Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"
I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things. His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with
He sidesteps the necessity for a ground of the church in leu of his concept that all is needed is simply metaphysical or spiritual oneness. This is pretty subtle, but the affects are large. To disregard the grounds of the church is very very serious and undermining to God's blueprint in the word
But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city
|
You mentioned the conflation of the ground of oneness with the ground of the church in the video. I think ACuriousFellow has already brought up a ministry quote that shows it is conflated/equated in the ministry in at least one place, and therefore is not wrong to conflate them. I'd just like to add an additional place where they are conflated, on
www.shepherdingwords.com here:
https://shepherdingwords.com/assaili...new-testament/
"In standing for the authority of God’s Word, we must also stand for the New Testament teaching and pattern concerning the genuine ground of the church, the ground of oneness in each locality, to uphold the testimony of the one Body and to afford the Lord a way to build His church."
As a church kid myself, I would also add that it was my experience that the two concepts were regularly conflated in practice and in speech in the local church. I think the other two aspects of the ground of the church were more spiritual in nature and therefore fell to the wayside in emphasis, because it was harder to pretend like other believers are not one in those ways. The "one church one city" part grew in importance because it was concrete rather than nebulous, and was the stark difference between the local church and denominations, such that it kind of took over and became equated with the ground of the church. As such, when I listened to the video, I didn't have a problem with how it was presented, because it was in line with how I had heard the concepts used.
You gave a summary of what you felt the first third of the video said, so I went back and listened to the whole thing again and took some notes, and here is the point I got from it:
It is taught in the local church that if you are not meeting "on the basis of the church in your city", but instead are meeting in a place that is based upon something else, like any of the denominations, then you are in division, i.e. you are not in oneness. (I think you would agree with this statement, based on the way you have talked about "how can the church be one if there are denominations?")
But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"
In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.
And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".
In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?
There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.
And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.
If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.
Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".
And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.
After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.