A Word of Love

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have done a nice job of conveying what I was trying to say about enjoying the gospel instead of some church elder trying to push the members for his ego.

I'm sure that there are pastors that push people for their ego. But at the same time you have to wonder a little about a pastor that just sits back and hopes it happens.

Surely the level to which they equip their flock is a key. But sometimes it is reasonable to encourage, even admonish people to do what they should do. It seems that we slip into a sort of an "it's strictly up to me on my own" mentality at times. And treat the issue as a "we do it on our own or preachers push us" dichotomy. Yes, we have to do it. And sometimes we need a push to start to do what we should.

We do need to be taught to obey all that Jesus commanded. It says so in Matthew. It's not just a matter of ego, but of commission.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm sure that there are pastors that push people for their ego. But at the same time you have to wonder a little about a pastor that just sits back and hopes it happens.

Surely the level to which they equip their flock is a key. But sometimes it is reasonable to encourage, even admonish people to do what they should do. It seems that we slip into a sort of an "it's strictly up to me on my own" mentality at times. And treat the issue as a "we do it on our own or preachers push us" dichotomy. Yes, we have to do it. And sometimes we need a push to start to do what we should.

We do need to be taught to obey all that Jesus commanded. It says so in Matthew. It's not just a matter of ego, but of commission.

Well I must of misunderstood a previous post of yours that said, what I thought was something to the effect of "not everyone is supposed to preach the gospel". You did not say that, but I thought you said you were "rethinking" the idea that everyone is commissioned to go and preach the gospel.?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well I must of misunderstood a previous post of yours that said, what I thought was something to the effect of "not everyone is supposed to preach the gospel". You did not say that, but I thought you said you were "rethinking" the idea that everyone is commissioned to go and preach the gospel.?

There is a difference between our general "commission" to live the gospel, and be ready to speak if asked, etc., and the commission in Matthew 28. That was my point there. I think you made some statement that Jesus had said those things to everybody, but it turns out that of all the possible followers at that time, only the 11 were taken aside and told this.

So the commission to go make it your primary task to spread the gospel was not given to everyone. In other words, Jesus didn't tell everyone to go out. Most of us are asked to live the gospel life (that we learn as the result of that commission) right where we are. And we sill get the opportunity to "preach" as it were.

But we were not put on earth to preach the gospel. We were put here to be the image bearers of Christ.

We were not saved to become the modern equivalent of the 11 in Matthew 28. We were saved as the outgrowth of those who took that commission and spread out over the earth. That does not mean we don't "preach/proclaim the gospel." But we do it more in our lives than in our words. More as part of living than as a "primary task" as was given to those guys.

That is what I was talking about.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a difference between our general "commission" to live the gospel, and be ready to speak if asked, etc., and the commission in Matthew 28. That was my point there. I think you made some statement that Jesus had said those things to everybody, but it turns out that of all the possible followers at that time, only the 11 were taken aside and told this.

So the commission to go make it your primary task to spread the gospel was not given to everyone. In other words, Jesus didn't tell everyone to go out. Most of us are asked to live the gospel life (that we learn as the result of that commission) right where we are. And we sill get the opportunity to "preach" as it were.

But we were not put on earth to preach the gospel. We were put here to be the image bearers of Christ.

We were not saved to become the modern equivalent of the 11 in Matthew 28. We were saved as the outgrowth of those who took that commission and spread out over the earth. That does not mean we don't "preach/proclaim the gospel." But we do it more in our lives than in our words. More as part of living than as a "primary task" as was given to those guys.

That is what I was talking about.

Who was the book of Matthew written to? Surely the gospel wasn't written for the 12. What is the purpose of sharing something the Lord spoke to the 12, as a concluding word to the Gospel, if that word is not for all that are reading the book?

I am mystified by this interpretation. Could you elaborate a little on what this does to the reading of the book of Matthew? It seems it turns it into a novel, not really written to us, but we are allowed, like spectators, to learn about what makes the apostles tick.

I will say this, it is absolutely diametrically opposed to what WL taught, so if that is your goal, congratulations.

I read the Bible with the thought that this book is for me. That Jesus was the author and perfector of my faith. Or, if you take issue with that, that He was the author and perfector of "the" faith, which I now hope to appropriate and make my faith.

The fact that this word was spoken to a number of people and then recorded in the Gospel of Matthew is hardly supporting a case that it was not intended for anyone other than the ones who heard it. Because, you haven't explained the purpose of Matthew in writing it if it is not for us. Do you have other examples of NT scripture that are recorded for posterity, but not for us? This to me is a very extreme view of scripture which you haven't made much, if any, of a case for. Also, what about Paul? He wasn't at that meeting yet it seems this word was spoken as much to him as anyone recorded in the NT.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who was the book of Matthew written to? Surely the gospel wasn't written for the 12. What is the purpose of sharing something the Lord spoke to the 12, as a concluding word to the Gospel, if that word is not for all that are reading the book?

I am mystified by this interpretation. Could you elaborate a little on what this does to the reading of the book of Matthew?

Let's elaborate.

Do you think that everything is equally applicable to everyone because it was written down and included in the scriptures? Does a specific, particular promise made to someone become something that we can all bank on if we can dredge up enough "faith"?

The qualifications for elder are given by Paul, once in some detail, and then little bits and pieces in other places that enhance the understanding. Since it is known how an elder should be, do we declare that all should be the same? Is there a serious spiritual deficiency for those believers whose background is such that they cannot ever be an elder (for example, they are divorced and remarried)?

Why would it be recorded in Matthew for all to read if it was intended as a charge only to certain ones? I can imagine at least one better-then-plausible reason — to make it known to those who would follow that the people who are quite possibly living off the gifts of others (at least partly) are not just in it for a cushy life that requires no hard labor. That they are commissioned to serve the others. That no one should just assume they are "hirelings" because they might actually be paid (or sort of paid). Remember, while Paul did do work to earn his own way, he also received help from the churches he had planted. It wasn't demanded, but it was appreciated and was helpful — maybe even necessary in some cases.

I would not assert that there is no way that the "great commission" is written to the average Christian. But unless we start with a paradigm/lens that refuses the idea that some passages are not really intended for everyone — at least in terms of command, promise, etc. — then there has to be a question as to why it was not among a larger group of those who saw Jesus after his resurrection that he made this charge. In fact, the very wording of the passage seems to indicate that Jesus intentionally sent the 11, not everyone else, to a particular place to make this statement. To simply declare that because it is written means it is a commission to everyone seems presumptuous at best. It flies in the face of the account.

And who was Paul saying would build with wood, hay, and stubble, or with gold, silver, and precious stones in 1 Cor 3? He wrote it to all of us. Does that mean it is to us all? Yes, what it is talking about is for all of us to read and understand. But the comments about building were not about what the Corinthians were doing, but what those "names" were doing. You know, Paul, Cephas, Apollos, etc. Those were the builders.

Is it still mystifying? Can you find no reason to record a commission to the 11 (12) for everyone to read? Are there still those whose calling is to spread the gospel in the way of a livelihood? Might they need to be reminded of the core of that commission/calling? Make disciples. Baptize. Teach to obey.

It wouldn't be the only place that the words recorded in scripture were intended as commands for less than everyone that might eventually read it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let's elaborate.

Do you think that everything is equally applicable to everyone because it was written down and included in the scriptures? Does a specific, particular promise made to someone become something that we can all bank on if we can dredge up enough "faith"?

The qualifications for elder are given by Paul, once in some detail, and then little bits and pieces in other places that enhance the understanding. Since it is known how an elder should be, do we declare that all should be the same? Is there a serious spiritual deficiency for those believers whose background is such that they cannot ever be an elder (for example, they are divorced and remarried)?

I asked one question, "Who was the book of Matthew written to?" and now I am reaping 4 questions. So let's go through these.

1. Do I think everything is equally applicable to everyone? Well, let's not talk about everything since I cannot even think about all that might entail, let's just focus on the commission in Matthew. As for "equally applicable", don't really understand what that means. The NT is clear that we have 5 talented members and 1 talented members, so I suppose you could say that the Lord does not expect the same out of both. Fair enough, but in saying this the Lord also points out that every member of the Body does have at least one talent and that by burying that talent they will be judged. The judgement that we all will get equally is "did you invest the talent the Lord gave you?" So my answer is that I think the commission in the book of Matthew is applicable to me, just as it was to Peter and Paul. They may be 5 talented members and I may not be, but either way I have been given like precious faith as they and I will be judged for what I do with that faith, as they also will be.

2. Does a specific, particular promise made to someone become something that we can all bank on if we can dredge up enough "faith"? Again, I am not comfortable turning this into a hypothetical that is applicable in any imaginable situation. Rather, I would like to keep this focused on the Commission in Matthew.
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Two promises here, "all power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." and "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Yes, I believe we can all bank on these two promises if we receive them by faith.

3. Since it is known how an elder should be, do we declare that all should be the same? This word "same" I fear can be seriously twisted. For example an elder should be the husband of one wife. Does that mean that everyone who is a "husband" is "the same"? I think that every congregation should take these qualifications and treat them with the utmost respect when choosing elders. For example if you have two candidates, everyone loves one, he is charming, charismatic, considerate, gifted, and has never been married. The second is a solid brother, he has raised his family well, he is the husband of one wife, and no one has a bad word to say about him. However he is not even slightly charismatic and can even be described as dull. Many fear that if he is the elder membership will drop by 10% as a result. If this is the choice I feel the NT is very clear as to who should be the elder. Choosing the unqualified brother is, to my mind, choosing according to the flesh.

4. Is there a serious spiritual deficiency for those believers whose background is such that they cannot ever be an elder (for example, they are divorced and remarried)? I am divorced and remarried, so please keep that in mind as you read my response. I believe that the requirement for an elder to be the husband of one wife and to have raised his family well is an indication of how important those two characteristics are to the Body of Christ. If the family situation of the church is healthy, then it will thrive. We know the family situation in the world is a mess, so we know people will be saved from broken homes, broken families, and all kinds of messed up family relationships and marriage relationships. Therefore, in the midst of this chaos, it is extremely beneficial to the Body to have someone who has sailed through this storm successfully lifted up as an example to all, and set up as someone who can counsel all. Disqualifying someone, like myself, who has been divorced and remarried, is not, to my mind, judgmental. Rather, it is saying that what we need for this job is someone who can guide the other saints in this evil and adulterous age. So is there a serious "spiritual" deficiency? I don't know, perhaps not. But is there a serious "human" deficiency, I think so, and I am speaking from personal experience. In my own experience congregations will usually have a choice between two candidates, one has not been divorced, but everyone prefers the brother who has been divorced. Ignoring Paul's word is to my mind, choosing according to the flesh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let's elaborate...
Why would it be recorded in Matthew for all to read if it was intended as a charge only to certain ones? I can imagine at least one better-then-plausible reason — to make it known to those who would follow that the people who are quite possibly living off the gifts of others (at least partly) are not just in it for a cushy life that requires no hard labor. That they are commissioned to serve the others. That no one should just assume they are "hirelings" because they might actually be paid (or sort of paid). Remember, while Paul did do work to earn his own way, he also received help from the churches he had planted. It wasn't demanded, but it was appreciated and was helpful — maybe even necessary in some cases.

I would not assert that there is no way that the "great commission" is written to the average Christian. But unless we start with a paradigm/lens that refuses the idea that some passages are not really intended for everyone — at least in terms of command, promise, etc. — then there has to be a question as to why it was not among a larger group of those who saw Jesus after his resurrection that he made this charge. In fact, the very wording of the passage seems to indicate that Jesus intentionally sent the 11, not everyone else, to a particular place to make this statement. To simply declare that because it is written means it is a commission to everyone seems presumptuous at best. It flies in the face of the account.

As to the point in the first paragraph, I feel that this reading reduces the Gospel of Matthew to a book that explains to pew sitters that their "leaders" have been commissioned, so putting money in the offering is nice, but not necessary. Why would you even call the book a gospel? Because we are not required to give tithes? You might think that is a better than plausible explanation, I don't.

As to the point in the second paragraph I think that is an interesting question you raise and I think it does hit on a very tough truth. Yes, the Lord commissions some to go to the four ends of the earth and others he commissions to spend their whole life in one town. Some will be martyred, others will not. Just as in the gospel of John where Peter wants to know "what about John?" and Jesus says that if he remains until the Lord returns what is that to Peter. The path that each of us is called to may appear quite different. It can be very difficult to walk by faith on that path, both to go out and also to stay while others are going out.

Finally, you begin this teaching on the assumption that "not every word in the Bible is for me" but this leads you to a place where "that word is for my pastor, not for me". That to me flies in the face of the Lord's word "judge not lest you be judged for with what judgement you judge you shall be judged". Ultimately you know that word was spoken and written for someone, just not you. That is a scary teaching.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is it still mystifying? Can you find no reason to record a commission to the 11 (12) for everyone to read? Are there still those whose calling is to spread the gospel in the way of a livelihood? Might they need to be reminded of the core of that commission/calling? Make disciples. Baptize. Teach to obey.

It wouldn't be the only place that the words recorded in scripture were intended as commands for less than everyone that might eventually read it.

Yes it is still mystifying why you would take an awesome work like the gospel of Matthew that concludes with this incredible commission to all with such great promises, and then pull the rug out from everyone and say "oh that was just a FYI".

Of course there are still those whose calling is to spread the gospel in the way of livelihood. What about Billy Graham? However, I don't read the great commission to mean that everyone has to be a traveling evangelist. If a church has a gospel meeting and you bring someone, or you pray for that meeting, or you shepherd someone at that meeting, or you share a word, or you help serve in that meeting, etc. then I feel that is in line with the great commission. If you have a home meeting where you are teaching new believers the truth that is in line. If you have a Bible study at work, or if you are fellowshipping with a coworker. If you give money for the gospel work that is in line with the great commission. There are many, many ways that the saints in the Body of Christ can function, not all are Paul, not all are Peter, but all have been called.

The Lord said "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Did the word Man here only refer to Peter and Paul or to me and you as well? You think that by saying the great commission at the end of Matthew is not written for all can not be limited to a couple of verses. It dramatically changes the way you would read the entire gospel. If you are saying that "not all are Paul" that is according to the truth. If you are saying that the promises in Matt 28 are not for all Christians, that is "a different gospel" warned of in Galatians.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is still mystifying why you would take an awesome work like the gospel of Matthew that concludes with this incredible commission to all . . . .

Where does it make this commission to all? You are presuming. Give me a reason for accepting that a word given in such an obviously and overtly specific manner to only 11, and not the 100 or more other followers, is "this incredible commission to all." You haven't even tried to do that. You just presume that it should be so. It surely isn't because of the context. So what is the reason? Make a point. Don't just restate mine into things I didn't say.

Or at least give me a reason to consider that it is reasonably plausible. I have done that for you. And you have never actually responded to my point, but made out as if I have diminished the whole of Matthew to instructions for clergy.

Where did I do that? You don't like it when I say "strawman." But either you really don't bother reading my posts and just give knee-jerk reactions to certain words, or you are not understanding me, or you are throwing out strawmen. I can accept that it is not willful, and simply that you don't understand. But every time you comment on the whole of Matthew, it is either a misunderstanding of what I have said or a willful attempt to change the subject. I am presuming the former.

But a strawman is a strawman. So if you didn't intend to do that, then you should reconsider whether you are understanding what I am saying because you sure aren't responding to it.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm sure that there are pastors that push people for their ego. But at the same time you have to wonder a little about a pastor that just sits back and hopes it happens.

Surely the level to which they equip their flock is a key. But sometimes it is reasonable to encourage, even admonish people to do what they should do. It seems that we slip into a sort of an "it's strictly up to me on my own" mentality at times. And treat the issue as a "we do it on our own or preachers push us" dichotomy. Yes, we have to do it. And sometimes we need a push to start to do what we should.

We do need to be taught to obey all that Jesus commanded. It says so in Matthew. It's not just a matter of ego, but of commission.

I heard a pastor encourage his congregation to get to know their neighbors...and invite them 'to church'. Why not get to know your neighbors and speak of the things of the Lord with them..be it sharing the gospel (however way the Holy Spirit leads) or engage them in fellowship.

My opinion: The more people come 'to church' the more they'll hear
ch-ching! ch-ching !!


(I know..I know...not everywhere)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I heard a pastor encourage his congregation to get to know their neighbors...and invite them 'to church'. Why not get to know your neighbors and speak of the things of the Lord with them..be it sharing the gospel (however way the Holy Spirit leads) or engage them in fellowship.

We are encouraged to share however we share. And we no longer presume salvation as a line in the sand, "I can name the date and time" event. We accept that it might come from a lengthy observation period, complete with many questions, followed by more observation and more questions. And in the midst of this, "going to church" some, or maybe not. But eventually realizing that they really do believe in Christ. When did it start? Not always sure. It sort of happened gradually.

We may like to argue that either they do or don't believe. And it is partly true. But what do they need to believe to be considered "a believer"? The whole core of the faith? The guts of some creed (even if they never heard of a creed)?

And do we think we really believe it all? Probably not. Oh we would say that we believe everything in the Bible. But we aren't even sure what some of it is saying. And if we did, and thought about it, we might take a little while to come to where we actually believe in "that."

Yeah, we can say we believe it on faith. But isn't that sometimes a way of saying we don't get it but we are going to stand by it because it is in the Bible. You know. Important things like one church one city. (We used to think that was in there.) On the flip side, do you believe the things that are in there that you are convinced are not actually in there? I don't know what that would be. For you or for me. But at one time, it was for me that 1 Cor 3:10 or so and following was not talking about all believers. I was sure that it was. I now disagree with that position. Neither is really relevant to my daily walk. Nor to salvation. What if I don't believe that?

I didn't mention any of this to get responses. Rather to think some more. I believe a lot. And I'm convinced that part of what I believe is wrong (and I obviously don't know where that is or I would change my mind). But I am fairly certain that what is important is not wrong. And there is a lot less in that part than is so often argued about. It tends to distill down to "love God and love everyone you have any contact with or even think about."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

We are encouraged to share however we share. And we no longer presume salvation as a line in the sand, "I can name the date and time" event. We accept that it might come from a lengthy observation period, complete with many questions, followed by more observation and more questions. And in the midst of this, "going to church" some, or maybe not. But eventually realizing that they really do believe in Christ. When did it start? Not always sure. It sort of happened gradually.

We may like to argue that either they do or don't believe. And it is partly true. But what do they need to believe to be considered "a believer"? The whole core of the faith? The guts of some creed (even if they never heard of a creed)?

And do we think we really believe it all? Probably not. Oh we would say that we believe everything in the Bible. But we aren't even sure what some of it is saying. And if we did, and thought about it, we might take a little while to come to where we actually believe in "that."

Yeah, we can say we believe it on faith. But isn't that sometimes a way of saying we don't get it but we are going to stand by it because it is in the Bible. You know. Important things like one church one city. (We used to think that was in there.) On the flip side, do you believe the things that are in there that you are convinced are not actually in there? I don't know what that would be. For you or for me. But at one time, it was for me that 1 Cor 3:10 or so and following was not talking about all believers. I was sure that it was. I now disagree with that position. Neither is really relevant to my daily walk. Nor to salvation. What if I don't believe that?

I didn't mention any of this to get responses. Rather to think some more. I believe a lot. And I'm convinced that part of what I believe is wrong (and I obviously don't know where that is or I would change my mind). But I am fairly certain that what is important is not wrong. And there is a lot less in that part than is so often argued about. It tends to distill down to "love God and love everyone you have any contact with or even think about."

Who does "we" refer to?

As to the teaching of "one church one city" by WN I can tell you that what I first came to believe is not that much different from what I now believe. I believe that there are numerous references to churches in the NT, the singular references are to churches in cities, the plural references are to churches in regions. I also believe that in one place Paul said to "appoint elders in every church" and in another he said to "appoint elders in every place". What does this mean? I believe that just like Jesus prayed that "we would all be one" so also, it is important for the Body of Christ to be one. I believe this is very important and the verses where Paul told us to "examine ourselves" when taking the Lord's table, that being divisive, or sectarian are some of the fleshly sins he told us to avoid.

The confusion comes when this "teaching" is used as a cornerstone for the most divisive teaching of all. But just because I reject the use of this teaching for building your own little division doesn't mean I reject what I first believed in the above paragraph. Just like "Jesus Christ Superstar" doesn't make me reject Jesus just because I don't like someone else's portrayal of Him.

[Paul Cox]

So...within a given city, who decides which is THE church in that city.

I think if Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have told all the churches to sell their meeting halls. The churches didn't meet in designated "church" buildings (or "meeting halls") for at least the first two hundred years, maybe more. Think of how many millions that would have saved; how many hungry people could have been fed with that money.

If Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have instructed all the churches to have someone stand in the meeting and just read the scripture. Paul told Timothy to not forsake the reading of scripture.

If Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have called off all the "Trainings" and conferences. There is no record of these activities in the New Testament.

And on, and on, and on...

P.C.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

So...within a given city, who decides which is THE church in that city.

Exactly ! Nice to see you Paul !

It is very frustrating for me, to know and understand the church are believers sharing the gospel, fellowshipping one on one or in small groups, in homes, at coffee shops, restaurants, even in the streets. There are many, many saints who were in the LC, left the LC and those who never even heard of the LC, WN or WL who truly understand and know WE believers are the church.

If Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have instructed all the churches to have someone stand in the meeting and just read the scripture. Paul told Timothy to not forsake the reading of scripture.

To the forum readers/posters:
While short lived and MAYBE unique to San Diego, there was a time when we did JUST that in the homes ! The 'corporate' meetings were usually on a particular topic, the S/spirit, the Blood of Jesus, Sanctification, Justification, Righteousness, the church. Scriptures on those topics were empasized and we read them in the meetings together. So it was in the LC style...we at least read them !

This was before the life study messages began.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

So...within a given city, who decides which is THE church in that city.

I think if Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have told all the churches to sell their meeting halls. The churches didn't meet in designated "church" buildings (or "meeting halls") for at least the first two hundred years, maybe more. Think of how many millions that would have saved; how many hungry people could have been fed with that money.

If Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have instructed all the churches to have someone stand in the meeting and just read the scripture. Paul told Timothy to not forsake the reading of scripture.

If Witness Lee really wanted to get back to the beginning, he would have called off all the "Trainings" and conferences. There is no record of these activities in the New Testament.

And on, and on, and on...

P.C.

Yes, I agree with this. Taking the observations about oneness and saying that you have packaged them and it is your group and not anyone else's is to me, quite ugly. However, that was not what I first believed in "one church one city" nor is that what I believe now. Having lived through the LRC attempt at "practical oneness" I can testify that they truly did not practice oneness with other christians.

It does not take a genius to figure out that when Christians meet, whether in a home or a hall that that room will not be sufficient for every believer in that city. Therefore, meeting in several homes or several halls is not a divisive factor. However, saying that you will get sick if you take the Lord's table at another meeting hall of Christians in the city is certainly a sectarian teaching. And that is pretty much what I was taught by RG and others while in the LRC. This was never taught in a way that you could examine the scriptures, only as a "this is what I saw happen" kind of testimony. I treated that the same way I would treat someone else's testimony. I filed it away waiting for my own observations to confirm or disprove it. Now that I have those observations I feel comfortable in condemning that teaching.

Once again, I learned the "one church one city" teaching from WN. I do not have much issue with it as taught by WN. I do take issue with the LRC version of this teaching, hence my analogy of "Jesus Christ Superstar".

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who does "we" refer to?

As to the teaching of "one church one city" by WN I can tell you that what I first came to believe is not that much different from what I now believe. ... I believe that just like Jesus prayed that "we would all be one" so also, it is important for the Body of Christ to be one.

The confusion comes when this "teaching" is used as a cornerstone for the most divisive teaching of all. But just because I reject the use of this teaching for building your own little division doesn't mean I reject what I first believed in the above paragraph. Just like "Jesus Christ Superstar" doesn't make me reject Jesus just because I don't like someone else's portrayal of Him.

I agree. Good post! I sort of thought OBW was referring to the congregation he meets with when he kept referring to 'we' because in every church service I've attended and even in the small prayer group meeting I attend, the pastors encourage the congregants to invite people to 'church'...their church. In my prayer group, I hear people talk about inviting people to come to their church.

I believe the verses where Paul told us to "examine ourselves" when taking the Lord's table, that being divisive, or sectarian are some of the fleshly sins he told us to avoid.

Now this is a subject matter, I honestly don't have a handle on (anymore). The Lord's Table was very unique to the LC. It was one of my favorite meetings. I think it was one of the meetings we all felt the strong Presence of the Lord.

But since leaving the LC, attending various congregations, the Lord's Table is not practiced in the same manner we did. Most congregations do not use the phrase the Lord's Table. They use the word Communion..which is fine. Most have communion once a month...except for the RCC which has communion all the time !

I have various teachings on communion and they're really good ! But I can't seem to keep staying in the habit of having daily communion at home. I start and stop.

This topic of the Lord's Table or Communion should probably be the start of a new thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I agree. Good post! I sort of thought OBW was referring to the congregation he meets with when he kept referring to 'we' because in every church service I've attended and even in the small prayer group meeting I attend, the pastors encourage the congregants to invite people to 'church'...their church. In my prayer group, I hear people talk about inviting people to come to their church.



Now this is a subject matter, I honestly don't have a handle on (anymore). The Lord's Table was very unique to the LC. It was one of my favorite meetings. I think it was one of the meetings we all felt the strong Presence of the Lord.

But since leaving the LC, attending various congregations, the Lord's Table is not practiced in the same manner we did. Most congregations do not use the phrase the Lord's Table. They use the word Communion..which is fine. Most have communion once a month...except for the RCC which has communion all the time !

I have various teachings on communion and they're really good ! But I can't seem to keep staying in the habit of having daily communion at home. I start and stop.

This topic of the Lord's Table or Communion should probably be the start of a new thread.

Yes, I think this would make a great new thread because we could all share our present experiences and understandings as well as what we saw in the LRC. I also agree that the Lord's Table was my favorite meeting. This is where I feel we should give the LRC their due. It is very difficult as an elder to run a testimony meeting and I believe this is why the place I now meet shy away from this.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

But since leaving the LC, attending various congregations, the Lord's Table is not practiced in the same manner we did. Most congregations do not use the phrase the Lord's Table. They use the word Communion..which is fine. Most have communion once a month...except for the RCC which has communion all the time !

I've heard the term communion, supper, etc. When we met with the Baptist congregation, they took the Lord's Supper quarterly. Where we've been meeting with a local community church it's nearly every week.
I agree the Lord's Table was the most enjoyable and in my opinion the most inclusive aspect of the local church experience.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who does "we" refer to?

"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.

As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.

And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.

As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.

And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.

I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.

So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.

Also, this view is somewhat narrow. If we look at the history of Christianity in the US since the 1940s we can see that we used to have many denominations that required you to be baptized by them before taking communion. Over the last 70 years that has been exposed to most Christians as being divisive and sectarian and more and more Christians realize that if someone has received the Lord they should be welcomed into the Lord's table, regardless of where they were baptized. I think you have to give credit to WN for raising an issue with the previously divisive practice and to his ministry for having some effect on what I consider an improved situation among Christian congregations.

So although WL and the LRC has taken this teaching to build their own little division, the ministry of this word has helped the Body of Christ as a whole to have a more practical oneness. If you do give WN some credit for this change, then that shows the value in his discussing it in his ministry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.

So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.

I won't comment on Lee's version because I think we all have problems with it.

But while Nee's is clearly not some kind of didactic "you must go my way" thing, as a solution, I think we have previously concluded (maybe before your time here) that it had nowhere to go other than to ultimately separate based on seeing and accepting his version of what is church (or somebody else's) and dropping everything else.

I am more and more convinced that the best solution is what is mostly happening today. And that is that we acknowledge that we don't agree on everything, we do have a level of comfort in practicing in certain ways that others do not necessarily feel as comfortable with, and outside of how we practice and play with our peculiar nonessentials, we really are one. We might argue until we are blue in the face over some points that are more extreme in difference, but except in a few cases, end the argument by praying together and going out to eat together, joining together in community outreach, etc.

And it is the very seeking for a solution to the "division" issue when we will always divide at some level, even if we have only smaller assemblies. There will always be some reason that I (or you, or whoever) will meet with someone who is not merely the physically closest assembly. It may simply be a matter of comfort. Of a need for particular "gifts" that might accrue in my direction. I note that in a blog I read periodically written by a guy who has had a church in his house for several years admits that without seeking outside help from other Christian groups (which includes larger more typical denominations, free groups, etc.) they do not always have the help internally that they need. We can argue that the Spirit can supply that need, but it is presumptive to demand that it would simply happen within that small group. The body is greater than an assembly, so just because he has given gifts as needed does not mean that a little church of 10 has everything within its little group. They are not the body, but a body, and part of the body.

And I'm sure that the next question will be how to differentiate between the body and a body. And my response is that this whole line of reasoning is too aimed at getting everything so neatly figured out. Fix all the problems. Come up with solutions that don't leave us with divisions and names. I'm not convinced that this is the most important thing we need to be focused upon. I believe that it is much more important that we each are engaged in living, obeying, praying, worshiping, etc., than getting everything arranged in the best way. Just like we are given the strength to withstand our personal problems that are not simply taken away by God, we should also withstand the need to fix all of our "practice" problems just because we think we can.

OK. I'll bite. How will we do communion? (And will someone have a cow because I called it "communion"?) What kind of music. How will we baptize? Will we baptize only believers, or the whole household? (I lean to believers only — pretty strongly — but what does that "and their whole household" thing mean?) Will we teach a kind of Calvinism? Or at least believe that? Or something more Arminian? Or something in between? And what do we do with those who a convinced that something different is the right way? Are they denied the right to speak out about their opinion on the subject unless it is in the context of an open discussion for the purpose of exploring alternatives?

How many of those kinds of issues will you actually be faced with and keep everyone in your small proximity assembly happy? Will you allow three to speak in tongues every meeting? Will you emphasize the tongues and miracles or deemphasize them?

Get used to homophily. Birds of a feather will flock together. It doesn't make other birds not birds. Or deny others the right to fly. And despite Lee's (and the LRC's) constant look at the landscape through the lens of the 1960s, things are not like they were then. Just like Corinth seems to have changed between the first and second letter. Were they all meeting in one place? Not obvious. Although I do believe there was a reference to "when the whole church gets together" (in more modern wording).

My problem with the whole church-city thing is that it is almost the creation of a problem, or at least the exacerbation of one, so that a solution can be supplied. Is Christianity as broken as we have learned to believe, or are we forcing problems onto it that don't exist in the way we think, and despite all the claims otherwise, is actually changing for the better.

And all of this discussion is coming at one of those times in the history of the church when there is significant upheaval related to many things that are not addressed by such a thing as one-church-one-city. In fact, it might be that within 100 years (assuming that we continue to rick on here) the kind of assembly that Nee, Lee, and the LRC have proposed (as similar or different as any of those may be) could be essentially obsolete in some sense. Not because the church is obsolete, but because so much of its existence, practice, emphasis, etc., changes very drastically.

You think I sometimes emphasize the "obey" side of the gospel more than we are used to. Just wait 100 years and it may be the predominant thing. All this talk about dirt may be irrelevant. Everyone may be regularly meeting in 3 or 4 different contexts over the course of a few weeks such that their "allegiance" is not obvious or even discernible. Have their practice spread between things that look Baptist, Charismatic, Presbyterian, and RCC/Anglican. Not all at once, but all accepted and practiced.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.

As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.

And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.

As I see it through my eyes and through the eyes of others I have fellowship with, when you say church that means We as the Body of Christ. So yes whichever rural or urban area you're at, there is the church.
Simplified in each city; one church many assemblies. The administration of the church does not lie in any particular assembly, but in God.

[rayliotta]

But Z, this idea that all Christians in a city should meet together all in one room, wasn't this at the heart of Watchman Nee's original teaching? Didn't Nee attempt a "practical working out" of one church / one city in China, before Witness Lee then exported it?