The Not-So Practical Expression of the Church

[Cal]

YP,

I don't believe what I'm saying is based on worldly principles.

No offense, but I really don't think you've followed my point. I'm am not concerned about determining which group is right, either, because I'm not sure we can know.

I'm saying that the LC model claims to know which group is right (theirs), but really can give no one any practical way of determining which is right. That very fact to me shows their error.

My posts have been directed to those who believe in the LC model, not to you who obviously don't. My point is to refute the LC model, not to propose a replacement at this time. You are proposing a replacement, or a better way. That's fine, but it really has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is to show that the city-church model as practiced by the LC cannot work. I'm trying to make clear what I see as a severe weakness in it. I might like to talk about alternatives later, but the fact that you have an alternative does not mean I'm discussing the wrong thing now.

Let me try again. Two groups in a city. Both receive all believers and keep the faith. But each has different teaching and practice focuses. Both claim to be the city-church and to have the elders who are by necessity over the whole city. Each thinks the other is sectarian. Which one is the true church? I submit that, all things being equal, neither can know to the point that they can have the boldness to say the other definitely isn't. In other words, neither can do what the LCs do in claiming that everyone needs to join them, which amounts to an arbitrary requirement which is a seed of division.

[Cal]

YP,

You seem to be saying that the LC, and the GLA, are both off, and that you see what they don't see.

Unfortunately, you are not going to convince any staunch believers in the LC's model of the local ground that their views on the subject are wrong simply by presenting an alternative interpretation of what the church is.

You are only going to convince them, it seems to me, by presenting an argument that shows what is fundamentally wrong with their view, that is, how it is internally self-contradictory and self-defeating.

This is what I'm trying to do.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

You seem to be saying that the LC, and the GLA, are both off, and that you see what they don't see.

Unfortunately, you are not going to convince any staunch believers in the LC's model of the local ground that their views on the subject are wrong simply by presenting an alternative interpretation of what the church is.

You are only going to convince them, it seems to me, by presenting an argument that shows what is fundamentally wrong with their view, that is, how it is internally self-contradictory and self-defeating.

This is what I'm trying to do.

I think a number of people outside the sphere of the influence of those organizations, including our brothers and sisters in general Christianity, can see what they don't see.

But I take your correction in love that I have mistaken your purpose in writing and will stand down.

[OBW]

Don,

I would commend the early followers for their purity in intent. I further do not condemn all of the LC for where the doctrine that slowly surfaced took those early practices. It was a subtle thing.

But with some of the history going back to Taiwan that we now have available, I believe that the practice and belief of the 60s was not the whole of Lee’s teaching. He introduced his doctrine in stages. Remember the discussion of that first meeting in Dallas in your living room? I recall from an earlier thread (probably on the BARM or possibly in your book) that while you did not understand the rush, someone thought you and George should hurry up and have that first meeting. It is now clear that someone felt that oneness was not enough. It took Lee’s version of oneness and not one of the others that that were about to do the same.

If they practiced in such a manner that the LC as you knew it then could not meet simultaneously with their group, then that speaks loudly of one or two other groups that technically followed the same one church in a city doctrine. And Lee knew that he could not set up his own group there without violating his own doctrine. But if you have to beat the others there, then there is something more than just the “ground” that is important to your meeting. It must not be acceptable to be in their group rather than in your own group.

In effect, there were sects that grew out of Nee’s teachings. The LC was but one. You did not know this. George probably did not either. But Lee and possibly some others did. There was already sectarianism buried underneath the “ground of oneness” that was taught. It would only truly surface over time.

It eventually drove you away. We can thank God for that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Hope

Thus whenever "the ground of locality" comes up stand back for there is going to be plenty of action.

Don,

Yes, but what is a Local Church discussion forum without a spirited discussion of the "local ground?"

Originally Posted by OBW

But if you have to beat the others there, then there is something more than just the “ground” that is important to your meeting. It must not be acceptable to be in their group rather than in your own group.

In effect, there were sects that grew out of Nee’s teachings.

Mike,

I've thought for a while that the local ground teaching is as much a tool to discredit all other groups as it is one to validate the LC. Any group that does not hold to the teaching becomes "easy pickin's" for LC refutal. They've shot 'em down for years with smirks on their faces.

The problem comes in when another group claims to be the city-church in a city in which an LC church resides. How can anyone know for sure in this case which is the true city-church?? Outside of blatant evidences, no one can. But the LC churches choose to either ignore or discredit these groups, a blatant contradiction of what they claim to believe. This basically torpedoes the whole church model which the LC has been following for the last 30 or more years. This is what I've been trying to show in this thread.

Oh, they've come up with all kinds of peripheral self-validations, mostly unscriptural or mis-scriptural. "We are in 'God's Economy'" (as if no one else is). "We have fellowship with other churches" (as if no one else does). "We are one with God's up-to-date ministry" (how can you possibly know that? besides, it's irrelevant.).

What's interesting about the above LC arguments is that they are all about self-promotion. They've got nothing to do with fulfilling the mission of the church, but rather are about defending their turf and lifting themselves up. They are about saying they are something no one else is. Why is that so important to them? It's juvenile. My seven-year-old is in that stage now. He always has to be first. Hopefully, by age ten, he'll have outgrown that.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don,

I would commend the early followers for their purity in intent. I further do not condemn all of the LC for where the doctrine that slowly surfaced took those early practices. It was a subtle thing.

Remember the discussion of that first meeting in [/FONT]Dallas in your living room? I recall from an earlier thread (probably on the BARM or possibly in your book) that while you did not understand the rush, someone thought you and George should hurry up and have that first meeting. It is now clear that someone felt that oneness was not enough. It took Lee’s version of oneness and not one of the others that that were about to do the same.

In effect, there were sects that grew out of Nee’s teachings. The LC was but one. You did not know this. George probably did not either. But Lee and possibly some others did. There was already sectarianism buried underneath the “ground of oneness” that was taught. It would only truly surface over time.

It eventually drove you away. We can thank God for that.

George and I were not aware of any need to rush up the meetings in Dallas in order to beat the Edwards fellowship. I seem to recall something on the Barm, perhaps from Thankful, about someone in Houston announcing our desire to begin to have the Lord's table. Maybe someone in Dallas added that to make the story more exciting. Folklore is like that.

I later came to realize that there was competition between the various disciples of WN and that this had lead to division in various places. Thus you over riding point is valid. Again, it goes back to this thing called "the Work." It spawned competition like that in the early days of Corinth.

Yes, you are right. The sectarian practice in the name of "oneness" drove me away and it still causes my spirit to grieve and I am angry and I trust I sin not in this matter.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Cal]

Hope,

I have a question. Aren't you leading a city-church in North Carolina? Isn't there an LSM city-church there, too?

If so, what do you feel your standing (to use an old LC term) is in relation to that LSM church? How do they feel about you? Do you feel that other Christians are at odds with the city-church because they do not meet with you? What is your attitude about the legitimacy of other groups in the city?

Thanks,

Igzy

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope,

I have a question. Aren't you leading a city-church in North Carolina? Isn't there an LSM city-church there, too?

If so, what do you feel your standing (to use an old LC term) is in relation to that LSM church? How do they feel about you? Do you feel that other Christians are at odds with the city-church because they do not meet with you? What is your attitude about the legitimacy of other groups in the city?

Thanks,

Igzy

Hello Brother Igzy,

I am somewhat facinated by your post. You seem to have a lot of information. I thought we were off everyone's radar screen.

There is the original church in Raleigh, where I gather, and there is the REAL, REAL LOCAL CHURCH IN RALEIGH that is ONE with THE MINISTRY, attends the seven feasts, reads the HWMR etc etc (please do not throw up.)

Those I gather with are a humble and meek little band seeking to grow in Christ and be a witness of Christ in our place. We fellowship with brothers and sisters here and all over the earth and last year at our annual business meeting I calculated the percentage of offerings that went out of Raleigh to be 85% of the total. Only those in Ghana would be considered to be meeting in a similar way to us.

As for other Christians in our area, we do not have an agenda to recruit them. We do seek to have fellowship if possible. A couple of examples: We have used the baptistry at the Korean Baptist church. One of the deacons there is a dear friend of mine. If you met him and his wife, you would be edified just by being in their presence. On August 9th, we have invited a So. Baptist Missionary couple to speak to the assembly. We assist a good works mission locally that cares for refugees from Nepal. When we learn of a gifted saint who could supply us with a portion where we are lacking, we seek to open a door for that saint to help us if they are willing. We have met some pretty amazing saints of God. Also, I cannot recall stinging renounciations of poor poor christianity.

All that said, while we pray that our love may abound more and more, we also desire that this love would be in real knowledge and all discernment, Phil 1:9. You can have discernment without becoming a "judgaholic." (That is a word I learned on the Barm. I not sure of the spelling.)

The other group is very hateful and spiteful. Can you blame them? We are lepors, rebels, divisive, seeking to build our own kingdom, destroyers of God's building da da, da da. Plus they could not get our property. That kind of verbal attack use to be a hurtful bother but we are learning to pray for them when they are brought to our attention. Mostly we no longer think about them, the LSM or the past. Ocassionaly we cross their path and they are our dear brothers and sisters and we greet them in the Lord and wish them well. The Lord has helped us to "move on." The future is too bright. Our times are in His hands.

As far as "leading", I have some influence due to age, experience and perhaps gift and hopefully some spiritual maturity. Our church life, especially leadership, is in many ways quite different from the LSM style. Who so ever will may gather on Saturday morning to pray and fellowship regarding the direction and needs in the assembly, old or young, brother or sister.
It is very important that the leading ones know what everyone's feeling and burden is and that the Lord can speak through whoever he choses. (I can see the raised eyebrows out there in forum land.) But it is really quite wonderful and we come together every week with great anticipation. What will the Lord do today? How is He caring for us right now?

Perhaps this is enough to answer your questions. Needless to say we have needed to learn and unlearn a lot over the past few years. Please hold us in your prayers.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Hope

George and I were not aware of any need to rush up the meetings in Dallas in order to beat the Edwards fellowship. I seem to recall something on the Barm...

As I said, I only recalled something giving the impression that some time-table had been moved up. It may be something of folklore. I couldn't say. But I got that impression from somewhere within the last two months and had never had that notion previously.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by OBW

As I said, I only recalled something giving the impression that some time-table had been moved up. It may be something of folklore. I couldn't say. But I got that impression from somewhere within the last two months and had never had that notion previously.

We from Houston had no time table or were in a rush except for the families who had children in school. I did mention in my book that there seemed to be a race for Dallas. Actually it was from the other folks. I did not get into the details of how we found out. We had visited the couples who were with Gene Edwards several times. We had shared that some from Houston felt the Lord was calling them to move to Dallas. Nothing was hidden from anyone. We assumed we would all join together. The other two couples had become more and more distant toward us as we made trips to the area and began to look for housing. Once we dropped in on one couple on a Saturday morning. They were expecting us but we got there a little early. The wife let us in the apartment and the two brothers there sure acted funny. One of the Houston brothers whose initials are BB noticed a letter and envelop laying on the carpet behind the chair where he was sitting. It caught his attention. It was from Gene Edwards and the two or three sentences he read referred to his moving to Dallas and something about being there before the Houston group would be established. He handed the letter to the host brother who was very red faced. Turns out they then told us they had been corresponding with Edwards regarding their desire to practice the local church life and his moving there to head up the effort. Only thing, they had failed to tell any of us about their plan. It seems their plan was to get Edwards and a few others there and declare they were the church in Dallas. Sounds like something that did develop under the LSM.

This race to be first was something none of us from Houston had been aware of. WL never urged me to move quickly in anyway. I spoke with him and corresponded with him during the summer. George W. did not get to Dallas until the late summer - early fall and was in no race to get to Dallas for the whole summer. I moved there in July. I do not remember when the first Lord's Table was as to me it was no big stake in the ground but a very normal occurance.

Edwards never came and the couples moved away. The whole episode was very confusing.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me try again. Two groups in a city. Both receive all believers and keep the faith. But each has different teaching and practice focuses. Both claim to be the city-church and to have the elders who are by necessity over the whole city. Each thinks the other is sectarian. Which one is the true church? I submit that, all things being equal, neither can know to the point that they can have the boldness to say the other definitely isn't. In other words, neither can do what the LCs do in claiming that everyone needs to join them, which amounts to an arbitrary requirement which is a seed of division.

I have a fundamental disconnect with this model, which is probably related to what Igzy is driving at. I am going to "think aloud" here and see if this is so.

I got a big red flag when I saw elders described as being over the whole city. Igzy maybe didn't characterize it this way deliberately, but the characterization, to me, highlights the absurdity of the hypothetical situation outlined. Elders are those who are the most mature in life, and therefore are the leading sheep. They take the lead to follow the Lamb wherever He may go.

Now the other sheep, depending on maturity, will either follow or not. If they are wise they will follow. If they are foolish and immature they will wander around in circles and be blown by every puff of wind that passes by. They will not progress very far in the race.

The elders are beneath everyone. They came to serve, just as the Son of Man came not to lord it over others but to serve. Recall when the Lord girded His loins and washed the disciple's feet, and commended them to do likewise. The elders, of their own initiative, due to maturity in life, and due the exalted vision of the glorified Christ which calls them forward, take the lead to be dust, to be nothing, to be beneath the feet of all, to serve all and not to be served by others.

Instead we have seen a top-down phenomenon; the elders are appointed by Central Headquarters, and then become the vehicles for imposing external demands upon the believers. To quote Igzy's scenario: "Everyone needs to join us (and then do what we say)".

Rather, the elder should take the lead to fall into the earth to die, and this is "leadership" precisely because it inspires other, mature saints to follow their example. This seems to be the opposite of the LSM model, which is tied to centralized, "top-down" earthly models of so-called "leadership".

I think this is related to Igzy's "Two groups -- who's the Boss?" dilemma, and in a causal way. But proposed scenario didn't make the issue explicit, which I wanted to do.

Believers have the authority to be children of God (John 1:12). Believers don't have the authority to tell others what they "need" to do. Lee got this basic christian truth wrong, and many have followed him in this error. I contend that it is behind the scenario Igzy depicted.

John wrote: "Diotrephes loves to be first" (3 John 1:9). There is a great warning, and a salvation, in that statement, if we are willing to hear it. Let Diotrephes' error be a salvation to us all.

p.s. I missed Igzy's last post while writing mine. His ending comment about the pre-adolescent "need to be first" I think shows that he and I are not so far apart in our thinking. I had ended my post the same way. My stress was that this is a root cause, and not effect, of the "one city-one church" dilemma.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Shawn,

I never said we should do away with elders. Neither did I say there is no one city-church.

What I said was that the model of city-churches set up by the LC where one eldership claims to be kings-of-the-hill over the whole city is indefensible.

Let me take on this point of yours:

But to discard a God provided position just because it may cause problems in all coming to agreement means that we do not give the Spirit the ability to confirm His choice in the hearts of the believers in that community. Its kind of like not praying for miracles so that we don't have to be disappointed if they do not happen.

Again, you are simply saying we should "try." The problem comes in when "trying" includes condemning other persons or groups because they do not see what you claim to see about who the elders are. This what the LC has always done. Please tell me what makes you so clear that you have the boldness to do this?

Hi Igzy,

It seems the hardest thing for Christians to do listen to others, this is a big problem for me also; thanks for your patience!

The two points I think I heard are: condemning and imposing, I'll try to address the two.

Trying can lead to condemning, but is not always the case. If condemning is the fruit, the LSM model would appear to be the form, which leads to exclusivity. But trying can also led to acceptance and, dare I say, oneness, when the fellowship is led by the Spirit.

Concerning the imposing of an elder, I would say that regardless of the size of the city, the groups within each city will know whom the Lord has placed over them, then based on the qualifications of Timothy and Titus, the mature ones can be appointed. I would also mention my mistake of using elders in the singular, for there seems to be a number of elders appointed in the NT churches. This plurality allows fellowship among a group that ensures that the authority will not be placed squarely on the shoulders of one.

The model I am considering is not the LSM manual, but the bible and the normal progression of the growth of a church in a city. As it grows, leadership will become more important and the eldership will be established according to the need.

Concerning the who's right posturing that will be manifest in cities that are represented by many different groups, I will not have the boldness to say anything; but I have had many fellowships with many individual believers from many backgrounds, where the differences lost their priority as we grew to know each other and pursue righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

If it can happen individually I believe, in time, it can happen locally.

Shawn

[Hope]

I have been reading about a link between the ground of locality and elders over a whole city. Whoa!! Where did this elders business come from? I can never remember an issue being made that the ground of locality equals anybody being over anybody. I thought the New Testament taught elders in every church and elders in every city. Where is the over every church or over every city? The New Testament teaches leadership is serviceship not lordship. Here are just a few passages.

Mark 9:35, 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all ."


Matt 20:24-28, 25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


Mark 10:42-45, 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."

All this political talk just makes my spirit sink. Trying to use this logic to address the issue of the ground of the church, the ground of locality, the ground of oneness or whatever phrase you would use does not apply. In the coming Kingdom age we may rule over cities but in this age we are called to guard the oneness of the Spirit until we all arrive at the oneness of the Faith and to be eager to serve one another in the meantime and to love our neighbor and shine into the darkness of the world around us.

As believers there is a big issue we should consider and confront. It is called division. The Lord prayed for a oneness that the world could see. Paul made it very clear that division was a work of the flesh and warned against any practice that divided the Body of Christ.

Forget the who can rule over who issue and consider our call to keep the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Hope

All this political talk just makes my spirit sink. Trying to use this logic to address the issue of the ground of the church, the ground of locality, the ground of oneness or whatever phrase you would use does not apply.

Hope,

By "political talk" and "logic" are you talking about the argument I'm making in this thread? I don't think I'm saying anything political. As for logic, I think God is very logical. He created logic. You can't form a meaningful sentence without logic. So, I ask, please try to bear with me and follow what I'm saying.

It's no secret that the LC sees the local church in the city as one submitting to one set of elders. This is very much implicit in their model. It's their "ace in the hole" over their members. In other words, basically the elders are the church. I recall the preface to one of Lee's books called Elder's Management of the Church which was written by a Chinese elder saying "the center of the church is the elders." This is the LSM/LC thought. By the very idea of thinking one group of elders (theirs) by necessity represents the whole city-church they are saying that the elders are over the whole city-church. This is their thought, not mine, and there is no pretending it is not part and parcel with their package.

My purpose is to show that thought to be internally self-defeating to the idea of oneness.

I agree with you and others, Hope. Elders should be servants. To address Shawn's thought as well, if an entire city of Christians happens to agree to follow one group of elders then more power to them! That's fine. But no one can say that therefore every other Christian that comes along must submit to those elders too. The day could come, and has historically, like night follows day, when elders go bad and lead believers in sectarian ways. At that point, if a small group of believers, still endeavoring to keep the oneness, decide to meet separately and follow other leaders, I think they are perfectly in their right to do so, and the bigger group has no right to condemn them or call them renegades or any of the other nasty names that LSMers have thrown about like teenagers insulting each other in a chat room.

If you think about it, they must have that right to go the way the feel led. Otherwise the Church has no way to reform itself. I think we all believe that the more Christians are one, the better. But the Lord has to be able to break up entrenched, ossified, oppressive religiosity. Some things cannot be reformed from within.

Why didn't the Lord just plainly specify one church per city? I think it's because if he had it would have been much harder to reform once religion got entrenched. History would have unfolded differently. The Catholic church would have always set up one "church" per city and any rivals would have easily been condemned as rebellious and un-Biblical. The Reformation might have been defeated. Who knows? Anyway, I think the Lord always provides a way for His real seekers to break away from the religion of the day, even when that religion is embodied in the "local church."

Who knows how many believers miserably remain in the LSM churches simply because their consciences are compelled by the false application of the city-church teaching--that to cross the elders is to cross the church.

This is what I am taking on in this thread. I hope people will try to understand that.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope,

By "political talk" and "logic" are you talking about the argument I'm making in this thread? I don't think I'm saying anything political. As for logic, I think God is very logical. He created logic. You can't form a meaningful sentence without logic. So, I ask, please try to bear with me and follow what I'm saying.

It's no secret that the LC sees the local church in the city as one submitting to one set of elders. This is very much implicit in their model. It's their "ace in the hole" over their members. In other words, basically the elders are the church. I recall the preface to one of Lee's books called Elder's Management of the Church which was written by a Chinese elder saying "the center of the church is the elders." This is the LSM/LC thought. But the very idea of thinking one group of elders (theirs) by necessity represents the whole city-church they are saying that the elders are over the whole city-church. This is their thought, not mine, and there is no pretending it is not part and parcel with their package.

My purpose is to show that thought to be internally self-defeating to the idea of oneness.

Dear Brother Igzy,

Logic is fine. I was not opining against logic but rather the logic of elder-rulership over a church and city as a reason to argue against the ground of locality, oneness etc. I am not aware of the book you mentioned. Sorry LSM/LC if you think the center of the church is the elders, no, no, no. The center of the church is Christ, only Christ. Hopefully, any elders in a church will be focused on Christ and feeding the lambs not on pushing through some program or expanding their turf or protecting their turf against defections. The idea of "the ministry" as carried out by "the Work" is a horrorific source of problems and abuses.

I will continue to refer to the problem WN started by linking the church with a bogus entity "the Work." Take away this concept and 95% of the LSM/LC problems will go away. I look forward to unraveling this entanglement in later writings.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Cal]

Hope,

Thanks. My point in this thread has never been to totally refute the city-church teaching, but rather to refute the idea that oneness with the city-church can be reduced to oneness with a certain set of elders, which is the the LSM/LC model. They think it makes the church "practical." However, I think anyone's insistance on following one particular set of elders is itself a seed of division, because there is no way to prove to everyone's satisfaction that those elders are indeed who their advocates claim them to be.

As for the book, http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=%23%22%5DO%5C%0A, click on this link. The quote I gave is right there in the preface. It's there in black and white in the second sentence: "The center of the church is the elders."

Your thoughts on this issue are welcome and needed.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As for the book, http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=%23%22%5DO%5C%0A, click on this link. The quote I gave is right there in the preface. It's there in black and white in the second sentence: "The center of the church is the elders."

Igzy:
They don't let us deep link.

Can you give me a title and, hopefully, a chapter reference to get back to it?

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope,


It's no secret that the LC sees the local church in the city as one submitting to one set of elders. This is very much implicit in their model. It's their "ace in the hole" over their members. In other words, basically the elders are the church.

My purpose is to show that thought to be internally self-defeating to the idea of oneness.

I agree with you and others, Hope. Elders should be servants. To address Shawn's thought as well, if an entire city of Christians happens to agree to follow one group of elders then more power to them! That's fine. But no one can say that therefore every other Christian that comes along must submit to those elders too.


Why didn't the Lord just plainly specify one church per city? I think it's because if he had it would have been much harder to reform once religion got entrenched. History would have unfolded differently. The Catholic church would have always set up one "church" per city and any rivals would have easily been condemned as rebellious and un-Biblical. The Reformation might have been defeated. Who knows? Anyway, I think the Lord always provides a way for His real seekers to break away from the religion of the day, even when that religion is embodied in the "local church."

Who knows how many believers miserably remain in the LSM churches simply because their consciences are compelled by the false application of the city-church teaching--that to cross the elders is to cross the church.

This is what I am taking on in this thread. I hope people will try to understand that.

Hi Igzy,

I thought the Lord did address the church in each city in Chapter 2 and 3 of Revelation?

However I do not want to justify the one church = one city, based on these verses, I will only say that the Lord could say "the church in Philadelphia" because at this early time in church history, all the Christians were one in each city. Today it is different, for there are many groups giving many names to each of their fellowships and the purity of one church = one city has been lost.

Has this been recovered by taking the ground? I do not think any group that "takes the ground" can claim the one church one city, for the reality of all the Christians being in oneness has truly not taken place; until all Christians are meeting without division, the one church = one city is just an empty slogan.

Igzy, when I consider the ministry of brother Lee, I look for the truths and apply them where they fit, as I do with all ministries I receive. I do not take the LSM/LC model as faultless and to be followed by every publication that has been produced by them. I agree with you the the LSM/LC model is a problem that will be repeated again and again, because buried in its teachings are the seeds of exclusivism that will always come forth in due time.

When I respond to you, it is not in defense of the LSM/LC model, it is looking beyond that to what it is to be a church and how we can practice this today.

Now concerning the submission to elders, I like Hope's word concerning becoming servants to the church, for if this is part of the criteria for elder selection, it will produce servants and not lords.

To come to your concerns about submitting to elders, the history recorded in the bible does indicate there were elders in each city, would it seem right that new ones coming into this city or older brothers relocating should not recognize the ones who have already been appointed by the community already? I am sure there are many scenarios that could occur where the elders may produce discord, but I think the purpose they were intended to fill is necessary and vital to a churches growth; just not out of the LSM/LC playbook.

[Arizona]

YPO534,

I was very intrigued by your advocating a new, more narrow, definition of ekklesia as the assembling of the believers with a view to the manifestation of Christ,, as well as restricting the "universal" concept to that which Scripture calls the Body, of Christ. I agree with you that a universal application of "church" inevitably will lead to denominationalism.

I myself have been striving to hold a different foundational concept regarding this. The history of the christian "church" seems to be one of pendulum swings, out of balance, corrections, etc with one and another doctrinal truths arriving at an ascendancy at different points in time. The more important, for me, at this current point in my journey, is that Christ would be manifested, and I am willing to denigrate the universal if necessary.

After many years, I would still hold to the original idea I received in the LC as to the practical oneness of all believers, in locality. But I do hold that the genuine oneness is spiritual and that practicality is manifestation of that which is already true according to God by the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross and is exhibited by His indwelling life in us.

Do you have further?

Much Grace.


Arizona

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Arizona

YPO534,

I was very intrigued by your advocating a new, more narrow, definition of ekklesia as the assembling of the believers with a view to the manifestation of Christ,, as well as restricting the "universal" concept to that which Scripture calls the Body, of Christ. I agree with you that a universal application of "church" inevitably will lead to denominationalism.

I myself have been striving to hold a different foundational concept regarding this. The history of the christian "church" seems to be one of pendulum swings, out of balance, corrections, etc with one and another doctrinal truths arriving at an ascendancy at different points in time. The more important, for me, at this current point in my journey, is that Christ would be manifested, and I am willing to denigrate the universal if necessary.

After many years, I would still hold to the original idea I received in the LC as to the practical oneness of all believers, in locality. But I do hold that the genuine oneness is spiritual and that practicality is manifestation of that which is already true according to God by the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross and is exhibited by His indwelling life in us.

Do you have further?

Much Grace.


Arizona

Actually, and I would definitely like to open this up in fellowship among those who are somewhat following the light on the point, the brother who I have been fellowshipping most of this with wrote the following message to me yesterday:

It occurred to me last night, between sleep cycles, out of the blue, that there is, in fact, a God-ordained way to practice and experience the universal aspect of the assembly, that is, the Body, within the context of the assembly. It is the Lord's Table. "Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf." 1 COR 10:17. This bears further investigation because this verse is a little isolated for my current preference. But this could explain a lot. If a few assemble, whether in a living room or a catacomb, they are the assembly. But how do they experience membership in the Body? Not by forming or conforming to a worldwide organization. Rather, they experience the Body-life by partaking of the one loaf, by breaking bread. Beautifully, when we break bread, we reaffirm and even experience our membership in the One Body and we do so in a manner that can ONLY happen in the assembly and can happen in ANY, even the tiniest, assembly. So again, the Body is contained, experienced, and expressed in the assembly. The one loaf is the proof.

He told me he's releasing this to the public domain so, if you wanted to add to it or republish it or anything, you don't need written permission of his publisher.

The thing I have been bearing around in me since 1985 is that I had a completely miraculous baptism experience through efforts of the Local Church saints, high revelation and experience on a good number of points, but one thing that I've always sought the light on, before leaving and ever since, was the matter of the bread breaking meeting. Not to be too ugly about it but the way the bread breaking meeting among them was practiced was at least 90% outward form. And if you review brother Nee's written ministry on the topic, you couldn't get much help. Sorry to say, brother Lee's lacks even more. Both of them are especially interested in the proper way to call the hymns for some reason. But, since I had so clearly and definitely touched the solid reality of something in my baptism (I literally and spontaneously jumped up out of the water with my hands raised rejoicing!) I have always known that there must be some similarly exciting and substantial reality in the breaking of the bread. Transubstantiation is obviously not what the Lord intended to impart to us in giving us these instructions, but I have never seen it and have never known anyone who did.

I have come back to this realization repeatedly for the past 20 years since being ejected from the Local Church. I have reviewed different publications and collected and meditated on all the verses. I have prayed on my own to see this light specifically again and again. (Didn't work, but no surprise there since I am not corporate on my own!) This brother and I have especially considered briefly this week that it must be possible to touch this reality because the two on the road to Emmaus recognized Him in the bread breaking. But how to do it is the question? Not how to perform it according to a formula applied either locally or universally. How to touch the reality of Christ in it. It is currently set before us as a practical goal to get there but we are not quite there yet.

One thing at least I am very clear about: no one needs to be regulated into praise of our Father. Our spontaneous and genuine realization of the corporate sonship in the testimony of our Lord's table meetings will surely issue in the universal praise of the Father through the indwelling Spirit. We can just barely see it. Very exciting times.

To address more directly the question of universality, I really think that what this brother has seen might really be the case - that the only place to ever really concern ourselves with it is in the context of the bread breaking meeting. It's not so much of a denigration as a matter of practicality. There is simply no practical way to connect with the universal Body other than through the local assmebly. I am congizant of the Local Church teachings that the apostles having the authority to command this and that from afar is evidence that some might lay claim to manifestation and representation of the Body in a practical way outside of the bread breaking meeting, but my sense at the moment is that this is precisely the means by which there come to be hidden reefs in the love feasts.

As a footnote, reviewing some of brother Nee's stuff on the practical application of the universal is frankly just appalling:

If a brother wants to be received into the bread-breaking meeting, we must examine him carefully because we are receiving him not only on behalf of the brothers in Shanghai, but also on behalf of the brothers meeting in Tientsin, Hangchow, Wenchow, and other places. However, when a brother goes to another locality to break bread, the brothers in the locality should not examine him further. All he needs to do is to bring a letter of recommendation with him. The brothers in the other localities should believe what the brothers in Shanghai have done and receive him into the bread-breaking meeting based on the letter of recommendation. We have to be very careful in what we do in order to care for the brothers in the other localities.

Watchman Nee, The Assembly Life

Some guy shows up with a letter and THAT'S what is required? Yeah, like THAT system couldn't bring some problems in eventually!

This as far as we are right now but I'll keep posting as I can.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Arizona

After many years, I would still hold to the original idea I received in the LC as to the practical oneness of all believers, in locality. But I do hold that the genuine oneness is spiritual and that practicality is manifestation of that which is already true according to God by the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross and is exhibited by His indwelling life in us.

Do you have further?

Much Grace.


Arizona

Arizona, I concurr. I would like to pose the question at what point does a name become contrary to practical oneness? One of the points I learned while meeting in the local churches is taking a name denominates a congregation, assembly etc. Isn't it possible for a particular assembly to have a name and still function in practical oneness?

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Arizona

Do you have further?

Reading a little further this morning, I would suggest that the idea of sharing one loaf and one cup in a large gathering seems extremely impractical, unless we are to expect the Lord to perform miracles of multiplication whenever we gather. Rather, I would suggest that any gathering in which it is practically impossible to have one loaf and one cup to express the oneness of the Body is too large for us to worry about maintaining as such. Bread breaking can continue steadfastly from house to house in the only practical way to have that happening. I would still hold that these are not multiple assemblies but the same unique assembly of God in that place. However, there is a fellowship seen in the bread breaking which connects together all of the meetings of all of the believers, both locally and universally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

I have been reading about a link between the ground of locality and elders over a whole city. Whoa!! Where did this elders business come from? I can never remember an issue being made that the ground of locality equals anybody being over anybody. I thought the New Testament taught elders in every church and elders in every city. Where is the over every church or over every city?

IIRC, the "model" church was Taipei. There were dozens of "halls" with thousands of saints, but only one eldership over the church, and thus only one proper eldership in the whole city. I suppose the "over" part was not alarming to most of us since it is part of "overseer."

I also have had this ongoing dispute about the appointments of legitimate elders. The LC model designates "only the apostle" can appoint them. This thought has created a host of conflicts, because what this really means is that a regional or national leader (apostle? bishop? cardinal?) appoints only those loyal to him, who also turn out to be FT'ers who love to travel, and display loyalties to his appointer (understandably the one who signs the "paycheck") rather than to the local church.

Care to comment on this, Hope?

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Ohio

IIRC, the "model" church was Taipei. There were dozens of "halls" with thousands of saints, but only one eldership over the church, and thus only one proper eldership in the whole city. I suppose the "over" part was not alarming to most of us since it is part of "overseer."

I also have had this ongoing dispute about the appointments of legitimate elders. The LC model designates "only the apostle" can appoint them. This thought has created a host of conflicts, because what this really means is that a regional or national leader (apostle? bishop? cardinal?) appoints only those loyal to him, who also turn out to be FT'ers who love to travel, and display loyalties to his appointer (understandably the one who signs the "paycheck") rather than to the local church.

Care to comment on this, Hope?

I would love to comment brother Ohio.

I recently was referred to a line from a LSM book on the management of the elders or some title like that. It is said that the second sentence in the introduction is that the elders are the center of the church. There is no verse that refers to the church as the church of the elders or the church of the apostles or the church of the overseers. In Acts 20 we find the unique elders meeting called by Paul. He referred to the elders as having been made overseers by the Holy Spirit not by an apostle. Also the job of an overseer is to shepherd the church of God not to be "over" anyone.

Making the eldership model of Taipae the model to practice local oneness is a sham. They never had a single eldership in Taipae. The leading co-worker in each hall did his own thing and the elders in that hall were his middle management team. They did get together occasionally for a ministerial alliance type gathering and all submitted to the apostle, WL.

I have a lot more to say but must continue on another post due to needing to take care of business. I am at work.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

I recently was referred to a line from a LSM book on the management of the elders or some title like that. It is said that the second sentence in the introduction is that the elders are the center of the church. There is no verse that refers to the church as the church of the elders or the church of the apostles or the church of the overseers. In Acts 20 we find the unique elders meeting called by Paul. He referred to the elders as having been made overseers by the Holy Spirit not by an apostle. Also the job of an overseer is to shepherd the church of God not to be "over" anyone.

Making the eldership model of Taipae the model to practice local oneness is a sham. They never had a single eldership in Taipae. The leading co-worker in each hall did his own thing and the elders in that hall were his middle management team. They did get together occasionally for a ministerial alliance type gathering and all submitted to the apostle, WL.

Hope, you are right. The Bible speaks of the "church of God," the "church of Christ," and even the "church of the saints," but never the church of "the elders," or the church of "the workers," or even the church of "the ministry." But that is exactly what they have become.

The LC program loved the duo verses of Acts 14.23 "appoint elders in every church," and Titus 1.5 "appoint elders in every city," because they supported the one city - one church - one eldership practices they so dearly espoused. They also were controlling verses. The leaders in every city - every church - were determined only by headquarters - where "the apostle" lived, who alone had the scriptural authority to appoint elders. Acts 20.28 "the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers," was only a "rubber stamp" of that appointment.

One huge reason I finally left is that I grew so weary of being "of men." Those around me (from both sides) said they were only "taking a stand for the truth," but what that really meant was supporting either TC or "brother We."

Today, the role of elder has much less to do with shepherding, than it does with "working together with headquarters." One example is the aspect of counseling. Elders have gone to meetings for decades, yet have no clue how to shepherd or counsel troubled marriages. The results are so many broken homes. Some of the BB's have gone on record to say that any marital or family help we may seek is just "chicken soup for the soul."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me try again. Two groups in a city. Both receive all believers and keep the faith. But each has different teaching and practice focuses. Both claim to be the city-church and to have the elders who are by necessity over the whole city. Each thinks the other is sectarian. Which one is the true church? I submit that, all things being equal, neither can know to the point that they can have the boldness to say the other definitely isn't. In other words, neither can do what the LCs do in claiming that everyone needs to join them, an arbitrary requirement which is a seed of division.

Since this thread has seemed to have run its course, let me cap it off.

The essence of the above quote--if there are two groups in a city claiming to represent the church in that city how does one know which is correct?--has to my knowlege never been addressed by any defender of the local ground doctrine.

I posed the question a couple of times on the old board. No one touched it. I've sometimes wondered if maybe it just was overlooked, so I have posed it formally in a thread of my own creation here. Still, no one has taken it on. My feeling is this fact speaks deeply to the shortcoming of the doctrine. The question has not been addressed likely because there is no satisfactory answer.

Titus Chu was said to have once been asked a similar question and his answer was that the church which receives believers the best is the true one. But that begs the question of what if both groups receive believers pretty much the same? It doesn't take much reflection to see, therefore, that any claim of being irrefutably the unique representative of the church in the city can be nothing more than subjective opinion at best. Further, I would say, it is a claim that only need be made for self-serving purposes.

I believe church life should and can be practical. But the LSM model, I have shown, is by definition impractical. Practicing it requires the acceptance of arbitrary assumptions which cannot be justified as being required of believers, and which are therefore the seeds of division.

Until someone can satisfactorily address this issue, I have to conclude that the ground of locality doctrine as practiced by LSM churches is flawed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...if there are two groups in a city claiming to represent the church in that city how does one know which is correct?--has to my knowlege never been addressed by any defender of the local ground doctrine.

I posed the question a couple of times on the old board. No one touched it. I've sometimes wondered if maybe it just was overlooked, so I have posed it formally in a thread of my own creation here. Still, no one has taken it on. My feeling is this fact speaks deeply to the shortcoming of the doctrine. The question has not been addressed likely because there is no satisfactory answer.

Remember the story of the two harlots before Solomon, fighting over a baby? Each one claimed the child was hers. The one who was willing to release it, whole and living, was the real "owner"; that was the one who really cared. In contrast, the Blended Brothers don't mind "chopping up" the Body of Christ, as long as they get their piece. They don't mind cutting off believers, as long as they have thier "share".

But the truth is that the Body of Christ cannot, by definition, be divided. If anyone says "We are the Church" in some locality, they are placing walls around the flowing Spirit. You got saved because the Spirit flowed, and reached you. Now you want to build a wall? Your walls, your definition, creates a "null set", an empty box.

[OBW]

I just read The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life again and conclude that the ground of locality doctrine has been elevated to the level of a requirement of the faith by Lee. This is not something of his later ministry, or of the reformulation of the BBs, but was clearly stated in 1971.

Even if we assumed that the ground could be followed as dictated, the very elevation of the teaching to a basic tenet of the faith that must be believed refutes it. That book, while saying that it is not required for salvation, makes it part of the basic faith that must be accepted.

So they want it two ways. The call “the faith” the things that must be believed for salvation, then create a list that is “the faith” that includes the ground of the church — one city, one church. Then they say that you don’t have to believe it to be saved.

Well, what is it? Is it part of the basic faith that is required, or is it not? If you say not, then quit insisting on it. Otherwise, stick to your guns. And while you are at it, tell all the rest of Christianity that they are not even saved.

Instead, the way that the LC holds to this doctrine makes it most sectarian. They say it is not required for salvation. They say that anything not required for salvation is something about which we should be general. Yet they also say that it is something that is one of the “six” tenets of the faith. So they have raised something not required for salvation to stand as a separator of Christian from Christian. So they separate from other Christians using the very doctrine that they claim as the basis for unity. Go figure.