Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.
As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.
And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.
|
I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.
So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.
Also, this view is somewhat narrow. If we look at the history of Christianity in the US since the 1940s we can see that we used to have many denominations that required you to be baptized by them before taking communion. Over the last 70 years that has been exposed to most Christians as being divisive and sectarian and more and more Christians realize that if someone has received the Lord they should be welcomed into the Lord's table, regardless of where they were baptized. I think you have to give credit to WN for raising an issue with the previously divisive practice and to his ministry for having some effect on what I consider an improved situation among Christian congregations.
So although WL and the LRC has taken this teaching to build their own little division, the ministry of this word has helped the Body of Christ as a whole to have a more practical oneness. If you do give WN some credit for this change, then that shows the value in his discussing it in his ministry.