The Acts 15 Conference

[aron]

I read an interesting article by Mr. Tomes from 2008.

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Tru...ee_Binding.pdf

He made some interesting points. First, that in the Acts chapter 15 discussion, James spoke last and was therefore by LSM (Lee & the BBs) reckoning the "authority" there. But Paul was also, according to LSM, the "minister of the age", so how was Paul to defer to James?

Secondly, Tomes points out that Paul did not completely defer to James & Co., at least in the matter of eating. Paul gave his recipients (1 Cor 10, Rom 14) latitude in the matter of eating, whereas the Acts 15 fellowship was more restrictive. So contrary to the LSM position that Acts 15 counsel necessitated "absolute one accord" among all the churches, Tomes says it shows how there were striking differences (Jews still could circumcise & have dietary restrictions, while the Gentiles were not likewise constrained). Tomes thinks that the LSM points are wishful thinking imposed upon the text.

But what Tomes doesn't touch is my take-home message from the Acts 15 counsel. My understanding is that other than a few kind of basic no-brainer guidelines (avoid fornication... duh~!), the various assemblies were free from any external impositions. Instead of being "identical" and "uniform" the Gentiles could to whatever they wanted!

Drums - not forbidden. Electric guitars - not forbidden. Drama - not forbidden. Et cetera ad infinitum. Just... "please avoid sexual immorality and animal sacrifices and witchcraft". Other than that - have a good time. Enjoy your salvation. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide. You want one publication: fine. You want 17 publications: also fine. You want bell-bottoms, or frizzy hair or skinny ties: whatever, dude.

So methinks that Tomes makes some good points, but he misses the largest point of all. Besides a few common sense admonitions, there is the furthest thing from LSM's vaunted conformity/uniformity. One accord is found in the name of Jesus. Anything beyond that is, in effect, 'of the evil one' (Matt 5:37).

[RollingStone]

Yeah but people like to form a group and use the uniformity thing to express their identity. It makes them feel safer than just being alone as an individual. That is one reason why we have Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Pentacostals, Brethren, ect. ect. ect. and thirty thousand other groups that you can be a member of each with their unique expression as their identity. People are very good at this as if you talk to anybody about being a christian one of the first things they want to know is what group you belong to. This is one reason why I liked the LC as the concept was we were the no name group in theory. I agree the oneness is in Christ as Paul expressed that idea not to be a follower of a man not even him,, we are not to be Paulines, followers of a man but we are one in Christ. We are not Jews and gentiles, Greek, Sythians, free man or slaves but our oneness is in Christ. The desire for the one expression should just be that when people come in contact us Christ comes out from within and His life is expressed. Sometimes this comes from people you would never think were christians because of their outward appearence

Even Jesus had this problem as the religous people couldn't believe he was serving God when He was. They said isn't this the carpenters son. How could He being doing these things? He must be doing this in cahoots with Satan. Of course underlying this was the fact that they were playing the I belong to the elite spiritual group game. Therefore having the illusion that I am somebody where this dude is just a carpenters son.

[aron]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

...if you talk to anybody about being a christian one of the first things they want to know is what group you belong to. This is one reason why I liked the LC as the concept was we were the no name group in theory.

Yes, the theory was attractive. No name. But in reality, as soon as we opened our mouths, other names came out.

Let me give you an example. In 1997 the push from Headquarters was for a presence on the burgeoning internet. So templates were given to each "local church" to create a website. Each website had tabs for the history of that local church, testimonies, what we believe, etc.

At the masthead each website read, "The church in ..........." "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee."

So right off the bat they had 3 names: Jesus, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee.

Then, of course, you got the Blendeds, Dong Yu Lan, Titus Chu etc.

Then you got "Living Stream Ministry", "The Lord's Move to Europe", "Continuing Steadfastly", "Bibles for America", "Christians on Campus", "Defense and Confirmation Project", "Affirmation and Critique" etc etc.

The idea of no names is good. I like it, as well. But in our christian practice it seems that we can hardly get through a sentence without some new name popping up, and insinuating itself into the discussion.

And even if we could somehow drop all names but Jesus, it still doesn't indicate that all the local assemblies should be "absolutely identical".

No, Paul put it well: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery". Christ sets us free from sin and death and fear and shame, and it seems hardly a week passes before we are again entangled in regulations and stipulations and traditions and subordinate clauses.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, the theory was attractive. No name. But in reality, as soon as we opened our mouths, other names came out.

Let me give you an example. In 1997 the push from Headquarters was for a presence on the burgeoning internet. So templates were given to each "local church" to create a website. Each website had tabs for the history of that local church, testimonies, what we believe, etc.

At the masthead each website read, "The church in ..........." "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee."

So right off the bat they had 3 names: Jesus, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee.

Then, of course, you got the Blendeds, Dong Yu Lan, Titus Chu etc.

Then you got "Living Stream Ministry", "The Lord's Move to Europe", "Continuing Steadfastly", "Bibles for America", "Christians on Campus", "Defense and Confirmation Project", "Affirmation and Critique" etc etc.

The idea of no names is good. I like it, as well. But in our christian practice it seems that we can hardly get through a sentence without some new name popping up, and insinuating itself into the discussion.

And even if we could somehow drop all names but Jesus, it still doesn't indicate that all the local assemblies should be "absolutely identical".

No, Paul put it well: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery". Christ sets us free from sin and death and fear and shame, and it seems hardly a week passes before we are again entangled in regulations and stipulations and traditions and subordinate clauses.

Think about that. If the church is truly local with the authority being with the local elders then surely they could create their own website. But if the LRC is a franchise, all with the same image, the same menu of LSM, etc. Then the elders do not have that authority. Instead LSM creates a standard template and designates what can and cannot go into it. I think the website is confirmation that the LRC is a franchise.

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

... But if the LRC is a franchise, all with the same image, the same menu of LSM, etc. Then the elders do not have that authority. Instead LSM creates a standard template and designates what can and cannot go into it. I think the website is confirmation that the LRC is a franchise.

Oh my goodness!!!! Franchise is the absolutely perfect word for it!!!
Money goes to headquarters and the template is given...or perhaps the template is first...
Regardless, the "oneness" is a template...I was unaware of it until in a grocery store my 4 year old saw a woman in a denium skirt, sloppy shirt, greasy hair covered by a triangle scarf and que stioned, "Is that a SISTER Mom?" You must realize this was the 70's and the uniform of the day was just what she had noted. Things are a bit more upscale these days...but I stopped to look at a conference in 2006 and nearly everyone dressed alike...black being the color of choice. It's ALL by an understanding...not an overt order...you just "know" and it isn't a Holy Spirit KNOW.
Anyway, franchise is perfect!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

Oh my goodness!!!! Franchise is the absolutely perfect word for it!!!
Money goes to headquarters and the template is given...or perhaps the template is first...
Regardless, the "oneness" is a template...I was unaware of it until in a grocery store my 4 year old saw a woman in a denium skirt, sloppy shirt, greasy hair covered by a triangle scarf and que stioned, "Is that a SISTER Mom?" You must realize this was the 70's and the uniform of the day was just what she had noted. Things are a bit more upscale these days...but I stopped to look at a conference in 2006 and nearly everyone dressed alike...black being the color of choice. It's ALL by an understanding...not an overt order...you just "know" and it isn't a Holy Spirit KNOW.
Anyway, franchise is perfect!

No. As in any good franchise, money goes to the HQ to get the template so that you can begin your franchise. Then you send a monthly royalty to the HQ based on gross receipts. And the HQ sends quality control people to train you and check up on your adherence to the guidelines.

And if your quality goes below the minimum standard, they yank your franchise. You have to change everything down to the color scheme so that you won't confuse anyone about whose chicken (pizza, tacos, hamburgers, steaks, sea food, hardware, whatever) you are selling. And depending on the kind of contract you have, they may simply take over everthing all the way down to owning your building and operations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Think about that. If the church is truly local with the authority being with the local elders then surely they could create their own website. But if the LRC is a franchise, all with the same image, the same menu of LSM, etc. Then the elders do not have that authority. Instead LSM creates a standard template and designates what can and cannot go into it. I think the website is confirmation that the LRC is a franchise.

That was my impression. Just do a google of "churchin........." and you will get the LSM franchise in that city. The standard template has several pages: "Welcome", and "Beliefs", which have blurbs provided by LSM. Then there are "Brief History" and "Testimonies" (which on quite a few sites are still blank, indicating to me how little enthusiasm there was locally). Then there is a "Contact Us" page with names & phone numbers, and finally a "Links" page with LSM sites.

So much for following the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In their defense, a number of local churches have customized their web presences. Some are fairly well presented. But that the majority of them followed the cookie-cutter formula provided by LSM, and often in such a desultory way, speaks a loud testimony of itself.

If you look at a bunch of these churchin.......... websites one after another, it really becomes dispiriting.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Think about that. If the church is truly local with the authority being with the local elders then surely they could create their own website. But if the LRC is a franchise, all with the same image, the same menu of LSM, etc. Then the elders do not have that authority. Instead LSM creates a standard template and designates what can and cannot go into it. I think the website is confirmation that the LRC is a franchise.

But it's all cool, the leaders of LSM are just expressing their opinion within the four walls of their group! -- right, Z?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But it's all cool, the leaders of LSM are just expressing their opinion within the four walls of their group! -- right, Z?

If they teach that each local church is autonomous and that the LSM does not control the churches, this is clearly false. Look at the website.

If on the other hand they are honest and say we use WL and WN's ministry when it is convenient, and we discard things that are inconvenient. Of course, everyone in this country has the right to do that.

I am not objecting to their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, all I am objecting to is the hypocrisy and falsehood. They trumpet that they are the ones who seek to be faithful to every word of WL and WN's ministry (see the quarantine letter on Titus C) and this is a clear case of where they have ignored WN's warning and WL's teaching concerning the churches being autonomous.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If they teach that each local church is autonomous and that the LSM does not control the churches, this is clearly false. Look at the website.

If on the other hand they are honest and say we use WL and WN's ministry when it is convenient, and we discard things that are inconvenient. Of course, everyone in this country has the right to do that.

I am not objecting to their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, all I am objecting to is the hypocrisy and falsehood. They trumpet that they are the ones who seek to be faithful to every word of WL and WN's ministry (see the quarantine letter on Titus C) and this is a clear case of where they have ignored WN's warning and WL's teaching concerning the churches being autonomous.

OK, but if because of their weak conscience, they need a centralized authority to exercise control over the churches ("Weee want a king!! Weee want a king!!"), then I think we need to defer to Paul's word in Romans 14, and bear with those that are weak in the faith.