Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
I'm having a really hard time with throwing out "one church one city", as I see that is what the first generation of apostles established. I just don't think it has been practiced with the spirit of love and safeguards on apostles who fall in love with themselves and desire to lord it over the churches as the kings of the nations do.
|
Where does it say that they practiced it? The letters are "addressed" to either the city or the home in which the church was assembled. This makes perfect sense even from a geographical standpoint. However, there is no other indication that this was some kind of doctrine that defines the oneness of the Body of Christ and therefore should be strictly adhered to. Ephesians and other letters are quite emphatic that it does not define our oneness simply by omitting it from the common faith. Paul was a wise man. He knew perfectly well that it is the Spirit that defines and guarantees our oneness. The only problem then and today is that people have a bad habit and a long history of quenching the Spirit and forming a religion = LSM.
Now there is nothing wrong with meeting in a city or home even as a practice. Look at the local churches that were raised up in India apart from LSM. They also have the concept of a city but they are one with all saints in that city and attempt to reach out to them. Of course this put LSM between a rock and a hard place so they decided to use one of their tried-and-true, underhanded tactics of simply going in covertly as just "simple lovers of Jesus" and systematically began shoving Witness Lee down everyone's throat. And they had some amount of success. The ones that realized what was going on were quickly labeled opposers, negative, lepers. The usual garbage. There is not one instance of the locality doctrine that has not eventually caused the worst kind of exclusivity and division. Now perhaps the Lord is working in India since LSM pretty much destroyed His work here. Let's see what happens.