Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
In the midst of this he made the following statement.
You can't be a church God approves of based on an obscure Biblical technicality. I know what he means, but I think that he was more than generous to you in it. I do not believe that there is any obscure technicality. Rather there is an obscure statement that if its meaning is among the more unlikely candidates it would be a technicality. Because it is not clearly stated, and not even a front-runner among understandings of what was said, it cannot be declared to be a technicality, therefore not "Biblical" because that term should only be used in reference to things that are so clearly stated and understood that it is the general consensus that it is true. Any other use of the term Biblical is merely packaging to attempt to stop any discussion that it might not be correct. |
I agree. My point was not that the local ground itself is Biblical, but rather that if one is to assert that it is, one must also admit it is (1) a technicality and (2) obscure. It's a technicality in the same way legally insisting on "holy kisses", "love feasts" or "laying everything at the apostles feet" would be technicalities--they are things the Bible cites the early church as doing but doesn't command us to do. The local ground is obscure because down through history the teaching has not been embraced but by a tiny handful of Christians.
As I said, when the Bible gives us examples, but doesn't make totally clear their meaning or directly command us to imitate them, then it is probably showing us general principles of behavior rather than expecting exact imitation. Thus "holy kisses" need only tell us to be comfortable with open and pure affection for one another. "Love feasts" can mean we can and should gather in social situations that give love a chance to shine.
City churches should tell us that unity is important, but not that churches must be organized based on the borders of a city. The citation of house churches in the Bible leaves a reasonable door open to other grounds of organization rather than city borders, so insisting otherwise is unreasonable. I have no problem with all the Christians in a city realizing they are all part of the church in that city, just as they realize they are part of the universal church. That's a good thing. But to insist that we can only meet as the church in that city or, even worse, must organize around a group of leaders who claim to be the leaders of the entire city church (how they know this or why anyone should believe them is not clear) is taking things way too far. The Bible never comes close to commanding such a thing, and it is easy to see why not. One should think if the local ground is the important principle the LC would like everyone to believe it is then the Bible would have unmistakably commanded us to uphold it.