r/localchurches

A couple months ago I was told that in Toronto, CA there are three different groups all claiming to be the proper 'local church' in that city. The conversation in question is this one. Long story short, my understanding is that according to 1 Corinthians 11:29, as a believer in Christ we all have the responsibility before God to discern the Body and to the best of our ability, meet with the local church that is on the proper ground of oneness with the universal Body of Christ. However, certain divisions have occurred in a number of cities around the world that have resulted in two or more groups claiming to be the proper church in that city.

Suppose that there are three groups in your city that all claim to be the proper church, how would you select which one to go to?

User u/xdPandaPlayz1324 made a comment in another thread about the local churches lacking historical weight or being outside the broader historical scope of Catholicism or Protestantism. I would be curious y'all's thoughts/refutations of his comments and claims.

His comment: "There is a major historical difference between Protestantism ("leaving the catholic church") and movements like Witness Lee’s.

Even though Protestants broke from Rome, they still emerged from the historic Christian tradition that had already existed for over 1500 years. Their theology, canon of Scripture, creeds, understanding of Christ, doctrine of the Trinity, forms of worship, and even the categories through which they argue theology all developed within the broader historical framework of the Catholic Church and the ancient Church before the Reformation.

So while Catholics and Protestants disagree seriously on authority and doctrine, they are still arguing within a shared historical and theological inheritance that traces back to early Christianity itself. There is continuity there, even through schism. If the Catholic Church wasn't the true church, then the protestants that split from it wouldn't be true either.

Witness Lee’s movement is fundamentally different in character because it is restorationist. It is based on the idea that the true expression of the Church was largely lost and then uniquely recovered through a modern theological system centered around the “local church” and Lee’s interpretations. That makes the movement much more dependent on the authority of a single modern teacher and his framework rather than on a continuous historical tradition carried across centuries of Christian life, debate, councils, liturgy, and theology. We are then faced with dilemna that we have to find out when did we "lose" the expression. I don't think anyone can answer this question as there isn't really any set time period. Mainly because it has never happened.

That is why comparing Catholicism to Witness Lee is not really symmetrical. Catholicism’s exclusivist claims emerge from a Church that sees itself as historically continuous with the earliest Christians and whose doctrines developed organically over nearly 2000 years. Witness Lee’s claims emerge from a modern movement claiming to restore what mainstream Christianity supposedly lost."

As some may notice from before my questions are open ended and so please be encouraged to know that I am perfectly fine with open-ended answers as well.

I am seeking some clarification on the group often referred to as the Serving Ones. Initially I had spent a fair amount of time in certain church meetings and we had read many excerpts from the ministry. One of the points that I liked about the ministry was the idea that we are not called by Christ to serve, but rather called simply to believe. I recall passages also talking about a common occurrence with new believers being that after believing they then want to "do" something for Christ or the church. However the ministry was saying in its own way that this is not really the case; we do not need to do anything for Christ and in fact we should not do anything because it is quite likely we will harm the church.

Then I would over hear people talk about "the serving ones" and over time learned this is a group, I guess, of people inside the church. This is not to say that some serving is not necessary in a community life. However I am unsure how making such a need into specified role fits into the ministry with regard to organicism and spontaneity in our church life. How does the serving ones' group get formed and what are the expectations in the group?

I’ve been around the Local Churches for a while, and one phrase I constantly hear is “exercise your spirit.”

People say:

“You need to exercise your spirit.”

“Don’t stay in your mind, exercise your spirit.”

“Call on the Lord and exercise your spirit.”

But lately I’ve been honestly asking myself… what does that actually mean?

Is it:

a feeling? an emotion? being loud? crying? raising your hands? praying harder? getting out of your thoughts? speaking more during meetings? doing what you think you should?

At one point I began to ask the Lord, “You need to show me what my spirit is.” Because I realized I could repeat the phrases over and over without actually understanding what Scripture means by it.

I do see verses about: praying in spirit, worshiping in spirit, fervent in spirit, the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit, walk by the spirit ect... But I’m struggling to understand what the actual experience is biblically.

How do you distinguish:

human emotion vs spirit? psychological excitement vs spirit? silence vs passivity? loudness vs genuine spiritual reality? doing what you think you should beacuse of pressure?

Does the Bible actually command believers to “exercise the spirit” in the way it’s often taught in Local Church - Just say Amen, Oh Lord Jesus, Hallelujah.

Would love thoughtful Scripture-based responses, especially from people familiar with Nee/Lee teachings or from those who’ve wrestled with this question themselves.

Jesus is Lord

Years ago my sister asked: after I received Christ as my Savior what else should I do? I didn't know what to say because I was also a young believer. Later on some Christians helped me see in the Bible that our salvation in Christ has two aspects.

The following quote by F. Godet further identifies these two aspects:
“The work of Jesus in the world is two-fold. It is a work accomplished for us, destined to effect reconciliation between God and man; it is a work accomplished in us, with the object of effecting our sanctification. By the one, a right relation is established between God and us; by the other is the fruit of the re-established order. By the former the condemned sinner is received into the state of grace: by the latter the pardoned sinner is associated with the life of God….How many express themselves as if when forgiveness, with the peace which it procures has been once obtained, all is finished, and the work of salvation complete. They seem to have no suspicion that salvation consists in the health of the soul, and that the health of the soul consists in holiness. Forgiveness is not the re-establishment of health; it is but the crisis of convalescence. If God thinks fit to declare the sinner righteous, it is in order that He may by that means restore him to holiness.” (qtd. in Gordon 8)
In speaking of reconciliation and sanctification, Godet is referring, respectively, to the judicial and the organic aspects of God’s complete salvation. Judicially, we are “received into the state of grace.”Organically, we are “associated with the life of God.” According to Godet, the goal of God’s complete salvation is not forgiveness but holiness, that is, that we would become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) and thus have our whole being permeated with God Himself.

I often feel like we fellowship so much and fall into a culture of it- don’t get me wrong I love opening to other brothers and sisters. But how much is too much? Or how do you know when it’s really a time to fellowship, rather than just open to the Lord and let the anointing teach us? (1 John 2:27)

How is everyone feeling these days? Like most days I feel ok Lord I’m ready, blow that trumpet! But other days I see where I’m really at and I’m like wait Lord, don’t hit that note just yet. So, I’m just learning to live each day under his dispensing; anyways how do yall feel about the Lord’s soon return?

Jesus is the first,
Jesus is the last,
Trust Him for thy future,
Leave with Him the past;
Jesus is the first,
Jesus is the last,
Christ the Rock of Ages,
The first and the last.

I've been appreciating Hebrews 4 in regards to how the writer reveals that Joshua is a type of Christ, who is leading the children of Israel (who are a type of the church) into the good land. The good land is called "that rest" in verse 11.

"Let us therefore be diligent to enter into that rest lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:11) Recovery Version.

I asked myself, "I'm already saved, so why don't I experience Christ as my rest?" But verse 11 gives the reason why this is the case. Disobedience, which can also be translated as "rebellion." I realized how much I rebel against God's word like the children of Israel. If I cannot experience Christ as my Savior and my Rest right now, how can I enter into the rest in the millennial kingdom? My prayer is that I would experience Christ as my Joshua! May the Lord be our Savior in all the big and small things in our daily lives that we may enter into rest for the coming age. Amen

Loved this from christianwebsites.
The entire Bible is an unveiling, a revelation, of the wonderful Person of Jesus Christ. In each of the Old Testament prophecies, types and figures and in the New Testament fulfillment and reality of these, Christ is central. In His Bible Handbook Merrill Unger writes,
Although the Bible consists of 66 books, it is nevertheless one book. The unifying theme of Scripture is Christ. From “the Seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) promised in paradise lost, to the “Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 22:13) realized in paradise regained, He is “the beginning and the end,” “the first and the last” in God’s revealed ways with man.