Ground of Locality and Generality

[KSA]

When I came to LC, I was really impressed with the teaching on the local ground and the generality in Rom. 14. Whether the LC view is scriptural is another thing. But even the teaching they teach is not practiced. I remember how impressed I was that our oneness is not based on doctrines ad practices. And that our oneness is not based on any particular minister of the Lord. However, present minister of the age teaching contradicts this earlier view. Now you are expected to be one with the minister of the age. If you are not with this particular minister, you are not in oneness with "the Body".

[UntoHim]

Actually, looking back now over 30 years, it is clear to me that most of the "oneness" in the Local Church was based upon the person and work of Witness Lee. As Christians our oneness is actually based in and upon the Person and work of Jesus Christ. When the oneness of any Christian group is based upon the person and work of a mere human being (the "person" representing the believers affection, respect and fear - the "work" representing the believers trust in said person's words, teachings and deeds) then it is bound to develop into something very unhealthy.

Not long ago Ron Kangas publicly declared that one could "be in the church but not in the body". What did Kangas mean by this and what does this look like in practice? To us longtime LCers the meaning was clear: "Stick with the program...get in line...know your place...etc". Kangas was careful with his words. He knows that to say that one could "be in the body but not the Local Church" would be viewed as rather strange and unbiblical, but the simple fact is this is exactly want Kangas meant.

[OBW]

Without getting into the descriptive v prescriptive view of the churches mentioned in the NT, there is something both appealing and insidious about the ground of locality.

On the one hand, the idea that Christians should not be divided over anything that does not require excommunication (real, not a BB lynch mob) or is not clear heresy sounds so good. If we could just get past all those pesky non-essential issues. But it appears that man has preferences of peripherals, style, culture, and a host of other things that causes them to group with like minds. So within the larger grouping of “Christian” we find sub-groups that have found their “birds of a feather.” I agree that it would be ideal if we could all just meet together, but where I live, that won’t be happening even if we use the grandstands at Texas Motor Speedway (holds a lot more than Texas Stadium). So, if we are going to be meeting in a multitude of groups anyway, why force anyone to become subservient to anyone’s ways. I don’t think mine is the best, just best for me. I would much rather be honest about the differences and have good fellowship with any of them in a mutually agreeable way than ostracize them as “not in the body” or say some of the gross things that the LC has spewed over the years just because they don’t follow my ways.

On the other hand, the idea that there is one way and the group with all the doctrines and forms that they say they don’t have claims to be the only game in town makes a complete mockery of the very claim of “oneness” on any basis other than their narrow sectarian view. They speak of openness and generality, but practice a closed system.

Somewhere over a year ago (probably closer to 2 years ago) I proposed a scenario on the other forum where every Christian in the Dallas area dropped its affiliation and became part of the LC. There were meetings everywhere in all sorts of places. I noted that a meeting in “Uptown” would look a lot like the local population of Yuppies while the group in Highland Park would look like the uber-rich. Uptown uses guitar, drums and bass while the original group on Meandering Way in North Dallas still sticks to the piano. (Forget that the group that is meeting in the old Presbyterian church still looks very Presbyterian.) I suggested that the target of that dialogue lived in Uptown, but was more culturally attuned to the group in North Dallas. Since everything is within the city limits of Dallas (well, technically not Highland Park) is he free to drive up there or is he obligated to attend where he does not like the music? The answer was interesting. In paraphrase, he said that such a situation could not exist in the LC because they would all be alike.

Generality? Where? I don’t think it exists. There is a doctrine of generality, but there is no true practice of it. There is nothing special about the LC or its “ground.” It is just another division cloaked in unity clothing. We can grouse about denominations all we want. Every separate meeting is a separate meeting. Either they are all wrong or the separation, per se, is not the issue. You can’t separate and say separations are wrong. It is an oxymoron.

Either there is a God that transcends our differences and does so for all Christians who understand their oneness in Christ, or we are all in error. I believe that it is the former, not the latter.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

[FONT=Verdana]

Generality? Where? I don’t think it exists. There is a doctrine of generality, but there is no true practice of it. There is nothing special about the LC or its “ground.” It is just another division cloaked in unity clothing. We can grouse about denominations all we want. Every separate meeting is a separate meeting. Either they are all wrong or the separation, per se, is not the issue. You can’t separate and say separations are wrong. It is an oxymoron.

Either there is a God that transcends our differences and does so for all Christians who understand their oneness in Christ, or we are all in error. I believe that it is the former, not the latter.

OBW, I've read the book you're content is referring to. I'd say at one time there wasn't anything special about "the ground", but there was something simple where all that was required was to believe. At some point during the years, graudally, a ministry was pushed which became the emphasis for meeting. Not that there's anything wrong with the ministry. My point is not all believers have an appetite for a specific ministry as all believers have an appetite for Jesus Christ. When a ministry becomes the ground, the local churches are more apt to attract those hungry for Witness Lee's ministry, but too narrow to attract seeking believers wanting only Jesus.
OBW, when we come together seeking only Jesus that is when we realize all our differences are transcended.
When we realize there are differences in our backgrounds, we should make an effort not to make non-essentials an essential for meeting.

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

When a ministry becomes the ground, the local churches are more apt to attract those hungry for Witness Lee's ministry, but too narrow to attract seeking believers wanting only Jesus.
... when we come together seeking only Jesus that is when we realize all our differences are transcended.

"When a ministry becomes the ground".

I guess that could just about say it all for my experience. One day I looked around me and I realized that Witness Lee's ministry had become the ground of the local church. When I was a new believer I didn't really notice the inherent problem in this because there was so much material, and I barely knew the OT from the NT, so I kept obliviously busy, but eventually it became clear to me that a ministry had superseded Jesus as our source, our way, and our goal.

[Old Rasputin]

The doctrine of 'the ground of the church" is a\the crucial doctrine of the local churches. It's what proves that we are the real church and you are just a denomination. It's taken a good bit of time to ween myself from viewing non-Local Church churches as less than genuine churches.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by aron

"When a ministry becomes the ground".

I guess that could just about say it all for my experience. One day I looked around me and I realized that Witness Lee's ministry had become the ground of the local church. When I was a new believer I didn't really notice the inherent problem in this because there was so much material, and I barely knew the OT from the NT, so I kept obliviously busy, but eventually it became clear to me that a ministry had superseded Jesus as our source, our way, and our goal.

A local church is preserved from being divided by its ground, not by its condition. The unique ground—the unique oneness of the Body of Christ, plus the unique ground of locality—preserves a church from being divided.

I believe your observation has to do with the "condition" of the local church and not with the proper unique ground. The proper unique ground of the local church is stable and cannot be altered. This is fully illustrated by every recognized city that cannot be just ignored from the map of the world.

[Peter Debelak]

OBW:
I like your hypothetical. But I wonder if the answer does not lie in questions of "geography" or "culture" but rather individual leading. We might lay out a principle like: "believers should be free to meet according to their local culture or preferences." As long as we say "so long as there isn't a refusal to meet with those of other preferences" I don't see anything inherently unBiblical about this.

However, even that "freeing" principle can be misused by a given individual. John Q. who lives in Uptown prefers the church culture of North Dallas. Thats fine. Does the Lord care one way or the other where he meets (so long as his reason is positive rather than a refusal of something Scripture allows)? Perhaps not. But, is it even possible that the Lord would desire him to meet somewhere contrary to his preferences? Experientially, I'd say yes.

If John Q. doesn't understand that, our newly articulated principle could become a rationale for John Q. to fail to obey the Lord's leading, right? The Lord often leads us into environments that grate against our personal preferences. If our "principle", over time, begins to overemphasize the supposed "holiness" of personal preferences or somesuch, we can likewise create a situation where we ignore the Lord's leading.

Uptown? Northtown? Westtown? Rompin' choir? Rock band? Doctrine heavy? Beats me. What's the Lord want from me? I suspect where we meet may often come more out the specific relationships the Lord desires us to forge than it is about "principles" or "preferences."

Thoughts?
In Love,
Peter

[OBW]

Peter,

I would generally agree with you. When we decide that we are not meeting with certain ones for something less than heresy or gross sin being allowed rather than meeting with others for some valid (even if non-spiritual) reason, then there is something that should be considered. When I say that I do not have any disdain for denominations in general (which I do not think I actually said, but would say), I do not ignore that there are potentially problems with some aspects of our separation. But I do not see any practical way that this will be overcome by one group laying claim the “the” way. This is especially true of the LC.

My point was simply a scenario that stands in the face of the LC doctrine and practice. It requires that the LC take a stance FOR things that are not central to the gospel in running their little sect. And they do it quite well.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I would suggest that one way to know "where to meet" is to know where God can can use you effectively to nurture others in spiritual growth.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To us longtime LCers the meaning was clear: "Stick with the program...get in line...know your place...etc".

Please correct me if I am wrong. UntoHim, were you really with the local church before or just visited some of the local churches only? Many thanks.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Please correct me if I am wrong. UntoHim, were you really with the local church before or just visited some of the local churches only? Many thanks.

Hi Paul.
I was "really with the local church" for about 20 years. Much of that time was spent in Orange County, right near the epicenter in Anaheim. As you may have gathered, I keep up with all the current goings on in the LC to this day. I've got the latest HWMR right here on my desk.

[Paul Miletus]

Many thanks, UntoHim.

[Paul Miletus]

Normally, in my practice and understanding, if a brother in my locality (e.g. Tokyo) is with a "denomination" I am considering that brother a member of the Body of Christ and belongs to the "church in Tokyo" though this brother will confess that he belongs to "XYZ International Fellowship Ministry" (a denominational name).

I see all the saints in a locality as a "church in" that locality. This is how the Bible describes the "church" in every city, in each locality, as a local church. The local churches are miniatures or models of the "universal church". When you see the local church you must have seen the universal church. When you touch the local church you must have touched the universal church.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Normally, in my practice and understanding, if a brother in my locality (e.g. Tokyo) is with a "denomination" I am considering that brother a member of the Body of Christ and belongs to the "church in Tokyo" though this brother will confess that he belongs to "XYZ International Fellowship Ministry" (a denominational name).

Paul, you are trying to be simple, but you are still adding divisive things. Let me try to make it simpler. You are walking down the street in Tokyo. You meet a man and begin conversing. At some point you mention your faith in Christ. The man either responds by saying, "Yes, I also believe in Jesus" or "No, I do not". He is either a believer, like you, or he is not.

Now, suppose he is in fact a believer, like you. Praise the Lord! Wonderful, right? No, sorry, he has to "leave" the denomination and meet with you on the "ground" to be in "fellowship"....this is an addition, and is divisive. Whatever name you put on it is irrelevant. Window dressings won't save your construction.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul, you are trying to be simple, but you are still adding divisive things. Let me try to make it simpler. You are walking down the street in Tokyo. You meet a man and begin conversing. At some point you mention your faith in Christ. The man either responds by saying, "Yes, I also believe in Jesus" or "No, I do not". He is either a believer, like you, or he is not.

Now, suppose he is in fact a believer, like you. Praise the Lord! Wonderful, right? No, sorry, he has to "leave" the denomination and meet with you on the "ground" to be in "fellowship"....this is an addition, and is divisive. Whatever name you put on it is irrelevant. Window dressings won't save your construction.

If this brother come along with me where I meet (e.g. church in Tokyo) and looks for the Head only, praise the Lord! If he doesn't, praise the Lord; and in my understanding he still a member of the Body of Christ located in the church in Tokyo, and he is my brother in Christ.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

If this brother come along with me where I meet (e.g. church in Tokyo) and looks for the Head only, praise the Lord! If he doesn't, praise the Lord; and in my understanding he still a member of the Body of Christ located in the church in Tokyo, and he is my brother in Christ.

Praise the Lord for this, brother Paul!

This is truly the attitude for us to have in receiving all the believers.

Except for the part where you made him come to your place.

He can also look to the Head only and NOT come with you to your place.

Going to your place has nothing to do with it.

[OBW]

Aron,

I would admit that asking a stranger what church they attend could be a matter of being divisive. But it also could be nothing more than a Christian version of the typically meaningless “how are you” to which everyone answers “fine” even if they are not. It would be better if we really meant it when we asked how someone was doing and they really told us. Alternately, we should greet with some other more meaningful statements rather than empty clichés.

What I find problematic is that the LC focus on the name was often their own focus. The fact that someone asks where you “go to church” is not clearly some ruse to size you up for disagreement. In a similar manner, I enjoy finding out that the people running the places from which I get lunch are originally from Moldova, Romania, Pakistan, or even Iran. I am not seeking to label the Iranian as some scary person to get the FBI to watch. That is the last thing on my mind.

Do you presume that everyone who asks about your affiliation is out to separate from you? Is it so hard to simply say you meet with a free group that has no name? Even if you meet with the Church in Dallas (which I do not believe to be the case), according to LC doctrine, that is not a name, but a simple fact. So you are essentially a free group with no name. (We’ll ignore the issue of LSM domination for now.)

Your comment about denominationalism being a red herring to divide is still baffling. If it is the reason that they are dividing, then it is not a red herring. It is the fact. I did not suggest that there are not problems with denominations, or at least some denominations (I will not try to paint a one-size fits all situation). What I said was that denominations, or denominationalism, is not the actual problem. Some other actual error, if any, is.

As for swerving from the target, it might be that the LC spends more time swerving from the target to attack things that others do not hold as dearly as the LC thinks. The Baptists are there. They are not a mystery. Even if they dropped their name, they would be a group that teaches certain specific doctrines that are not in alignment with every other group out there. If my group, which is not part of any denomination, dropped its name, it would be hard to understand how the LC that meets in Irving could continue as a separate assembly (according to LC doctrine). But there will be some other issue to which the LC would object. It would be the band and music. It would be the manner of seating. It would be the lack of acceptance of “one church one city” as one of the basic tenets of the faith that differentiates Christians from heretics (overstatement). It would be elders chosen by the assembly and not appointed by some “apostle.”

So the name is really nothing. The real issue is everything else. But since we will accept Ray Graver, Benson Phillips, Titus Chu, John Ingalls, Bill Mallons, John Piper, Charles Swindoll, John McCain, and Barack Obama to our Lord’s Table, yet I doubt the Church in Irving would do the same, I wonder who is closer to actually following the LC’s own doctrine of oneness. (I'm willing to accept Obama's profession of faith for the purpose of this argument.)

Peter expressing Satan. Not relevant to the discussion.
John and James wanting to be first. Not relevant to the discussion.
The Great Harlot riding the beast. Not relevant to the discussion.

Scriptural basis? I understand the desire to avoid certain kinds of problems. But it is interesting that Peter did what he did without a name or a denomination. Same for John and James. And the Great Harlot riding the beast is not the church in any form.

I accept that your opinion is what it is. But if the objective of the inquiry is to determine whether the LC’s position on names is simply their opinion, or something founded in scripture and worthy of disdain without any other error being present, neither your opinion or mine is a fact. And the submission of scripture that is not relevant to the discussion is not helpful.

I did not say that having a hierarchy or headquarters will solve the problem of everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. I pointed out that, at best, most of us have limited abilities to study the word in a thorough manner. Prior to the printing press, that was essentially a given. It was a requirement that some would devote time to study and teaching. Those ones wisely did not do so on their own (or not typically so). They sought input from others. Yes, that input could come from the past, from others’ writings, etc. But the process of grappling with scripture is not a matter of private interpretation. In the example in Acts 15, even if it is determined that their ultimate edict was flawed, their manner was consistent with the way they were taught, which included the tradition (there’s one of those awful words according to Lee) of joining together to decide and not simply leave it to one.

Yes, setting up an association of assemblies that puts power in the hands of some and causes others to be required to submit is a problem. To the extent that the denominations operate in such a manner there is cause for concern. But until someone is able to point out a scriptural basis for not grouping assemblies or being known in any manner other than “church,” the problem is in what people do with position and power, not just the fact that it exists. Even without official power, influence by people of stature can result in the same thing without their intent. The real issue is in whether the leadership is truly a group of servants or whether they are persons wielding authority. Either happens in any situation, from the largest denomination to the smallest home group. The only difference is that the home group will generally disintegrate while the denomination will perpetuate itself. That does not condemn the fact of the denomination, but it condemns those who wield such authority.

I’m not defending the errors that we see in groups that happen to be denominations, or that have names. I am questioning the basis for the position against names and denominations taken by the LC and considering whether we should continue in that tradition. So far I have not seen the basis for following the LC’s lead.

I believe that the whole issue was created to provide reason to gather around the "one city one church" flag and fight for it.

[YP0534]

Why is "eldership" is the sine qua non of an assembly?

Didn't assemblies exist before Paul appointed anyone?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Why is "eldership" is the sine qua non of an assembly?

Didn't assemblies exist before Paul appointed anyone?

There you go speaking pig latin again.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, we're wondering away from the topic at hand here. Let me try to get us back on track by re-posting the first entry in this thread.

Originally Posted by KSA

When I came to LC, I was really impressed with the teaching on the local ground and the generality in Rom. 14. Whether the LC view is scriptural is another thing. But even the teaching they teach is not practiced. I remember how impressed I was that our oneness is not based on doctrines and practices. And that our oneness is not based on any particular minister of the Lord. However, present minister of the age teaching contradicts this earlier view. Now you are expected to be one with the minister of the age. If you are not with this particular minister, you are not in oneness with "the Body".

This kind of reminds me of what the apostle Paul told the Galatians 6:13:
"For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh"

It seems to me the "ground of locality" is not only "a doctrine of dirt" but also a work of the flesh, and just as circumcision as no place among God's people in the age of grace and faith, neither does any artificial, forced oneness. Like the song says... "they will know we are Christians by our love" - not by our huddling together in one particular plot of land so that we can all be under one particular minister or ministry.