Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical

Cal · 09-04-2016, 08:05 AM

I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does?

What if I live right outside the boundaries of the city. If the city church is a reality in the black and white way the LCM sees it, when I leave the city am I no longer a part of that church? Say I live between two adjacent cities but in neither one, which church am I a part of in reality? If I live in the country and meet with a group of Christians can we not be a church? And finally, do you think God really worries about any of this? Or is rather speaking of the church in the city just a way He references his people as a group relevant to the region in question?

This seems to suggest that the black and white legalism the LCM insists upon with the city church is untenable. Yes, in one sense there is one church in a city, just like, in a sense, there is one church on Earth, and in the same sense there was one church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in Acts 9:31. But the Bible also shows that within these city churches there were smaller churches. The Bible never uses the term the "churches in" a city specifically. But it doesn't have to. It does indicate that a smaller church within a city church can exist. And if one can exist then it follows that more than one can.

I'm not of the school than believes that a "church" is necessarily a practical assembly. The Bible uses the term both in a practical and more abstract way. "Church" in Ephesians 1-3 is a more abstract usage of the word. I believe that the church in a city is also a more abstract usage, or can be. There is no compelling reason to believe that the church in the city need be organized "practically" under one eldership as the LCM says, nor that it cannot be comprised of smaller more practical churches, house churches, community churches, etc, which can have names for identification.

Meeting separately is not necessarily indicative of division. Even the large LCM churches have multiple meeting places. And the Bible never says that a church having a name indicates division. Divisiveness is a heart matter. You can have no name and insist you are doing everything right and still be divisive, as we've clearly seen with you-know-who.

09-04-2016, 08:05 AM	#83
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does? What if I live right outside the boundaries of the city. If the city church is a reality in the black and white way the LCM sees it, when I leave the city am I no longer a part of that church? Say I live between two adjacent cities but in neither one, which church am I a part of in reality? If I live in the country and meet with a group of Christians can we not be a church? And finally, do you think God really worries about any of this? Or is rather speaking of the church in the city just a way He references his people as a group relevant to the region in question? This seems to suggest that the black and white legalism the LCM insists upon with the city church is untenable. Yes, in one sense there is one church in a city, just like, in a sense, there is one church on Earth, and in the same sense there was one church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in Acts 9:31. But the Bible also shows that within these city churches there were smaller churches. The Bible never uses the term the "churches in" a city specifically. But it doesn't have to. It does indicate that a smaller church within a city church can exist. And if one can exist then it follows that more than one can. I'm not of the school than believes that a "church" is necessarily a practical assembly. The Bible uses the term both in a practical and more abstract way. "Church" in Ephesians 1-3 is a more abstract usage of the word. I believe that the church in a city is also a more abstract usage, or can be. There is no compelling reason to believe that the church in the city need be organized "practically" under one eldership as the LCM says, nor that it cannot be comprised of smaller more practical churches, house churches, community churches, etc, which can have names for identification. Meeting separately is not necessarily indicative of division. Even the large LCM churches have multiple meeting places. And the Bible never says that a church having a name indicates division. Divisiveness is a heart matter. You can have no name and insist you are doing everything right and still be divisive, as we've clearly seen with you-know-who.