The Ground Of The Church

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

it is a mental illness that seems to take the place of spiritual discernment

It is religion.

I have often marvelled over the years how men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to the Lord can get so mixed up and twisted and upside down and backwards, fully meaning well before God at every stage.

The enemy is subtle.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It is religion.

I have often marvelled over the years how men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to the Lord can get so mixed up and twisted and upside down and backwards, fully meaning well before God at every stage.

The enemy is subtle.

Religion IS a mental illness ! It screws peoples' minds up!

Look how screwed up Islam has screwed up the poor Muslim people?

Catholicism is filled with superstition and half truths. Very few people KNOW whether they're saved or not.

Protestants in the Denominational church think going 'to church' is good enough!

People in the Charasmatic/Evangelical movement...'All Praise & Worship' is not going to cut it either if there is no repentence of sin in their lives!

You catch my drift.

JESUS is the ONLY WAY for us to escape the stronghold of religion. He is the SAVIOR & is MIGHTY to SAVE. HE is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE and no one can come to the FATHER but through our Precious Lord JESUS!

(I'm preaching to the choir here....)

[Hope]

Dear Forum,

First, I have not read every post on this thread. Please forgive me but it has become very convoluted. My simple limited country boy mind just has difficulty getting my brain around all the nuisances.
1. THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH.
2. ONE CHURCH ONE CITY.
3. APPOINT ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH.
4. APPOINT ELDERS IN EVERY CITY.
5. FREEDOM IN CHRIST
6. MULTIPLE SETS OF ELDERS
7. OUR MODERN WORLD
8. WHAT IF THIS AND THAT THEN SO AND SUCH
Whew, this is a lot of heavy lifting.

On the other hand.
1. I will build my church. General statement
2. Tell it to the church. Very practical and must be local.
3. The church in such and such a city. Very Practical and must be local.
4. The church in so and so’s home. Very practical and must be local.
5. The churches in such and such district or province. Definitely not local.
6. Churches of the Gentiles. Definitely not local.
7. Churches of the saints. Definitely not local.
8. Churches of Christ. Definitely not local.
9. Churches of God. Definitely not local.
10. Messengers of the churches. Definitely not local.

The church is local primarily because Christ is the head of the church. He is in charge and He is building it. Consider how important is the word "churches." There are never elders over many churches. Once you have elders functioning in an extra local way the headship of Christ is in jeopardy. Likewise there is never a single elder over any church. Once you do have a single or leading elder, pastor or whatever, the headship of Christ is in jeopardy.

IT IS THROUGH THE PRACTICAL LOCAL CHURCH THAT CHRIST’S HEADSHIP TO THE BODY IS REALIZED.

Take away the reality of the headship of Christ and division is swift to follow. Once the LSM was formed in 1973 and WL and Max Rapoport began to attempt to head up the local churches into a single “move” with a central “coordination” then the practice of the church in the city began to be divisive. Today what the LSM and BBs promote as the local church is not recognizable to me. How many of the original saints have left because the so called ground of the church was lost to the central work. Thus among them the “churches” have disappeared and only the hollow name of the church in so and so city remains.

Consider how they came to have multiple sets of elders in Toronto. It was due to the so called “Work.” Suannehill and the saints in Mansfield were told to make a choice. With which “Work” and set of “Co-workers” will you affiliate?

To take a practical position of being one with all the blood bought believers in Christ Jesus is really very easy and simple. It just comes “natural” for the born again S/spirit within every believer. It sure does feel good to the S/spirit to receive, love and honor all the Lord’s dear children. No one needs to understand all the fine points of one church, one city to preserve the oneness of the Spirit.

I propose a thread on the Headship of Christ. For me, without the desire to know the practical heading up of Christ debating about how to keep the oneness locally will never get off the ground.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-33, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

[AndPeter]

Originally Posted by Hope

I propose a thread on the Headship of Christ. For me, without the desire to know the practical heading up of Christ debating about how to keep the oneness locally will never get off the ground.

Amen.

Steve.

[UntoHim]

Okey dokey,

Should we get it going within the "apologies accepted" boards, or someplace else?

[Hope]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Okey dokey,

Should we get it going within the "apologies accepted" boards, or someplace else?

Brother UntoHim,


That would be a good place.

Two verses to consider as a kick off of the topic are Rom 14:9-10, 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. NASB

Note how the Lordship of Christ is mentioned as a very central point of the Lord's death and resurrection. This chapter ties our being judged at the judgment seat of God with our judging our brother and usurping his conscience.

As we discuss the revelation of the Headship of Christ, we could consider how essential this Headship is to the oneness of the Body of Christ and to a properly functioning practical local assembly. Since we have many with a similar experience in the LSM/LC, I suggest that we also consider our history. We could relate our positive experiences as well as any shifts away from the Headship of Christ expressed in the local administration in each church. I propose that we should also consider our history as it is related to the Headship of Christ directly over each individual member in their lives and function in the Body of Christ.

Testimonies and experiences are often the best teacher both from a positive perspective and from the perspective of what to avoid.


Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

John 8:31-33, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” NASB

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Religion IS a mental illness ! It screws peoples' minds up!

Look how screwed up Islam has screwed up the poor Muslim people?

Catholicism is filled with superstition and half truths. Very few people KNOW whether they're saved or not.

Protestants in the Denominational church think going 'to church' is good enough!

People in the Charasmatic/Evangelical movement...'All Praise & Worship' is not going to cut it either if there is no repentence of sin in their lives!

You catch my drift.

I do catch your drift but, this is a hard word for me, CMW.

I've been thinking about it, praying over it.

I'd agree that religion frequently resembles mental illness in its manifestations but I think might be too much to say that religion *is* "mental illness".


Moreover, I don't think it really goes quite far enough in a more important sense.

Religion is a sickness of the entire soul, of the heart, and not just the mind.

In fact, most religion seems to have precious little to do with the mind at all....

[OBW]

Don,

Once the LSM was formed in 1973 and WL and Max Rapoport began to attempt to head up the local churches into a single “move” with a central “coordination” then the practice of the church in the city began to be divisive.

I disagree. Actually, the local churches were, by definition, divisive from the beginning. But that division was not as willful or organized in the early days and was therefore somewhat benign. But any time you come into a divided situation and claim to have the answer and that those who follow you are not divided, there is a problem.

Consider how they came to have multiple sets of elders in Toronto. It was due to the so called “Work.”

There are not multiple sets of elder sin Toronto because of the so-called “Work.” There were multiple sets of elders in Toronto long before Witness Lee was born. And if those multiple assemblies with multiple elders can become more one with each other in Christian fellowship, it will not matter that they hold some few preferences differently and continue to meet as separate assemblies. Without even going to Toronto to see for myself, I bet there is a trend in that direction.

And you keep referring to the practical side of the church as “local.” Yes, I agree that it is local. It is very local. But leaving it “local” in such a vague way on this forum is the equivalent of saying “one city one church,” or even if you disregard political boundaries, only one assembly covering some patch of land and no one is going from within one patch to join with believers in another.

I am not saying you are proposing this. And I am not saying it would not be ideal. But unless you are somehow weighing in with Gubei, you seem to be suggesting something that I do not think you intend. Reading the remainder of the post could be read either way, so a clearer stand on what is “local” would be helpful.

[Gubei]

Dear OBW,

You wrote.
"I disagree. Actually, the local churches were, by definition, divisive from the beginning. But that division was not as willful or organized in the early days and was therefore somewhat benign. But any time you come into a divided situation and claim to have the answer and that those who follow you are not divided, there is a problem."

I already asked you this question, but you did not answer. According to Igzy's definition, "being divisive" means

"Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude" - Igzy

And then, how can you just assume that the local churches were divisive from the beginning? Now by what definition are you saying? Please elaborate on it.

And you wrote.
"There are not multiple sets of elder sin Toronto because of the so-called “Work.” There were multiple sets of elders in Toronto long before Witness Lee was born. And if those multiple assemblies with multiple elders can become more one with each other in Christian fellowship, it will not matter that they hold some few preferences differently and continue to meet as separate assemblies. Without even going to Toronto to see for myself, I bet there is a trend in that direction."

Now you are talking about an early stage of the phase 2 of my model. Yes, this is what I want to see. Obviously, this is a part of my model on the ground of locality. So, why do you reject my model?

BYW, still I have one question. You used the word "assemblies." It's okay to me. But, what if those assemblies have such names as "Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc?" Do you think they can go on with those names? The NT is obviously against denominations.

Gubei

[Hope]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don,

I disagree. Actually, the local churches were, by definition, divisive from the beginning. But that division was not as willful or organized in the early days and was therefore somewhat benign. But any time you come into a divided situation and claim to have the answer and that those who follow you are not divided, there is a problem.

There are not multiple sets of elder sin Toronto because of the so-called “Work.” There were multiple sets of elders in Toronto long before Witness Lee was born. And if those multiple assemblies with multiple elders can become more one with each other in Christian fellowship, it will not matter that they hold some few preferences differently and continue to meet as separate assemblies. Without even going to Toronto to see for myself, I bet there is a trend in that direction.

And you keep referring to the practical side of the church as “local.” Yes, I agree that it is local. It is very local. But leaving it “local” in such a vague way on this forum is the equivalent of saying “one city one church,” or even if you disregard political boundaries, only one assembly covering some patch of land and no one is going from within one patch to join with believers in another.

I am not saying you are proposing this. And I am not saying it would not be ideal. But unless you are somehow weighing in with Gubei, you seem to be suggesting something that I do not think you intend. Reading the remainder of the post could be read either way, so a clearer stand on what is “local” would be helpful.

Dear Brother Mike,
We have a tough problem. Paul was very open in his first letter to Corinth. There was division there and he condemned it. In chapter 11 he declares, 1 Cor 11:18-20, For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. NASB

We should seek to be those who are approved? Does this desire make someone divisive? Sometimes it seems you are contending that if you are concerned about division then you are by default divisive. I Corinthians is very clear. Those who declared “I am of Christ” were guilty of division just as those who declared “I am of Paul.” Taking the position “I am it”, “We four and no more are it.” Of course that should be condemned as divisive. How to have a positive testimony of the oneness of the Body of Christ and not be part of the “I am of Christ” sect is the dilemma.

Thus, please give some attention to how we should address the problem of division. Can we conclude that the Southern Baptist Denomination is a division? If not, other than the LSM/LC, are there any Christians who assemble in a divisive way. Paul said 1 Cor 11:17-18, But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. NASB

The Southern Baptist practice is congregationalism. That is, every church must be in administration independent. When I say local, practical etc I have the headship of Christ in mind. The LSM/LC has administrationally eliminated “the churches” from the scriptures and thus annulled the Headship of Christ. The Southern Baptists practice administration local which is the model in the New Testament. They also practice fellowship and mutual cooperation among the various congregations on many levels which they do without giving up their local administration. This is also in the New Testament. Thus, I would say they are two for three. While the LSM/LC is zero for three. There are many many other matters which should be our concern regarding the current spiritual condition of an assembly but that is for another thread.

I am not weighing in with my good friend Gubei. For one thing I still am not clear what he is saying. My fault not his.

This matter of oneness should be looked at from many sides. Is it acceptable to just sort of chant, “hey, hey everybody is okay. We are one in Christ. Hey , hey everybody is okay.” Why did the Lord pray, John 17:11, Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are. NASB
Can we just be cavalier about the whole matter of division and oneness? Why did Paul write, Eph 4:3, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. NASB

I believe Watchman Nee came up with the understanding of One Church, One City due to much prayer, Bible searching and anguish of heart. What about all the division? Where can we find the Oneness of the Body of Christ expressed? Now unfortunately, it has not worked out, as I believe, he expected.

Now Mike, the reason there are multiple sets of elders in Toronto now as well as 150 years ago is because of “the work.” WN coined the term “the work.” But the practice of gifted servants of the Lord forming their own particular groups in various cities goes way way back long before there was a Toronto.

I also, as you have guessed, would not be surprised if various groups are coming together more to serve together and honor the Lord as their common Savior. Whenever the Lord works in a fresh and genuine way, He brings us together. It just never seems to happen that way with LSM/LC groups. When they have a new move or new way, they have a storm. It seems that every few years, evil men like me desire to draw men after themselves in order to have their own ministry and following or they just have “taken another way,” or they have been “brought into Darkness,” or they are “infected with leprosy,” or they were “rebellious like those of Korah,” etc.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” NASB

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

...Actually, the local churches were, by definition, divisive from the beginning. But that division was not as willful or organized in the early days and was therefore somewhat benign. But any time you come into a divided situation and claim to have the answer and that those who follow you are not divided, there is a problem

I'm sure many of you have heard the humorous saying "going to church does not make you a Christian anymore then hanging out in your garage makes you a car".

Since the beginning here in America, Witness Lee and his followers have been putting the cart before the horse. They always want to declare that they are "THE church" before they actually act like the church. You see, the city in which the church meets in is not the ground of the church any more then the meeting hall itself is the church. They are both misnomers. We all know that just because people ignorantly call the building "the church", it does not make the wood, bricks and mortar the household of God or the Body of Christ. Similarly, just because a bunch of Christians move to Anytown USA and then declare that they are "THE church in Anytown", it does not make them the only legitimate Christian church in Anytown. As a matter of fact, such hasty and outrageous claims should call into question the legitimacy of such a group right off the bat.

In any event, this term "the ground of the church" is a man made term based upon a man made concept. It was not used, or even faintly implied, by the Lord Jesus or the scripture writing apostles. Just because the scriptural description and definitions of our oneness were not "practical" enough for Nee and Lee, it did not give them the right to make up all new descriptions and definitions out of thin air. By doing so they are simply dividing the Body of Christ even more.

[Gubei]

Dear UntoHim,

The ground of church is not mentioned literally in the Bible, just as Trinity is not. What matters is what the ground of church is talking about. The ground is simply locality. This means there is no dividing factor among Christians except locality, or time-and-space limitation which was given to man who is not as omnipresent as God.

And then, please think about "The Southern Baptist" which Hope mentioned. Of course, I agree with their activities except their name - The sourthern Baptist. As you siad, "It was not used, or even faintly implied, by the Lord Jesus or the scripture writing apostles." To me, the name itselt sounds very divisive.

Gubei

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear UntoHim,

The ground of church is not mentioned literally in the Bible, just as Trinity is not. What matters is what the ground of church is talking about. The ground is simply locality. This means there is no dividing factor among Christians except locality, or time-and-space limitation which was given to man who is not as omnipresent as God.

And then, please think about "The Southern Baptist" which Hope mentioned. Of course, I agree with their activities except their name - The sourthern Baptist. As you siad, "It was not used, or even faintly implied, by the Lord Jesus or the scripture writing apostles." To me, the name itselt sounds very divisive.

Gubei

Pretty good statement dear Brother Gubei.

When it comes to the practicality of a spiritual reality, the Bible does not give prescriptive formulas. The church, the assembly, the Body of Christ, Christ as the Head of the Body etc. must be first and foremost practiced locally and even individually. Hence, the stress in the New Testament on the “local church.”

I once had a very interesting conversation with Witness Lee about the term “Local Church.” Philip Lee was collecting various statements of faith from various denominations and seminaries. WL was telling me all about it one day over lunch. (He was addressing me directly regarding the state of Christianity.) He declared that Philip had told him that, “the term ‘Local Church’ has become a hot property.” WL went on to ask if I was aware of the denominations picking up this term which they surely had gotten from him, WL. (WL always suspected that Christianity was reading his material and gleaning the best for their own use.) So he read me a statement from a Southern Baptist pamphlet where the term “Local Church” was used. He declared this was proof that we were right to use the term and that we would see Christianity use it more and more.

I smiled and waited for Benson or Ray who were also there to say something. They only nodded their heads in agreement with WL. (In fairness to them, the statement had been directed at me.) Then I explained to WL that I had grown up using the term “Local Church.” The Southern Baptist used it all the time to distinguish themselves from the universal administration of the Catholic church and the bishop/district system of the Methodists and Episcopals etc. I then turned to Benson and Ray and ask them to affirm that this was so. It was amusing watching them being forced to correct WL. They confirmed what I said. WL was visibly disappointed and we went on to something else.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple

John 8:31-33, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "