1 Corinthians 14 - The Church
Would you share any thoughts you have on the references to the church in this chapter?
It's something we'll be studying more in depth, but would like to know your thoughts on it as it relates to simple or free range rather than institutional.
It's something we'll be studying more in depth, but would like to know your thoughts on it as it relates to simple or free range rather than institutional.
Views: 13
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Hudson on -
It appears to me, both from study and experience, that the basic underlying issue is trust. Are we able to simply trust the HS to lead us when we come together? I suggest that we can, down to the core of who we are. For all of us who have stepped out of an IC environment, the challenge is not to default into trained patterns, waiting for a leader to lead us while we watch and take notes. It has happened that when we gather we sit and look at each other, uncomfortable, wanting to know what comes next, uncomfortable in silence. Yet when any one of us ventures out in trust, sings a song from the heart, speaks a word of encouragement from the heart, shares from the heart, then the HS moves and it is exciting. Children have the most profund views and when they are encouraged to freely participate will bring amazing things to a free flowing meeting. The first few times it takes effort to overcome the IC mentality and to jsut relax and trust the HS to move. When we do relax, have fun, and trust the HS to move, He does.
-
Permalink Reply by Clark Wade on -
Greetings Jeoff & Leslie and SC,
Great topic! Crucial even. But this chapter doesn't stand alone. I Corinthians is awesome in unveiling the practices of the early Christians and this covers several chapters. Chapter 11 deals with the Lord's Supper. Chapter 12 speaks of the gathering of the saints for the "mutual" practice of spiritual gifting in the assembly. I see no reference to any human head running these meetings. Paul says in this chapter, "But to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for what is profitable." Nothing is said here like "But to the pastor is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is profitable." What it does say, emphatically, is this: "But to each one!" This is central to Paul's ecclesiology. And this entire chapter is about the spiritual gifts given to the body of Christ through each and every member functioning.
Then we come to "the Love Chapter." This is in the middle. It looks something like an ecclesiastical sandwich. All of this gifting operates "in" and "through" and "by" love. The gifting is not about human display, but to express our Love for our Lord to each other, and to minister the personhood of Christ, to each other. But this inclusion of chapter 13 does not in anyway diminish the importance of the operation of spiritual gifting that should be taking place in our meetings. I think this is a common thinking. We somehow excuse ourselves from the manifestations of the Spirit, or our lack thereof, by claiming chapter 13. But I just don't think this is rightly dividing the word of truth here. Because Paul, after speaking of this love, then picks up again right where he left off from chapter 12. I think this is significant.
At the end of 12, Paul says "Earnestly desire the greater gifts" and then repeats this again in 14:1 and adds the expression "but especially that you may prophesy." This gift of prophecy, to Paul, is the "excelling gift for building up the church par exellence. And Paul makes this amazing statement:
"You can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged." I Cor. 14:31
I think the Lord would teach us much about authentic "prophecy" if we would be willing to divest ourselves of everything we have learned, or think we know, about this gift. I grew up in the pentecostal-charismatic tradition, and I have come to believe that there's a whole lot more to this than I thought I knew. The essential things here is to know that "The Testimony of Jesus is The Spirit of Prophecy." Prophecy will simply reveal something about Jesus Christ. And this prophecy may come as a simple song, a teaching, a revelation, etc. I don't think there is anything real flamboyant here or even that dramatic.
One way the church, to a large degree, has excused itself from the obligations of I Corinthians 12 and 14 is by stating that this letter was just meant for the "misbehaving Corinthians." But Paul says in 1:2 "To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the call saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours." This seems to be a letter that is not just not meant for one little church, in one little place, at one little time. It is meant for all Christians, in every place, who is theirs and ours. The passage of time does not diminish anything that Paul instructs us here.
And then in 14:37, Paul also adds these words:
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him fully know the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord."
So now we know this letter wasn't just meant for one church in one time or place, but these instructions were authored by our Lord Jesus Christ. None of His commands are limited by space or time. The breath of our Lord is as fresh in these words as first spoken 2000-plus years ago.
Let us think of the words of our Lord who said:
"He who has my commands and keeps (practices) them, loves me...and I will manifest myself to him." John 14:21
I also think another corollary passage of scripture that is important in relation to I Corinthians is Ephesians 4:7-16. Here again we find this reference to the gifting that is given to all believers, for he says "But to each one of us grace or charisma or gifting, was given..." Ephesians 4:7 and then Paul says that the body of Christ grows through "every joint of the rich supply" and "the operations in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love."
These joints of rich supply define "leadership." The leadership in the body of Christ equips others to function. A joint has one purpose doesn't it, none other, but to facilitate movement of the different parts of the body. But there is no growth without "each member functioning." The leadership serves the members and not the other way around.
The significance of I Corinthians in relation to Ephesians is that I Corinthians is quite practical. And as Watchman Nee says in "The Normal Christian Life", I Corinthians will test our obedience more than Ephesians.
I think what the Lord is doing now is burdoning us with these passages of scripture. This is a good thing. We read this and we want to know all the the Spirit is saying here. We just don't know all that it means in practice. But the fact of the matter is, that we are beginning to linger and pray over these things. We do want His will expressed in our lives and in the assembly of the saints. May He grant us the desires of His heart for His church. And may He show us practical ways His will can be carried out as we move far beyond our own comfort zones and all the things we think we know.
Blessings to your fellowship Jeoff and Leslie. .
-
Permalink Reply by Clark Wade on
-
Hey brother,
Some good insights here. One thing I gather from your comments and study of Corinthians is that "simple church" can be pretty "messy." There are so many problems and hassles and disappointments and such that can sometimes accompany the attempt to meet together, face to face. We criticize the Corinthian church, but when we start meeting like this, we begin to understand a little bit of the challenges that faced Paul. We also begin to feel a little more sympathetic. There is something to be said regarding the IC structure. Their ridged, one-way communication way of meeting seems to protect us from ourselves. IC meetings, whatever you can say about them, tend to be quite "safe" because they do meet "after their own kind" and reproduce in the same manner.
Now while we might see the inherent obstacles of blending Jew and Gentile in these early churches, it seems we have a moral equivalency to contend with in attempting to blend Pentecostal, charismatic, Catholic, evangelical, etc in home churches. Everyone comes in with their own "ideas" and "traditions," and "leanings". Two thousand years might as well be twenty minutes. Paul's Corinthian letter couldn't be more timely or prescient.
One of the main things I do see at Corinth was their "over-functioning" with speaking in tongues. Of course, none of us have ever seen that before, right? And it was because of this problem, as well as their selfishness at the Lord's table, that we are graciously given a glimpse into the early church and of God's eternal purpose for their meetings in practical and apostolic terms. Paul's instructions regarding church meetings just look nothing like the typical "church service". It's not only a case of "apples and oranges," but of aardvarks and bananas.
I like what you say at the end of your comments:
"I believe it is important to study the church at Corinth so that we understand what went so wrong and what Paul was trying to correct."
I couldn't agree more. So, here's one thing we learn: We see a church stuck on a single gift of the Spirit with everyone speaking in tongues at the same time. No one was edified. This is a church that is all chaos and confusion.
But what does Corinthians teach us about today's church meetings?
Today, we have the situation in reverse. When a person "goes to church" it is typically to hear one member of the body of Christ express their gift to the exclusion of everyone else. The rest of the body of Christ sits inert without opportunity to exercise their own gifts for the benefit of the others. Now while this may have been the world's solution to Corinthian mayhem, it certainly wasn't Paul's idea. This idea is alien to the spirit and tenor of Paul's letters where such mutuality is not stamped out but encouraged, but within the apostolic parameters stated by him in Corinthians.
Then I read what Paul writes in Corinthians and then I know that his words are Spirit-Words that transcend time and space:
"For the body is not one member but many...if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were the hearing, where would the smelling be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, even as He willed. And if all were one member, where would the body be?" I Cor. 12:14, 17-19
Amazing words!
I saw a movie awhile back about something called "locked-in syndrome." What happens is that the entire body shuts down. It is incapable of expression but remains totally conscious on the inside. In this film, the hapless sufferer of this malady was able to communicate with a single organ, and that of his eye. He was able to "wink." The other eye was sewn shut. The rest of him was utterly paralyzed. Paul seems to be speaking of such a situation where Christ was communicated through a single organ and thus His body was missing. No hand, foot, leg, arm, etc, just a single eye, or as the case may be, a single "mouth."
One of my favorite passages regarding God's plan for the church is where Paul states his mission to:
"...enlighten all men and make plain to them what is the plan of the mystery kept hidden through the ages and concealed until now in the mind of God who created all things by Christ Jesus."
And what is this plan that Paul talks about? It is simply this:
"That through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities in the heavenly sphere. This is in accordance with the terms of the eternal and timeless purpose which He has realized and carried into effect, in the person of Christ Jesus our Lord." Ephesians 3:8-11
That passage blows me away. This is God's passion and plan for the church of His Glorified Son. When churches gather to hear a single gift, or organ, express itself, it cannot experience the "complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects." Such a church is suffering "locked-in-syndrome." Where is the body?
May Paul's Corinthian letter not only be a warning to us, but a bridge as well to God's eternal purpose for His church.
Blessings
Chaplain Nik said:My readings always start with the story that is presented and what is going on for the people involved. My theology is based on the whole story and not a separate theory that is systematically developed by comparing verses. Here is my humble offering if you can use it.
First of all, the church at Corinth was deeply troubled. Paul sent more letters and corrections to this church than any other one. We know that the Corinthians wrote to Paul for help at least once (1 Co 7: 1 concerning the matters which you wrote) and he wrote them a letter which we do not have (1 Co 5: 9 I wrote to you in my letter). Then Paul wrote 1 Co, correcting them with religious terminology that is unique to their community and not used in Paul's other letters. It might have been through Apollos' teachings that the Corinthians came to understand themselves as "spiritual, mature, wise, powerful, kings" (1 Co 2: 6, 14-15; 3: 1; 15: 44, 46.) But Paul tells them they are wrong, and that they are only infants who are not ready for "solid food." (1 Co 3: 1-4) Timothy returned with news that a group of Jewish-Christian missionaries were in Corinth with different teachings. This made Paul go visit Corinth a second time, which turned out badly. 2 Co 2: 4-6 describes the anguish of this visit and urges them to forgive and console the one who made it such a painful time for everybody. Again, we do not have the "letter of tears" (2 Co 2: 4, 7: 8,) but Titus reports that the letter persuaded the majority of the church to Paul's position. (2 Co 7: 6-7) Once that conflict was resolved, Paul wrote a comforting letter. We don't have complete letters from this point, and 2 Co seems to be several pieces of letters brought together. The comforting parts are in 2 Co 1, 2 and 7. Later, two letters were sent about collections for the poor in Jerusalem, parts of which are in chapters 8 and 9. However, the trouble-maker missionaries continued preaching contrary to Paul's gospel, so he wrote a strong letter against their mistakes in chapters 10-13.
I believe it is important to study the church at Corinth so that we understand what went so wrong and what Paul was trying to correct. With this in mind, I need a short break from writing to gather my resources on chapter 14 of 1 Co. Bless you and your church in your studies.
-
Permalink Reply by Marshall Diakon on -
As Doug has described, essential is "trust" (faith: Gk: pistis) in God to provide and manage as we're gathered together. Silence in His presence is good and ought be welcome.
The IC rendition on I Corinthians 12-14 is seldom complete. Therefore, any post-IC habit of dismissal best be overcome in us. And also to understand ekklesia beyond weekly or arranged meetings. Whenever we're together, we function, in that Christ functions in/through/with us.
-
Permalink Reply by Melville Holmes on -
It is refreshing to come upon people who know the scriptures and thing about them seriously in regard to this whole matter of the church. In each of the posts I find valuable insights and willingness also to think outside the box. It is sort of paradoxical, as one who had believed in the "one church in a locality" principle articulated by Watchman Nee in The Normal Christian Church Life, that I cannot find anyone where I live to share any of this with on an even footing. I mean I can talk about these things but I tend to get a blank face. People in the IC don't get participatory church. So here I am on the internet commenting with people miles, even continents away . . .
In addressing 1 Corinthians 14, I read here some very astute observations by way of putting the chapter in the overall context of that church, and the churches generally. What I'd like to do at the moment is offer a way of looking at this by way of a very simple principle at the heart, and it's nothing I can take credit for. More than any other writer/speaker, I owe what I want to address to T.Austin-Sparks, in how my thinking has been formed.
In one of Clark Wade's posts there's a comparison of the Ephesian and the Corinthian church. My take on the difference goes to a very basic distinction Paul made early in the 1st Corinthian letter. He could not speak to them as “spiritual” because he saw that they were still “carnal”, which is his definition of being a "babe" in Christ. I think we have to bear this in mind as we view the rest of the letter.
It strikes me that he couldn't speak to them in the way he wrote to the Ephesians for this very reason. When he saw Ephesian elders for the last time on his way to Jerusalem he told them that he noted that he didn't hold back from declaring to them “the whole counsel of God”. He wrote to Ephesus referring to such things as the "eternal purpose" and "the mystery of Christ" which had been hidden for ages. I don't see that we get anything of this with Corinth.
You can't go into the deep things of God with carnal believers. They won't get it because their thinking is still rooted in the world and the ways of the natural man, the old man. And this is that basic distinction: the "old man" vs. the "new man."
All the practical problems with the church, with any discord or strife among God's people, can be traced to a failure to put off the old and put on the new. Somewhere that old self and what Paul terms "the flesh" are somehow still active, in its motives and ways. The NT lists various manifestations of the flesh, e.g., selfish ambition, party spirit, sectarianism, and that whole list in Galatians. But the root is the same. It is not Christ, not that new man that we are supposed to grow more and more into. To look at it in these elementary terms for me makes a whole lot of sense out of what otherwise would be complicated and hard to manage.
Actually it is hard to manage anyway. When you have an open, unstructured gathering of the Lord's people and there is someone who insists on taking center stage, who wants attention and draws that of the whole company it is very hard to make headway in what the Lord is after until that is stopped. It can be a leader with ego issues or someone who habitually draws the whole focus onto his or her personal problems or opinions. That takes real wisdom and graciousness but you can't let the flesh take over or the whole thing is diverted. Here's a reason why Paul wrote that eloquent description of what love is and place that at the center of things for them. It cuts right through our innate selfishess.
Immediately after that we get to Chapter 14 and the orderliness there should be with the administration of gifts of the spirit. We don't interrupt one another. If we feel we have something to offer we are restrained. Nobody takes over. And after they are finished speaking the others are to judge. That is often neglected when it comes to prophetic type words. We don't just accept them. We are to discern and distinguish. Is this or that word spiritual and from the Lord or something else. Is it pure or mixed?
Throughout the epistles, whenever there are problems to address, it means that there is a failure to measure up to the standard, which is Jesus Christ and the Apostles don't let any of that just slide. The purpose of the assembling of the Lord's people is the manifestation of and the increase of the Life of Christ in His people, whereby we are transformed into this New Man. The church (assembly) is not a place for self-expression according to the old Adam self-life in us.
The only way to have the kind of church God is after comes as His people take seriously what we are told is an accomplished fact, that we who are in Christ are united with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. This is not theology; it is meant to be real and practical. It is as we allow the Lord's Spirit to make real in us that cutting off of the old nature in us that the way is made for the new creatures that we are intended to be to come forth.
If we draw near to Him for His light to search our inward parts, there may be things we have not seen that He wants to deal with as He seeks to refine us. I'm thinking of how Paul referred to the "secrets of the heart" being revealed in this chapter we're looking at, and that seems to connect with Hebrews 4:12, how the living word of God searches and divides and reveals the deep things inside of us. This can be a painful process and I'm not sure how much of it should be expected to go on in public. But we can, as we gather as two or three, really operate as priests to one another in these things.
Actually, this is off topic a bit but I've come to think that the core of the church is not big meetings. It begins with two or three being brought into unity in Christ together, establishing their relationship in the New Man, and ready to put off the old as it is revealed. An ideal place for this is between husband and wife, something I expereinced, as my wife and I realized we'd never make it together in ourselves. So we took the Lord, who is our righteousness, justification, and sanctification, also as our ability to be husband, wife, man, woman, parent, whatever according to what God wants those things to be.
Speaking of Ephesians and Corinthians by the way, did you ever wonder about the whole tone of 1 Corinthians 7 contrasted with that of Ephesians 5 when it comes to marriage? In the former, marriage is sort of a concession to slobs who don't have self control (or it comes off that way) and if you really want to follow the Lord you'd stay single. But then the latter has marriage as the example of Christ and the church- a beautiful, wonderful thing. Could it be that with Corinth, it really was true that, while marriage wasn't a sin of course, there would be trouble because, as Paul wrote at the beginning, the people there were still largely worldly minded. Could we say that the carnal Christian marriage will have friction and divided loyalties, whereas marriage can be the harmonious and admirable thing God intended it to be with those who are spiritual?
-
Permalink Reply by Marshall Diakon on
-
Nee came close with "one church in a locality". What we're realizing since is more to the full life of "one church" [Ephesians 4].
Melville, you have written:
"When you have an open, unstructured gathering of the Lord's people and there is someone who insists on taking center stage, who wants attention and draws that of the whole company it is very hard to make headway in what the Lord is after until that is stopped. It can be a leader with ego issues or someone who habitually draws the whole focus onto his or her personal problems or opinions. That takes real wisdom and graciousness but you can't let the flesh take over or the whole thing is diverted."
Love can/does handle all these things well. Each diversion can/should be addressed in the power of the Holy Spirit. Since correction is part of the Master's mighty work among/in/through His people, we do welcome the opportunity to address the flesh and other foibles as they may make their appearance (as happened in Corinth). A particular legacy of western religious & social settings, the constraint of time, can get us into trouble because it will ever be unwise to close the gathering (go back to our homes) before everything that has surfaced there among us is brought to reconciliation in/by Christ. When looking at I Corinthians 14, there's a temptation to pick-n-chose for this very same cause: our hurry to get back to whatever we think needs doing elsewhere, and with assumption that some things will/must wait until next ekklesia.
Melville, you have also written:
"Immediately after that we get to Chapter 14 and the orderliness there should be with the administration of gifts of the spirit. We don't interrupt one another. If we feel we have something to offer we are restrained."
We may feel we have something to offer, but is the Holy Spirit actually making an offering through us at that time?
Curiously, Father's orderliness is not quite of the human or civil fashion. In verse 30 (with its surrounding context), an interruption is described, and with the floor cleared for it!
Melville, you have also written:
"God searches and divides and reveals the deep things inside of us. This can be a painful process and I'm not sure how much of it should be expected to go on in public. But we can, as we gather as two or three, really operate as priests to one another in these things."
Yes, even two or more. ekklesia (our gathering) is not truly a public thing; not even for a larger gathering. If intimacy & power, humility & grace are not present by the parousia of Christ (no matter how many are attending), then we need count that time & place more as a social time or of some other casual manner.
Melville, your question regarding 1 Corinthians 7 contrasted with that of Ephesians 5 when it comes to marriage may well be worth a separate Discussion thread/posting, here at SC.com.
-
Permalink Reply by Melville Holmes on
-
Marshall,
The "one church in a locality" principle I recall from "The Normal Christian Church Life" came from a close reading of the NT, where, for example, there are never the "churches" plural in what the book calls a locality, but one might term a city. There were churches in Galatia, but that was a region, not a city. Geography, specifically this division based on localities or cities, is the only legitimate New Testament basis for division in the Body of Christ. And even with that it is one Body, when spoken of generally. I also recall that the reason for the study that ended up with the book was because there were all these new converts to Christ who didn't come in because of the missionary organizations or denominations from outside. So what do you do with them? Where do you send them? How do you get them to assemble on non-sectarian grounds, since sectarianism is non-biblical?
From there came the idea of what some later called "church ground". This meant a gathering on the simple ground of belonging to Christ as opposed to gathering on a basis beliefs about systems of church organization, e.g., Episcopal (based on bishops), Presbyterian (based on elders, that is, presbyters), or Congregational (decisions based on the congregation overall). Nee had determined, and I always thought rightly so, that these are not valid bases for separation among the Lord's people. He also ruled out non-essential doctrinal positions. Thre is no validity for baptists who believe in baptism by immersion, for instance, to be separate from Calvinists who emphasize something different.
So Watchman Nee's concept of the ground to meet on was very inclusive. There were a few essential points he laid out, as I recall (it was a long time ago), for who was properly a part of this deal, such as who Jesus Christ is. It was likely not unlike the content of the Apostle's Creed. I'm assuming this is nothing new to you but there are others who may read this who may be unfamiliar.
The "church ground" issue became exclusive, as I understand the history, especially after the concept came to the States via Witness Lee and the groups he started. What happened in China I am not as familiar with, though I do know that Brother Nee didn't always have an easy time of it with the leadership there. It is a tendency of the natural man to set things up rigidly.
Again, indulging in a little history, the idea of simple church, gathering directly uinder the headship of Christ and the scriptures, with minimal hierarchy, is even older than that. The book, The Pilgrim Church, by Broadbent goes through church history to trace a long chain of groups, typically maligned by the IC, or even stamped out. Since there is scant documentation of some of these early groups it's hard to prove. One of the best recorded groups is the so-called Plymouth brethren, and even they were subject to this exclusive/inclusive problem. There was a whole controversy over some folks who went back to services in the Anglican church and about when they should be excommunicated for so doing. It's an interesting study of personalities, even egos . . .
If we read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, which could be read as a sort of seven-fold completeness of the church overall, there are lots of diffetrent situations and the Lord still calls them His churches. One is actually even dead, except that it contains some there whom He acknowledges. So, yes, the Body of Christ is larger than we might think.
The matter of the flesh or the natural man entering into the assembly of the people of God is an ancient, timeless one. There is truth in saying that love can handle all things, and I totally agree that correction is part of our Master's work in His people. Then again, it is not an easy thing for everybody to receive correction. Some will flat out refuse it and go about finding allies who will support them. It gets very sticky and handling that through love can mean remaining true, not necessarily successful.
I also agree about Western "by the clock" time constraints, which were not there in former times. But then controversies went on and on anyway. I'm referring to history, biblical and later.
Thanks for the clarification about what is public in the church. I meant waiting and speaking gently to a person later, individually or with one or two present, rather than before a large, mixed group of people one doesn't necessarily know. That's what I meant by public.
Regarding the flesh or the "natural man" potentially taking over in the church, I think of something that hit me one day reading that little letter, 3 John. There was a man, Diotrephes, who had taken over, wouldn't listen to the Apostle and cast the brethren out of the church! Right there in the New Testament period of time (albeit the latter end of it).
Thanks for the note on vs. 30 of Chapter 14. I take the thrust as being about all potentially prophesying one by one, in an orderly manner. Verse 29 says to let two or three prophets speak and then to let the others pass judgement. The vs. 30 says that if a "revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent." The order described by Paul is 2 or 3 people offering prophetic words, not a whole string of them, and then an evaluation of those two by the others. Greek scholarship might make it plainer if it meant the congregation or other prophets, but it does seem clear that the judgement is not a prophetic thing itself, but a rational one, such as comparing with scripture. For then it speaks of a "revelation" coming through.
Evidently those offering a prophetic word or revelation would stand up and sit down when they were done. While commentary and evaluation of what was being put forward as God's word was going on, someone might hear something more on this. Those who were talking about it would then defer to whatever more the Lord would be saying through another member. I don't see that this wouldn't be subject also to evaluation. The thing I had in mind in this wasn't only biblical but also observation. There are situations where somebody feels an inspiration and shouts out louder than others some thing or other in a "thus saith the Lord" mode (which can happen in spiritually energized but mixed scenarios) and I think this was the sort of thing Paul was seeking to calm down. No, God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
My question about 1 Cor. 7 and Eph. 5 was somewhat rhetorical. You are right, of course, that it might should be a separate topic, though not one I'd want to start, per se. My emphasis was the connection with the basic natural or carnal man (not necessarily the same thing) vis à vis the spiritual man that Paul refers to, which is something I think runs through the whole Bible, really . . . .
Marshall Diakon said:Nee came close with "one church in a locality". What we're realizing since is more to the full life of "one church" [Ephesians 4].
Melville, you have written:
"When you have an open, unstructured gathering of the Lord's people and there is someone who insists on taking center stage, who wants attention and draws that of the whole company it is very hard to make headway in what the Lord is after until that is stopped. It can be a leader with ego issues or someone who habitually draws the whole focus onto his or her personal problems or opinions. That takes real wisdom and graciousness but you can't let the flesh take over or the whole thing is diverted."
Love can/does handle all these things well. Each diversion can/should be addressed in the power of the Holy Spirit. Since correction is part of the Master's mighty work among/in/through His people, we do welcome the opportunity to address the flesh and other foibles as they may make their appearance (as happened in Corinth). A particular legacy of western religious & social settings, the constraint of time, can get us into trouble because it will ever be unwise to close the gathering (go back to our homes) before everything that has surfaced there among us is brought to reconciliation in/by Christ. When looking at I Corinthians 14, there's a temptation to pick-n-chose for this very same cause: our hurry to get back to whatever we think needs doing elsewhere, and with assumption that some things will/must wait until next ekklesia.
Melville, you have also written:
"Immediately after that we get to Chapter 14 and the orderliness there should be with the administration of gifts of the spirit. We don't interrupt one another. If we feel we have something to offer we are restrained."
We may feel we have something to offer, but is the Holy Spirit actually making an offering through us at that time?
Curiously, Father's orderliness is not quite of the human or civil fashion. In verse 30 (with its surrounding context), an interruption is described, and with the floor cleared for it!
Melville, you have also written:
"God searches and divides and reveals the deep things inside of us. This can be a painful process and I'm not sure how much of it should be expected to go on in public. But we can, as we gather as two or three, really operate as priests to one another in these things."
Yes, even two or more. ekklesia (our gathering) is not truly a public thing; not even for a larger gathering. If intimacy & power, humility & grace are not present by the parousia of Christ (no matter how many are attending), then we need count that time & place more as a social time or of some other casual manner.
Melville, your question regarding 1 Corinthians 7 contrasted with that of Ephesians 5 when it comes to marriage may well be worth a separate Discussion thread/posting, here at SC.com.
-
Permalink Reply by Marshall Diakon on
-
brother Melville has written:
The "one church in a locality" principle I recall from "The Normal Christian Church Life" came from a close reading of the NT, where, for example, there are never the "churches" plural in what the book calls a locality, but one might term a city. There were churches in Galatia, but that was a region, not a city. Geography, specifically this division based on localities or cities, is the only legitimate New Testament basis for division in the Body of Christ. And even with that it is one Body, when spoken of generally.
We share an appreciation and honor for the work of God in Watchman Nee, and as we have both noted, the One Body. I do now look to be careful, because, especially for the present times, where sectarian think remains epidemic in the west, if we say that geography is the only legitimate New Testament basis for division in the Body of Christ, some will be quick to assume it as a pretense for division. Now that the world has shrunk (we travel from place to place in space of minutes or hours), physical separations have experienced a minimization, to such that we can even find ourselves among the ekklesia in 3 or 4 cities per day.
One Body is the most inclusive, and the most exclusive, we be. The thought of it may (by fear) conjure images of the Roman Church, or the Eastern Church, or Martin Luther, or... Yet, the One Body of Christ we know is not sectarian, and, if we're to be honest, the RCC has long assumed a sectarian hill. Also, while there is much authority in Christ, One Body is not truly living in a system of lording over ekklesia.
brother Melville has also written:
The book, The Pilgrim Church, by Broadbent goes through church history to trace a long chain of groups, typically maligned by the IC, or even stamped out. Since there is scant documentation of some of these early groups it's hard to prove. One of the best recorded groups is the so-called Plymouth brethren, and even they were subject to this exclusive/inclusive problem. There was a whole controversy over some folks who went back to services in the Anglican church and about when they should be excommunicated for so doing. It's an interesting study of personalities, even egos . . .
Yes, it is interesting, and even as I have recently read "The Key of Truth", while our hearts are saddened over those divisive elements of "personalities, even egos". Thanks be to God, from history we now know much about what not to do vis-à-vis flesh-constrained example/leadership.
brother Melville has also written:
If we read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, which could be read as a sort of seven-fold completeness of the church overall, there are lots of diffetrent situations and the Lord still calls them His churches. One is actually even dead, except that it contains some there whom He acknowledges. So, yes, the Body of Christ is larger than we might think.
Excellent observation! May it be so.
brother Melville has also written:
The matter of the flesh or the natural man entering into the assembly of the people of God is an ancient, timeless one. There is truth in saying that love can handle all things, and I totally agree that correction is part of our Master's work in His people. Then again, it is not an easy thing for everybody to receive correction. Some will flat out refuse it and go about finding allies who will support them. It gets very sticky and handling that through love can mean remaining true, not necessarily successful.
Yes, Christ in us brings more by way of triumph, than for success. There is a saying among brothers: amor conquesta todo, love conquers all. The little trouble in I Corinthians 5 is a good example where, if the church or the apostle had looked to be successful, much may have been forever lost. Christ has made us overcomers, as we overcome in truth.
brother Melville has also written:
Regarding the flesh or the "natural man" potentially taking over in the church, I think of something that hit me one day reading that little letter, 3 John. There was a man, Diotrephes, who had taken over, wouldn't listen to the Apostle and cast the brethren out of the church! Right there in the New Testament period of time (albeit the latter end of it).
Our brother John's response (vs. 10) may seem relatively weak to the western mind, but it is/was in truth quite strong. I note how John is not quick to even presume that the Spirit will have him handle it personally, while with confidence for what must be done in love. Taking care of a "Diotrephes" is a fairly simple matter, should we compare with some of the more challenging spiritual tasks of/in the ekklesia. Yes, the life & function of the ekklesia extends far beyond all mentions in I Corinthians 14.
-
Permalink Reply by Melville Holmes on
-
In wanting to respond more on what you wrote, Marshall, I find perhaps several potential threads that could be taken individually, but as these things are all so interrelated, and because I’ve found on other forums that it just gets complicated splitting up interconnected things, I'll try to be brief. And stay on topic, which is how the 1 Cor. 14 church functioning relates to the simple vs the institutional church.
One Church or One Body vs. there being "churches", plural, in the New Testament: geography/locality/municipality.
When you speak of the "west" or the western mind/western thinking I am not sure what you are contrasting that with. Eastern thought, the renewed mind? I'm hoping you'll clarify that more.
Brother Nee was thinking biblically- what the word says. Biblical thinking goes with what I call the traditional world, that is, the pre-Modern world. Driving to an assembly 25 miles away because one likes it better was not an option before the automobile. If we are looking for a non-hierarchical on non-clergy driven group to meet with, simply under the Lord Himself, that is itself hard to find in any case. Most people I know who go to church select a place because of the pastor, the people there being typically secondary. If the pastor they like (whether personally or what he stands for) leaves and one they don't like comes in eventually there will be some conflict. That's one way groups split, with people following the the man. This is the major mindset I see, whether it's western or something else I don't know, but I tend to think that following a man is an innate human tendency. People who see the church as a functioning totality and not as a place where there is a pastor who feeds them or a place to fulfill a duty to worship once a week are pretty rare.
When you speak of three or four ekklesias a day, I'm not clear on how you are defining that. There are scads of places where I live that call themselves churches. There is one group that believes it meets as the church in Spokane, which is the Witness Lee group: the Local Church. They have the doctrine that there is one church in a locality. Insofar as they are in Spokane, they don't pretend to stand as the church in Liberty Lake. They believe that the church in a city is to have a tangible expression as the church and not a sectarian body, like the First Presbyterian. At least that's the theory, based on Nee's book we've been talking about, which Witness Lee ran with: one church in a locality. That group is highly structured, however, and became a top-down from Witness Lee program, with practices that in my observation are substitutes for the real life of the Spirit.
I used to believe that people could nevertheless take this principle and "do it right", i.e., meet together in simplicity under the headship of Christ, with willingness to join with or welcome any others so minded. My experience has been that virtually nobody wants to do this. They will meet for a supplementary Bible study if it's convenient (don't have to drive too far) but will not let go of IC attendance to meet simply to seek God’s face together without reserve. I actually have known only one person to do this with and go all the way with it, which was my late wife. That made two, period. I am no longer sure at all that seeking this accurate expression of Body life is going to go anywhere. I, for one, am not seeking it, per se.
The upshot after that may better go on the ‘What about not meeting at all?’ page. As would going much further with the ‘What qualifies as a “church” in the biblical sense?’ question. In Revelation 1-3 we see these lampstands in heaven, quite an awesome thing. Back to the idea with the Lee group, What about the earthly expression? What does it mean ultimately? What is it for in God’s thought and intention? But this should be a different discussion.
I have a different take on Diotrephes, which I’ll mention, though it could merit a separate thread on it, because I took what he represented as very significant. As I read the New Testament chronologically it seemed that at the end of the Apostolic age that things had already started to go off. Formerly faithful friends of Paul had left him. The seven churches in Asia mainly had big problems, one of which, Ephesus, was threatened with removal altogether as a lampstand. If we look at the earliest post-biblical writings there was a shift already beginning, away from simple church to what, as we follow the history of the so-called church fathers, became the hierarchical Institutional Church. A major foundation of that was the monarchical bishop replacing plural ones in a given city, and out of that came the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the diocese. There is no place in the NT where a single man was given direct authority over an assembly of the Lord’s people, but somehow this Diotrephes got into this position with enough clout to cast people out of the church and to seek pre-eminence. I’ve taken this dominance of one man with ambitions as the kernel of what was to grow into the clergy-laity division and the centralized hierarchy, through which simple church was eclipsed for centuries. I want to note that the proponents of the monarchical bishop were not “heretics”, per se. They weren’t Gnostics, nor was Diotrephes. It was his deeds John was going to call attention to, not his doctrines. But these men brought in an order of things we don’t find in the NT itself and turned eventually into that whole system of priests who administered sacraments to the masses. Here I think of the doings and teachings of the Nicolaitans in Rev 2, those who overcome the people. So I guess I’m saying I think Diotrephes represents a principle of something in human nature that will make its way even into the things of God.
Or I guess I don’t think I understand why a Diotrephes would be so easy to deal with, because in my view the entrance and eventual dominance of the natural man among the people of God has been such a central, recurring problem. In fact, this dominance of man has been prehaps the major reason why participatory church as in 1 Cor 14 has been blocked off. I'm going to try to start a thread on this and see where it goes.
Marshall Diakon said:brother Melville has written:
The "one church in a locality" principle I recall from "The Normal Christian Church Life" came from a close reading of the NT, where, for example, there are never the "churches" plural in what the book calls a locality, but one might term a city. There were churches in Galatia, but that was a region, not a city. Geography, specifically this division based on localities or cities, is the only legitimate New Testament basis for division in the Body of Christ. And even with that it is one Body, when spoken of generally.
We share an appreciation and honor for the work of God in Watchman Nee, and as we have both noted, the One Body. I do now look to be careful, because, especially for the present times, where sectarian think remains epidemic in the west, if we say that geography is the only legitimate New Testament basis for division in the Body of Christ, some will be quick to assume it as a pretense for division. Now that the world has shrunk (we travel from place to place in space of minutes or hours), physical separations have experienced a minimization, to such that we can even find ourselves among the ekklesia in 3 or 4 cities per day.
One Body is the most inclusive, and the most exclusive, we be. The thought of it may (by fear) conjure images of the Roman Church, or the Eastern Church, or Martin Luther, or... Yet, the One Body of Christ we know is not sectarian, and, if we're to be honest, the RCC has long assumed a sectarian hill. Also, while there is much authority in Christ, One Body is not truly living in a system of lording over ekklesia.
brother Melville has also written:
The book, The Pilgrim Church, by Broadbent goes through church history to trace a long chain of groups, typically maligned by the IC, or even stamped out. Since there is scant documentation of some of these early groups it's hard to prove. One of the best recorded groups is the so-called Plymouth brethren, and even they were subject to this exclusive/inclusive problem. There was a whole controversy over some folks who went back to services in the Anglican church and about when they should be excommunicated for so doing. It's an interesting study of personalities, even egos . . .
Yes, it is interesting, and even as I have recently read "The Key of Truth", while our hearts are saddened over those divisive elements of "personalities, even egos". Thanks be to God, from history we now know much about what not to do vis-à-vis flesh-constrained example/leadership.
brother Melville has also written:
If we read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, which could be read as a sort of seven-fold completeness of the church overall, there are lots of diffetrent situations and the Lord still calls them His churches. One is actually even dead, except that it contains some there whom He acknowledges. So, yes, the Body of Christ is larger than we might think.
Excellent observation! May it be so.
brother Melville has also written:
The matter of the flesh or the natural man entering into the assembly of the people of God is an ancient, timeless one. There is truth in saying that love can handle all things, and I totally agree that correction is part of our Master's work in His people. Then again, it is not an easy thing for everybody to receive correction. Some will flat out refuse it and go about finding allies who will support them. It gets very sticky and handling that through love can mean remaining true, not necessarily successful.
Yes, Christ in us brings more by way of triumph, than for success. There is a saying among brothers: amor conquesta todo, love conquers all. The little trouble in I Corinthians 5 is a good example where, if the church or the apostle had looked to be successful, much may have been forever lost. Christ has made us overcomers, as we overcome in truth.
brother Melville has also written:
Regarding the flesh or the "natural man" potentially taking over in the church, I think of something that hit me one day reading that little letter, 3 John. There was a man, Diotrephes, who had taken over, wouldn't listen to the Apostle and cast the brethren out of the church! Right there in the New Testament period of time (albeit the latter end of it).
Our brother John's response (vs. 10) may seem relatively weak to the western mind, but it is/was in truth quite strong. I note how John is not quick to even presume that the Spirit will have him handle it personally, while with confidence for what must be done in love. Taking care of a "Diotrephes" is a fairly simple matter, should we compare with some of the more challenging spiritual tasks of/in the ekklesia. Yes, the life & function of the ekklesia extends far beyond all mentions in I Corinthians 14.
-
Permalink Reply by Melville Holmes on
-
I've posted a new topic under Simple Church in Practice, called The Significance of Diotrephes, if interested. Thanks!
Our Partners
Badge
© 2013 Created by Dale Interactive.
