Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
"We" are the ones hearing what I am hearing in the places that I attend and fellowship, both regularly and irregularly.
As for "one church per city," if you try to equate what Nee and then Lee taught to the "church universal" then there is only one church and it is no less one church when expressed in broad terms or in small terms of an assembly. There is not even a "church in a city." There is just the church which is us. If you are talking about assemblies, then whether they meet together as a large group requiring the purchase of rental of space, or small enough to fit in a house, either is "church" and none is defined as correct or incorrect by the legal boundaries of homeowners associations, communities, towns, cities, counties, states or even nations and continents. To use Lee's definition, or even Nee's more relaxed definition as a requirement is to force participation in a particular assembly by rule. If find no grounds for that anywhere.
And if you agree with this, then there is no cause for discussion of "one church per city" as it is actually happening no matter what it looks like in terms of the landscape of the assemblies visible to us in any area. And making something out of it turns out to be more divisive than ignoring it.
|
As I see it through my eyes and through the eyes of others I have fellowship with, when you say church that means We as the Body of Christ. So yes whichever rural or urban area you're at, there is the church.
Simplified in each city; one church many assemblies. The administration of the church does not lie in any particular assembly, but in God.