What is the church?

[aron]

Given that I don't want to crowd OBW's blog, I thought I would make some comments on something I read yesterday on his blog in a separate venue.

OBW's comments were on the Living Stream Ministry's teachings on the church, and I would like to quote this part:

"...the day that the core of a sermon is something like what was in the Church in Bellevue’s [which is a Living Stream Ministry franchise] May 20, 2012 “Ministry Reading Portion” is the day I seek a new source of ministry.

... when the core of [the sermon] really has nothing to do with me, or to the extent that it does, it is all about me getting lost in some larger group that has all of these ethereal attributes, I find it useless."

Then he posted from the Church In Bellevue's publication. The church is, according to the C In B's publication, the wife, the warrior, the body, the dwelling place, the city.

Like OBW I find such teaching, while not absolutely untrue, and not without some basis in scripture, to be useless. My reasoning is thus: such statements are tautological, and reflexive. They don't really tell us anything. It's like saying, "The church is the church". Such a statement yields nothing of value, in and of itself, absent further information.

Now let me explain why I think thus. If you look at the usage of the word translated "church" in English, that word is "ekklesia". I think most of us know this. Now, how was the word "ekklesia" used in conversation? What was an ekklesia to the NT writers & readers? What did the word mean to Greek-speakers in Palestine, Asia Minor, and further regions (i.e. Africa, Rome, Gaul) in the first century, when the NT was being composed?

So if Paul or a gospel writer equates the church with a bride, or a warrior, or a body, he may be giving us some information about some aspect of the function of the church, but he is not, as the Church In Bellevue seems to assume, actually telling us what the church is. Absent further definition, it's an "ethereal attribute", as OBW put it, and is quite useless.

It's like saying, "My car is a great way to get to work". So we can ask, "What is a car?" and answer, "It's a great way to get to work." But that doesn't tell us what a car is: typically an enclosed vehicle composed of a metal chassis and shell with an engine and a steering wheel and four rubber tires, manufactured by Hyundai or Ford or whomever. A canoe can also be a great way to get to work, or a skateboard or a trolley or a hovercraft or a pair of sneakers. So some statement about some aspect of something's function does not actually inform us what that item actually is. It doesn't define the thing per se, as the Church In Bellevue seems to think, at least by my reading of the portion which OBW provided.

Okay, back to context: what is the church? How is it used in the NT, and the Greek OT, the Septuagint? Again, many of us know how it is used. The "ekklesia" is a gathering together. It's what we might call an assembly, or a meeting. It is a group of people convened for some express purpose. You can have an "ekklesia" to elect a town mayor, or to praise God, or to remember Jesus, or to decide whether to raise funds for a new school building.

Let me give a scriptural basis from the NT. Acts 19:41 "And with these words, he dismissed the assembly." What is the word for assembly here? Yes, it is "ekklesia". It means "meeting" (In the Greek OT "ekklesia" also meant this: "In the midst of the meeting I will praise You" (From Psalm 22, quoted in Hebrews 2).

The focus of our ekklesia is Jesus. Our focus is not the meeting. So if you go to an "ekklesia", and the teaching is about "the ekklesia" (as the wife, the warrior, the bride, etc), then I posit that you have lost your focus. If you focus your gathering on Jesus you will probably fulfill some aspect, as His designated "ekklesia" (i.e. church meeting), of being His body and bride here on earth, and fighting for His interests and His kingdom, etc. But if you fill your meeting with teachings about your meeting, then you are doing nothing but running around in circles looking for your own tail.

Here is a portion from Deuteronomy 32, where Moses warns the Jews,

"15 Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.

16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols.

17 They sacrificed to demons, which are not God— gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear.

18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

19 The Lord saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters.

20 “I will hide my face from them,” he said, “and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful.

21 They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains."

When your focus is "The Church", you have forgotten the God who brought you forth from bondage in Egypt. You are now focusing on a "god who has recently appeared (v. 17)", and "what is no god (v. 21)". Secondly, your teachings make no sense, nor yield profit, because you are saying that "The focus of our meeting (ekklesia) is the meeting (ekklesia)." Your statements yield no informational value, and your meeting yields no spiritual issue.

If we recognize Jesus as God's sent Lord and Christ, then we immediately have Jesus' assurance that He will build his church. He will surely gather His called-out ones together. But when we focus the attention of our gathering together on the meeting itself, then we take our eyes off Jesus, and disaster inevitably ensues.

Remember, dear readers, that Satan loves to divide. He is the prince of division. What is the issue of all Watchman Nee's teachings on the church? Division after division. How many thousands of christians are no longer associating with one another, because of Mr. Nee's teachings? I believe they have been duped to take their eyes off of Jesus. Faith in Jesus makes us one. No church will ever unite us.

Peace to you all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

The focus of our ekklesia is Jesus. Our focus is not the meeting. So if you go to an "ekklesia", and the teaching is about "the ekklesia" (as the wife, the warrior, the bride, etc), then I posit that you have lost your focus. If you focus your gathering on Jesus you will probably fulfill some aspect, as His designated "ekklesia" (i.e. church meeting), of being His body and bride here on earth, and fighting for His interests and His kingdom, etc. But if you fill your meeting with teachings about your meeting, then you are doing nothing but running around in circles looking for your own tail.

I don't see a problem with occasionally reminding believers what the church is. But I definitely agree that making it an ongoing focus means you've lost your proper focus. I mention this in my thread here, where I say:

I think this is the reason Jesus did not talk about the church much, because to him the point is God and people, not God and some ideal institution.

Nee and Lee convinced us that "Christianity" had missed something for 2000 years: That being the crucial, central importance of THE CHURCH. Nee/Lee stated that our focus and efforts should be on building up THE CHURCH. This, they said, could only be done practically by gathering as the church in the city, where we could pretty much ignore everything else that was going on in the world and in the rest of the Body of Christ (aka "Christianity"), and just focus on this "thing" we were in. This was the basis of the whole Lord's Recovery movement.

I bought into this idea. I thought I'd seen something above and beyond. How would I have known though? I was just a young man with no training. But THE VISION OF THE CHURCH was impressive. So I bought into it. Why hadn't "Christianity" seen it? Because it was a "hidden" truth. Unfortunately, you court problems when you start placing the Bible's "hidden" messages above the clear and plain ones.

Some of the clear messages of the NT are:

Believe in Jesus for salvation.
Love God.
Love people.
Live in relationship with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Live a holy, humble, joyous, peaceful, serving life.
Tell others about the gospel.
Live in community and meet with other believers for mutual edification and service.

Nowhere does it say that our lives should be devoted to building up the church.

When the NT talks about us building, it talks about building up each other, not the church. I believe this is intentional. We build up each other; God builds up the church. Why is this distinction important? Because focusing on THE CHURCH leads to focusing on an institution, rather than people, and can cause us to treat people as a means to an end. History has borne this out, particularly in the LRC.

The Church is important. But Nee/Lee took it so far that the result was a mindset that made people a means to an end, and therefore disposable. This is not the message of the Bible.

[OBW]

A little off of the actual topic, but there is something I read recently that applies to many assemblies, both within and without the LRC.

So many people think that the evidence of spiritual victory is outward joy and exuberance. This is something that was a significant sore spot for me back when my mother died. The dear friends from the LRC basically turned the time of legitimate mourning into (for them) a time to celebrate. Everything was upbeat.

Now I'm not saying that there is no place for recognizing the joy and hope of our faith even in the face of death. But there is a time to mourn.

And in regular meetings there is a time to be solemn, confess your sins, reflect upon the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Meetings are not simply places to bring the "sacrifice of praise" (meaning upbeat joy). If your meetings are only upbeat and victorious, they are probably often manufactured and hollow.

I find that the meeting of the church is a time to better focus myself than anything I can do alone. It is in the presence of others I discover that my wonderful "revelation" is either commonplace or in error. It is where I once again reflect upon the greatness of God in all his attributes in the midst of the congregation. I have less opportunity to wander into my contemporaneous babblings.

And on that last one, there is some evidence that our wonderful, contemporaneous prayers are often just muddled messes. Too often self-centered. I don't suggest that God despises them. I'm sure he longs to hear our heart. But we probably could spend a little time taking advantage of what is already written down for us. Slow down and say "Our Father who is in heaven . . . ." Read some of David's prayers as recorded in Psalms, or of Elijah or Jeremiah.

The church that is seeking to always be "up" is missing a lot. Trying to concoct an original prayer on the fly is an opportunity for distraction. Take time and reflect in your heart. Consider the Word. Put it together into a different kind of praying of the scripture.

There may be a lot of problems with the more liturgical churches, especially the RCC. But actual content in their liturgy is seldom the problem. Sometimes it would be nice to find that much content in evangelical circles.

Then you could go out from a meeting having been established, built-up, strengthened, encouraged, etc. Instead, we too often go out with questionings. (Oh, no!!)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not saying that there is no place for recognizing the joy and hope of our faith even in the face of death. But there is a time to mourn.

And in regular meetings there is a time to be solemn, confess your sins, reflect upon the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Meetings are not simply places to bring the "sacrifice of praise" (meaning upbeat joy). If your meetings are only upbeat and victorious, they are probably often manufactured and hollow.

Yes, there is a time to mourn, and also a time to repent. I noticed that repentance is a continual theme in the NT, from the first words of John the Baptist and Jesus the Nazarene, to the final epistles to the seven churches in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3.

Repentance is not just for "sinners in the hands of an angry God"; rather we are all, on this side of the judgment seat, those in need of repentance.

Originally Posted by OBW

The church that is seeking to always be "up" is missing a lot. Trying to concoct an original prayer on the fly is an opportunity for distraction. Take time and reflect in your heart. Consider the Word. Put it together into a different kind of praying of the scripture.

There may be a lot of problems with the more liturgical churches, especially the RCC. But actual content in their liturgy is seldom the problem. Sometimes it would be nice to find that much content in evangelical circles.

Then you could go out from a meeting having been established, built-up, strengthened, encouraged, etc. Instead, we too often go out with questionings. (Oh, no!!)

One of the last LRC meetings I went to, the theme was "building". I left with questionings. What assurance did I have that we were not building Babylon? Especially if you skip (i.e. ignore, downplay) the "Jesus" part?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember, dear readers, that Satan loves to divide. He is the prince of division. What is the issue of all Watchman Nee's teachings on the church? Division after division. How many thousands of christians are no longer associating with one another, because of Mr. Nee's teachings? I believe they have been duped to take their eyes off of Jesus.

Now, it may seem ungrateful, and disrespectful, to equate Watchman Nee's teachings with Satan. Surely the Mr. Nee was a dear brother, the latchet of whose shoes I may be unworthy to unloose, to quote John the Baptist. True.

But what was the basis of Mr. Nee's understanding of the church? Was he not looking through the lens of a corrupt history? Was not his understanding warped by centuries of "church tradition"? Or was his understanding of the word he translated "church" the same as the understanding of those first century believers, whose "church life" he sought to emulate? I daresay no.

Let me give two examples for my thinking. First, at the close of the Medieval Period, with the simplistic idea of "Heaven" versus "Hell" guiding their labors, the early Bible translators into English ran into problems. What to do with words like "Sheol", or "Hades", or "Paradise", or "the pit", or "the grave"? Not so easy. Your pre-existing concepts may force you into uncomfortable linguistic compromises in order to render the ancient parlance into your own.

Second, what about the word translated "saints"? The centuries-old Catholic tradition of "sainthood" affected (distorted from the original) the modern understanding of the word. To be a saint in the 20th century meant something rather different from what it meant to the recipients of Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. So Witness Lee tried to "recover" the word back to its original meaning, and usage.

Likewise, the word "ekklesia", I suspect, meant something different to Watchman Nee from what it had meant to the people who wrote, and read, the New Testament. Mr. Nee's understanding of the "restored" or "recovered" or "normal" New Testament church got distorted by the lens of history.

Therefore I disagree with his attempted recovery, and his teachings probably helped fuel further divisions among the saints, which we label "Great Lakes churches" and "Brazilian churches" and "Living Stream churches" and so forth. The supposed "recovery" was merely a continuation of a long-standing trend of Satan dividing the believers into separate, adversarial and antagonistic groups.

A church is just a meeting of believers, no more and no less. The meeting may be for prayer, for Bible study, for exhortation, to preach the gospel, to remember the Lord, or some combination thereof. The church is a temporary confluence (assembly) of redeemed sinful humanity for the purpose of rememberance, of acknowledgment, of following and serving, for instruction, and praising of the resurrected and enthroned Savior Jesus, to the Father God's glory, through work (operation) of the Holy Spirit. To hold the church as something in and of itself to be an object of one's attention, affection, focus, teaching, labor, or affiliation, is to raise up an idol to compete with God. This is why I quoted Deuteronomy 32, with "gods recently arrived", "which are not god". Only the Lord Jesus should be equated with God. Nothing else.

"And with those words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'". Acts 19:41

[OBW]

I note that among Nee's books on the church is The Orthodoxy of the Church. (Of course there was also The Normal Christian Church Life, Further Talks on the Church Life, Church Affairs, and The Assembly Life.) While there are surely things to be said about problems in the church, there is nothing in scripture that suggests that we need to have a right belief ("orthodoxy") about the church. We are told to believe and obey Christ. To believe in God.

It is interesting that the church simply is. It is the body of Christ. It is the assembly. It is the pillar and base of the truth.

And there is nothing that suggests that only certain versions of the church fit this criteria. Only the Calvinists (or Armenians). Only the Evangelicals. Or even only the Baptists. Or the Church of Christ. Or the "Local Churches."

And nothing says that the worst of the problems in Revelation 2 and 3 were not the church. Even the one we like to declare (based on Miller's version of reading the passage) to be the Roman Catholic Church (and the whore of Babylon if we listen to Lee).

Seems odd that the one about to be spewed out was really so nearly perfect according to "orthodoxy." They had all the right teachings. They were as orthodox as you can get.

Seems that orthodoxy is almost unimportant to God. Yes there is a requirement of belief. But it is in Christ, not the church. And it must be coupled with orthopraxy — with practice. It does take works to actually please God. We can do nothing to gain salvation. But doing nothing after that . . . well, you've seen it too often.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nee and Lee convinced us that "Christianity" had missed something for 2000 years: That being the crucial, central importance of THE CHURCH. Nee/Lee stated that our focus and efforts should be on building up THE CHURCH. This, they said, could only be done practically by gathering as the church in the city, where we could pretty much ignore everything else that was going on in the world and in the rest of the Body of Christ (aka "Christianity"), and just focus on this "thing" we were in. This was the basis of the whole Lord's Recovery movement.

It's one thing to be a "protestant," looking at completely unacceptable church practices, and voicing one's protests before checking out. Church history is filled with stories of those who grew up in degraded religious circles, and once they began to examine the scripture, felt compelled to leave that system.

It is something else all together to declare the entire body of Christ a complete failure, hopelessly sick and incurable, and then develop a new system based on obscure scriptures, heretofore hidden from sight, and declare to all that that you alone are faithful to the original scriptural pattern of the church.

Personally I must be the most gullible Christian on earth. I grew up believing that only the Catholic church was the one true church, and only the Pope was qualified to speak for Christ. Then I got saved thru random happenstance and landed in the LC one day. Soon I was believing that we alone were the one true church, and that only WL was qualified to speak for Christ.

Where's that head-scratching smilie face when I need it? SMH

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, it may seem ungrateful, and disrespectful, to equate Watchman Nee's teachings with Satan. Surely the Mr. Nee was a dear brother, the latchet of whose shoes I may be unworthy to unloose, to quote John the Baptist. True.

But what was the basis of Mr. Nee's understanding of the church? Was he not looking through the lens of a corrupt history? Was not his understanding warped by centuries of "church tradition"? Or was his understanding of the word he translated "church" the same as the understanding of those first century believers, whose "church life" he sought to emulate? I daresay no.

He was strongly influenced by the exclusive Brethren, but in the preface of his book TNCCL, which btw rebukes the church practices developed under WL, he stated his greatest fear that someone would take his fellowship and use it legalistically.

WL on several occasions seemed more concerned about facing WN in the after life than the Lord Himself, knowing that what he produced was exactly what WN warned about.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... there is nothing in scripture that suggests that we need to have a right belief ("orthodoxy") about the church. We are told to believe and obey Christ. To believe in God..

And to love our neighbor. Not to love doctrines, works, teachings, ministers or their ministries, or the organizations which tend to cluster around these.

Originally Posted by OBW

... It is interesting that the church simply is. It is the body of Christ. It is the assembly. It is the pillar and base of the truth.

And there is nothing that suggests that only certain versions of the church fit this criteria. ..

My reading is that "the version of the church which fits this criteria" is simply the one which Jesus calls "His" -- "on this rock I will build MY ekklesia". The church is not based on local ground, on a ministry, a minister, the output of a 'publishing house', or anything else. It is simply the assemblage of the repentant sinners who have, by faith, gathered themselves together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by OBW

... Seems odd that the one about to be spewed out was really so nearly perfect according to "orthodoxy." They had all the right teachings. They were as orthodox as you can get...

They were probably good at straining out gnats. You know the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by OBW

... It does take works to actually please God. We can do nothing to gain salvation. But doing nothing after that . . . well, you've seen it too often.

I agree with you about the works part, as necessary evidences of our conversion from darkness to light in the name of our Lord Jesus.

And I personally believe that one of the greatest, foundational christian works, is to receive on another in Christ Jesus, to the glory of God our Father, even as He has received us sinners by our faith in His Son.

And I further contend that when we receive on another in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is in fact the assembling together if HIS ekklesia. The local ekklesia of Jesus is not necessarily 'affililiated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee', as the Living Stream Ministry franchise churches stated in 1999 on their internet website banners. Rather, our assembling ourselves together is based on the Lord Jesus, and our faith thereof, and is not further improved by "church affiiliation", or "ministry affiliation", in my view.

The ekklesia of Jesus is affiliated, through faith, with Jesus. There simply is no other name for us. Now, we may add names to identify ourselves -- "the church which meets in Prisca and Aquila's house", or "the Thursday night college meeting", or "the First Baptist church on Elm Road", but it is still the ekklesia of Jesus. It is just simply a meeting of believers, no more and no less.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I grew up believing that only the Catholic church was the one true church, and only the Pope was qualified to speak for Christ.

Then I got saved ...landed in the LC one day. Soon I was believing that we alone were the one true church, and that only WL was qualified to speak for Christ.

It is no small irony, and not coincidental, I believe, that a ministry which made so much hay out of pointing out the failures of others eventually created such a close copy of what they claimed to detest.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nee and Lee convinced us that "Christianity" had missed something for 2000 years: That being the crucial, central importance of THE CHURCH. Nee/Lee stated that our focus and efforts should be on building up THE CHURCH. This, they said, could only be done practically by gathering as the church in the city, where we could pretty much ignore everything else that was going on in the world and in the rest of the Body of Christ (aka "Christianity"), and just focus on this "thing" we were in. This was the basis of the whole Lord's Recovery movement.

Basically they (and especially Witness Lee) were caught up with the idea of being the remnant and used typology to prop up their theory. It went something like this: in the OT there was a remnant that left Babylon (Christianity) and went back to the "proper ground" Jerusalem (us). We are the NT reality of the type. If not us then who?

This kind of teaching breeds all sorts of strange attitudes and behaviors. For example, when someone leaves the LC system it is often difficult for them to meet with other Christians because "that's Babylon". "How can I go back to Babylon?" So they find themselves in a no-man's-land struggling with the mental hurdles brought on by accepting this kind of teaching for so long. If they do find a place to meet they may start to harshly judge it based on the criteria of the LC system -as if that system is the only legitimate benchmark.

It takes awhile to figure out that "the criteria" is just them saying that's the criteria and that there are many other churches with the same remnant idea of being the special "it" place and unique apple of God's eye.

For those who don't leave the "we're the special remnant" idea just continues to make them narrower and narrower and any failure of Christianity only serves to reinforce their attitude: "See they are Babylon!" They become dug-in and form a spiritual and cultural ghetto. Whereas the same kind of failures within their own ranks would be covered up or dismissed or outside the realm of comment because "you can't touch God's anointed", etc.

Any particular church system who thinks they are God's favorite special place to the exclusion of all other Christians who are not part of their system IMHO don't understand the NT.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

... in the OT there was a remnant that left Babylon (Christianity) and went back to the "proper ground" Jerusalem (us). We are the NT reality of the type. If not us then who?.

Who we are is sinners, repentant and believing into the Son of God, Jesus the Nazarene. Any "special sauce" added to that does not help.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

... This kind of teaching breeds all sorts of strange attitudes and behaviors. For example, when someone leaves the LC system it is often difficult for them to meet with other Christians because "that's Babylon". "How can I go back to Babylon?" ?.

My argument is, if you say that someone else is "in Babylon" then you are in Babylon. As you judge others, so are you judged.

But when you admit that you are in Babylon, then you can begin the (usually long, slow and painful) process of extricating yourself from the mess. When you proudly proclaim "We are in the Good Land!" you really are the furthest from it.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

...For those who don't leave the "we're the special remnant" idea just continues to make them narrower and narrower and any failure of Christianity only serves to reinforce their attitude: "See they are Babylon!" They become dug-in and form a spiritual and cultural ghetto. .

That was my point. You think you have arrived somewhere, by comparing yourself to some, other, "failure", but really you've been tricked and you are going nowhere. That is why the aged apostle John had to repeatedly tell the churches to "repent" in the epistles to the Asian churches. That's why the Epistle to the Hebrews is so full of remonstrations and warnings. The recipients think they are 'safe', and have arrived somewhere good, and this puts them in grave danger.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

... Any particular church system who thinks they are God's favorite special place to the exclusion of all other Christians who are not part of their system IMHO don't understand the NT.

Jesus said, "You think you can see; therefore your blindness remains." Who could put it better?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It is no small irony, and not coincidental, I believe, that a ministry which made so much hay out of pointing out the failures of others eventually created such a close copy of what they claimed to detest.

Years ago my mother made a comment about the Church in Cleveland that it was "filled with ex-Catholics." I remember thinking to myself, "who told her that?" But as we all have learned, "mom knows best."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

As you judge others, so are you judged.

This is an interesting shorthand of an oft-quoted snippet. Unfortunately, something I recently heard seems to have captured the spirit of this particular phrase best.

The point is not as is often said, that you should not judge, but that you should judge righteously. (And it is quite possible that this is exactly what you meant to say here.) If you judge righteously and are, yourself, righteous, then you should be able to withstand righteous judgment. But if you judge unrighteously, expect that you will also be judged in the same manner and, consistent with most cases of unrighteousness, fall.

Of course unrighteousness is exactly the kind of judgment that WL and his remains have been judging the Christian community with for so many years now. They have called Christians and their gatherings whores, mooing cows, fallen, reprobate, etc. They declare that they are all part of the same church, but that church is only the one that they attend (the LRC) and not any other (those were Nee's words in The Orthodoxy of the Church, about 9 paragraphs from the end).

As for the comments about Babylon, it would seem that if Babylon is a legitimate type, it is of a worldly system that is opposed to God and God's people. It is not and was never associated with God in any way shape, or form. It was used as a means of discipline for wayward Judah, but it did not escape discipline itself for its part, being overrun by the Persians who eventually allowed the Jews their freedom.

No, Babylon is not a legitimate type for anything related to Christianity or the church. Babylon would be among the places from which people escape to become Christian, not the place the Christians go to congregate and escape their duty to God.

But there is another place where Christians can (and sometime do) go. That place is Laodicea. That is where they go to declare that they alone have received the best that God has to offer and that others have not. They are the kind that are enamored with remnant theology and recovery. Enamored with the idea that they have discovered what almost 20 centuries of Christians have failed to understand. That have found the decoder ring that makes red into grey and yellow into white (and, of course, they are the ones who decide which is right and which is an illusion).

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is another place where Christians can (and sometime do) go. That place is Laodicea. That is where they go to declare that they alone have received the best that God has to offer and that others have not. They are the kind that are enamored with remnant theology and recovery. Enamored with the idea that they have discovered what almost 20 centuries of Christians have failed to understand. That have found the decoder ring that makes red into grey and yellow into white (and, of course, they are the ones who decide which is right and which is an illusion).

And at least in the case of the LC system's decoder ring it's mostly about the way of doing things. For example, we don't have "pastors" we have elders, how we meet, outward practices, etc.

Added to that is the use of some extreme theological language for shock value: we are becoming God, etc. Which they consider a high peak of God's divine revelation that they discovered while in fact it is an ill-advised way to discuss transformation which was first used by one church father.

To me the fundamental flaw with "we are the remnant" churches is it creates a feeling of superiority solely based on saying and believing you are special in God's eyes above all other Christians - regardless of spiritual condition and expressions of the condition in outreach and care to others. If their spiritual condition/maturity really is "superior" there would be certain manifest outcomes and one of these virtues would be the feeling that they are not superior but have true humility in attitude and actions towards others.

BTW I agree with you that they misapply the "type" of Babylon/Jerusalem from the OT to fit what they want it to say about themselves. But for the sake of argument let's say it's true. I don't read anywhere that those who went back to Jerusalem were instructed to brag about their superiority and trash talk those who didn't return with them.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

My argument is, if you say that someone else is "in Babylon" then you are in Babylon. As you judge others, so are you judged.

But when you admit that you are in Babylon

My view is that using the Babylon/Jerusalem OT as a type to support a remnant church theory focuses the attention on place instead of the true problem addressed throughout the NT of spiritual immaturity. So to make one change in a line you wrote I would say: "But when you admit you are Babylon..."

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

...to make one change in a line you wrote I would say: "But when you admit you are Babylon..."

Correct. I think your phraseology is more precise than mine was.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

To me the fundamental flaw with "we are the remnant" churches is it creates a feeling of superiority solely based on saying and believing you are special in God's eyes above all other Christians - regardless of spiritual condition and expressions of the condition in outreach and care to others.

I personally think this statement is important. One's spiritual condition is not so much determined by the quality of theology, or how biblically-based the phraseology seems to be, but on outreach & care of and toward others. Especially, "...those who cannot repay you."

One's phraseology, however carefully worked out, will vaporize in an instant before the throne of light.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

If their spiritual condition/maturity really is "superior" there would be certain manifest outcomes and one of these virtues would be the feeling that they are not superior but have true humility in attitude and actions towards others.

Humility, it would seem to me, is not to say, "We have the light", but to say "We do not have the light". Only God has the light. God is full of eyes, before and behind. God is the unseen seer. We are the unseeing seen. The ones who think they see are the most blind.

When I was first saved I was very impressed with people who held themselves up as something, who had done something. Today such claims no longer impress me. But I will admit there is a very good living to be made, in this age, of doing just that. If one makes a vocation lording it over the flock it is astonishing at how large and willing a crowd will gather.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

When I was first saved I was very impressed with people who held themselves up as something, who had done something. Today such claims no longer impress me. But I will admit there is a very good living to be made, in this age, of doing just that. If one makes a vocation lording it over the flock it is astonishing at how large and willing a crowd will gather.

Never let it be said that religion isn't a good business! If nothing else Witness Lee was a successful first generation immigrant entrepreneur. It's the American Dream!

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

If nothing else Witness Lee was a successful first generation immigrant entrepreneur.

Hey, he was the apostle of the age. Hard to see how he could have done much better than that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Never let it be said that religion isn't a good business! If nothing else Witness Lee was a successful first generation immigrant entrepreneur. It's the American Dream!

Especially when his own people kicked him out of Taipei for bad business deals.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Especially when his own people kicked him out of Taipei for bad business deals.

Would this mean that white Americans have been better at respecting God's governmental authority, than the Taiwanese? Now there's some irony for ya!

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Would this mean that white Americans have been better at respecting God's governmental authority, than the Taiwanese?

If you look at the aftermath of the Daystar motorhome investment fiasco, perhaps that is true. The church-going faithful, sorry I mean investors, took a financial bath, while the senior leadership sailed merrily along.

But it is not merely white Americans. Look up Bishop Eddie Long, Bishop Jonathan Alvarado, Ephren Taylor, Creflo Dollar, and you'll see how widespread this phenomenon is.

This, to me, reinforces the notion of the ekklesia as merely a meeting, temporary in time and space, for the purpose of our remembering, serving, and praising our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If we try to build the "church" up as more than that, at least in its earthly incarnation, we now become a tempting target for the fierce wolves. The "established church" is a sitting duck for Satan's forces.

The false apostles and prophets simply cannot resist preying on the exposed flock. In order to do this, they pretend to be watching over the flock, and shepherding it. But if you look at their history of 1)financial scams, 2)sexual predation, and 3)purges and power grabs, a different testimony emerges.

The Bible says that Jesus is praising the Father in the midst of the assembly (Heb 2:12). It doesn't say that He is doing this from a dais, a pulpit, or a platform. Elevating oneself above the assembly is the way of the Gentiles.

Mark 10:42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I have no doubt that Witness Lee wanted "to be great among you", and "wanted to be first". I also do. I think everyone should aspire to be great in the kingdom of God. What have we been called for, if not to greatness?

But he lost that greatness when he elevated himself above the flock, and when he presented them with "opportunities for financial investment", and when he covered up his profligate son Philip Lee, the head of his publishing company Living Stream Ministry. The corrupt, power-based, worldly-modeled, organizational structure of his "church" allowed him to remain elevated above the flock even while the turmoil and damage struck repeatedly upon those beneath him.

That is the "greatness" and "me first" of the Gentiles, and it is already too evident in our families, schools, corporations, and governments. Human society is rife with such power-based arrangements. Why, oh why, do we christians think that such arrangements are also useful for us to follow and serve our Lord? Why do we repeatedly allow ourselves to be duped into trying to be "something" here on earth? Why do we allow our fellow christians to elevate each other above the flock? When will we ever learn?

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

To me the fundamental flaw with "we are the remnant" churches is it creates a feeling of superiority solely based on saying and believing you are special in God's eyes above all other Christians - regardless of spiritual condition and expressions of the condition in outreach and care to others. If their spiritual condition/maturity really is "superior" there would be certain manifest outcomes and one of these virtues would be the feeling that they are not superior but have true humility in attitude and actions towards others.

I would like to approach these statements from another angle. The chief human concern, it could be argued, is not moral, psychological, or spiritual. It is physical, it is biotic. The human animal shares two key features with all members of every species: first, it wants to live, to survive. And two, it is slated to fail in that mission. It will ultimately succumb to death.

So the human animal, like every bat, tree, dog, frog, whale, and daffodil, engages in number of activities to keep death at bay, all the while knowing that it must ultimately return to the dust from whence it came. These activities include gathering food, putting on protective armor of various sorts, and engaging in evasive strategies to maintain viability as a biotic entity.

We continue in these strategies when we arrive in church. Naturally; we are trained from the womb, even programmed at a cellular level to fight to survive. To be first. But Jesus turned all that on its head. Jesus came and partook of blood and flesh, and pleased the Father by walking perfectly in all the ways of God. Jesus did not overturn the laws of God; rather He fulfilled and completed them to the last iota. And instead of being caught up to heaven as He surely could have, a la Enoch or Elijah, He instead went through death on our behalf. In His death we were freed from our old, failed, "survival" strategies. Jesus' strategy is: "I am least. I am last."

Now we the believers are in the assembly. Trying to re-create our old patterns of me-first behaviors will merely ruin our journey, and damage the journeys of our neighbors.

Someone who creates a "remnant" theology with a special, called-out-from-degraded-and-fallen-Christianity "remnant" church, complete with an exclusive "oracle of God" who is the sole and special mediator between fallen man and the Savior Jesus Christ, is in my view merely repeating the mistake of unbelievers. They are building an "escape strategy" here on earth, when Jesus specifically counseled against such failed strategies. Again and again He told people to let go of all that.

It's a brilliant move by Jesus, in retrospect, but it certainly is counter-intuative, and it takes a lot of faith to follow His counsel. Faith and fortitude. "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but I will remember the name of the LORD my God." Building up human organizations here on earth, with concomitant fund-raising drives, campus-building, and endless who-is-in-charge wrangles diverts and distracts us from Jesus' counsel.

To repent and believe into Jesus Christ, and to gather in the assembly of Jesus, is to be a remnant, called-out and special. To "affiliate" your assembly with the ministry of a fellow fallen human is to revert back to the natural ways.

[aron]

p.s. In my comments I didn't get to the "rubber hitting the road" of alwayslearning's post. It is found in the words "outreach and care for others" and "humility in attitude and actions towards others"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to approach these statements from another angle. The chief human concern, it could be argued, is not moral, psychological, or spiritual. It is physical, it is biotic. The human animal shares two key features with all members of every species: first, it wants to live, to survive. And two, it is slated to fail in that mission. It will ultimately succumb to death.

We continue in these strategies when we arrive in church. Naturally; we are trained from the womb, even programmed at a cellular level to fight to survive. To be first. But Jesus turned all that on its head. Jesus came and partook of blood and flesh, and pleased the Father by walking perfectly in all the ways of God. Jesus did not overturn the laws of God; rather He fulfilled and completed them to the last iota. And instead of being caught up to heaven as He surely could have, a la Enoch or Elijah, He instead went through death on our behalf. In His death we were freed from our old, failed, "survival" strategies. Jesus' strategy is: "I am least. I am last."

Now we the believers are in the assembly. Trying to re-create our old patterns of me-first behaviors will merely ruin our journey, and damage the journeys of our neighbors.

Someone who creates a "remnant" theology with a special, called-out-from-degraded-and-fallen-Christianity "remnant" church, complete with an exclusive "oracle of God" who is the sole and special mediator between fallen man and the Savior Jesus Christ, is in my view merely repeating the mistake of unbelievers. They are building an "escape strategy" here on earth, when Jesus specifically counseled against such failed strategies. Again and again He told people to let go of all that.

It's a brilliant move by Jesus, in retrospect, but it certainly is counter-intuative, and it takes a lot of faith to follow His counsel. Faith and fortitude. "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but I will remember the name of the LORD my God." Building up human organizations here on earth, with concomitant fund-raising drives, campus-building, and endless who-is-in-charge wrangles diverts and distracts us from Jesus' counsel.

To repent and believe into Jesus Christ, and to gather in the assembly of Jesus, is to be a remnant, called-out and special. To "affiliate" your assembly with the ministry of a fellow fallen human is to revert back to the natural ways.

Interesting viewpoints aron.

The Recovery, with all its many messages about faith, has long departed from the actual way of faith. Each and every lawsuit was further proof that they have long given up on the notion of trusting a heavenly Father who alone cares for their needs. Instead of trusting prayer in their Head and Lord, Recovery leaders continually have been "forced to seek relief in the courts." Ahem!

None of their members really even has the liberty to seek and follow the Lord directly by faith outside the box, since that could be construed as "damaging to the body," as interpreted by the Blended Oligarchy. Instead of trusting one another in the Lord's hands, they live in fear that any of their members venture beyond the strict guidelines established by Anaheim. When we leave the way of walking by faith, then we walk by sight, and that sight may not even be our own, but instead all the suspicious eyes surrounding us, who also live in fear of "offending the body."

Thus, a system of man-pleasing demands a human leader to maintain control. Believers, outside of the way of faith in an unseen Lord, must have a visible leader who will properly guide them and protect them from outside evils. Recovery faithful have long been convinced that God only speaks thru their own podium. To hear the Shepherd's voice directly from His word is viewed with suspicion, with a ready litany of horror stories available concerning those ones who heard "strange advice" directly from God. Constant reminders were given to ensure that the only "safe" speaking was from our designated leaders. As a result, it becomes more expedient to speak and study the "safe" and "interpreted" words of the ministry, rather than the risky word of God.

Unfortunately, ambitious men will never be content to accept the established ruling body, especially when it is known that they are merely lackeys for the last leader. Hence, emerging leaders can always lean their followers in the direction of scripture, thus making the conflict about "the truth," and not a personal rivalry between opportunistic men. This was evident in all the supporting letters following the recent quarantines. Both sides made it clear that they were only "taking a stand for the truth."

At one point I suggested that we should "take a stand for the truth" by ignoring both Anaheim and Cleveland.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...a system of man-pleasing demands a human leader to maintain control. Believers, outside of the way of faith in an unseen Lord, must have a visible leader who will properly guide them and protect them from outside evils..

Certainly believers need "Lead Sheep", i.e. shepherds, to guide them to the pastures of plenty. Christianity has a long tradition, going back to the original Good Shepherd Himself.

But with the word "control" I think you identify the key to the counterfeit, death-avoidance system. The fallen, man-pleasing system requires control. Coercion, either overt or hidden, lies at its root. The system's leader has tried to avoid death by gathering around him an army of supplicants and lackeys, and the systems members each buy into the lie, thinking that by inserting themselves into the "chain of command" of the power structure they likewise have improved their survival possibilities.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...Unfortunately, ambitious men will never be content to accept the established ruling body, especially when it is known that they are merely lackeys for the last leader. .

In the case of history, we call it war: "World War I, World War II, etc." In the case of religious systems we call it schisms and separations and divisions, or in the case of Witness Lee et al, "rebellion" and "turmoil". But its the same thing. Who gets to be the top dog? Who gets to control everybody else?

Originally Posted by Ohio

...Hence, emerging leaders can always lean their followers in the direction of scripture, thus making the conflict about "the truth," and not a personal rivalry between opportunistic men. This was evident in all the supporting letters following the recent quarantines. Both sides made it clear that they were only "taking a stand for the truth."

Right. All the warring factions maintain their position is "in truth". Ambitious people, pretending not to be ambitious, hiding behind a few Bible verses. And it is all, of course, "for the sake of the Body", while in fact the sheep are actually being slaughtered in droves.

[aron]

If you want to see one man elevating himself above the other sheep, with an adoring mass encouraging this process, look at Bishop Eddie Long in Atlanta. Long is a pastor of a "megachurch", who hosted Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in 2006 at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. Eddie Long held a lot of power, and by 2012 he was getting desperate as he felt the mantle slipping from his grasp. So he staged a pageant to impress the flock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVkoQHCXSK8

At one point the hired "rabbi" declares "this is God's government". They are trying to prop up Eddie Long by claiming his preeminent place in God's chain of command.

But as I have said, Jesus didn't teach that. Now, a transparently ridiculous farce staged to impress the gullible flock might seem out of place on the "Local Church Discussions" forum, but really I think that the system is the same. It is people trying to elevate themselves above the flock, with a great crowd gathering, thinking to themselves, "This is God's government". Folks, it is not; not the one Jesus told us about.

You might get several Presidents of the U.S. to come to your church, but it is not God's government.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

At one point the hired "rabbi" declares "this is God's government". They are trying to prop up Eddie Long by claiming his preeminent place in God's chain of command.

But as I have said, Jesus didn't teach that. Now, a transparently ridiculous farce staged to impress the gullible flock might seem out of place on the "Local Church Discussions" forum, but really I think that the system is the same. It is people trying to elevate themselves above the flock, with a great crowd gathering, thinking to themselves, "This is God's government". Folks, it is not; not the one Jesus told us about.

aron, your post reminded me of an old story ...

Years ago in 1985 a particularly effective brother in Columbus was shamed by Titus Chu publicly as he began to give a message in Cleveland. The speaking arrangement was set up by TC during the regional leaders' gathering. TC came in late into the back of the meeting hall and set the ambush for him. TC's goal was to bring him under submission by belittling him before others. It was basically an exhibition of TC's authority.

Since this occurred in the aftermath of the tragic abuse which Phil Comfort of Columbus also suffered at the hands of TC, this brother clamored for TC to apologize for his actions. Since that would never happen, TC informed all the other GLA leaders of his "insubordination." The word went out from Cleveland, and without formality, this brother was essentially quarantined from service in the GLA.

The next time I had an opportunity to visit Cleveland, I asked TC privately about brother this brother, because we had been so close for years. My goal was reconciliation, since it just tore at my heart to see this brother part ways. After asking TC what I could do to help, he responded, "there's nothing you can do, he touched God's government."

That was it. This brother was gone for good. The unforgivable sin. He touched God's government. I didn't understand all that meant, I just knew it was bad. TC had no interest to seek to "restore" this brother. TC saw no need to apologize for the way he shamed this brother. That's just the way things are in the Recovery! The "government" had license to publicly upbraid any brother he chooses, but if ... you speak up and you is history! TC was simply duplicating the abusive patterns which he had learned from WL. The purpose is simple -- hold all the leading ones in fear.

That is not God's government. That is abuse. This brother deserved none of the public reproach he received. As they say, "another one bites the dust!" The Lord taught us directly and specifically not to lord it over the flock, not to lead as the gentiles do, not to abuse the flock, not to hold God's people in fear, not to misuse the authority of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That is not God's government. That is abuse. This brother deserved none of the public reproach he received. As they say, "another one bites the dust!"

Also, remember how the Lord Jesus counseled the disciples, on how to administer "God's government". He said first go privately and fellowship. Then, bring another brother and try again. Only then go public with your case.

Different from the style you indicate here, as well as that shown by Mr. Lee (think of the Jane Anderson affair, Max Rappoport, etc).

Jumping people in public doesn't seem like you are following Jesus. And if you are not following Jesus, how can you claim to be God's deputy authority?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, remember how the Lord Jesus counseled the disciples, on how to administer "God's government". He said first go privately and fellowship. Then, bring another brother and try again. Only then go public with your case.

Different from the style you indicate here, as well as that shown by Mr. Lee (think of the Jane Anderson affair, Max Rappoport, etc).

Jumping people in public doesn't seem like you are following Jesus. And if you are not following Jesus, how can you claim to be God's deputy authority?

There's not a single verse in scripture to justify this kind of "management style." Their teachings about "God's government" are mostly just an elaborate justification for hot-tempered alpha-dog leaders who beat down their rivals into submission.

James and John were also called the "sons of thunder," ready to rain down God's judgment from heaven on other believers. In no place did the Lord support or promote that kind of behavior.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC was simply duplicating the abusive patterns which he had learned from WL. The purpose is simple -- hold all the leading ones in fear.

The character of the ekklesia is freedom. "The children of the king are free" (Matt 17:25).

The 'kurios' of the meeting (ekklesia) is the Lord Jesus Himself. He is rightly called "Master", and "Lord" (John 13:13). He is our gateway to freedom, to life beyond the pale of death.

But who is "second in command"? Who gets to sit at His right hand? It seems to be a question that has bedeviled (pun intended) the disciples from the beginning (see e.g. Mark 10:37). Watchman Nee might have thought he fixed this issue with his biblically-prescribed church life, but he didn't.

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, the ekklesia gets stratified and calcified and ossified, with positions and power-based relationships, dominated at the top by someone who always loves to be first (see 3 John 1:9).

I would argue that, following the principle of Jesus who is the King of all the kings, that the second from the throne, and third, and fourth, etc, are those who are most fully freed from the pangs of death, and likewise are free from fear-based manipulations of others. In this world they truly are "nothing", because they are most freed from everything. They are freed from pain, fear, jealousy, shame, greed, etc. They need nothing from anyone. They don't go around telling everyone else what to do under the guise of "shepherding" and "exhorting".

They are simply free, and their example shows the other sheep the way to follow Jesus. With such ones there are simply NO CONTROL ISSUES. None. Though I never met either man, I think there is a preponderance of evidence to be concerned about both WL and TC on these grounds. And the systems in which, or above which, they functioned with impunity are likewise suspect.

So, who are the "most fully freed"? The Lord knows. All will be revealed in 'that day'. To waste our time, in this age, wondering "Who's on first?" shows that we didn't understand the message, the good news.

[aron]

I was thinking recently of a story I heard, from about 100 years ago. There were once 3 cousins, who struggled to get along, and really didn't like each other. You know, adolescent bullying, teen-aged "alpha male" issues, and the like. Each was expected by his branch of the family to be a leader, and was being groomed for power.

One of them was kind of a tough guy, but not really a thinker. One was sensitive, or weak, however you might call it. One was an intellectual, but kind of shallow. None of these young men were outstandingly good or bad; but they were expected to eventually take their place at the top the "power" structures of their families, and so they dutifully did. They all had bought into the system. It promised them power, after all (or so it seemed).

But there was "bad blood" between them, stemming probably from a fight during a couple weeks together one summer, and fueled by generations of unresolved family issues. You know, how Uncle Joe got dissed by Fred's grampa forty years ago, and now cousins Willy and Fred don't get along.

To conclude my story, one of these young boys grew up to be Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, one became King George of England, and one became Tsar Nicholas of Russia. By the time they resolved their "Who's on first" spat, about 17 million people were dead and another 20 million had been injured.

The DYL - TC - BP scenario reminds me of nothing so much as this. Young men, groomed in a power structure, unable to resolve their "Who is on first" dilemma, and dutiful saints from Santa Monica and Sao Paulo and Toronto and Dallas and Dayton now dutifully oppose each other, just as patriotic Frenchmen and Germans and Canadians were expected to shoot at each other on the fields of Ypres a century ago.

Were we really called to this? Bad enough to be a Belgian getting shot by a German rifle just because Kaiser Wilhelm despised his cousin George. But christians? Believers? Fighting each other? "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

So, who are the "most fully freed"? The Lord knows. All will be revealed in 'that day'. To waste our time, in this age, wondering "Who's on first?" shows that we didn't understand the message, the good news.

Boy, you can say that again.

One of the big ways the LRC misleads and which continues to cause confusion and anxiety to members even after they leave the movement is that the LRC set up a whole cadre of false values, priorities and concerns.

These include the questions: Who is the apostle, what is the current move of God, who should I submit to, and so forth and so on.

None of these things are suggested in the Bible as holding any value, or as being things we need to be concerned about. LRCers have been indoctrinated to think they do. Once you've been programmed to believe such things, you tend to gravitate toward them and worry about them.

But the whole mindset is based on a fallacy. This is why it is so insidious. It's like a child being worried about the boogy man. Or it's like an adult being convinced he desperately needs a frankabellafalderol. What's that, you ask? It's nothing. But if you believe you need it then the people who define it for you are going to be able to lead you around by the nose.

That's the power of the LRC in a nutshell.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But the whole mindset is based on a fallacy. This is why it is so insidious. ... if you believe you need it then the people who define it for you are going to be able to lead you around by the nose.

That's the power of the LRC in a nutshell.

Yes, therein lies the power of LRC's persuasion. Once people uncritically accept a certain premise, then they can be lead about by the proverbial nose. If somebody uncritically receives as valid the LRC definition of a NT word, and uses it the way the LRC teachings use it (instead of as it may have been originally used), then their capacity for independent thought is greatly curtailed.

Two glaring examples, for me, are ekklesia, outlined in my original posts in this thread, and also their teaching on oikonomia, which you will notice is based on Paul's usage, and not the way Jesus presented it in His parables (i.e. stewardship).

Once you accept their premise, and don't critically examine what is involved in their understanding (against various other possible understandings), then you have lost your ability to follow the text. Instead, you have to follow the LRC lead. This is why I think Nee's premises underlying ekklesia need to be questioned. The NT and OT usages allow different understandings and definitions; in order to make his case for the "normal church" he seems to ignore these, since they are not helpful to him. There are unquestioned assumptions involved in his understanding of the word, and once these assumptions are challenged I find that the whole power of the LRC argument falls apart pretty quickly.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The DYL - TC - BP scenario reminds me of nothing so much as this. Young men, groomed in a power structure, unable to resolve their "Who is on first" dilemma, and dutiful saints from Santa Monica and Sao Paulo and Toronto and Dallas and Dayton now dutifully oppose each other, just as patriotic Frenchmen and Germans and Canadians were expected to shoot at each other on the fields of Ypres a century ago.

p.s. the ekklesia should be, it seems to me, a kind of safety net where damaged and messed-up sinners can come to get reconciled to God through Christ Jesus.

I was thinking this recently because I realized that maybe the only difference between George W. Bush and a bum on the street is that George had a good safety net and they didn't. Both might have had drug, alcohol, and behavior problems, but one had a good safety net (the Bush family of Texas) and one didn't.

We are all screw-ups, myself perhaps more than anyone, and we all need a safe environment to recover and be transformed back to God's original purpose. The ekklesia, the meeting of beleivers, should be that place, and not a venue for unending internecine warfare to be played out.

It is embarrasing for me, as a human, to look back at our history and see the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions because somebody couldn't keep their ego in check, and the masses were convinced that this was a crisis for society. It is tenfold embarrasing as a christian to see antagonistic camps of christian believers, opposing each other over what appears (to me) to be a few peoples' different understandings of nebulous concepts and ill-defined words.

My safety net has been damaged, and I don't like it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

My safety net has been damaged, and I don't like it.

Prayer: Lord Jesus, cover us all. Forgive us all of our trespasses, and help us to forgive those who have trespassed against us in any way. Please be merciful to us and lead us such that we all, regardless of personal disposition or understandings or experiences, can all go on together and arrive together.

Bless us and keep us, even as we bless You and keep You dear in our hearts. Amen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, therein lies the power of LRC's persuasion. Once people uncritically accept a certain premise, then they can be lead about by the proverbial nose. If somebody uncritically receives as valid the LRC definition of a NT word, and uses it the way the LRC teachings use it (instead of as it may have been originally used), then their capacity for independent thought is greatly curtailed.

This is why all exclusive and abusive systems must start with the supposition that the whole church has failed. To be able to declare this, then you must be a visionary with special connections to the throne of God. Once believed, then your followers have no "safety net" since all outsiders are part of that "failed" church. You alone have the answers to the church's problems. Now you must re-define Biblical terms to reinforce your unique "vision." Since outside safeguards are effectively eliminated, you now must re-interpret how the Bible is read by the members.

Thus the persuasion is complete and completely self-reinforcing. The leader is the one source for all teaching and fellowship. All outside Christian sources are discredited, and the members must now read the scripture with a re-defined dictionary to interpret the Bible.

Sounds just like the Roman Catholic Church. Sounds just like the Exclusive Brethren. Sounds just like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Sounds just like the Recovery too.

Did someone say insidious?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Prayer: Lord Jesus, cover us all. Forgive us all of our trespasses, and help us to forgive those who have trespassed against us in any way. Please be merciful to us and lead us such that we all, regardless of personal disposition or understandings or experiences, can all go on together and arrive together.

Bless us and keep us, even as we bless You and keep You dear in our hearts. Amen.

Amen and Amen!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is why all exclusive and abusive systems must start with the supposition that the whole church has failed. ... then your followers have no "safety net" since all outsiders are part of that "failed" church. ...Now you ... re-define Biblical terms to reinforce your unique "vision." ... outside safeguards are effectively eliminated...

Thus the persuasion is complete and completely self-reinforcing...

Did someone say insidious?

I agree. The safety net of christianity is to allow other people, outside of your comfort zone, your viewpoint and experience, to say things you don't want to hear. Even if you are firmly convinced that the VAST majority of said counsels are dumb, and the VAST majority of them are irrelevant, inadequate or simply wrong.

Somewhere in that welter of outside voices is a safe word which you need, to balance and prune the word within. Probably a lot of safe things, things you need to hear but don't want to.

If you eliminate or suppress that external voice, that "not me" voice, the one you really don't want or like to hear, then no matter how hard and scrupulously you may try to hew the narrow line in a genuine attempt to "cut straight the word of truth", you will grow unchecked errors which ultimately will pull both you and everything you've done into the ditch. Your thinking will contain suppositions and presumptions which cannot stand in the harsh critical light, and so eventually your efforts will be focused on keeping the light out, and suppressing "outside" counsel.

To me that is the genius of the ekklesia. There we have, to quote from Acts chapter 2, the equivalent of "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes...etc"

We are not, as the LRC footnote posits, "absolutely identical", but rather an ingenious assembly of disparate voices, views, and experiences, wherein there is safety. "In a multitude of counselors is safety" as Proverbs says repeatedly. Like checks and balances: the U.S. founders all realized that. Common sense and hard experience agree, and have proven this again and again over time.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I agree. The safety net of christianity is to allow other people, outside of your comfort zone, your viewpoint and experience, to say things you don't want to hear.

That makes so much sense now. But remember when we believed dissenting opinions were grave threats to be fled from?

Like Ohio said, did someone say insidious?

Wake up, LCers. You've been hoodwinked.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like Ohio said, did someone say insidious?

And I'll have my frankabellafalderol with onions!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

... remember when we believed dissenting opinions were grave threats to be fled from?

Building a closed conceptual system, unwelcoming to critical evaluation, is okay, as long as your system is named "Jesus the Nazarene", because He is the prototypical "open system"; He is always open to the Father. So if the 12 disciples just listened to Jesus, and to the exclusion of others, they were safe, because Jesus' mind was an inherently open and unbiased system. If Jesus taught something, it was enough; His speaking was tantamount to the Father's.

But Jesus was, by definition, the Christ. There is only one. Suppose you try to build a "closed sub-system" within christianity, like, let's say, an "exclusive sect", which doesn't allow any dissenting opinions. You try to build your own special version, an exclusive, miniature Christ, as true and valid as the original. What you have done, in my view, is that you have fatally narrowed the scope of your system, your conceptual and/or organizational construction.

The Bible tells us that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). So Jesus is the "narrow", or "exclusive", or "restricted" way. But what if we take that idea further and say that there is one way mediatorial way to Jesus? Like only one oracle, one apostle, one ground, one doctrine, one assembly, one tradition, one publication, as the sole access between man and Jesus? What if we try to "close", or "restrict", access to Jesus? "Only those with opinion 'x' can access Jesus; all other dissenting opinions are dangerous and must be avoided"...

I think that if we try to become "narrower" than Jesus the system breaks down. As I said, any flaws (and we are all flawed) will eventually mushroom and dwarf all our "good works". At best we end up wierd. At worst we end up with David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite or Jim Jones. All those guys were followers of Jesus at one point, but their Jesus got really narrow...

No, I think that dissenting opinions are necessary. They often come from outside of our own perspective and thus are not sweet to our taste, but they are often necessary.

[OBW]

Just saw this on facebook:

"After over 15 centuries the Lord's table has resumed in Rome! ... "

Of course, posted by someone in the LRC. I didn't even bother to watch the linked video. The headline says it all.

My question to them is, "Did you actually listen to what you just said??"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just saw this on facebook:

"After over 15 centuries the Lord's table has resumed in Rome! ... "

Of course, posted by someone in the LRC. I didn't even bother to watch the linked video. The headline says it all.

My question to them is, "Did you actually listen to what you just said??"

They truly believe that their gospel is the "gospel of the kingdom," and when "it" is preached to the whole inhabited earth, then the end has come. This is why "resuming the Lord's Table" in major cities like Jerusalem and Rome is so important, even if it is just a few grads from the FTTA breaking bread, not that that is bad in any way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible tells us that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). So Jesus is the "narrow", or "exclusive", or "restricted" way. But ... is there only one way to Jesus? .

I think this is an important question, and I didn't really develop it well in the preceding post. And I think it's relevant also to OBW and Ohio's comments on "taking the ground" and "resuming the Lord's table" in various urban centers.

The first part of the question, I think agreed on by all christians: There is one way to God, and that is through Jesus. He is the one mediator between God and man.

Okay, second half: is there a "narrow way", an "exclusive way" to access Jesus? Does one assembly, by associating with a "ministry of the age", or with some special practice or theological stance, have the "inside track" to Jesus Christ and thus to God?

I would argue no: that the Bible presents us with a very broad way to Jesus. I will use 2 verses (a very small set, I know). First, what I quoted in an earlier post on this thread, from Psalm 22 and Hebrews 2. "In the midst of the assembly I [Christ] will sing hymns of praise to You [the Father]". Christ is in the midst of the assembly. He isn't captured by some special teacher or oracle. Anyone in the midst of the assembly can be a vehicle for his expression. (I know that the Living Stream Ministry also says this, but they restrict "expression" to repeating the words of the 'oracle', i.e. Witness Lee. Extemporaneous expression, not channelled through Lee or his minions, is verboten). From this I see that the move of the Holy Spirit in the assembly is not channelled through some human chain of command: "The Holy Spirit moves where it wills, and you cannot know from whence it comes nor where it goes..."

Second, look at the conference in Acts 15. The assembly in Jerusalem sent word to assemblies elsewhere to: 1. Avoid witchcraft; 2. Avoid fornication; and 3. Avoid animal sacrifices (my reading). Any restrictions beyond that? No.

Can anyone give me anything to the contrary, that suggests a more restrictive flow? Where is BP's "central lane" indicated? Where is the special ministry, absent which, as RK says, you can do "absolutely nothing" for God's kingdom?

I would like to see scriptures clearly limiting the scope of christian fellowship, and not the strained logic I have heard behind the concepts of "one apostle per age" and "one trumpet", etc. That the epistles in Revelation 2 and 3 are addressed to the messenger of the assembly in ........ doesn't cut it for me; because ekklesia in NT usage signified "gathering" or "meeting" or "congregation" more than our "religious organization" idea.

Are there any scriptures? Beyond tortured logic like assuming that "Zion" signifies an assembly affiliated with one publishing house? Any clear scriptures showing us the narrow way to Jesus?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They truly believe that their gospel is the "gospel of the kingdom," and when "it" is preached to the whole inhabited earth, then the end has come. This is why "resuming the Lord's Table" in major cities like Jerusalem and Rome is so important, even if it is just a few grads from the FTTA breaking bread, not that that is bad in any way.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, too. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

"The gospel of the kingdom ceased to be proclaimed shortly after the death of the apostles. It was not preached again until after 1918." -- Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 12/1/1928, pp. 363-6

Glory, glory!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, too. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

"The gospel of the kingdom ceased to be proclaimed shortly after the death of the apostles. It was not preached again until after 1918." -- Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 12/1/1928, pp. 363-6

The Living Stream version of this seems to a variant. It says that the Gospel of the Kingdom was lost after the death of the apostles, and began to be "recovered" with the Protestant Reformation, which recovery found its apotheosis, or "consummation" (a favorite LSM word), in the ministries of Watchman Nee and then Witness Lee.

So in the LRC ekklesia you can read, and even publicly cite, another christian author, who predates Nee and Lee. But to pay attention to anything written by any other christian author or hymn composer, once Nee & Lee began putting pen to paper, is seen as a kind of "falling away" from the high peaks supposedly ushered in by these men.

This is a slightly less offensive variant of the Jehovah Witness theme. It actually reminds me in some ways of the Mormons' practices. Notice how the Mormon Tabernacle Choir makes a big deal about presenting Protestant "christian classics" in song?

But if they allowed any more recent, i.e. contemporary, non-Mormon christian voices to emerge, that would be a tacit admission that God is speaking to "others" outside their Mormon sect. That is not possible, right? The Mormons have God in a special box which no one else has. So they, like Lee, simultaneously can pay obeisance to the christian saints of yore while denying any christian contemporaries a voice. To pay lip service to the heroes of the past increases your credibility, and since the dead heroes are helpfully dead they cannot compete with your moment in the sun, nor criticize your appropriation of their work.

[aron]

When I cite Hebrews 2:12 in saying that the Lord Jesus praises the Father in the midst of the assembly, that doesn't preclude specific functions within the assembly. One person might have a master's degree in theology, or know Hebrew and koine Greek, or simply have a lot of experience, and thus bring insight that others lack. And there can be, for example, a "worship team" up front with their musical instruments. But still, the Holy Spirit's flow within the assembly is not predetermined by position in some man-made, ecclesiastical hierarchy.

And I would like to comment on one specific delineation within the assembly, that of overseer. There seems to me to be some overlap between NT usage of "elder", "overseer", and "shepherd", and to a lesser degree "pastor" and "deacon". All these might be seen as specific functions within the assembly. And I want to focus on the word overseer, by contrasting overseers functioning in different kingdoms, which may highlight the difference between the assembly/ekklesia of Jesus, versus the world, which we might call Egypt, versus the co-opted assembly, which we might call Babylon.

In Egypt, the overseer was in a power relationship, and the power flowed one way. The overseer told the slave driver to beat the slaves, or he did it himself. If the slave driver wasn't fierce enough the overseer could beat the slave driver, or have him beaten. It was a fear-based power system. No pretense of being good. See Exodus 5:6 & 5:16 as examples of the Egyptian overseer (often translated "foremen" or "officer of works".

In Babylon it is the same thing, except the overseer pretends to be doing good, and says, "It is for the worship of God." But the overseer still has power, and can put people to death who don't worship the image of his God (Daniel 3:3, Revelation 13:15). Instead of secular power, it is religious power, it still involves coercion and fear. But Babylon is more pernicious because it pretends to be good, to be serving and worshipping God. So people want to leave Egypt, but they get stuck in Babylon because they pretend "that's God's government".

But the real, spiritual overseer in Jesus' flock doesn't try to coerce anyone, or tell anyone what to do. The real overseer has sight, and "sees over" the flock; they are literally "over-seers". They are the earthly equivalent of the Watchers, who watch over the flock and report back to the Boss. The spiritual overseer reports back to the Boss via prayer: "Father, in the assembly I observe 'x' - please have mercy". The elder/overseer/shepherd may also lead (i.e. shepherd) others, but by example, not by fiat. See Peter's epistle for clear words in this regard. Also, they may give advice, should it be sought, by junior members in the assembly, who are genuinely puzzled by some aspect of their situation. But the overseers are not set up as judges. Jesus told one supplicant, "Man, who appointed Me as a judge or arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:14) If Jesus didn't judge over the affairs of men, why should we, His followers?

In Egypt the overseers will kill you. In Babylon they will kill you and think they are doing a service to God (John 16:2). The first has no veneer of respectability; the second does and thus is, I think, worse.

The real, spiritual, overseer in the ekklesia simply sees what is going on, and reports back to the Boss, and does so, as Jesus said, "... in secret, that Your Father who is in secret may reward you openly" (Matt. 6:6). This function is not done in the sight of men; rather, it is a function of the spiritual relationship between the believer and their heavenly Father.

Lastly, Babylonian power relationships are clearly indicated when the overseer says some variant of, "Do as I say, not as I do." There are two sets of rules, one for the overseer and one for the overseen. The apostles counseled us to be subject to one another (Eph 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5). Person A is subject to person B and B is likewise also subject to A. But in power relationships A is subject to B but not vice versa.

And again, B will assure A that this is all for the good, because "It is God's government". Thus A remains in that system, indefinitely, thinking that God put them there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just saw this on facebook:

"After over 15 centuries the Lord's table has resumed in Rome! ... "

Of course, posted by someone in the LRC. I didn't even bother to watch the linked video. The headline says it all.

My question to them is, "Did you actually listen to what you just said??"

That was in the work for some time. Knowing the mindset, I'm not at all surprised by the conceit. For example where I live "the ground was taken" a few years ago. You mean to tell me for all the years I lived in this city, the Lord's table has never been taken? I think not. You'll find many a Christian assebly that has taken the table long before there was a Church in ______. As with the city I live in, same applies to Rome.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wake up, LCers. You've been hoodwinked.

Easier said than done. Unless each one can check their hearts, what do they really think? What do they really feel? Would they want a dissenter like me saying they're a respector of persons? Sorry to say Igzy, this is just where they're at. When you respect without question those who are hardened in heart, what do you expect? I don't see them as being hoodwinked, there's just a veil clouding their vision.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Would they want a dissenter like me saying they're a respector of persons? ... When you respect without question those who are hardened in heart, what do you expect? I don't see them as being hoodwinked, there's just a veil clouding their vision.

It's funny, I become uncomfortable when I see others making characterizations which I also may have been making, or at least suggesting. I don't think we can assess the state of another person's heart: if I cannot discern my own, how much less anothers?

Rather, I see trends in the scripture, and see trends in our behaviors and those around us, and ask if our behaviors line up with the word of the Lord or not; if not hopefully we can make some adjustments.

One outstanding trend I see in the Gospels is that Jesus teaches not to be "something" in this age. If you do have ambition, fine: be ambitious to take the last place. God Himself will lift you up in due time, "Due time" being after the Bema of Christ, and not before it.

My assessment was that the supposed "apostle of the age" was teaching that, and applying it vigorously, but to everyone save himself. Ohio points out that his disciple Chu exhibited the same behavior pattern. "I can rebuke and adjust and correct you, but you cannot do the same with me. That would be rebellion, because I represent God's authority."

So one has to do another's bidding, but not vice versa. In this I see a repetition of the same failed, man-made, power-based relationships at play all over this darkened earth, but now with the gloss of "godliness", because a few verses have been inserted into the discussion.

And Witness Lee could expose Max Rappoport's "ambition", but Max Rappoport couldn't expose Lee's profligate son Phillip because "that is uncovering of Noah, God's deputy authority, and would bring a curse." See? "I can expose and uncover you, but not vice versa, because I represent 'God's government' ".

That kind of power-based organizational structure, I feel that I can and should object to; but as to the condition of anyone else's heart, I cannot say. I think that is the purview of the Judge of all. All we know is that Jesus' heart was pure; we have proof of this by God having raised Him from the dead and making Him Lord of all. Beyond that, who can say in this age? I know that if my heart is at least partially dark, then I am wasting my time by peering into yours.

In general, I would say that some love to be first, and that we build power-based organizational structures which allow these unhealthy ambitions to play out. After we unwittingly create such arrangements, we put a few Bible verses on top of them as a kind of fig leaf, a sop to tell ourselves that we are doing God's work. When we do this, we have co-opted the ekklesia.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Easier said than done. Unless each one can check their hearts, what do they really think? What do they really feel? Would they want a dissenter like me saying they're a respector of persons? Sorry to say Igzy, this is just where they're at. When you respect without question those who are hardened in heart, what do you expect? I don't see them as being hoodwinked, there's just a veil clouding their vision.

Hoodwinked just means to be deceived, which what having a veil clouding your vision means. What did you think I meant?

I don't want to nitpick whether the BBs really believe their tripe. Whether they do or not, the people they are misleading are being deceived.

Simply telling everyone not to listen to dissenting opinions is a deception in itself. And only the deceived would follow such advice.

That's why LCers need to wake up.

[aron]

I remember reading a quote attributed to one of Lee's followers, I think from one of his various "new moves" during the '80s. "Brother Lee: even when he's wrong he's right."

Just do whatever Brother Witness says and everything will be alright. We give power to our Maximum Leader because we think it gives us power. We buy into his or her scheme because there is a perceived payout. We build up the head because we find safety in the body. This has supported all the Pharoahs and Caesars and kings over the years, not to mention all the despots like Khadafy and Jong Il and Hussein. People invest themselves into these power-based systems because then they get elevated above others who are lower in the same system. The overseer can now beat the slaves, which to him is preferable to being a slave beaten by an overseer. So he invests himself in the system. "Do unto others before they do unto you."

In a sense, the christian system is like that as well, only our Leader is called Jesus Christ, and the as the Head of our collective (the ekklesia) he tells us to get under our neighbor, not to elevate ourselves above them. Jesus' teachings completely subvert the me-first attitudes and behaviors stemming from our being biotic creatures trying to avoid death. Jesus basically says, "Death is already here. You lost. Accept termination (the cross) and I will meet you on the other side."

And by golly, it works. His promise is true -- He is, in fact, waiting for us "on the other side" when by faith we let go of our schemes to avoid death. The ekklesia should be a place to celebrate this "crossing over", not a place to resurrect the fallen man's schemes to dominate each other. Do not, I repeat do not, accept substitutes for the ekklesia. Do not buy into the co-opted ekklesia, whatever biblical garb it is dressed up in.

The truth is, when Witness Lee was wrong, he was wrong. Just like the rest of us. And that goes for Titus Chu, brother Ohio and myself. We are all at least partly wrong. Only Jesus is right. There is no special unblemished mediator standing between we the sinners and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Death is the mediator, and our faith enables us to step into death with Jesus. No fallen man has been appointed as our special guide.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's funny, I become uncomfortable when I see others making characterizations which I also may have been making, or at least suggesting. I don't think we can assess the state of another person's heart: if I cannot discern my own, how much less anothers?

That kind of power-based organizational structure, I feel that I can and should object to; but as to the condition of anyone else's heart, I cannot say. I think that is the purview of the Judge of all.

I definitely agree here.

It's actually none of my business to say whether another brother is ambitious or not. Ambitious for what? Ambitious to save the lost? Ambitious to study His word? Ambitious to help the saints? I have heard about the "curse of being ambitious" far too many times from LC leaders. It means absolutely nothing. It's just one leader playing God and judging another man's heart.

When it comes to people's behavior -- what they do and say -- that is another story. Here we are talking the specifics of one's actions, but I still must give liberty to all the saints. One wants to eat Chinese, and another wants to have a birthday party -- who cares -- it's NOMB -- none of my business.

Where the line gets crossed, and where we have decided to speak up, is where God's children get hurt. I'm not talking about the occasional loudmouth in every congregation who "cries victim," but a definite and deliberate pattern of abuses, coverups, lies, and unrighteousnesses.

Someone needs to speak up.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think we can assess the state of another person's heart: if I cannot discern my own, how much less anothers?

We just don't know. To assume what is in a person's heart is tragic. Best that can be done is to ask questions.....
"Are you satisified?"
"Do you get bothered?"
"Does the ministry meet your every need?"

The list goes on.