[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is the height of exclusivity (and shallowness). You ask "we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well." More us vs. them. The issue is with calling your group "the church in London." Because your group is something smaller than the church in London. At best, you can say that you are a part of the church in London (yes, just like "everyone else").

We're not actually smaller, but quite big, because we include all the believers in London. That is, if we are part of the church in London then we are the church in London.

This is like we wouldn't say "part of my family".

If we have a large extended family that we only see once every 20 years or even not at all.. are we going to call our immediate family in our house "part of my family" just because we have a much larger family we never visit? Of course not. We will use the identifiers "my family" whether it is 3 members, 10 members, 100 members. Whether it is in one city or many cities, or over the whole world.

For example, if I go travelling with a wife and 1 child, and leave two older children at home, I am going to call my wife and child "my family". I am not going to call them "part of my family".

So I think because we are all in the one family it is okay to say we are the family, not just "part of the family". This is why we are not smaller, in fact.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This issue of "practicality" is a made up distinction that is never defined in the New Testament. "Tell it to the church" means just that: tell it to the church. Not "tell it to the group that refers to itself as "the church."

So, in a city like Toronto, where at least four different groups refer to themselves as "the church in Toronto," which one is "the genuine church life"? What is the real basis? Or are they all "the practicality of the church" because they use the right words?

With 20 different denominations in a city, for example, which one of these constitutes "the church" that one should tell? They all have elders/bishops/pastors/priests.. which one is the right one to tell my problem?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That is not what I said at all ("nice try"). You said that "the genuine church life" is defined by "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in the midst." According to this verse, I showed you that this in itself cannot be the basis because "2 or 3"--not a local church--is also defined by Christ in the midst.

Sorry I thought you were saying any gathering of 2-3 is a church in the city. I gave you a definition for the genuine church life. If we are talking about the practical church life, then I agree this cannot be just two or three with Christ in the midst, unless that is truly the number of saved people in the city. Now the "genuine and practical church life" (as Lee would say) must mean we have the genuine aspect which is Christ, and the practical aspect which is the local church administration in each city. We need both to be a genuine church. If we do not believe in denominations, we might believe that genuinely the church is something of Christ, but we may not see the need for a practical church administration in each city. Others might believe in the need for a local church administration, but don't see the need for this to be based on a genuine relationship with Christ.

In the New Testament times, they had both a genuine relationship with Christ, and a practical church administration in each city. It was neither merely an organized religion with a church administration as per Roman Catholicism, neither was it merely a group of believers with a relationship with Christ, and no administration or structure.