Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'
|
I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.