One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Of course the blended brothers and elders took the name of Nee and Lee. Every book in their book rooms are by Nee and Lee. Every note in the recovery version bible is from Lee and Nee. It is only the LSM local churches that claim they are not a denomination.

Someone has rightly said that Witness Lee has merely changed the "one man speaking" in every congregation to the "speaking of one man" in every local church.

This is very true. Yes, denominational and community churches have the speaking of one man, the pastor, but is that not far better than to have the speaking of only Witness Lee in every Local Church? I think so.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, I think we're kind of hijacking this thread from DistantStar. Can somebody point me to where we can break this thing off to a new thread?

Thanks!

-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Someone has rightly said that Witness Lee has merely changed the "one man speaking" in every congregation to the "speaking of one man" in every local church.

This is very true. Yes, denominational and community churches have the speaking of one man, the pastor, but is that not far better than to have the speaking of only Witness Lee in every Local Church? I think so.

WOW! This is a great post of Ohio's. I want to make it a sign and frame it.

[Trapped]

I think one church one city is legit.

But let me explain.

I think the lesson of the majority of the references to the church being “the church in {city}” in the Bible is so we would get it hammered into our heads that all the believers in a city are the church in that city. LSM rolls that line out when it is needed to soften their hardline stance, and I fully believe it in the softened sense. All the believers in a city are the church in that city. All the believers in Seattle are the church in Seattle. All the believers in Paris are the church which is in Paris. Regardless of where they meet in the city, all the believers are the church there. That’s the oneness. They all have the common life of Christ and they are thus all the church. The city is a great choice to get this point across because a city forms the natural boundaries of the people who you will deal with and run into in your daily life. It’s difficult to get built up or close to anyone who is in another city. Anything smaller like a neighborhood or a street is limiting; anything larger isn’t practical according to typical daily life. A city seems to pretty steadily throughout history (okay, I’m speaking as non-historian here) represent the typical boundaries of the group of people you will interact with on a semi-regular basis.

But this truth is an objective truth. It is not a truth that disappears if there are multiple gatherings in a city. In other words, even if there are various assemblies, that doesn’t take away from the objective truth that they are all still the church. I do think this is a great concept that would do well to be spread. I may be wrong, but I think some Christians live according to this without having had the explicit thought, and that there is benefit to this truth being more widespread. It may illuminate someone who already lives that way, it may give someone an awareness and warmness towards his fellow brothers and sisters that he didn’t have before just because he never thought about it, or it may change people who formerly viewed other denominations negatively but who came to see that we are all part of the same Body. I think this teaching as stated thus far is good.

Someone else on this forum (Igzy maybe? Others too maybe) noted that there isn’t a whole lot of detail in the Bible about the church gatherings……but there is a lot about the individual’s responsibilities regarding his own behavior and his treatment of others. There is also nothing in the Bible that talks about the “practical expression of the church.” This, I believe, is one large area where the LC’s went wrong in this “doctrine”. They had to create this extra layer of specialness called “the practical expression” of the church to separate and uplift themselves. (Of course, I also believe this is a smokescreen for “you don’t read W. Lee”, but that’s a tangent). They often say, “okay, where is the practical expression of this?” But the Bible doesn’t talk about some “practical expression” that everyone else who is driving by on the street can point to. The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living. We are the church. So the practical expression of the church is in how each of us lives, treats others, and takes care of others.

For all their trumpeting of the practical expression of the church, the LC’s as a system really miss the actual practical expression of it.

Okay. So all the believers in a city are the church in that city. The problem is, even if there was one entire massive unified church in New York City, the realities of the physical world would end up dictating that they all group up and meet in different assemblies. So for example, in a city of 1 million, let’s say there are 370,000 meeting Christians. (I googled how many Christians attend church in America, and the result was 37%. Let’s go with that for example’s sake). This would require four Astrodomes to accommodate one combined meeting of the church, and about 0.0001 of them could function in a 2-hour meeting. The eldership would have to consist of something like 8,000-10,000 elders. And the church would have to own a gigantic arena just to have the weekly elders’ meetings. Oh yeah, which means most elders couldn’t function or have input.

So the more probable thing would happen, which is that the saints would divide up into smaller groups based on location or common burden. And those elders would divide up into smaller groups based on location or common burden around the city too. (I just googled the average population of a U.S. city, and it said 20,000….not 1,000,000. Okay, 37% of 20,000 is 7,400 Christians. Which would need maybe 200 elders. The same thing would still happen but with less astrodomes.) So there would be small groups of elders caring for these smaller assemblies around the city. And in order for everyone to know where on earth to go, those assemblies would take on certain names that include information additional to the name of the city. In other words, over time, the “names” (de-name-inations as Evangelical used to love to say) are going to come in simply as a function of the realities of life. These names already come in to describe smaller assemblies of the local churches during the week. So I don’t see a difference between:

Monday lunch sisters’ gathering at the Smith’s
Jones’ home prayer meeting
Chang’s Friday night home meeting
District #1’s prophesying meeting
Northview Church in Gary, Indiana
Portland Point Community Assembly

Much to LCer’s horror, they might be terrified to realize that those prayer meeting and home meeting descriptions (required to have any chance of finding the location of the gathering) have THE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON BESIDES THE LORD IN THEM. And yet they say it without batting an eye.

So whether we got names the way that actually happened, or whether we got names by trying to do it as I described and unavoidable real life came in, we have different names. The names just tell you where on earth to go to get to a gathering of believers and aren’t a cause of division unless those believers refuse to meet with other believers when called to do so. And it’s not the names that cause division. It’s the attitude of the people who meet there that does. Does this still happen today? Yeah. Is that a problem? Yeah. Are the LCs part of that problem? Yeah.

(It just hit me like a ton of bricks that the local church is so upside down that it calls meeting with “other” Christians DIVISIVE. Wrap your head around that for a second. The local churches CALL COMING TOGETHER WITH THEIR FELLOW BELIEVERS “DIVISION”. How on earth have I swallowed that one for so long?!?! If that doesn’t do you in, nothing will.)

Anyway, I don’t think I’ve said anything particularly new or groundbreaking (pun not intended), but I’ve been ruminating on it for a while and just had to put my thoughts all together in one place.

Trapped

P.S. Totally unrelated topic but my mind is jumping around …… I wonder if PSRP went by the wayside because the “S” part (study) made people actually study the points and look up the verses and realize that the verse references cited for different things didn’t actually match up with the “truth” being propagated?!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think one church one city is legit.

But let me explain.
...

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive
The first time I heard this concept explained as the proper way to interpret scripture, made so much sense, I began to apply it to every teaching that comes along. I also look at all of Witness Lee's teachings through this prism.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

"When studying the Bible, it is important to determine whether the verse or passage at hand is descriptive or prescriptive. The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened, while a passage is prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen. Simply put, is it a description or a command? Is the passage describing something (it happened) or is it prescribing something (it should happen)? The difference is important. When a biblical passage is only describing something but is interpreted as prescribing something, it can lead to errant thinking and behavior."

When John addressed the churches in the Revelation by the city in which they were located, was he simply describing the churches by their location because that's the way it existed in the day, or was he saying for now and eternity, there should ONLY be one church in one city?

It's a good idea to do some reading about prescriptive and descriptive passages in the Bible. I doubt that Lee did that. He built an empire around his prescription for OC/OC. It seems that the church did exist in cities in the days when the scriptures were written, but was that to be the mandatory pattern for eternity? I don't think the scripture is clear on that point. The scriptures don't forbid it, but neither does it appear to prescribe OC/OC.

Nell

[Ohio]

An anonymous poster once provided an excellent exposition on the forum concerning oc/oc. I'll dig it up if you're interested. It covered all the scripture, not just the churches in revelation.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

An anonymous poster once provided an excellent exposition on the forum concerning oc/oc. I'll dig it up if you're interested. It covered all the scripture, not just the churches in revelation.

Yes please. I'm interested...

[Trapped]

(explanation up front: when I say "the church in [city]", I am not referring to the local churches).

Nell, I agree with you that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. "Do this until I come" or "and you do the same" could easily have been present in relation to describing the churches, but it glaringly wasn't.

But not only is it descriptive, I also think that it is still an objective fact today, albeit manifested in a different way than what was described in the Bible. I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible. Even though those house churches existed, in my view, it doesn't take away from the objective fact that on the city-level, the church in [city] is all the believers in that city, which includes the house churches and any other assemblies that met. The church in [house] describes a smaller level, and the church in [city] just describes a larger version of that thing.

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place. It is all the believers in Houston. In other words, it's not that there "should be" one church in Houston. There is right now. All the believers are the church in Houston. It's an objective fact, regardless of if a single one of those believers is aware of it. That's kind of what I was trying to say.

Maybe a better way to say it is that it is a mindset that we should have ("that they all may be one"). It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify). But if you want to see the actual expression of the church in [a city], it is just in our living and treating of each other and others.

[Trapped]

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible.

Here is a link to that referenced post.

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region, which sided with the Blendeds against Titus Chu. The divisions were all political in nature, rooted in offenses, using the Bible to endorse their skewed viewpoints.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place... It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify).

Back in the day, I was in a meeting where the ministry mouthpiece did what was supposed to be a mic drop. They asked rhetorically, "If God was going to send a letter to a church in [the city] today, where would He send it?"

Like there was supposed to be an actual, tangible, physical street address, and since we [LC] have taken the ground of oneness, we have a real physical address where we "meet on the proper ground". I guess that was the point. Like, we in the LC can get the letter to the church in [the city]. That old old LC bugaboo - you just can't be "one" in principle, but you have to be one "practically".

Anyway, some not-so-bright brother or sister, who didn't realize that reading the actual text was bad form, asked, "But look! It doesn't say, 'To the church in [the city]', but 'To the angel of the church in [the city]'... what about that? Who is the angel?"

The reply was, "Oh, that's just the messenger. You don't need to pay any attention to that."

Right.

Revelation 1:1 "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,"

Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star."

Just ignore the angel, uhuh... besides, the angel probably knows the street address already! (Our street address!) Uh, yeah, okay... really weak argumentation if you ask me. On such tenuous reeds was built the LC edifice.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region...

This brings up the obvious question: How many one-church-per-city churches can exist simultaneously in one city? More than one, apparently. Exclusive Brethren redux - when will we ever learn?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

For all their trumpeting of the practical expression of the church,

I think the proper term for that is : Puffery. It's used in advertising and sales pitching all the time, and you can't believe any of it. It works on the simple-minded, the ignorant, and on suckers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Someone else on this forum (Igzy maybe? Others too maybe) noted that there isn’t a whole lot of detail in the Bible about the church gatherings……but there is a lot about the individual’s responsibilities regarding his own behavior and his treatment of others. There is also nothing in the Bible that talks about the “practical expression of the church.” This, I believe, is one large area where the LC’s went wrong in this “doctrine”. They had to create this extra layer of specialness called “the practical expression” of the church to separate and uplift themselves.

But the Bible doesn’t talk about some “practical expression” that everyone else who is driving by on the street can point to. The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living. We are the church. So the practical expression of the church is in how each of us lives, treats others, and takes care of others.

This is a great point by Trapped heretofore unsaid, at least according to my poor memory.

Let me repeat. "The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living."

The "practical expression of the church" should be defined by the story of the Bible, not be a twisted interpretation. This is similar to the one day I was reading I Cor. 12. Paul spoke to the church in Corinth in much detail about the "practical expression of the church" being exhibited among them, even in their Lord's Table meetings. Suddenly I realized how Lee had twisted the teaching, "many members, but one body." To the Apostle Paul this was on a local level. It referred to the individual behavior of the members of the church. Lee, however, over an extended period of time, changed the meaning here. It became "many LC's, but one body." The implicit and very explicit message from Lee was simple: the relationship of LC's to LSM was far more important that their personal living. Personal sins were all forgivable, but "church sins" will get you permanently excommunicated. LC history repeatedly has proven this.

Thus the "oneness of the body" had forever morphed into something unrecognizable to scripture. It took on a Roman Catholic flavor. Our personal walk with the Lord was replaced by strict adherence to an Anaheim Book Publisher. This, in essence, is what the mid-80's "NEW WAY" was all about. I lived thru that. I was thoroughly deceived. How did we let that happen?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "practical expression of the church" should be defined by the story of the Bible, not be a twisted interpretation. This is similar to the one day I was reading I Cor. 12. Paul spoke to the church in Corinth in much detail about the "practical expression of the church" being exhibited among them, even in their Lord's Table meetings. Suddenly I realized how Lee had twisted the teaching, "many members, but one body." To the Apostle Paul this was on a local level. It referred to the individual behavior of the members of the church. Lee, however, over an extended period of time, changed the meaning here. It became "many LC's, but one body." The implicit and very explicit message from Lee was simple: the relationship of LC's to LSM was far more important that their personal living.

This actually touches on a topic I had on my mental back burner. I had an interaction with an elder one time where he talked about needing to check with "the brothers" (in Anaheim) about a certain local matter. I can't remember what it was, but it was something banal, like having a particular meeting, or possibly having a conference that involved a few churches. It was not a serious situation, like the implosion of a bunch of churches. I asked, "why do you need to check with them if this is something that doesn't actually involve them?" The elders' hesitated for a second and then said, "Well, it's good to get the feeling of the Body."

Of course, this means "check with Anaheim" but, me, always hesitant of that baby/bathwater thing, couldn't help but wonder if there is any Biblical precedent for this before throwing it out as "nonsense". I love what you say that the members/Body are described by Paul on the local level. It makes so much sense to "get the feeling of the Body" on the local level, in your own church. Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

You NEVER "get the feeling of the Body." If you did you would just take a vote and go with the majority.

What you do is have fellowship with other Christians and try to hear the Lord's speaking.

The Lord's speaking can be aligned with everyone else's opinion, or it can be completely contrary. Imagine if Martin Luther had been interested in the "feeling of the Body." No Reformation! Imagine if Nathan had been swayed by the "feeling of the Body." Rebuke King David? I don't think so! Imagine if Paul had listened to the "feeling of the Body." Get rid of of ALL Jewish ordinances? The council in Jerusalem isn't going to like that!

What makes dealing with and figuring out the LR so difficult is they set up false standards of behavior then get you distracted wondering how to apply standards that are false in the first place!

Just follow the Lord! It is wise to seek counsel, but ultimately you have to go with him, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Heb 8:11

[aron]

"Get the feeling of the Body" really means, "check with HQ." But you can't say the latter because it doesn't sound very mystical does it? Plus, there is supposedly no hierarchy so there can be no HQ.

But there it is.

I've told the story of an elder who tried to hold a regional conference after WL passed. LSM got wind of it when he called them up & tried to order 300 of a certain title. The Blendeds told him, "Re-speak the latest conference". I'll never forget the look on his face when he heard that. Sadness, discouragement, even disgust. At that point he'd been following WL's ministry longer than many of his new masters in Anaheim.

Only Jesus Christ knows the feeling of the Body. Anyone else who presumes that will bring ruin. Of such Paul said, "We would not bear them; no, not even for an instant."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

Here's an article what they meant by "get feeling of the Body".
Taking Christ’s Feeling as our Feeling and having the Consciousness of the Body

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This actually touches on a topic I had on my mental back burner. I had an interaction with an elder one time where he talked about needing to check with "the brothers" (in Anaheim) about a certain local matter. I can't remember what it was, but it was something banal, like having a particular meeting, or possibly having a conference that involved a few churches. It was not a serious situation, like the implosion of a bunch of churches. I asked, "why do you need to check with them if this is something that doesn't actually involve them?" The elders' hesitated for a second and then said, "Well, it's good to get the feeling of the Body."

Of course, this means "check with Anaheim" but, me, always hesitant of that baby/bathwater thing, couldn't help but wonder if there is any Biblical precedent for this before throwing it out as "nonsense". I love what you say that the members/Body are described by Paul on the local level. It makes so much sense to "get the feeling of the Body" on the local level, in your own church. Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

There is support for circulating the apostolic epistles around the churches. Ephesians, for example, could be a circular letter. In his conclusion to Colosse, Paul exhorts them to exchange letters with Laodicea (Col 4.15-16) which btw we do not have. John's letters in Rev 2-3 were also circulated. It is interesting to note that the towns of Ephesus to Laodicea followed a well-traveled route, which some have said formed a rainbow in shape. Next in line was Colossae and Hierapolis, had there been 8 or 9 letters in total.

Concerning "the feeling of the body" according to Lee, this teaching is entirely manufactured with the goal to force compliance with headquarters. Who is qualified to "know" this feeling. Scripturally and practically speaking this should uniquely be the Head of the body leading the elders and the gifted brothers who are with the saints. How in the world could those in Anaheim know the needs in Cleveland, Ohio? Compare Paul's letters to Corinth and Galatia. Their needs were diametrically opposed.

When it comes to the ministry of the word concerning the truths of the faith, there is ground to bring congregations together to benefit from certain gifted members. But Lee once said that the local elders had enough "authority" to choose what time to have a church prayer meeting. Seriously? This is why many have rightly said that LC elders have become only franchise managers. Thus Podunk, Nowheresville has the exact same "menu" as the megatropolis of NYC.

The N.T. shows us a continued battled between Gentile Evangelists and Judaizers sent out from Jerusalem. Initially they battled over circumcision, apparently resolved in Acts 15, yet really never was until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The "feeling of the body" should be guided by the Spirit, by the new covenant, and by righteousness. Look at every case in the N.T., they were all guided in this way.