[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Ya know, you bring up an interesting point here. One thing that I've noticed is that I think modern Christianity is very big on works. But if you compare that to the local churches, you realize the local churches are NOT big on works. I'm wondering if there's a middle ground here. The LC focuses pretty much exclusively on the subjective and corporate experiences of Christ and the living in the spirit. Which is fantastic. However I do think works are needed and necessary and I think this may be one reason why the LC doesn't have a lot of fruit, among other large reasons that are discussed here on this site. Anyway I do believe Jesus does talk about works a lot, and I think that in the LC they just somehow gloss over that. I think works do show Christ's life and his humanity and they do impress people and gain people for God

But with that said, I do also believe that good works should come out of the life of Christ in our spirit. We're always told in the LC that if we are doing good works outside of our spirit then it's wood, hay, and stubble. Lee would say that for sure it is. But on the other hand the LC has very little works, if any at all. So the important question is can Christians be one anywhere else but in their mingled spirit? Maybe not according to Lee, but I will say at least modern Christian churches are very giving and very charitable and loving. Which, it's hard to say that any local churches are like that because they're so preoccupied with the inner experience of life and "the church life" that they rarely if ever even think of how to help, and if anyone comes to them who needs help they seem to clam up and go into their shells. But, so far you haven't shown me anything that's coming close to contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine. Jesus may have talked a lot about works, but the rest of the Bible we see God trying to gain a unique group of people to become his bride, to be called out of the world, and to represent him on earth. For this I believe he needs a corporate army. I do think Nee and Lee are biblically correct about this. Lee may have been wrong in his wording, shoot he may be conflating the ground of locality with the ground of oneness. But it doesn't remove the fact that the Bible clearly gives the archetype for the way to meet and it clearly says that we are not to meet at the place of our own choosing

But I do think that modern Christianity has something on the LC. They do seem to care about people a lot, and they do seem to put their money where their mouth is. Whereas the LC might just pray for someone, modern Christians might go the extra mile and actually DO something about someone else. I do think the LC are short in that way, and I do think it's a matter of practice, or failure to act, or failure to express Christ's humanity to a good extent

Btw I DO think that God is in modern Christian churches, and I think there's a certain type of love there that may be short in the local churches

The difference between them may be very important. As far as I know most modern Christians are very big on "doing what Jesus would do." Whereas those in the local churches are very focused on the inward experiences of Christ, living out Christ, and living in the spirit of Christ. The problem with both is they only focus on one or the other. If you ask a Christian in a modern church about the spirit they might give you a long blank stare. They don't even know! They don't even know they have a spirit. Many of them at least. How close are they to their spirit? How much do they exercise their spirit? Have they ever exercised their spirit? Have they felt the indwelling God ever? Sometimes I doubt they have. I think most of their doings and behavior is in the soul. They probably don't even know the difference between their soul and their spirit. This is pretty important

On the other hand those in the local churches seem very dull when it comes to charity, helping the needy, giving, loving, not judging others, not being closed off, being open minded, accepting and loving the downtrodden. Which lends to being more in the condition of Laodicea. This is a problem

So I see both sides have shortages

I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.

Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....

There are two things going on:

The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?

The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.

My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.

The Bible simply refers to the church being in a city, and also references elders being appointed in each city. It doesn't teach anything more than that related to churches and cities. It doesn't explain why a church is referred to in relation to a city. It doesn't explain that this is how the believers are one in practicality. It doesn't explain that this is the practical expression of oneness. None of that is there. Lee taught that it is there in the Bible, but it is not. We could agree that this is Witness Lee's THEORY as to why the church is usually referred to in terms of the city, sure, but as far as the Bible actually explaining why it is, it is not there.

Lee made a connection to oneness where the Bible does not make a connection.

So a saint can say "the Bible often shows one church in each city", because it does. But a saint cannot say "and the Bible says that is how the believers are in oneness", because it does not say that anywhere.

Witness Lee taught it, and so to verify Witness Lee's teaching, we just need to look at if the Bible ever says meeting as the church in your city is connected to the expression of oneness. But it doesn't. Oneness is never connected to the locality, but instead is always connected to good works and care. To connect oneness to good works/care is biblical. To connect oneness to meeting as the church in your city is not biblical. The Bible does not connect "clear archetype for a way to meet" to "oneness".

That's the contention.

I would also add that Jesus prayed in John 17:21 “that they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in You”.

However it is that the believers are supposed to be one must parallel whatever way the Father and the Son are one. It is absurd to claim that the Father and the Son are one on the basis of locality. Therefore, it is similarly absurd to claim that the believers must also be one on the basis of locality. Hence, oneness must involve something else, something the Bible reveals as the thing that shows the Father and Son are one. And based on Jesus' words, the thing that shows that the Father and Son are one was the good works Jesus did, not anything having anything to do with "how they meet".

Does that make sense?

You talked about a bunch of other stuff, which I’ll respond more to later.

Trapped