Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Some of the bible versions say Church for that verse, indicating the universal church.
The King James Version says churches: Acts 9:31 "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."
|
Absolutely we should consider God's perspective on practicality and not man's. I totally agree with this. What I don't agree with is your conclusion that God's practicality demands churches be
organized by us on the city level. You are jumping to big conclusions when you think this. The Bible doesn't not make this clear.
I agree that we need to defer to God's version of practicality. Marriage is a good example. We would like to think that if a marriage doesn't seem to be working we can end it. That's practical, right? But God doesn't see it that way. He says, What I've joined together let no one separate. The LCM likes to compare marriage to church membership. But isn't it strange that God made the rules of marriage explicitly clear in many places (NO DIVORCE), but doesn't give us the same types of explicit clarity about the practical church? Why would God clarify the grounds of marriage but not the ground of thee church? Isn't the church more important? It doesn't make sense.
Maybe the reason God didn't explicitly tell us that the city church is the only valid manifestation of a practical church because it isn't.
Well, consider if he did. Suppose there indeed was a verse that said something like: "There is only one practical church per city, all smaller or larger subdivisions are not real churches. This church must be led by one set of organized leaders." Some LCMers act as if they wish there was such a verse.
But suppose the Bible said something like that. Now, how would that have worked out in history? It doesn't take long to envision how. The church in each city would have been dominated by one group of entrenched leaders. If this group became corrupt, nothing could have been done about. They would have had the word on their side. Recovery would have been impossible
Either that would have happened, or groups of leaders would have forever been battling to be king of the hill in the city, endlessly fighting over who was the true church in the city, each accusing the other of being false. Ironically, battles like this between rival groups proclaiming to be he true city church are common among LCM churches and other brands.
Trust me, the last thing we want is for the local ground teaching to become mainstream. It won't. But if it did it would be a disaster.
Which leads us to the final insight, which is the local ground teaching only "works" (if you can call it "working) when it is held by a fringe tiny minority group which makes ivory tower claims about how it is the "truth," but one that will never be tested by the majority of Christians, because if it was tested, we would see if for what it is, an utter miscalculation. Thus it really only exists to give those fringe minorities that hold to it the feeling that they are right and special everyone else is wrong. That's all it's good for, if you can call that "good."