondly, it is not speculation at all to say that James is "running the show." Gal 1.19 initially lists James after Cephas, but Galatians 2.9 and 12 identify James as foremost in Jerusalem. In Acts 15.13 James gave the concluding word. Acts 21.18 James has become the "minister of the age" in Jerusalem. Read Aron's long post for further support.

Acts 15.25 is to me conflicting. James issues a public disclaimer of "no authorization," yet what happened to Peter in Antioch? It sounds like double-talk to me. Official denials, but everybody knows what is going on behind the scenes.

So the speculation boils down to one point -- was the work of the judaizers orchestrated or totally random in nature? If it was orchestrated, then I would suggest James was more than a little involved. Who organized and financed them?

[djohnson]

Tsk tsk Ohio you should really not be so hard on James after all the Holy Spirit did choose him to write a book of the bible.

I stand corrected on the location: Paul cut his hair because of his vow in Cenchrea just prior to arriving in Ephesus [see Acts 18:18]. Later he went to Jerusalem to keep a Jewish feast i.e. Pentecost and was so eager to get there on time he did not want to spend time in Asia so he just did a quick stop on the coast [see Acts 20:16]. Paul's Jewishness was no secret.

Unlike you I am empathetic towards the early church leaders who were constantly struggling with the idea that their Jewish practices were no longer necessary to please God. Obviously they had to gradually work through this issue.

Considering the letter from Acts 15 was sent with the approval of Paul, Barnabas, Peter the other apostles, elders and two prophets i.e. Judas and Silas confirmed the letter to those in Antioch I find the idea that they were all complicit in a lie to be quite far fetched.

[Shawn]

Hi DJ,

I would be interested to know of your thoughts on this episode in Acts, where Paul decides to take an oath, compared to his strong position he takes in the Book of Galatians against the law.

I'm not trying to set you up, only to see your take on this apparent contradiction in purpose.

Thanks,

Shawn

[djohnson]

Shawn I think all the early leaders of the church struggled with this issue - Paul included. This is one of the major tensions of the early church i.e. opening the door to the Gentiles and how to accommodate them.

Peter separated himself in Antioch to eat apart from the Gentiles but what did Paul do when he made a vow and shaved his head while working in Gentile provinces? What did he do in insisting that he make it to Jerusalem for the Jewish feast of Pentecost even if it meant he could not stop and visit the churches in Asia on his way past? He basically separated himself and joined his fellow Jews in these customs.

Does this change Paul's teaching in Galatians? Of course not. But sometimes our attitudes and ingrained cultural practices do not necessarily match the correct teachings.

[YP0534]

I believe Ohio and I are in agreement that it seems to us that something happened in Lee's thinking in October 1984 once he had completed the outlines and notes for the Life Study of Acts, or, "put down his pen" as he phrased it at the time.

I saw a post elsewhere that FPO gave with a quote from Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups and scanned my meager bookshelf to see if that was one of the titles I'd somehow ended up with after all these years. It was around 1991 or 1992, so, it wasn't likely, but it was possible.

Don't have that one.
Do have THIS one:
Vital Factors for the Recovery of the Church Life

Guess when this was spoken? October 1984, in Seoul, Korea.

If there was a moment of turn from the right path, this was it.

From Chapter 4, "THE FACTOR OF THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH LIFE":

In order to know what is proper regarding the church, we need to study the Bible. I have been studying the Bible concerning the matter of the church since 1925. In this chapter I wish to present to you a brief outline of this matter. This brief, accurate, and clear outline is the cream of my nearly sixty years of study concerning the church. I am happy to present this outline to you. My desire is to impress you with the proper practice of the church life according to the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with the church itself, but the way Christians practice the church life might be wrong. Out of all the different ways of practicing the church life among Christians today, it is difficult to find one that is right. To be right in the practice of the church life is to be according to the Bible. The proper practice of the church life is not according to culture, not according to society, not according to any kind of religious background, and not according to our imagination; it must be absolutely according to the holy Word of God.

CHRIST BUILDING THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

The church Christ is building is the universal church, not the church in a nation or the church in a city. In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.” In this verse the Lord considered Himself as the rock (cf. v. 16). Christ Himself is the very rock upon which the church is built. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal church, the one church in the entire universe.

Witness Lee - Vital Factors for the Recovery of the Church Life

[YP0534]

What is the content of the church? Some may answer that the content of the church is Christ. This is right; but when people say “Christ,” sometimes they do not understand what they mean. Christ is the content of the church, but we must realize that this Christ who is the content of the church is life to us. He must be our life in order to be the content of the church. Christ does not merely come and stand among us as the content of the church; it is not in this way. As such, He would only be the ruler of the church, not the content of the church. If He is to be the content of the church, He must be our life. The content of the church is Christ as life to us. All Christians recognize that Christ is in the church, but few realize that Christ in the church means that He is life to us. He is not only in the midst of the saints, but He is also life to the saints as the content of the church.

Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church

When Christ is life to the believers and they assemble together to share their portions in mutuality, this is how He is the content of that assembly. He is present and He is ruler but most importantly He is the real content.

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...October 1984 once he had completed the outlines and notes for the Life Study of Acts, or, "put down his pen" ...

Don't have that one.
Do have THIS one:
Vital Factors for the Recovery of the Church Life

Guess when this was spoken? October 1984, in Seoul, Korea.

If there was a moment of turn from the right path, this was it.

From Chapter 4, "THE FACTOR OF THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH LIFE":

I had the vital groups book...very small one...and gave it to someone else. It was definitely the 80's and I believe it was 1985.
Sue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

I had the vital groups book...very small one...and gave it to someone else. It was definitely the 80's and I believe it was 1985.
Sue

Yeah, no, the one called "Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups" was definitely from 1991 or 1992 because he says:

FELLOWSHIP CONCERNING THE URGENT NEED OF THE VITAL GROUPS
MESSAGE ONE
FELLOWSHIP CONCERNING THE PRACTICE
OF THE GROUP MEETINGS IN
THE GOD-ORDAINED WAY

We need to realize that our present situation is very desperate. We have been speaking concerning the God-ordained way in both Taiwan and the United States for seven and a half years, but we have not seen a definite result. The word that we released has been more than clear, stressing that the group meeting is the crucial matter in the Lord's ordained way. We said that the group meetings should constitute eighty percent of the church life, and we also said that the gospel preaching, the nourishing, the cherishing, the feeding, and the perfecting should be done in the groups. But where are the groups, and where are the group meetings? We heard and received the word, and we even prayed much concerning this matter, but where is the definite building up of the groups? Among the churches there are some group meetings, but these are not the group meetings we intend to build up that can occupy eighty percent of the church life.

Witness Lee, Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups

If he bagan this stuff around October 1984, then this message must have been in 1991 or 1992 probably. And it's a whopper - 25 chapters!

The other title, which I do have, was published in 1986 from messages spoken in 1984 and then republished in 1994. It's pretty small. Just 85 pages in 6 chapters.

I'm really interested to get into the "Fellowship" one at some point but I'm busy with other things at present and I'm pretty sure it won't really provide me any aid in going on with the Lord. The little "Vital Factors" book, though, was clearly the beginning of the end, or, probably more accurately, the end of the beginning of the LSM "universal church" concept. From that point forward, the flag of the "Local Church" whenever it was planted was governed by a defining word about "universal church" in the context of the practical activities of the assembling saints everywhere. My friend Aron here calls it "extra-local." I just call it denominational.

For instance, one important word in this little "Vital Factors" book which became a real brick in building something new among the saints was the clear statement that "the elders are under the apostles." For his support for this notion, Lee appealed to 1 Tim. 5:19-20. There's a bit of interpretation needed here to get that far. First, we have to say that Timothy was indeed functioning as an apostle. OK, let's grant that one. Then, we have to say that Paul's instruction to Timothy was the training of an apostle. I'm not so clear on that but it's a kind of a training and it's directed to Timothy, the maybe apostle, so, OK. What does it say? Don't receive accusations against elders without two or three witnesses and when they do sin, the technique is to call them on it publicly so that "the rest may be in fear." Lee interprets "the rest" to mean "the rest of the elders" although I'm not sure that reading is required, it's surely possible.

So, we can read these verses and clearly say that Timothy was instructed by Paul to publicly call out the sinful elders, but only on the word of multiple witnesses.

And this is supposed to mean that the Bible teaches that "the elders are under the apostles"? What a poor construction THAT is!

For all his tirades against fallen Christianity, Witness Lee somehow never got the fallen religious concepts of "church" and "apostleship" and "eldership" out of his blood. In their reality, and not in their corrupted religious form, these things are not something for us to imitate from out of the Bible but are merely descriptions of the realities we will encounter when we pursue the Lord purely in His way in life.

Just consider the practical implications: What should we do, for instance, should there be no apostle available in order to correct our sinful elders? Allow the widely-known sinning to just go on until the acknowledged apostle arrives in the full authority of his apostleship in order to solve the problem by making a public correction? Is Timothy as an apostle the only one qualified to do this? Or what is wrong with the other elders that they don't deal with it and why doesn't Paul have a word for Timothy to train them how to receive and handle these problems? And, not to suggest that such a thing might ever happen, but what if a designated apostle declines to publiclly deal with the widely-known sinning elder? What should we do then? Shall we call this an abdication of the apostleship in that case? What are we to make of such an apostle? Perhaps we should research whether there has ever been a papal bull on this issue?

The whole concept of titles and institutions permeates and saturates all of Lee's ministry about churches and elders and apostles and such. Of course, Lee isn't unusual in that at all but it is at practical odds with so much of his teaching otherwise that it really might seem difficult to believe to those still on the inside.

To us who have moved on, I think it's more than clear.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

For all his tirades against fallen Christianity, Witness Lee somehow never got the fallen religious concepts of "church" and "apostleship" and "eldership" out of his blood. In their reality, and not in their corrupted religious form, these things are not something for us to imitate from out of the Bible but are merely descriptions of the realities we will encounter when we pursue the Lord purely in His way in life.

I found an interesting juxtaposition of statements in the quote YP selected from the book "Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups"; on the one hand Witness Lee says he has been "more than clear" in the word he has released over the past 7 1/2 years concerning the way for vital groups to be meeting together, and on the other hand he says, "Where is the issue" of the speaking?

You'd think that maybe it would enter the man's mind that in his incessant speaking, his continual prodding of others, who themselves are prodding one another to "get with" the new program, which after a number of years has issued in basically zilch, is hinting at some fundamental disconnect going on here. No, with Lee, instead it was always somebody else's fault, even if it was in this case the thousands of willing but paralyzed sheep under his care.

My argument is that this top-down, hierarchical system endeavoring to reform and 'vitalize' itself by the creation of small, decentralized functioning groups is a self-defeating exercise, and doomed to end with little issue, but with much frustration and rancor. The the extra-localist and quite 'unvital' system itself is the problem.

It's like the paradox of the Corporate Headquarters telling the franchises, "Be sponaneous!" The edict is self-cancelling.

The statement, bolded above, about the Bible's description of the existant divine reality versus our vain human prescription of "how things ought to be" is I think making the same point.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

I found an interesting juxtaposition of statements in the quote YP selected from the book "Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups"; on the one hand Witness Lee says he has been "more than clear" in the word he has released over the past 7 1/2 years concerning the way for vital groups to be meeting together, and on the other hand he says, "Where is the issue" of the speaking?

I had kinda pointed this out a couple of days ago but I guess the quote is even more powerful, isn't it?

You'd like to say to him, well, brother Lee, maybe the reason that you don't get the result you expect is because you aren't really going about things in the proper way.

Duh.

But who could ever criticize the "God-ordained way" as being even slightly improper? It's not even logical that it could be criticized if you accept the premise that it truly is the "God-ordained way." Far be it for someone like you or I to even imply that it was merely the "Lee-ordained way."

And the really sad thing is, those leading ones and the saints under them even today still can't see this, aron...

[Suannehill]

I remember being thrilled to hear the word about vital groups and couldn't wait to get started. I was certain it would revive the stale meetings and bring about a huge revival.
Years later, I was so sorry to see absolutely nothing changed.
However, I was very grateful for the little push I needed to have gatherings in my home.
You see, somehow a concept had emerged here in Mansfield that you couldn't meet in the home unless the brothers approved your home. Don't know how or why that came about. I do remember offering my home and being turned down.
In fact, 20 years later, I still fellowship with some of those people from the original gathering. (Who by the way have never met with LSM)
Sue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

I remember being thrilled to hear the word about vital groups and couldn't wait to get started. I was certain it would revive the stale meetings and bring about a huge revival.
Years later, I was so sorry to see absolutely nothing changed.
However, I was very grateful for the little push I needed to have gatherings in my home.
You see, somehow a concept had emerged here in Mansfield that you couldn't meet in the home unless the brothers approved your home. Don't know how or why that came about. I do remember offering my home and being turned down.
In fact, 20 years later, I still fellowship with some of those people from the original gathering. (Who by the way have never met with LSM)
Sue

I think maybe you have the best testimony of what I've been talking about on both sides of the coin!

Oficial approvals of homes for meetings?

Ridiculous!

People who's real contacts in meetings seem to have really built them together?

Absolutely!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

.... 20 years later, I still fellowship with some of those people from the original gathering. (Who by the way have never met with LSM)

When I first entered the local church life, I was fully convinced that I had found the one true way. I was therefore intolerant of any christian groups, thinking, teaching, or experience that wasn't fully tied into and as committed as I was to the LSM program.

There were two home meetings I frequented which were regularly attended by non-LSM "christain neighbors" and it used to drive me batty. "Get 'em on board or get 'em out" was my attitude, although I was too polite to say it. So I nodded and smiled my supercilious smile, while inside I seethed with impatience.

These "slow" and "not with-it" christians I saw as roadblocks, impediments in the LSM plan to conquer the earth. Years later, my enlightened LSM-affiliated brethren still maintain many of their contacts with these denominational christians, still meeting with them weekly, and I meanwhile have seen the error of my former ways and have repented.

Being one with your christian neighbor means being one with the christian God has placed next to you. And that includes being willing to assemble with them on God's ground, not yours.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Being one with your christian neighbor means being one with the christian God has placed next to you. And that includes being willing to assemble with them on God's ground, not yours.

Amen to THAT!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You'd think that maybe it would enter the man's mind that in his incessant speaking, his continual prodding of others, who themselves are prodding one another to "get with" the new program, which after a number of years has issued in basically zilch, is hinting at some fundamental disconnect going on here. No, with Lee, instead it was always somebody else's fault, even if it was in this case the thousands of willing but paralyzed sheep under his care.

My argument is that this top-down, hierarchical system endeavoring to reform and 'vitalize' itself by the creation of small, decentralized functioning groups is a self-defeating exercise, and doomed to end with little issue, but with much frustration and rancor. The the extra-localist and quite 'unvital' system itself is the problem.

It's like the paradox of the Corporate Headquarters telling the franchises, "Be sponaneous!" The edict is self-cancelling.

Great points, Aron. First time I ever heard this point of view. You are answering questions I had for so long. "Willing but paralyzed," so well said. The more we heard, the more paralyzed we became. But who would dare say the problem was with the "ministry." Nay, rather it must be everyone else! All us "mooing cows."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great points, Aron. First time I ever heard this point of view. You are answering questions I had for so long. "Willing but paralyzed," so well said. The more we heard, the more paralyzed we became. But who would dare say the problem was with the "ministry." Nay, rather it must be everyone else! All us "mooing cows."

According to my more recent observations, Lee spent the better part of the last decade of his life decrying the fact that what he envisioned and spoke endlessly about somehow just would not come into being, without ever really considering that he was at least partly, if not mostly, to blame for that result.

I think there may be some good stuff in the later books but there really seems to be a decline in the vision Lee had, which was really a shift from the historic focus on Christ and "The Church" to a focus on the universal application of the principles of "The Work" within the assemblies. I touched on this previously in an exchange with aron about the inability to distinguish those messages intended for co-workers, those intended for elders and those with more general teachings concerning the Bible. I'm not sure it's a problem to have co-workers trained in "The Work" but it's not what the elders or the members of the Body need in general.

At a certain point, a lot of noise was made about The Not-Uncertain Trumpet:

NO UNCERTAIN SOUNDING OF THE TRUMPET IN THE LORD’S MINISTRY

“For also if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8).

The Lord’s Ministry— the Sounding of the Trumpet for the Army to Go to War

...

God’s Fighting Army

We have to realize that the Lord’s church today is a fighting army. We are doing something more serious than any battle on this earth. We are fighting against God’s enemy, Satan. The church is God’s army, and this is fully revealed and illustrated in many aspects in Ephesians 6. Ephesians is a book on the Body of Christ, the church. It tells us that the Body of Christ, the church, is the fullness of the One who fills all in all (1:22-23). It also tells us that this church is the new man created in Christ on the cross (2:15-16). Furthermore, this church is the kingdom of God, the household of the very God (2:19), and the wife of Christ, His counterpart (5:24-25). Paul eventually tells us in Ephesians that the church, the Body of Christ, with such a tremendous status, is a warrior to fight against God’s enemy. Whatever Christ is and whatever Christ has done should be used and applied as aspects of the armor of God. We have to wear Christ as our breastplate (6:14) and as our shield (v. 16). We have to have our loins girded with Christ (v. 14), and we have to wear Christ as a pair of shoes for our standing to fight the battle (v. 15). The church is not a mere group of people collected together. The church is a universal and divine army fighting for God in the universe against His enemy.

...

The Ministry and the Churches

Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that. The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry.

Witness Lee - Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move

This is confusing and self-contradictory. It's just about unintelligible to a discerning mind. The basic thrust of it, however, is clearly that Lee would like to see the "fighting spirit" of the ministry to be borne by all the "army" even if he personally would not insist or control to get that effect. Apparently, as a simple and elderly Chinese gentleman he was just innocently and completely unaware that the elders since 1986 had been insisting and controlling all around the world to get that very effect on his behalf as best they could, as the ones who had signed up for his "army" when the Not-Uncertain Trumpet first sounded. For the same reasons of ignorance, he never considered all the subsequent and spontaneous worldwide rebellions had anything to do with the content of his teaching whatsoever.

There definitely were "mooing cows," Ohio, but they were many if not most of the local elders who went along with the program to become the local extensions of "The Ministry" and bring Lee's universal "army" training into the local assemblies, where it simply had no place and even still has no place. Such trainings, while perhaps originally and theoretically intended to be shared merely as helps, became in practice superimpositions of form over substance, even form as substance. However, the unique New Testament ministry is just Christ Himself, not a body of practices of increasingly complex description and application. This has trapped and bound our dear brothers and sisters who are trying to live up to an unattainable standard of practical Christian perfection. The obsession with statistical measures is absolute proof of this having misaimed. Christ is our measure. Christ and Christ alone. And we can never attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ merely by following a scripturally-based blueprint which someone long ago decided to designate as "The God-Ordained Way."

After 20 years of practice, if this is that way, it seems that there is no way.



Just a word of refutation now.

Lee picks up this word about the Not-Uncertain Trumpet in a context. He points out that Paul talks about a battle while discussing a little thing like tongues. I would point out that Paul's burden in all of this section is how to have the meetings of the assembly, not how to be in one accord with his apostleship. It is in the intelligible speaking of the portions of all the saints that the Body builds itself in love the assembly. To even imply that "the church" is an army having a ministry of "soldiers" with a "fighting spirit" in solemn obedience to a leadership under a unique "commander-in-chief" is simply the catholic error.

Sorry. But we must oppose the works and the teachings of the Nicolatians.


If you seek to find the sounding of a clear trumpet in the genuine Christian meetings, look to the mild and timid testimony of the Cross of Sister Pinkie-toe and not to the bold and boastful exhortations to allegience of Brother Thumb and the Rest of the Fist.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

According to my more recent observations, Lee spent the better part of the last decade of his life decrying the fact that what he envisioned and spoke endlessly about somehow just would not come into being, without ever really considering that he was at least partly, if not mostly, to blame for that result.

I would point out that Paul's burden ... is how to have the meetings of the assembly, not how to be in one accord with his apostleship. It is in the intelligible speaking of the portions of all the saints that the Body builds itself in love the assembly. To even imply that "the church" is an army having a ministry of "soldiers" with a "fighting spirit" in solemn obedience to a leadership under a unique "commander-in-chief" is simply the catholic error.

If you seek to find the sounding of a clear trumpet in the genuine Christian meetings, look to the mild and timid testimony of the Cross of Sister Pinkie-toe and not to the bold and boastful exhortations to allegience of Brother Thumb and the Rest of the Fist.

The attempts to impose the "Letter of Paul" upon the assembies (e.g. Who appoints whom; who are the apostles, deacons, and elders, etc) clearly resulted in a loss of the "Spirit of Christ" (e.g. Love one another, serve one another). If you need exhibit "A" of how the letter kills in a modern context, it surely is here.

I reread the first two chapters of Hope's book-in-progress; what stood out once again for me was Ray Graver taking the writings of Paul as a "blueprint" for "how to follow an apostle". The teachings of Jesus, for instance the famous "Sermon on the Mount" speakings, are gradually and imperceptibly reduced in importance as this obsession with being "one with the ministry" takes hold. Eventually the Way becomes Follow the Apostle in Anaheim instead of Follow Jesus in Your Heart.

In this system, the "law-keepers" rise to the top and eventually crush everyone with the "dead letter".

But if you look carefully, Jesus Himself has a marvelous, divine order as well. It grows and flows from His ministry. Remember His parable about the lilies of the field? Lee correctly pointed out that the beauty they display is not outward adornment but the result of an inner vital force longing to express itself. So too with our being gathered together. Look at when Jesus fed the multitudes. He grouped them in hundreds, no? This was to facilitate the dispensing of the bread. He didn't toss hunks randomly into the throng. There was order there, not confusion.

I would say that if we trust in Jesus, and look to Him, we will have order in our assembly. If we don't trust in Him, we will fight over who gets to be elder, who "submits" to whom, etc.

[OBW]

YP,

First, I want to say that your most recent post (#71) was excellent. But there is one minor point that I want to make, but not start a debate concerning.

I’m not sure how the works and teachings of the Nicolaitans is relevant to the discussion. While Lee taught that it was all about clergy/laity, many (most?) scholars disagree and say that it was an error related to teachings of Baal (may have the specific wrong) and was a somewhat hedonistic practice that crept in with some. There has been a discussion on this elsewhere within the past month or so that more accurately describes that position.

There is significant question on the application of the “deeds of the Nicolaitans” to the notion of any sort of hierarchy or positions in the church. Further, if Lee’s application is incorrect, there is no clear teaching against such things. There is a teaching against lording it over the flock. There is a teaching that those who would lead must serve.

But even if we give Lee some “Leeway” and agree that it is clergy/laity, then you are correct to point out that they are most grievously guilty of the very error with which they so regularly charge the rest of Christianity.

I just think that the rant by Lee against any sort of positions in the church was another false claim to use as fuel in his anti-Christianity tirades. No matter how “organized” a group is, if everyone, no matter of title or position, is serving the flock in the capacity to which they are called, then such labels become benign. The only true issue is the fact that those in leadership, especially in the upper ranks of the LSM, are busy lording it over the believers that they should be obligated to serve. Whether the “deeds of the Nicolaitans” is relevant may be questionable. But the fact of the LSM’s lording over the saints is both observable and deplorable.

Carry on. I like the way you think.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

According to my more recent observations, Lee spent the better part of the last decade of his life decrying the fact that what he envisioned and spoke endlessly about somehow just would not come into being, without ever really considering that he was at least partly, if not mostly, to blame for that result.

Before WL/LSM took over "reigns" to the program, in an effort to protect the churches from further "rebellions," because they "knew best" what all the churches needed, the Spirit had a way to move freely thru all the LC's. I was there and witnessed some of this.

This was a time of "great stories" such as Elden hall, or wherever place you were at. Things were so exciting, so fresh and living, life-changing to say the least. With every new "mandate" from on high, the level of life subsided. Urgent and dramatics changes were introduced to "prop up" the morale, the environment of "joy." Each new change brought numerous promises, none of which was ever fulfilled. Hence, the program minions were forced to "lie," in the name of "good reports" supporting the "ministry."

I saw much of this, padding local attendance "numbers" which were reported to various headquarters. (Remember Ohio had two for awhile.) What good was a full-timer or an elder if he didn't have some "good success stories" to tell all "the brothers?" At least we could embellish the meager stories we had, looking good for the moment, and attempting to convince all others that we were "in the flow." I mean, who in their right mind would dare to be "left out." (Remember the "Left Behind" movie series.)

I do remember one honest brother from Buffalo, NY, in a leaders' meeting who basically testified to the effect, "last year was good, we gained 17 ... uh hum ... but we lost 19." How refreshing was that honesty. Yet he never dared to mention that perhaps there was a "flaw" in the program somewhere.

Never once did I hear any confession of ownership that the leaders at headquarters, or "the ministry" had any responsibility for things going sour. One time a dear brother concluded, "the new way works for the right person." Oh no! Where is the right person? I haven't found any! After hearing that, I was forever judged. I am not the right person! In the early days, the Lord could do much thru this "fallen flesh," but now I found out the Lord can only work thru "the right person."

Hence, the endless cycle of failed human maneuvers and subsequent condemnations upon the faithful, thus producing a culture of legalism and works of the flesh. "Are you so foolish, having begun by the Spirit, are you now perfected by the flesh?"

[YP0534]

Yeah.

I agree with Lee's read on Nicolaitanism over against the majority of scholarship. I looked pretty deeply into it once long ago and wasn't generally impressed with the traditional speculations on the topic. But I'd have to concede that this read is also speculative.

However, I also thought heirarchies were a problem long before I ever heard of Witness Lee and would oppose them regardless of this word in the Revelation or anything Lee ever said.

But this one you and I can obviously agree to disagree over, for sure!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was a time of "great stories" such as Elden hall, or wherever place you were at. Things were so exciting, so fresh and living, life-changing to say the least. With every new "mandate" from on high, the level of life subsided.

Ohio, I can tell you that this was the still the case in at least one place as late as 1988 and I have good reason to believe there were other places at that time as well. There were plenty of problems and troubling signs, but the life-factor and the true brotherly love was still there as the general content of the assembly to be appreciated by one who only even met the Lord near the end of 1985. I saw God at meeting after meeting in those days and have only been recently brought back to that level of appreciation again by the Lord's doing alone. I had nearly completely forgotten how much fun it really is to be among the crazy lovers of Jesus!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I’m not sure how the works and teachings of the Nicolaitans is relevant to the discussion. While Lee taught that it was all about clergy/laity, many (most?) scholars disagree and say that it was an error related to teachings of Baal (may have the specific wrong) and was a somewhat hedonistic practice that crept in with some.

A follow-up to this, informational only.

While looking for something else altogether, I came across this note that I jotted down probably around 1987 when studing this issue in greater detail.

Nicolaitanism probably represents a movement present in the churches at Ephesus and at Pergamos to subject the people of God to one or more powerful leaders. The term is derived from \nikao\ (Gk.), "to conquer" and \laos\ (Gk.), "people," hence, "people conquerors." Very plausibly, the Nicolaitan movement marks the beginning of a form of priesthood in the church. (Footnote on Rev. 2:6, p. 1480)

W.A. Criswell, The Criswell Study Bible (KJV), (C)1979 Thomas Nelson Publishers

I don't know anything else about Criswell. Maybe someone from the Dallas area can say whether he was a crackpot or a worthy scholar. He does seem to have fairly solid conservative evangelical credentials, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.A._Criswell

[OBW]

My only knowledgeable comment on Criswell would be that he was a most beloved minister of one of the largest Southern Baptist congregations for almost as long as I can remember until recent times. I would definitely not call him a crackpot, but also have insufficient information to say he was a scholar of the caliber that I would take as an authority on this subject.

As for the definition coming from the name, it was interesting that even many of those who held to a similar view of the issue as Lee did noted that someone named Nicolas was most likely the person who either lead this heresy or at least part of the early movement. So if the translation of the name is significant, then we really must consider it closely. Nikao was said by Criswell to mean “to conquer.” But it also means “conqueror of” or conqueror for.” When attached to laos, or “people” we get several possibilities: “To conquer people,” “conqueror of people,” or “conqueror for people.” In the first, the people are the ones conquered, while in the last, someone else is conquered on behalf of the people. The one in the middle could go either way depending on context. The first is like saying “bully” and the last like saying “hero.”

What do you name your kid? Bully or hero? I would suggest that if the name Nicolas were actually attributed to someone in modern times, Americans would attribute it to Eisenhower or McArthur and not to Hitler or Stalin. And no man would name their son “bully.” While the separate words could mean to conquer people, it is one of several options, and one that it is hard to imagine anyone using as a permanent name for a person. With this in mind, the name is probably irrelevant. He could have been "Mike" and the problem referred to as the "deeds of the followers of Mike."

So someone actually had this name. He was an instigator of a significant error. Is it possible that by “reinventing” his actual name that it would name the error? Scripture actually provides no evidence to support that theory. And it is just a theory in the same way that the other is a theory. But scripture, while it does not define a hierarchy, per se, it does recognize authority within the church — just not the kind that creates deputies and allows willful disobedience to scripture.

The real question would be whether Lee liked this particular theory because it gave him something on which to attack Christianity. I think it is a significant stretch to get where he does. Almost as bad as his write-up on why “God’s economy” is what Paul said should be taught or that it is “simply dispensing.” In other words, it is a lot of discussion, rhetoric, and argument with some serious gaps he shames you into jumping with your eyes closed that get you from what little scripture is involved to the theory Lee is pushing.

It is tenuous at best. Hardly convincing. And nothing to throw around as clear doctrine. In my study, I also noted that while the majority did not support the “clergy/laity” view, of those that did, a significant number could have been seen as looking for it. They were in independent ministries that had a view of Christianity in general being, at some level, apostate and their group was one of the only correct ones. (sounds familiar)

BTW. What were the rest of Criswell’s words on the subject? He obviously did not think it was something that applied to the structure of the Southern Baptist Convention since he was one of the top persons in that group. It must only be viewed as applying to direct extra-local control of congregations, such as by a bishop or pope that was not in some way a plurality. Of course, even Jerusalem still told the rest of the Christian world not to eat meat of a strangled animal. Sounds suspiciously pope-ish.

What I see as the primary problem with the clergy/laity view is that it is typically taught in such a way that ultimately no authority outside of Christ exists at any level. Scripture seems to say otherwise. It does not establish a hierarchy, but it does establish order beyond the hope that everyone will turn to their spirits, get along, and do what is best for the assembly.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

My only knowledgeable comment on Criswell would be that he was a most beloved minister of one of the largest Southern Baptist congregations for almost as long as I can remember until recent times. I would definitely not call him a crackpot, but also have insufficient information to say he was a scholar of the caliber that I would take as an authority on this subject.

OK, well, like I said, it was just informational only.

I had this little note on a scrap of paper from way back when which I found in a folder and I thought it was interesting and topical.

The concept of Nicolaitanism is not uniquely Witness Lee's and some readers may mistake some of the discussion here for this being uniquely Lee's kooky idea.

It may be a kooky idea and Lee may have applied it most kookily, but there are other similar kooks, perhaps like Mr. Criswell.

I have nothing further to contribute at this time.