One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what? You've created a false dilemma. The Bible doesn't say we can't denominate.

If you want the truth, please read and pray over these verses, so that God's truth can grow in you:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you want the truth, please read and pray over these verses, so that God's truth can grow in you:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

Christians are famous for using their pet doctrines to condemn others. The nastier the "pet," the better it was. Some pf these pets are like pit bulls.

It tnen provides them with great excuse for not loving one another. The source for this is not truth, but pride.

There was a Christian out my way, who took serious the Lord's command to pray in his closet. He was thus able to visit every church around and use his favorite pet verse in order to condemn them. Would you like to meet my "pit bull?"

Since this was our Lord's direct command to the disciples, i do believe he had far more justification than any "one city one church" preacher.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Christians are famous for using their pet doctrines to condemn others. The nastier the "pet," the better it was. Some pf these pets are like pit bulls.

It tnen provides them with great excuse for not loving one another. The source for this is not truth, but pride.

There was a Christian out my way, who took serious the Lord's command to pray in his closet. He was thus able to visit every church around and use his favorite pet verse in order to condemn them. Would you like to meet my "pit bull?"

Since this was our Lord's direct command to the disciples, i do believe he had far more justification than any "one city one church" preacher.

“Honesty is the cruelest game of all, because not only can you hurt someone -- and hurt them to the bone -- you can feel self-righteous about it at the same time.” Dave Van Ronk

This is why Paul charges us to "speak truth in love".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you want the truth

The truth about what, the proper church life? The Normal Christian Church? Or the Central Lane of the Divine Economy?

It might behoove us to mention that in Second Temple-era Israel there already existed a wide narrative on the ground among the populace, referencing scripture, about God's coming Messiah, or Christ. This pre-existant narrative is referenced repeatedly in the gospels. The main thrust of the New Testament was to show that Jesus the Nazarene was God's promised Christ. The "recovery of truth", so-called, of people like Nee and Lee, was instead a distraction and diversion, a snare and stumbling. The proper church, so-called, saved no one; but rather became a stronghold of every unclean thing, and it was papered over like the whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones (fallen human custom, traditions, and culture). Its promulgators continually attempt to get one not to look away to Jesus, but to look away from Jesus, and to stare instead at the faults of the brothers and sisters in faith. This distracts one from the obvious fact that as sinners, they're also caught by the same cobwebs and vapours they so eagerly and assiduously condemn. Just like the leaves of Adam and Eve, the new teachings cover nothing, but rather expose the separation and fall of humanity away from God's grace.

Luther did, arguably, recover truth, even necessary truth. As did others, like Wesley, later and independently, for the British (though, of course Puritans and others pre-dated him). What was their truth? To re-establish what the NT clearly laid out - that Jesus was God's Lord and Christ, and salvation was to be found in believing into his name. Salvation was not found in submission to church magistrates, or in keeping the feasts and holy days.

The recovery of the supposedly proper church by Nee did nothing to add to this. He merely borrowed Brethren teachings, and used this as a lever to separate the Chinese from the Western imperialists. Then, once established, he began to impose native Chinese culture; he was blind to his own biases. For example, he felt there must be one Big Boss, otherwise everything might dissolve into chaos. This is fallen human culture taking the letter of Paul ("God gave apostles, evangelists, prophets") and suborning both the letter and spirit of Jesus, to take the least place, for those who desire to be great. Again and again, Jesus remonstrated with His disciples not to strive for earthly primacy. But in Nee's culture it was imperative. Guess who won - culture won.

In the local church of Lee, we elevated men, were respecters of persons, despised the poor, refused to give to those who could not repay us in this age, reserved the chief seats at the feasts for dignitaries and program zealots, rejected love as "honey" and "natural affection", thought that weird, reflexive behavior was spiritual (greeting each other with, "amen, amen"), and judged "poor Christianity" continually, even as we piously claimed the mantle of Luther, Wesley et al. Our continual judgments of "denominations" made us like the man praying at the temple, despising his neighbor. Note that the despiser actually was correct in his judgments: the other one was, indeed a drunk and a liar, a pathetic noob. But instead of humbling himself and repenting, the man poured out judgment and self-righteousness: "I'm not like that sinner over there". No indeed, you're worse; you're a sinner who's lacking mercy. If you, a sinner, show no mercy you will be given none for your own sins. With what you judge others, you yourself are guilty as well.

And I haven't even gotten to the teachings! The scriptural text was mauled by Lee. As I said, the notion of God's Christ was already on the ground, when Jesus began to move about in Galilee and beyond. For example, the crowds asked John the Baptist, "Are you the Christ?" Clearly eschatological expectation was high. Herod the Idumean (Edomite) sat on the throne, as hated and feared as any man ever was by a captive populace. Where was the Son of David?

When Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", he was drawing on an extant knowledge base and belief set. The NT was in continual reference to what was held as truth, "that which was written might be fulfilled", and hoped for in soon reality, on the ground. How else could the disciples remember, "Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up" if they didn't already know it? They knew the prophetic utterance. Now, they realized, it was concerning Jesus. The Kingdom of God was indeed near! Because God's promised King was here.

Instead, in Nee and then Lee's oriental-flavored sheep fold, we got "God's economy", and other distractions. To him, the narrative was all about the NT believer enjoying grace, participating in the economy of God, and standing in the proper church. No, sorry; it's about Jesus. It always was, always will be. If the believer doesn't see Jesus and His relation with the Father, how can the believer enjoy "mystical union" with the Son, God's Christ? Only the Spirit can reveal the Son. Lee's logic failed.

And, then through the Son, to see the Father of Lights? No, we got a "processed God" smoothie, bland and generic. "Christ" was whatever Nee or Lee needed at any moment for perceived exigencies. Early Nee taught localism and autonomy, but later Nee taught consolidation and control. Why? Because the needs on the ground were changing, the "truth" changed along with it.

The "truth about the church" is nothing but a distraction and a stumbling. The denominations are arguably cobwebs and vapours, but this anti-denominationism is worse, it draws in those who seek Christ, and entangle their minds with thoughts of judgment and condemnation. "We're not like the denominations over there". No indeed, you're even further away from Christ, being more "of Nee and Lee" than denominations are of Luther or Wesley, or Corinthians were of Apollos or Cephas.

(Please understand that I'm not speaking of Evangelical specifically, nor his/her experience(s), but reference his/her arguments as I perceive them, and share experience and observation in the local church of Lee. And yes I'm making generalizations, just as Lee did when he said, "Most Christians don't know 'x'....". But my generalizations here are admittedly provisional and open to correction.)

[Evangelical]

The truth about your statement "The Bible doesn't say we can't denominate." The Bible is the truth, so I gave you truth, because I gave you the verses about denominating.

The intention of my post should have been clear from the part of your post which I quoted, apologies if not.

I provided a page under the title of denominating, that gives 15 or 16 bible verses about denominating.

If you believe that denominations are the right way, then I encourage you to do your best to keep denominating. If not ,then do your best to live the nondenominational life. There is no middle ground, no half way between denominating and not, there is no fence upon which you can comfortably sit.

If you stand in a denomination, stand absolutely. If you stand as a free group, stand absolutely. If you stand on the ground of the church, stand absolutely. Otherwise, you are in a marsh. If you give up the denominations, yet you are not absolute for the proper ground of the church, you are in a marsh. You may also be in the local church life and not be absolute. That is a marsh. Even the Lord cannot heal a marsh. A marsh is a neutral, halfway place, full of compromise.
The Visions of Ezekiel, by Witness Lee

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no middle ground, no half way between denominating and not, there is no fence upon which you can comfortably sit.

This is what we (especially myself) are trying to tell you. You can't have it both ways. You are a denomination as well, whether you like it or not.

Like I said, either a select few interpret scripture, or individuals do. If the former you will have one church, like the Catholic Church. And we will ask: "Who interprets scripture?". If the latter, then - and the evidence is obvious - people will disagree on certain points and thus it is only natural for denominations to form. Then obviously each one (and the LC denomination fits) will believe all the others to be wrong. The problem is that most denominations are aware of the differences and they still respect and join in hands and prayer with other denominations whereas the LC denomination does neither.

THIS is the crux of the whole matter.

Funny how you ignore my replies.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

This is what we (especially myself) are trying to tell you. You can't have it both ways. You are a denomination as well, whether you like it or not.

Like I said, either a select few interpret scripture, or individuals do. If the former you will have one church, like the Catholic Church. And we will ask: "Who interprets scripture?". If the latter, then - and the evidence is obvious - people will disagree on certain points and thus it is only natural for denominations to form. Then obviously each one (and the LC denomination fits) will believe all the others to be wrong. The problem is that most denominations are aware of the differences and they still respect and join in hands and prayer with other denominations whereas the LC denomination does neither.

THIS is the crux of the whole matter.

Funny how you ignore my replies.

You do not have the full story. We are all from denominations, we have family in denominations. We do not insist that they leave their denominations and join us. We happily meet and pray and read the Bible with our denominational family members and friends. We regularly have members of denominations join us for a meal, bible study and prayer. Sometimes Catholics, sometimes people of other faiths too such as Buddhists and Hindus. Before I left the denominations I happily met with the LC and they with me, for a number of years. No one questioned or criticized me. No one forbade me to meet with denominations. What we don't do, is build up denominationalism, that is the difference between us and denominations.

Regarding lack of respect, you will find it is the other way around. The LC is often more accepting of denominations than denominations are of it. They rejected the LC when they came to America. They published books saying they were a cult. They assumed many things and lies were spread about them. This had severe consequences for it in Asia which faced persecution. The arguments against them were largely due to cultural bias, and had little basis in reality.

After much misunderstanding, a 6 year was study done by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and with Fuller Theological Seminary and concluded "we were wrong".

I would encourage you to download and read this:
http://www.equip.org/christian-resea...-were-wrong-2/

For Christians in America, being labeled a cult member may
only result in humiliation; for Christians in Asia, it can
result in persecution to an extent we never have to worry
about here.

Lee often commended other Christian leaders and groups for their
teaching, evangelism, and good works,2 and nothing he
taught would preclude LC members from making common
cause with other Christians in areas unrelated to the
furtherance of denominationalism


Those labeling them a cult were heavily biased and did not properly research the LSM:

A number of mostly American cult theology experts immediately and completely rejected our re-assessment of the orthodoxy of LSM and associates, using as their basis the work done in the 1970s and 1980s which we believed our more recent re-evaluation had exposed as inadequate and in error (even our own previous work). Most of these experts had done no original research at any time on the teachings and practices of LSM and associates. None had conducted contemporary comprehensive re-evaluation and research. This rejection was summarized in an “Open Letter” (2007) that repeated the early criticisms and failed to produce any new criticisms as well as failed to present any new research or evaluation. Many well respected Christian leaders were persuaded to sign in support of this “Open Letter,” although the vast majority of signers had never researched or evaluated the LSM and associates teachings for themselves.


The study concluded:

I]Finally, the local churches are an authentic expression of
New Testament Christianity. Moreover, as a group forged in the
cauldron of persecution, it has much to offer Western Christianity[/I]


Here is a site of testimonies by educated people from denominations that confirms the genuineness of the local churches:

http://an-open-letter.org/testimonies/


It is the conclusion of Fuller Theological Seminary that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.

My conclusion is simple and straightforward–LSM is not guilty of denying any essential Christian truth that is a basic part of historical orthodoxy. While I have minor reservations about some of LSM’s ecclesiological conclusions I do not think these rise to the level of false teaching. For me these differences provide a basis for ongoing dialogue in the love of Christ.

I have come to see that these brothers deeply love the church. Their practices make some American Christians uncomfortable. I believe American Christians, in general, should be more uncomfortable with their easy-going, deeply individualistic relationship with the body of Christ. Given the need for genuine contextualization there is still work to be done but I am confident that LSM is not denying anything essential to following Jesus Christ in faith, hope and love.


You can read about the effects of calling the local churches a cult here, particularly in China where people were arrested and executed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_..._controversies
In the summer of 1976 Peter Gillquist, the presiding NCAO apostle, became the head of the new books division at Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nelson), a respected Bible publisher. The first book Gillquist commissioned was The Mindbenders by Jack Sparks.[31] Sparks was listed as the putative author but the chapter on the local churches was written by Braun, who, although he had never met with the local churches, blamed Watchman Nee and Witness Lee for his negative experience with Gene Edwards.[32][33][34][35] Meanwhile, SCP was independently developing Wallerstedt’s manuscript into a book titled The God-Men.[36] First editions of both The Mindbenders and The God-Men were published in 1977.[37][38]

Responding to the strong demand for countercult publications after the Jonestown tragedy of November 1978, second editions of both books were published.[39][40] Before and after each edition of either book was published, members of the local churches wrote letters of protest to the authors and publishers and attempts were made to contact them both personally and by phone. Nelson alone received approximately three hundred responses.[41] InterVarsity Press, the publisher of the second edition of The God-Men, received a response including over five hundred pages of supporting documentation refuting the book’s charges.[42]

The Mindbenders and The God-Men accused the local churches not just of theological error but of sociological deviance, including practicing authoritarianism, thought reform, isolation of members, deceptive recruiting, use of fear and humiliation to control members, and financial malfeasance.[43][44] Following publication, members of the local churches became objects of harassment, physical assault, and attempted deprogrammings. In addition, members were dismissed from jobs and family relationships were damaged.[45] In China the Three-Self Patriotic Movement commissioned two men to write a book to provide justification for a nationwide persecution against the local churches.[46][47][48] The authors relied on The God-Men and its accusations in their writing.[49][50] Over two thousand local church members were arrested, many were given extended sentences, and some were even executed.[51]

Fuller Theological Seminary's research found nothing really wrong with Witness Lee or the local churches:

In the first decade of the 21st century, two different groups initiated multi-year studies of the local churches, such as J. Gordon Melton called for in 1985. One was undertaken by a panel of faculty members from Fuller Theological Seminary, including President Richard J. Mouw, Dean of Theology Howard Loewen, and Professor of Systematic Theology Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen; the other was by Christian Research Institute, headed by Hank Hanegraaff, along with Answers in Action, headed by Gretchen Passantino. The Fuller panel stated:

It is the conclusion of Fuller Theological Seminary that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.[82]
The Fuller panel further wrote that “the teachings of Witness Lee have been grossly misrepresented and therefore most frequently misunderstood in the general Christian community, especially among those who classify themselves as evangelicals.”[83] Christianity Today endorsed the Fuller panel’s findings in an editorial in its March 2006 issue.[84]

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You do not have the full story. We are all from denominations, we have family in denominations. We do not insist that they leave their denominations and join us. We happily meet and pray and read the Bible with our denominational family members and friends. We regularly have members of denominations join us for a meal, bible study and prayer. Sometimes Catholics, sometimes people of other faiths too such as Buddhists and Hindus. Before I left the denominations I happily met with the LC and they with me, for a number of years. No one questioned or criticized me. No one forbade me to meet with denominations. What we don't do, is build up denominationalism, that is the difference between us and denominations.

Good to hear.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding lack of respect, you will find it is the other way around.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

After much misunderstanding, a 6 year was study done by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and with Fuller Theological Seminary and concluded "we were wrong".

When I first searched up the LC, I came across the gotquestions website which talked about them and referred to that study.

Edit: http://www.gotquestions.org/Witness-...al-church.html

Do not misinterpret me. I do not believe the LC to be a cult, merely a denomination - and that is my point. I do believe that most members are truly saved and that you are all my brothers and sisters. It is the finer points on doctrine and practice (especially in regards to other believers) which bothers me. But yes, you do believe the basics: Christ's divinity, life, death and resurrection, all for our sins. And that is what truly matters.

I looked up the word "denomination" in the Oxford English Dictionary online today. The only reason the LC cannot be classified as a denomination according to them, is the fact that you do not have an official name. That's the only reason. Otherwise you fit it very neatly.

5. A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name.

Common faith and organization... think about that.

Edit: It seems you need to either have a subscription with the OED, or (like me) you can access it if you are at some institution like a university. If you can't access it, I won't mind sending screenshots of the webpage.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Common faith and organization... think about that.

Edit: It seems you need to either have a subscription with the OED, or (like me) you can access it if you are at some institution like a university. If you can't access it, I won't mind sending screenshots of the webpage.

It's ok about the OED, i have hard copy .

Well I've been in denominations decades longer than I have in the LC and it has never felt like a denomination to me. It could be just that they are so different to denominations that I am persuaded they are not one. Or they truly are not a denomination.

In regard to your comment I quoted above, we have the common faith but we are no organization.

That is, there is no organization called the "local church organization". Living Stream Ministry is a ministry, that is an organization. But the church is not, in keeping with the concept of the church being the Body of Christ, and not an organization of man. There is a clear distinction between church and ministry.

There is no organization, just as there was no human organization with Christ and his 12 disciples. just people grouping themselves together to serve the Lord. There is no human organization, no hierarchy, and no official, permanent leader. The organization is spiritual.

There is no pressure to come to church meetings or not come to church meetings and no pressure to say or do anything in the meetings. There is encouragement for sure, but no pressure.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do not insist that they leave their denominations and join us.

To put it simply, do you believe that the LC (or whatever you call yourselves) is a denomination? If not, why not?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

To put it simply, do you believe that the LC (or whatever you call yourselves) is a denomination? If not, why not?

No, because it does not fit the description of a denomination, one of which can be found here (better to open the link because the formatting is messed up here):

http://www.gospelway.com/church/denominations.php

B. The Denominational Concept of the Church
Modern denominations include many local congregations, and they claim there is one universal church composed of all "saved" people. But they add something new - the denominations. All these "saved" people in all these local churches are now divided into denominations.
The concept of a denomination, as commonly believed today, involves all the following elements:
* Each denomination is an affiliation or confederation consisting of a number of local churches.
* Each denomination has its own peculiar name, doctrine, organization, plan of worship, etc., which distinguishes it from other denominations.
* Each denomination claims it is composed of Christians, but it does not claim to contain all faithful Christians. Each denomination believes there are faithful children of God in other denominations. "There are saved people in all the denominations." "We're all going to heaven, just by different routes." "One church is as good as another." It's just a matter of personal preference, like different kinds of cars, colors of clothes, etc. So "join the church of your choice."
Ask any informed denominationalist, and he will confirm what we have said. Ask: "Are there saved Christians in your denomination?" He will say, "Yes." Ask: "Are there Christians in other denominations, who will go to heaven?" He will say, "Yes." Ask: "Does one have to be a member of your denomination to go to heaven?" He will say, "No." So each denomination claims to consist of some Christians, but not all Christians.
A denominational preacher once said the following in a letter to me:
"There is only one 'holy Christian Church,' of which Christ is the Head, but it is now made up of many denominations ... But faith in Christ is the first criterion of membership in the holy Christian Church, and we feel that such believers can be found in all Christian denominations."


Apart from all the other signs of a denomination such as organization, a big one for me is this one:
"Each denomination claims it is composed of Christians, but it does not claim to contain all faithful Christians"

That is, a denomination thinks that some Christians are in it and other Christians are in another denomination. To denominate is to see divisions, to not denominate is to see the whole as God sees it and try and practice that.

They do not consider that all believers are in the same church in their locality, whether they are in a denomination or not.

To consider ourself different from another believer in our locality is to denominate ourself. Because the Bible teaches we are all the same (one Father, one Savior, one baptism, one Spirit etc).

The local church considers all believers to be in it as soon as they believe in Christ.

It's really just a matter of how we view ourselves and how we view other Christians.

If we consider other Christians to be not part of us for whatever reason, then we have already denominated ourselves. If the Lord's Recovery has gone this way then I suppose it is more accurate to call it a denomination.

But you must understand that each church in each locality is autonomous, so some churches may be like this and others may not be. There is no regional or top-down hierarchy and control. It depends on the path that the elders and church have taken. Have they stayed true to the teaching of Nee/Lee or have they diverged.

So it may not be correct to say that ALL local churches have become or are a denomination. I have not seen much evidence of this in mine.

In some countries and regions such as South East Asia, the local churches are mostly a scattering of people meeting in houses. In others it may look much more like any other denomination.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, the "one ocean" is the "My church" that Jesus is building. This is not the same thing as the Local Church system.

In as much as they are an organization called Local Church (which they are not), I would agree. But there is no such thing as a Local Church organization.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In as much as they are an organization called Local Church (which they are not), I would agree. But there is no such thing as a Local Church organization.

Organization is on the way?

[UntoHim]

International Training for Elders and Responsible Ones (Fall)
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Dates: October 6-8, 2016
Note: Registration is required. Further information is available through Living Stream Ministry.
Please contact register@lsm.org.

Wow, I wonder how the common brothers and sisters in the Local Churches feel about the huge air fares and luxury hotel and meeting accommodations being spent on these "Elders and Responsible Ones"? Why the Gold Coast in Australia? For the brothers coming from North America and Europe, you couldn't find a place on earth further and more expensive to get to.

But, what the hey, no place is too far, or too expensive or luxurious for brothers to come together to be blended!

-

[least]

Training -
General Subject-
RETURNING TO THE ORTHODOXY OF THE CHURCH.

The book cover pic is all the info I have.
Wonder what orthodoxy they are returning to.
Theosis? Return to the Eastern Orthodoxy? They condemn Roman Catholicism.
Eastern Orthodox is organizational too. Given it is training for elders and responsible ones, church affairs have to be concerned topics, not just about training to prophesy to each other that 'we are gods'.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In as much as they are an organization called Local Church (which they are not), I would agree. But there is no such thing as a Local Church organization.

It doesn't matter how you parse it, or how theologically sound you think your group is. They have meeting places, whether owned or rented, a schedule of meetings, a way that they do meetings (in accordance with the LSM, all the way down to which song, or songs on occasion, will be sung) arrange to have electricity and water, and even a decision on what ministries will be acceptable for discussion. There is an organization. It is registered with the state and the city in which it meets.

The only way that there is no organization is if it has no rules (just right), no set meeting place or time, and whoever happens to show up at any random time in the same place (random, again) to read, study, pray, etc., about whatever moves them (and not the schedule maker). In that case I will agree that there is no organization.

Organization is a red herring. It is a form of equivocation in which you fail to use the word for the massive amounts of organization that always goes on, then quibble over whether certain minor things (that are not actually any different between the LCM and the rest of Christianity) are important and declare that you are not an organization. Maybe not in some very minor point. But you don't even compare your minor point to how other groups are with respect to that point. You compare that small minor point to all the regular stuff that the others do/have. As if that is the only organization you have.

You are comparing the pollution of various vehicles by pointing to the bicycle in he front yard compared to all the cars on the road. But you ignore that you also have cars. They are just not in the front yard at the moment. They are hiding behind the closed garage door so no one will know they are there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

It doesn't matter how you parse it, or how theologically sound you think your group is. They have meeting places, whether owned or rented, a schedule of meetings, a way that they do meetings (in accordance with the LSM, all the way down to which song, or songs on occasion, will be sung) arrange to have electricity and water, and even a decision on what ministries will be acceptable for discussion. There is an organization. It is registered with the state and the city in which it meets.

Long ago I concluded that all the pitfalls of organizational structure stem from centralization under a common headquarters. This is what the Apostle Paul faced with the Judaizers who wanted to keep Jerusalem as command central. Headquarters and Hierarchy go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other, and they fuel each other, and together they make organization. That's just the way it is.

As much as Evangelical would like to believe it, the proper name, or the supposed lack thereof, has nothing to do with organization. In the same vein, the more you call an organization an organism, the more you have hypocrisy; because hypocrisy is basically dishonesty, the refusal to admit what really is, and deception, lying to others what really is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

It doesn't matter how you parse it, or how theologically sound you think your group is. They have meeting places, whether owned or rented, a schedule of meetings, a way that they do meetings (in accordance with the LSM, all the way down to which song, or songs on occasion, will be sung) arrange to have electricity and water, and even a decision on what ministries will be acceptable for discussion. There is an organization. It is registered with the state and the city in which it meets.

The only way that there is no organization is if it has no rules (just right), no set meeting place or time, and whoever happens to show up at any random time in the same place (random, again) to read, study, pray, etc., about whatever moves them (and not the schedule maker). In that case I will agree that there is no organization.

Organization is a red herring. It is a form of equivocation in which you fail to use the word for the massive amounts of organization that always goes on, then quibble over whether certain minor things (that are not actually any different between the LCM and the rest of Christianity) are important and declare that you are not an organization. Maybe not in some very minor point. But you don't even compare your minor point to how other groups are with respect to that point. You compare that small minor point to all the regular stuff that the others do/have. As if that is the only organization you have.

You are comparing the pollution of various vehicles by pointing to the bicycle in he front yard compared to all the cars on the road. But you ignore that you also have cars. They are just not in the front yard at the moment. They are hiding behind the closed garage door so no one will know they are there.

I agree there is organization, there must be, otherwise it is chaos. Consider Jesus was highly organized. The times, the donkey, the last supper, the cross, the details, everything was pre-arranged. But it was not an organization.
I am saying the local church is not "an organization". You cannot find anything called the Local Church (capital L and C) Organization, anywhere.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree there is organization, there must be, otherwise it is chaos. Consider Jesus was highly organized. The times, the donkey, the last supper, the cross, the details, everything was pre-arranged. But it was not an organization.
I am saying the local church is not "an organization". You cannot find anything called the Local Church (capital L and C) Organization, anywhere.

You are splitting hairs. Look at that definition I gave you. The LC has a common faith and an organization (whether officially or no is irrelevant). You admitted to both points. That makes you a denomination.