Originally Posted by Ohio
W. Nee also wrote of the practical limitations of one church, one city and in his book TNCCL, he mentions something like postal districts as a potential boundary. Hence, if the "one city" model was impractical for a megacity like London, then smaller units would be acceptable. This view seemed more "workable" to me by allowing numerous congregations in a city, as long as they don't overlap. This is the one requirement of any paradigm based on "ground." We can negotiate the size of the geographical unit, but once the boundaries "overlap," then we have --by definition -- a division.
This is probably, at least to me, the root of the dilemma. Once we have two congregations in the same geographical unit, but not under the same eldership, we have a division. This, in a nutshell, defines the "law of locality." And ... for so many of us, who idealized the notion of the one true N.T. church, this model initially seemed to fit. It seemed to explain the problems of divisions and seemed to provide a better way, a scriptural way. In practice, however, all attempts to implement this model have failed in some way. That is why the Bible never prescribed it in the first place. Like having "all things common" -- it happened, yes, but don't try to duplicate it, because it will never work.
Regarding one eldership in one city, I remember reading a word study years ago, which studied "shepherd / pastor." One comment was notable, which highlighted the inherent bond between "pastor" and "flock." This relationship is totally lost with the requirement for one set of elders in a city. The inherent bureaucracy is impossible to avoid. The truth of "little flock" is gone. London to the exclusives, and Taipei to the Recovery, were always supposed to be the big city "models" for this paradigm. They never worked properly, with the negatives far outweighing the positives. Both places became work centers and de facto headquarters. In an attempt to solve this problem, in one day WL appointed 80 new elders in Taipei. Supposedly all these brothers were already shepherding districts and halls. Hence, a move partly in the right direction, but still handcuffed by requirements to "fellowship" all together as one presbytery.
It seems the Spirit has told us many things which were "wrong," but never prescribed the right "way," leaving open many "ways" which He could later bless according to His leading to meet the need of God's children in some place at some time. I see the danger in attempting to duplicate patterns which were blessed elsewhere. In contrast to LSM "one city, one church" entrenchments, the GLA made numerous attempts, even traveling around the world, to find "the way" which God was blessing, and then duplicating it locally. It seems that paradigm is also doomed to fail.
Church history shows us only one model that is blessed, believers seeking the Lord, obedient to the word, preaching the gospel, caring for others, etc. What that looks like is up to the Spirit of God. God in His ingenuity has used an untold diversity of ways. All of them were fruitful for a season. None of them should be considered the "God ordained way."
|