Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Fast forward to the year 2017 . The basic assumption of the oneness of the believers in a certain place has been clouded over with a departure from that most basic understanding concerning the oneness of the believers that you articulated. Anticipating the church in degradation on this matter, I believe the Lord explicitly listed the names of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as the church in a city. And also elsewhere. So though every believer in a place is a member of the church in that place, it is necessary to articulate the ground of Oneness in the name of Jesus. Not to divide, but to unite.That is something that should be understood but in reality it is not.
As you said it's not a matter of thinking that we are better. Rather, it is a matter of being proper and according to the revelation of the practical oneness in the scripture. The Jews who live as the nation of Israel are not necessarily better than Jews who live in New York City. However, as to fulfilling the purpose of the nation of Israel and all that that implies the Jews in the land are practically fulfilling that mission. Yet, by distinguishing themselves as a member of the nation of Israel they are not excluding any of the other 17 million Jews who could take that position themselves. And who can fault the Jews who live as the nation of Israel from longing for and hoping that those 17 million Jews who live elsewhere will someday join them to accomplish the mission of the nation of Israel?
Drake
|
Drake,
"Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek?
Obviously the Lord cares a lot about oneness. But he stopped short of commanding one church per city. I believe he did that because he knew that believers insisting on it would be more damaging than other alternatives. Proof? Just look at the history of the LCM.
The fact is your calling yourself "the church in <city>" in any sense that does not include all the believers in the city is exclusive. And we all know when LCMers talk about "the church in <city>" they are usually just talking about their little group, and almost never talking about everyone in the city, except when it suits them. The unavoidable implication, no matter how much you deny it, is that others are not the church in <city>.
My pastor sometimes refers to "the church in Austin." When he does it he is always talking about all the believers in Austin, never about a subset of the believers. He knows what "the church in Austin" really means.
The "church in <city>" was never used in the Bible to refer to a subset of believers in a city. So whenever you use the term in that sense you misuse it. And that's probably the way you mostly use it. Correct?
Here's another point to ponder.
There is no case in the Bible where a group of believers refer to themselves as "the church in <city>." It is always an outside reference, either by the Lord or an apostle. So we certainly cannot determine from this that we are required to refer to ourselves as "the church in <city>." (I could say the Lord in order to make a point "explicitly" left out any self-references to "the church in <city>" by any groups. But I won't go there if you won't anymore either.
)
So instead of calling yourselves "the church in <city>" perhaps you should call yourselves "a group of believers meeting as the church in <city>". This would be more accurate, humble, gracious and would not carry the unavoidable meaning that you are something others are not.
The nation of Israel analogy does not work here, because a church and a political nation are very different things, and it is the differences that make such an argument specious. The nation of Israel is a definite definable thing. The church, even a local church is less definable. Further the nation of Israel does not stop being it even if it calls itself something else. A longstanding nickname for the United States was "Columbia." But it was still the good ol' USA.