Geoffrey Pittman Avoids the Church Unit
Another mistake by Geoffrey Pittman - confusing santification for consecration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Pittman of "Christian Fellowship Publishers"
I ended up becoming very busy with work here yesterday so I could not finish everything I intended to do with the forum. I had hoped to send notes about each of the posts that I removed, but was hindered due to time. I hope you will understand and not think that I am hiding from issues or ignoring your concerns.
That's the way it looks, just so you know. No need to make excuses.
Quote:
About locality:
Brother Kaung does believe that the way of gathering together for believers is in the simplicity of Christ, based on the unity of the Spirit. The churches in the scripture are by locality and not by man's organization, not bigger nor smaller then the locality. The cities, towns, and villages are the areas that we see for churches. The only reason for "division" is by time or geography. We cannot meet with Paul as he is not here on earth right now. We cannot meet with believers across the world each week because the journey is too far (in general). So by example we see the local churches in the New Testament.
Note how Watchman Nee's words disagree with your "only reason" about "time" being one of the only reasons to divide the church:
"It is necessary to join the church, but which church should I join? Because of the many different churches existing today, this matter creates a very real problem.
Over the two thousand years of church history, various churches have been raised up at different times. This we may call the cause of time. Then as churches have been formed in different areas, area has become a cause. Also, with the raising up of different human instruments used in the planting of churches, people have become a cause. In addition to these three causes of time, area, and person, there is further the cause of emphasis on a particular truth in the Bible. The Word of God contains so many aspects of truth that people tend to establish churches based on one special truth. Maybe in a certain area there arises a special need and someone comes forth with a particular emphasis on one aspect of truth; consequently a different church is organized. The result is that that particular emphasis may become another cause of dissent.
Based on the various conditions mentioned above, many churches have been produced. The number of churches in the world today exceeds fifteen hundred. These are all well-organized and approved. They are not reckoned according to locality but according to a system. Brethren, when we advise believers to join the church, we are faced with the formidable task of choosing one from among fifteen hundred churches.
Let us consider this matter before God. Is there a way out of the confusion? We believe there is, for the Word of God still remains with us. We can search the Scriptures and find out what God has to say about this. Indeed, God’s Word has already revealed His appointed way as to which church we ought to join. There is no need for us to spend much time investigating and inquiring into the many different churches. If we had to analyze and research all of them, we would probably never in our lifetime be able to solve the problem because we have neither the strength nor facility to do it. Yet God has not left us in the dark. The Bible clearly indicates to us the way we should follow."
I would agree with Nee and not you when you said time is a valid reason.
The only valid way to divide the church is by Biblical locality, not time nor a geography larger or smaller than a locality. "Geography" is not a valid term because it is so imprecise. People naturally might come up with their own ideas about what this geography is. The Bible says it is an Ephesus or a Jerusalem, even as large as a Rome or a Los Angeles, for these are all cities with governmental boundaries.
Quote:
The teaching in the scripture, however, is focused on the unity of the Spirit and not on the locality of the church. When we focus our teaching on the local church we end up often getting division. When we preach the oneness of the body then we see the local church rising up.
The question then becomes, what is this unity you speak of, for the unity you speak of has not generated Biblical locality and if anything produced the opposite? Nor has there been any effort to speak of on the part of Stephen Kaung for unity of locality. Therefore, we must conclude since the mention of locality in unity is pretty much avoided, then the unity you speak of is not the unity that will fulfill the mission of God's desire for the Apostles to establish Biblical locality. This is seen in the fact that you don't accept the "unity of the Spirit" for the "locality of the church". If you were to speak of true unity, you would find there is tolerance to resolve differences because it is contained within the locale and doesn't remain congregationalized as an independent operator and saying "I of Christ" which is the dividing mark here God is warning against. God would have the local expression vaunt the Biblical locality. If your attitude is not right at the start to know the unit of the Church comes from the unity of the Church, you will not have the courage or wisdom to speak of the unit of the Church, which would certainly have been the case for Stephen Kaung if he had done right.
The reason the church locale for you or Kaung has not risen up is because of the unbalanced approach to so rarely speak of the locality as the unit, the vital unit in the millennial kingdom and a miniature of the new city and the new earth. So remains your lack in both unity and the unit. There is such a thing as a pretentious unity that exhibits passivity.
So you have answered the question, though not from Stephen Kaung's own fingers and lips, and that answer you give is that you simply disagree with Biblical locality, because you care not to be specific enough to address what needs to be done. The solution for not pursuing what is needed is lost on Stephen Kaung because he presumed magically the Apostles would approve Elders of a localities all by itself without fulfilling the very specific need of the prerequisite condition for Apostolic agreement. Do you see how vagaries will damage the church?
I have known the solution for many years now not long after being saved in this century; that is, first a contingent of Apostles in agreement is needed. You ought to have come to the same conclusion. However long this takes is as long as it will be before we return to this first love of Biblical locality. You have said it is not your first love in unity and therein lies the problem when you said the "teaching in the scripture, however, is focused not on the locality of the church". The Word of God disagrees with you and Stephen Kaung, for constantly the various locales are mentioned and even named as the name of the books of the Bible for the Corinthians in Corinth or whole chapters are devoted to a locality in Rev. 2 & 3. Surely you can now admit the importance of Ephesus, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.
Quote:
Amongst co-workers and responsible brothers and saints in fellowship these things do come up. Also in a number of messages that I have heard brother Kaung speak he has mentioned about the churches being within localities. Even brother Nee didn't focus teaching about the local churches, but he did practice it in the work.
Because it is ancillary for Kaung, it remains his weakness which hinders the Church as though he is like a spinning wheel. For Watchman Nee, as you well know, he devotes much more time to Biblical locality and consequently, he had the most success of anyone in church history. I can't even count the number of instances he mentions this matter either directly or indirectly. In fact, virtually every sermon or magazine in these CFP books mentions the matter in some capacity. I think you misrepresent Watchman Nee when you said "even brother Nee didn't focus teaching about the local churches". You can't separate the work and the teaching, nor did Nee. I don't know how you do that unless by the flesh. I see your point of pride. It is lame, and you should be able to see it too after these words.
Quote:
The three volumes of "The Church and the Work" were talks amongst co-workers. This is the reason for such specifics being focused on. In general these things are practiced whereas the heart of it is preached. Of course it is true that this may overlap and the preaching may include specifics at time, but overall "If you preach the church you get the cross, if you preach the cross you get the church."
That "The Church and the Work" was amongst the co-workers which I know having read it, does not change the fact that Nee talks about locality in virtually every CFP book. Perhaps you are just trying to distinguish yourself as an organization distinct from the LSM/LC cult. It is because men do not have courage to speak openly in the church meetings that locality remains incidental and relegated to a place of no action or power.
Surely your claim is not true: "If you preach the church you get the cross, if you preach the cross you get the church." It should be "If you preach the cross you get the church, if you preach then the church you get Biblical locality. This is the stated objective of the Scriptures, not to crucify yourself again. That makes the cross seem of no effect, which is not going back to the cross in keeping those truths. You don't need to get the cross if you already have died on the cross, for that would be like trying to crucify yourself.
Observe proper cause and effect: cross--->church--->locality. In between church and locality arises apostles commissioned by God in agreement to do the Work of the Ministry to appoint Elders. This is what God is waiting for. Many do not have faith that this is so, so they do not preach this from the heart. One will not be judged by God for it not yet coming about while preaching this need, but God will judge those who know this need and always keep avoiding making it the vital aspect of Scripture. Powerful eh?
Quote:
As for the number of sermons that you are mentioning on the internet. Brother Kaung himself has no involvement with the Christian Tape Ministry except that they themselves are sending out his messages. They are not under CFP nor is brother Kaung leading that ministry. We have their link now at the CFP website only because so many readers would like to hear brother Kaung's messages. Brother Kaung has had no say in how many messages have been put up on this website.
The matter of who takes care of the administration of the sermons I don't think is the issue at all, but rather that there are so many sermons while no power towards Biblical locality. What is important here is this fruit. It would not be so wrong if those messages gave more portion to Biblical locality while man is not yet ready to act. But you admit you and Kaung think the "teaching in the scripture, however, is focused...not on the locality of the church". So goes your thoughts, so goes your actions. Wow!
Quote:
About women apostles and elders: The book CW does talk about women apostles, but not about women elders. If you have this as a question please ask it. The way the comment came across was more that you were teaching us all based on what you feel the Lord has shown you. I feel it is a good question that may be profitable to bring up.
What question is needed, but your repentance? I don't think Kaung is ready to repent of this nor do I think you will be able to, for I know the sin of the heart that rejects women elders (in today's day and age) and much they do is behind that principle.
Don't be so boxed in to not be able to see a culture that gives women little rights will naturally not be a time ready yet for women elders. It was appropriate for Nee to say no women elders yet in such a culture as was like the first century towards women. But today women have rights, they can vote, and the Holy Spirit makes it clear in no uncertain terms in the spirit of spiritual Christians that women are made in God's image also to be Elders, even to receive the reward of returning with Christ to reign over these Biblical cities.
How tragic to hold the position that not one women on the planet is allowed to be an Elder of a locality or an Elder of a meeting place. You should feel sick with yourself if this is still your position. Another observation is in idolizing Nee taking his position legalistically irrespective of the culture. It should stand to reason for you that if women have substantial rights never before seen then maybe women can be Elders as well in addition to CEO's of corporations and presidents of countries and mayors of cities. The clue should be Junia was an Apostle and would trickle down to other work.
I was teaching you, for I see a false teaching that needs correction. The question then becomes, why can you still not repent? I think it is disingenuous to say "I feel it is a good question that may be profitable to bring up" but remove the post based on your feelings. I know the Holy Spirit does not approve what you did, saying one thing, then doing another.
Quote:
In fellowshipping we do not want error, of course we only want truth. We are not being shy with the truth. But the purpose of fellowshipping is for edification, not for discovering truth. If we begin the conversation as a debate for the sake of the truth it can be an obstacle to gaining the truth. In the case that one is wrong it is more difficult to back down if at the start they were so confident and strong in the position. On some small matters we should be humble in our approach as we seek the Lord together for more light in His word.
I think you are being not merely shy with truth, but in removing the post on women elders, you are outright concealing this information. Hence the need for this information that you can't remove:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/womenelders.htm
Understand the Roman Church in how they operate. They disallow women just like you and Kaung. But they throw women a bone at the same time which is the sinless goddess worship, even though I count less than 5 times Mary was selfish or sinned in the Bible text. What bone are you going to throw to women?
The Bible disagrees with you when you said "the purpose of fellowshipping is for edification, not for discovering truth". Jesus is the "the way, the truth and the life". How you separate edification and truth in Christ can only be done by the flesh.
Jesus did not say as you say to "begin the conversation as a debate for the sake of the truth it can be an obstacle to gaining the truth" to misrepresent truth as being a debate. It may feel like a debate to you because you are debating in your flesh. Truth and edification go together and need no debate. You should be uplifted in seeing the edifying facts why women can be elders (see link above), and not react emotionally or other body parts towards women to maintain that controlling mechanism over them of "no women elders".
In your claim (as shown by your fruit in removing posts related to women being elders) to hide this information from women, ask yourself if this humble? You have violated your own words when you said "in the case that one is wrong it is more difficult to back down if at the start they were so confident and strong in the position." May you see why it is so hard for you to back down now, because you took such an aggressive stance at the start by removing this vital information,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showpo...68&postcount=1
How do you rationalize this to yourself? You said "On some small matters we should be humble in our approach as we seek the Lord together for more light in His word." For you this assumed to be just a small matter, but you are impacting every city on the planet as well as in the millennial reign preventing all women from returning as overcomer believers to reign over Biblical localities since you claim they can't be Elders now, not even of meeting places. Don't you feel ashamed?
You have a choice to repent from your sin now or accept God's will towards women. Stephen Kaung (and you) has the same choice as well to make the unity that flows in Christ of the Church the unit of the Church.
The question remains open to Stephen Kaung to answer personally, Why he never had the courage to make the unity the unit for the Church and and remained smaller than the churches?
Quote:
I took off the below comment. Do you mind to take away the part about the spirit entering into the garden? Brother Nee felt that it was Satan himself that entered into that snake. See Rev 12:9 where "ancient serpent" seems to refer to the serpent in the garden (ancient).
Revelation 12.9 does refer to the serpent, that old dragon, the devil, Satan. It doesn't say the "garden"; it says "the great dragon was cast out" of 2nd heaven to the earth during the Tribulation. That's why it says in verse 8, "neither was their place found any more in [second] heaven."
Long before, Lucifer was cast out of third heaven. This time, he is cast out of 2nd heaven. Do you see how you are misusing this verse? Why remove it? You could have posted your opinion, and I could have corrected you just the same. That is what forums are for. You are defeating the purpose of a forum and also bearing false witness against Watchman Nee for Nee says it is the disembodied spirits [demons] that came out of the deep on day 2 and one of those demons entered the serpent to tempt Eve. The Scriptures lead us to the same conclusion. Satan will work through his demons. Just like when Jesus called Peter Satan, He was actually speaking to Satan, not Peter. In the same way the one behind the serpent is Satan to even call the serpent Satan, but the serpent is a physical animal and the disembodied spirits do seek to inhabit creatures, like the when they entered the swine.
To answer your question, no I don't think you should have removed it. Your opinions of your teachings are not edifying, because in every discussion we have had, have you not been wrong? You can't promote edification whilst maintaining false teachings. It doesn't work that way. Never underestimate truth, nothing is more edifying.
What I find interesting to close is that the very writings one is responsible for distributing, you actually disagree with, though you may say you agree, but we can prove otherwise.
My prayer is for your humility on these things.
