[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's the way Jesus Himself referred to his own churches, you would have to admit that there are many beliefs and practices in Christianity that are based upon far less biblical evidence than that which I have provided here.

Again, just because Jesus sent messages to seven churches designated by cities is no evidence that each of those churches were organized under one formal eldership in the manner the LCM insists upon, anymore than when Paul used the term "church" in Ephesians 1 he envisioned one eldership over that church.

The "universal" church need not have one eldership. Neither does the city church. The city church could just be in the same principle as the universal church but within the boundaries of the geographical area of a city. The fact that the NT also mentions a regional church and house churches supports this. A "church" can simply be a segment of God's people seen from a particular perspective, whether universal, regional, city or house. It can be a very concrete and specific group which actually meet together, but doesn't have to be.

The LCM uses the idea that the letter had to be sent somewhere, so the churches must each have one address or at least one headquarters address. But, again, there is not enough evidence to support this interpretation. The fact that the letters are addressed to "the angel" of each church, rather than an elder or the church itself also can suggest the view of the "church" in these instances is more abstract. Why didn't Jesus address the letters to the elders or leaders? Why to the angel? Perhaps because it would take the work of an angel to get the message to all the Christians in each city in the various ways they met.

So, again, the LCM proprietary city-church model, as repeated verbatim here by Evangelical with apparently no intervening critical reflection by him, is arbitrary. It may be true. But there is really not enough biblical evidence for it to carry the weight of its monumental implications--that the LCM gets to regard every church but those in their movement as being invalid manifestations of God's church. The doctrine is just too filled with holes to damn every Christian group than doesn't line up with it.

Thus it is the stuff of an obscure sect, established by a founder who was really just looking for a way to undermine the pushy denominations who he felt had too much influence in China.

Tell me, Evangelical, what's the evidence each or any of the seven churches in Revelation were organized under one set of elders/pastors/etc?