Unregistered

When approaching Christian unity, the higher principles which are talked about by the Lord Jesus directly are "loving one another" (Mark 12:31-33) and "oneness" (John 17:21) among the believers. These two principles are the most directly taught and therefore, the most important. Any attempt to practically implement these higher principles must always be examined to unsure that these higher principles are not being undermined by the practical implementation itself. Two paradigms have emerged on this thread as ways to view the teaching of the church, and these two paradigms correspond to two very different ways of obtaining practical oneness among believers. The two paradigms are:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

The topic of this thread is to examine paradigm #1, “one city, one church”. I would like to challenge every local churcher to go back to the Bible and re-evaluate this teaching and ask some hard questions about why you have come to believe this. Have you ever done a personal study apart from the training and conferences given by others? Trainings and conferences are good, but many times the presentation of truth has been filtered so that only one side of an argument is presented. Without seeing evidence for both sides you are impotent to decide for yourself what the merits of a teaching are and whether it should be accepted as a teaching which binds all Christians.

Ephesians 4:14 warns us “that we may no longer be little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching...” Ultimately we are responsible for what we believe and it is not enough to stand before God and say “Brother so-and-so said so” even though we love the brothers very much. You need to determine individually what you will believe about the “ground of the church”. As a fellow local churcher I had never got to hear the arguments which refuted this teaching, so naturally I believed it. Now, after studying this matter myself I have personally concluded that this teaching is not supported by the Bible. I would just like to share the reasons I feel this is not a teaching that carries the weight of Biblical authority. My main point is that this teaching is not binding upon a believer nor is it necessary to practice to keep the oneness.

Below I will address reasons that are cited as support for the “one city, one church” or “local ground” teaching and I will follow that by a response for your consideration:

1) In the Old Testament, the temple had to be built upon the proper ground. This is a type of the New Testament church being built upon the proper ground. While the foundation is Christ in the New Testament, the ground and the foundation are not the same. The foundation must lie upon the ground and the ground of the church is the city - one city, one church.

Only a few verses in the New Testament talk about the building of God upon the ground. One such verse is Colossians 2:7-8 and contrary to proving that the ground is the city, it actually proves that the ground is not the city but the GROUND is CHRIST. It says, "being rooted and builded up in Him (the ground), and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ"

The New Testament precedent for the ground is Christ. We are ROOTED in Him. These verses even strongly warn us not to build upon any other ground than that of Christ. The other place which the Bible speaks of the foundation resting upon something is in Luke 6:47-49, “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep and laid a foundation on the rock. And when a flood came, the river broke out against that house, yet it was not strong enough to shake it, because it had been built well.” This verse speaks of building the foundation upon the rock. The Rock also represents Christ (1 Cor 10:4, Deut. 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:2). Therefore, no matter where you want to put the foundation of God’s building, you can't get around putting it on Christ (unless you put it on the sand). These verses prove that the ground is Christ and NOT the city.

At this point, some do concede that the ground is Christ – but then quickly add that there is an earthly ground and a heavenly ground. The claim is that the earthly ground is the city, but the heavenly ground is Christ. What must be recognized, however, is that we are not given permission to make very fundamental points like this without verses to establish them. Does the New Testament teach us that there is an "earthly ground of locality" and a "heavenly ground of Christ"? To say this would be akin to claiming that there is an earthly foundation and a heavenly foundation. Surely you would demand Biblical proof for this to prevent the pure foundation of Christ from being marred and something being added to it. The same is true for the ground. The New Testament does not teach of an “earthly” and “heavenly” ground and neither are we permitted to. The ground is recognized as only one thing in the New Testament, and that is Christ. The church is built on Christ and we should not add “locality” to it.

2) Because the New Testament mentions a spiritual city to come (the New Jerusalem) that means Christians everywhere should gather around city boundaries as a miniature of this future city to come...and if a Christian does not gather around the ground of city boundaries then they are not practicing the real oneness.

This statement mixes up some wonderful truth with some very wrong assumptions. The part that echoes inside of the Christian as truth is the fact that today we can have experiences that give us a foretaste of the New Jerusalem. This is consistent with what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:5 - “You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house...” This verse shows us that today, in this age we are being together as a spiritual house. The experience of this spiritual house is not only reserved for a coming age, it can even be experience by us today. Therefore, it seems likely that when we have real experiences of being built together as a spiritual house in this age, we are getting a foretaste (even if only a small one) of the spiritual house that is to come, the New Jerusalem.

The error in this statement is in connecting physical cities with a spiritual city in a way that tries to support an argument for “one city, one church”. The logic says that because what is coming is a city, therefore we should practice oneness today by keeping the city boundary. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual. A symbolic spiritual city that will be fully realized in the future makes no implication that we should try to keep physical city boundaries as our oneness today. This would be like saying that because the book of Revelation says there are streets of gold in the New Jerusalem we should all pave our streets with gold today. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual that the apostles of the time never taught (and for good reason!). If you want to establish a doctrine you must have verses to back it up and there are no biblical support for this rather odd teaching.

Not many Christians who know their Bible will accept this kind of logic as truth that should bind them. A spiritual city in the future does not obligate people to keep physical city boundaries today. This would mean that everybody who lives out in the country would be missing out on some "mystical experience" that you can only get in cities. Even common sense proves this to be ridiculous.

3) In Revelation 1:11 & 1:20 there are 7 letters sent to 7 cities delivered by 7 messengers to 7 lampstands which are the 7 churches. This proves at that time there was "one city, one church" because we see no more or less than 7 churches in 7 cities and this disproves that there were multiple assemblies in any of those cities, one of which was the disputed Laodicea (Col 4:15).

Recall the two different paradigms for practical oneness being discussed:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

This statement is an attempt to disprove paradigm #2 in favor of paradigm #1. If you look at things through the paradigm of "where two or three gather" = the church, you will see there is no problem with these verses. You can refer to believers as a house together and that is "the church". You can combine two houses together if you like and that is "the church" and as in these verses you can refer to all the believers at the city level as “the church”.

In these verses there is no doubt that He is addressing 7 collections of believers at the city level, but where you begin to assume things is when you begin to say He is addressing 7 "city churches" as if this were his only unit of measurement. If Jesus had an official unit of measurement, it would have been stated with a verse

On the contrary, Acts 9:31 states “So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied.” This verse gives us the freedom to group whole regions containing cities together and refer to that as "the church". Would you then make the claim that because the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee are referred to as "the church" in this verse, then that means there are no individual churches in their respective cities? Of course not. In the same way, just because the Lord Jesus has chosen to group an entire city together and refer to it as "the church" that does not mean there were not its respective house churches. He is simply addressing his called out ones at the city level versus the regional level or the house level. Whether I choose to group the believers together as "the church" at the neighborhood level, community level, city level, etc. they are still "the church". Having one does not exclude having the other. It is merely a different form of grouping.

Neither paradigm can be disproved based on these verses alone. However, from other places in the New Testament we know that the “one city, one church” pattern IS disputable in some places and IS NOT binding upon all believers. This will be the subject of the next point.

4) In Revelation chapter 2 & 3 notice the churches are addressed according to the city, i.e. “the church in Ephesus”, “the church in Smyrna”, “the church in Pergamos”, etc. Also notice in the salutation of Paul’s epistles in books such as Thessalonians where Paul addresses his letter to the "church of the Thessalonians". In the New Testament, believers practiced “one city, one church”. This proves that we should also practice the same "one city, one church" pattern.

This has been well-traveled topic of discussion on this forum. The argument comes down to "pattern theology". In considering the above point, two questions must be considered:
A) Is there a consistent, clear pattern in the New Testament for "one city, one church"?
B) If there is a clear pattern, should it be binding upon all believers today?

A) Is there a clear, consistent pattern?

In many cases, believers are addressed at the city level in the New Testament. However, if we wish to say something is a New Testament pattern, it must always hold true. There are some sections of verses where discerning such a pattern is indeed disputable. Take, for example, Philemon 2, Romans 16:3-5 and Colossians 4:15. These three verse sets all speak of “house churches”. The local churches generally teach that in the cases where you find verses such as these that refer to churches located in homes that these “house churches” include all the believers in the city. It is my main point in this section not to disprove this point by saying that all the believers in that certain city were definitely not all gathering in that house, which would be equally disputable, but to simply point out the fact that you can only argue that “one city, one church” is a New Testament pattern based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Philemon 2 states, “And to Apphia the sister and to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church, which is in your house.” Philemon most likely lived in Colossae because the book of Colossians links Philemon’s slave Onesimus to the city of Colossae (Col 4:9). Proof can neither be found in Philemon nor in Colossians that all the believers in the city of Colossae met in the house of Philemon. It is possible that Philemon simply had some believers in Colossae meet in his home, yet Paul refers to them as “the church”. Of course, you can also assume that all the believers in Colossae were meeting in the home of Philemon. Neither argument is definite nor carries scriptural authority. Therefore, a “one city, one church” pattern in Philemon is based on an assumption.

Romans 16:3-5 says, “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life...and greet the church, which is in their house.” It is also possible that the church in the house of Aquilla & Priscilla does not include all the believers in that city and instead it is a house church with some of the believers in Rome. In fact, if you estimate the number of believers that Paul greets in Rome in this section it comes out to somewhere around 40 saints! It is a big house that is able to fit all 40 believers in it. Of course, you can argue the other way as well. You could argue that Aquilla & Priscilla had a huge heart for the Lord and as a service to Christ and the church they built a very large room to contain all the saints. This is an equally valid argument. What can’t be denied is that whichever way you choose to see it, you are making an assumption.

This also holds true with the end of Colossians, though in a much stronger way. Colossians 4:15 says, “Greet the brothers in Laodicea, as well as Nymphas and the church, which is in his house.” You can argue that all the believers that are in Laodicea are in the house of Nymphas. Here, however it is much more disputable because of the phrase "as well as". If I were to say to “greet my family as well as Mike” you probably would not assume that Mike were a member of my family. This does not concretely prove that Mike is not a member of my family but it certainly does imply the fact. The Greek word here is “kai” which is normally translated as “and” or “also”. The New American Standard version translates this verse as “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.” This is an even stronger argument that the house of Nympha was considered a “church” even though it did not include all the brothers in Laodicea. As in the case with Aquilla & Priscilla, I would not go so far the other way to say that this definitely proves that there were separate assemblies in Laodicea. You could make arguments the other way as well but no matter which way you argue, you are making an assumption.

As proven in these three examples, in order to establish that there is a pattern for "one city, one church" in the New Testament, you must make ASSUMPTIONS in no minor way. Since assumptions must be made the pattern is not clear and all believers may not see it the same. In fact, house church networks use these verses as a Biblical basis for the way they practice the church life. They obviously have seen these verses differently than we were taught. Is their interpretation right and our interpretation wrong? No one knows. The fact that assumptions are involved makes it difficult to say that it should be binding on all believers since now they must agree with YOUR personal assumption. Therefore, if we insist on the “one city, one church” pattern we run the risk of becoming divisive as it relates to the rest of the Body of Christ, basically telling them they must agree and order their church life with our assumptions or they are not practicing real oneness.

B) If so, should it binding upon all believers?

Now suppose for a second that someone is gracious enough to grant you that “one city, one church" is indeed an established New Testament pattern. Now the question becomes should that pattern be binding on us today? Were the apostles in practicing this pattern trying to set up a "blueprint" which would be binding for all time, or is this instead how the Spirit worked at that time? Firstly, you would expect that if this blueprint was to be kept and to be binding there would be direct apostolic statement related to keeping this pattern, or rebukes in cases where believers were not keeping the pattern. However, there are no direct teachings by the apostles about the “ground of locality”. Furthermore, you would expect many of the details related to the "one city, one church" pattern to be either explained or described in detail so that Christians wouldn't mess it up. After all, God knows that a created men often see things differently and would need something spelled out or at least "patternized" point by point. Do we see this in the scriptures? A resounding no! Instead, we see something a little more like what happened in Acts when the believers practiced communal living. Why did they do this? Was God trying to tell every believer today that they must pool together their possessions? If you say no, then you are arguing against our stated truth of the "ground of locality". These items are a historical account of how the Spirit operated with those particular believers at that particular time. It would seem indeed cruel of God to make such an obscure picture, then expect all Christians to agree upon it, and then charge them that this is the only way to keep the practical oneness.

Other Christian groups have followed this same “pattern” logic as well over slightly different New Testament practices. One such pattern is that on the first day (Sunday) of the believers gathered together in Troas (Acts 20:7). Some say based on this New Testament pattern that if you break bread on any day other than Sunday (the first day of the week) then you are lost! In Acts 20:7 we have a limited peek into what happened in one town among one group of disciples on one weekend. Was this characteristic of their normal custom? Was this the ONLY day they "broke bread" together? Do we know? Was this the custom in other cities in the Empire? Do we know? The fact is we don’t know...and never will. There are Christians out there insisting that you are lost if you break bread on a weekday. The potential patterns are endless...someone infers that a first century disciple observed the Lord's Supper with only one cup, then you and I had better do the same or face a thousand years of you know what. All this leads to is unnecessary division in the Body of Christ – I can’t fellowship with you because you don’t use only one cup. Among us, holding onto the “ground of locality” teaching/pattern has led us down a road of exclusiveness towards other Christians. If we insist that all believers should be practicing the church life in this way we are divisive.

5) Keeping “one city, one church” helps us to be "one" in practicality because it causes us to take the cross.

Geography is powerless to produce true oneness. Gal 5:19-20 says, “And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, divisions, sects.” Factions, divisions, and sects are the result of the flesh, not because believers failed to gather in the principle of geographical boundaries. Geography cannot force someone to be spiritual and take the cross. This is why in many localities there are currently factions, divisions, and sects despite the "local ground" teaching. The cross is spiritual and must be applied spiritually.

The real test for oneness and the one that bears apostolic authority is found in Ephesians 4:13. This verse refers to the unity of "the faith". It is the faith that unites us. It has nothing to do with a physical boundary. This is why John 4:20-24 state:"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place to worship. Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship the Father."

We like to emphasize the geography like the Samaritan did, "You must do it here and if not then you are off". Jesus had a much deeper view and got to the root of it. You must worship in "spirit" and in "truth". If you do this, no other burden is laid upon you...not even the city boundary.

6) Practical oneness can only be expressed when all believers in a city meet together under one roof and one administration.

The Bible never says that all believers in a certain city must meet under the same roof. It doesn't say that all believers in a city must be "blended" together. Just because I don't live under the same roof as my Mom and Dad, even though we are in the same city, does not mean that we are divided. There are families of believers under different roofs, and as long as a family is only holding onto the "unity of the faith" (Eph 4:13) then practical oneness is expressed.

That said, many of the denominations and church splits are indeed due to the works of the flesh which have caused division. This is not being denied, nor is it being celebrated. But if you think about this, these things have happened right among us as well.

The Bible also lacks many details about how administation (eldership) should be carried out. It is the local churches assumption that all the elders in a local area should be in coordination. However, the Bible never talks in detail about the need to have this specific form of administration.


=================

SOME FINAL POINTS

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled peice by peice I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.