Taking the Ground

[Freedom]

With respect to Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine, I was wondering what the practice of "taking the ground" actually means and how it came about. I understand what it is supposed to mean, but in my experience, it is a phrase that is thrown about quite loosely. My understanding from reading through different threads is that this practice of "taking the ground" is some type of addendum that came sometime after Lee came to the U.S.

To clarify my question, I will give a little bit of background. There are at least two (maybe more) LC's near me that meet as the church in X, however, they haven't "taken the ground" yet. For past LC's I have seen start, this action of "taking the ground" has usually been signified by a "ground-breaking" meeting, where LC's from the area will gather together.

This issue recently caught my attention when the church in X wasn't listed as one of the numerous LC's in a certain area. The church in X has been meeting together for quite some time, but hasn't "taken the ground", so they aren't officially called the church in X, and I don't think they have any problem with not being recognized as an official LC yet.

In other cases, I have seen LC's that haven't "taken the ground" where they are merely a "satellite" church of a larger nearby LC. Saints in one city merely start meeting with the new LC, and suddenly there are now saints meeting in that city (even though non-LC saints have been meeting there long before). It seems to me that this whole idea of a LC needing to "take the ground" shows a big hole in Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine.

With these LC efforts like GTCA, "taking the ground" seems to merely involved some pro-LSM saints moving to a city with no LSM church, meeting there for a period of time, gaining a few new people, then declaring that they are the church in X.

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

I think you hit the mark or at least hit fairly close. I had been told of an incident that happened years before I moved to the Northwest. A brother had a burden for Bellevue before there was a church in Bellevue. Problem was he followed through on his burden (taking the Church in Bellevue) without the stamp of approval. As a result he found himself quarantined/excommunicated. When the ground was officially taken in Bellevue, they had to use a different name until The Church in Bellevue name became available.
I may not have the facts completely accurate, but the outcome was the same.
What it really means, taking the ground is just a pretentious display. If the name is available, anyone can register as the Church in _____ if they're willing to pay the fees.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

What it really means, taking the ground is just a pretentious display. If the name is available, anyone can register as the Church in _____ if they're willing to pay the fees.

A long time ago I was trying to explain the "ground of locality" to a friend, that is why we meet as the church in X. He immediately pointed out something very similar. What is to stop any other church from registering as the church in X? For LSM churches, what makes them the church in X is that they have claimed that name. The assumption is that no one will take that name first.

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A long time ago I was trying to explain the "ground of locality" to a friend, that is why we meet as the church in X. He immediately pointed out something very similar. What is to stop any other church from registering as the church in X? For LSM churches, what makes them the church in X is that they have claimed that name. The assumption is that no one will take that name first.

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

And when they increase, they create districts, "Hall 1," "Hall 2," and so forth. (Of course, this is very, very different from names like "First Baptist Church" and "Second Baptist Church"!)

Perhaps when Toronto experiences a really big increase, they can follow this model: IBEW Local 353.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And when they increase, they create districts, "Hall 1," "Hall 2," and so forth. (Of course, this is very, very different from names like "First Baptist Church" and "Second Baptist Church"!)

Perhaps when Toronto experiences a really big increase, they can follow this model: IBEW Local 353.

In my mind, the whole Hall 1, Hall 2 business is just playing with words. It's exactly the same thing they accuse others of. Maybe they should consider adopting the union model, they just might be able to get away with that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

When some of us on this forum were involved on thebereans.net forum, this was discussed. When the directorship was up to vote, those pro-LSM wanted to be elected. DCP was also involved in this local matter.
As we witnessed the events unfold via the internet, it became apparent in the Great Lakes area, the split within churches and among churches was:
A. The ground being LSM
B. The ground being Titus' ministry
C. The ground being Christ

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

When some of us on this forum were involved on thebereans.net forum, this was discussed. When the directorship was up to vote, those pro-LSM wanted to be elected. DCP was also involved in this local matter.
As we witnessed the events unfold via the internet, it became apparent in the Great Lakes area, the split within churches and among churches was:
A. The ground being LSM
B. The ground being Titus' ministry
C. The ground being Christ

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

[OBW]

Taking the ground is a fiction. Plain and simple. It is built upon a fiction that being Christ-believers and followers is not enough. That somehow the city must be claimed for Christ (and the church). As if a city will ever be for Christ.

More important than the number of Christians in a city, or the correctness of the doctrines they hold to is the testimony of their lives before the rest of the citizens. God is not looking for the right doctrines or stance in a city. He is looking for people who will testify of Him by bearing his image in their lives.

But the LCM is all about meetings and lexicons and doctrines and dirt.

They are more interested in thinking that God finally has a lampstand in a large city of millions when they "take the ground" no matter how many Christians have been meeting there for years, even centuries. A recent example was when they claimed to have had the first Lord's table in Rome in centuries.

Yeah. Right.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

If I understand history correctly, it gets even more complicated. Isn't there a third church of former LC brothers and sisters who left around 1990? If it isn't obvious, the ground doctrine only results in division and is folly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

Freedom, this article posted on Concerned Brothers dot com highlights the almost comical hypocrisy that exists in Toronto. Take a read. Talk about groping around in the darkness of night.

THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE for taking the ground, the doctrine of locality, and the practical oneness among LC's was Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Compare what we have today with what Nee states. It's almost comical. Not to say that his teaching here was scriptural, but neither did Nee nor Lee ever adhere to their own teaching. "Taking the ground" was merely a guise to attract seekers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

With respect to Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine, I was wondering what the practice of "taking the ground" actually means and how it came about. I understand what it is supposed to mean, but in my experience, it is a phrase that is thrown about quite loosely. My understanding from reading through different threads is that this practice of "taking the ground" is some type of addendum that came sometime after Lee came to the U.S.

To clarify my question, I will give a little bit of background. There are at least two (maybe more) LC's near me that meet as the church in X, however, they haven't "taken the ground" yet. For past LC's I have seen start, this action of "taking the ground" has usually been signified by a "ground-breaking" meeting, where LC's from the area will gather together.

This issue recently caught my attention when the church in X wasn't listed as one of the numerous LC's in a certain area. The church in X has been meeting together for quite some time, but hasn't "taken the ground", so they aren't officially called the church in X, and I don't think they have any problem with not being recognized as an official LC yet.

In other cases, I have seen LC's that haven't "taken the ground" where they are merely a "satellite" church of a larger nearby LC. Saints in one city merely start meeting with the new LC, and suddenly there are now saints meeting in that city (even though non-LC saints have been meeting there long before). It seems to me that this whole idea of a LC needing to "take the ground" shows a big hole in Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine.

With these LC efforts like GTCA, "taking the ground" seems to merely involved some pro-LSM saints moving to a city with no LSM church, meeting there for a period of time, gaining a few new people, then declaring that they are the church in X.

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

Taking the ground usually meant the inaugural Lords Table meeting, normally accompanied by many outside guests and a celebratory love feast. Prior to that, the regional "Bishop" had already determined that the fledgling church had adequate numbers and maturity to survive as an independent LC. The necessary work to obtain iRS tax exempt status was then undertaken, though not always. I know of a few places that felt that their bank account in the name "church in x" was sufficient for donations.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taking the ground usually meant the inaugural Lords Table meeting, normally accompanied by many outside guests and a celebratory love feast. Prior to that, the regional "Bishop" had already determined that the fledgling church had adequate numbers and maturity to survive as an independent LC. The necessary work to obtain iRS tax exempt status was then undertaken, though not always. I know of a few places that felt that their bank account in the name "church in x" was sufficient for donations.

From my experience, the only visible thing associated with taking the ground has been the inaugural Lord's Table meeting. I find it all very confusing how they use the terminology, and I would guess most LCers just accept it as fact, as did I. Meetings of a new LC may supersede the inaugural meeting by many months or even years. This makes me wonder, according to LC doctrine, was a church was not "standing on the ground" before such a meeting occurred?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

From my experience, the only visible thing associated with taking the ground has been the inaugural Lord's Table meeting. I find it all very confusing how they use the terminology, and I would guess most LCers just accept it as fact, as did I. Meetings of a new LC may supersede the inaugural meeting by many months or even years. This makes me wonder, according to LC doctrine, was a church was not "standing on the ground" before such a meeting occurred?

Absolutely not. They're not "standing on the ground" until they're given the green light by the representatives of the Apostle of the Age, even if they're thousands of miles away. And these representatives, as we all know, are not part of any human organization, they eschew hierarchy, and they respect the "administration local" of the church, even as they care for the "Body universal."

Oh, and all of your questions, Freedom (and mine, too) -- they're shaped like boogie-serpents.

Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! Be afraid, be very, very afraid...