Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

[Admin]

Regarding the Ground of Locality (3) The Teaching

23 August 2011

The previous notes I’ve sent on the ground of oneness in locality have both dealt with the need to keep this teaching in a proper perspective. I would now like to consider the teaching itself.

As I mentioned in the first note, we must be clear that the oneness of the Body of Christ does not come from the ground of locality. Rather, the opposite is true; the ground of oneness in locality comes from the oneness of the Body of Christ, and this oneness, in turn, comes from the organic relationship the believers have with God Himself, and with one another as those who are in the Father and in the Son:
And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, that they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me.— John 17:20-21

Here, just before He was betrayed, the Lord prayed for all of His believers to be one, so that “the world may know” that He was sent by the Father. Clearly, He was praying for a visible, practical oneness, not merely for the mystical oneness that would be accomplished through His death and resurrection. Moreover, He did not pray simply that they would be “one,” but that His believers would be one in the Triune God. That is, it is not sufficient for the saints to be organized into a man-made oneness, such as we see in the Roman Church or in the various sects and denominations; rather, the oneness the Lord prayed for must be the visible expression of the believers’ oneness in the Triune God.

This prayer of the Lord shows us, therefore, that wherever the believers live on the earth, they should come together to manifest their oneness in the Triune God, and this is in fact what we see all throughout the New Testament. To be specific, the New Testament shows us that this marvelous oneness of the believers in Christ is to be manifested in three different stages.

The initial stage of the oneness was at the beginning of the church age, from the day of Pentecost to the martyrdom of Stephen. At that time the principle for keeping the oneness of the Body of Christ was, very simply, the principle of Jerusalem. That is, to keep the oneness you needed to be physically present in the city of Jerusalem. If you were a believer who left Jerusalem to go to another city you would have been automatically divided from the Body of Christ, in a practical sense, because at that time there was in practical existence only one church, which was “the church” (Acts 5:11). Even though there were apparently believers besides those in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6), the Holy Spirit gives us no record in the book of Acts of any churches or believers in any other place at this time, or of the Lord’s work in any other area. Rather, as the Bible tells us, “All those who believed were together” (Acts 2:44; cf. 4:12).

In fact, that church was, in a way no church today can be, a miniature, a picture, of the ultimate oneness we will all enjoy eternally in the New Jerusalem. (This is one reason why the “powers of the coming age,” Heb. 6:5, were more manifest in Jerusalem than in any other period in the history of the church.) That is, it did not merely represent the universal church; rather, in a sense it was the universal church, since it was the unique church on the earth at that time and comprised almost all of those who had believed in the Lord up to that time.

Just as all the believers in the early days were together in the city of Jerusalem, so we will all be together in the New Jerusalem, which will be the third and ultimate stage of the oneness of the believers. The book of Revelation begins with seven churches in seven cities (Rev. 1:11), but at the end there are no more local churches; all have disappeared, so that the believers can be gathered together again in the one unique, holy city, the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21-22). At that time there will no separation at all among us, even that of time or distance; what joy will be ours in that day, never to part again!

This, our all being together in one place, as seen in both the beginning and ultimate stages of the New Testament oneness, is the normal expression of the oneness. However, while we should appreciate the experience of the early saints in Jerusalem for giving us a small picture of what that eternal oneness will be like, we should also realize that this is not the form of oneness we are meant to have now. This is because the Lord’s desire for us today is not that we would all be in one place, but that through us His gospel and His kingdom would spread throughout the whole earth (Matt 28: 18b-20; Acts 1:8). Therefore in the present age this form of the oneness, as wonderful as it was, could only last for a brief time.

The principle for gathering we are to keep today is first given to us in Acts 8:1, which is a crucial verse in the New Testament:
And there occurred in that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and all were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

It is this verse which speaks of the end of the oneness based on Jerusalem, for under the Lord’s sovereignty “all were scattered” from that city due to the persecution that broke out after the martyrdom of Stephen; from this point on it would never again be the case, in this age, that all of the believers would be in the same place. However, in this very same verse we see a new principle for the keeping of the oneness, because it is this verse which first speaks of a local church, “the church which was in Jerusalem.” This gathering could no longer be referred to simply as “the church,” in the sense of being the universal church, for now in addition to the church in Jerusalem the believers were to be gathered together in other churches in other cities as well (Acts 13:1, etc.).

So in this verse we see that, as soon as the Bible sets aside the principle of Jerusalem, it brings in the principle of the ground of oneness in locality, namely, that all of the believers who live in a given place must come together as the church in that place. For example, in the New Testament we see that all the believers in Corinth came together as the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:1). Today, wherever we live, we should simply come together with the other believers as the church in that place.

Therefore, though today the believers are no longer all in one place, we can still keep the oneness of the Body of Christ with all the members of the Body, by keeping the principle of oneness in locality. Indeed, in doing so we connect ourselves with the oneness of the early saints in Jerusalem, and also with the oneness we will all experience eternally in the New Jerusalem. This is the second stage of the believers’ oneness in the New Testament, and it is the stage that we are still in today.

This principle for keeping the oneness, the principle of oneness in locality, is followed consistently throughout the rest of the New Testament, right up until the end of this age. We know that the apostle Paul clearly followed it (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:2, 22; Rom 16:1, 23); Luke also affirms it in his divine history of the early church (Acts 8:1, 13:1). The apostle John, in recording his vision in Revelation 1-3 of the Lord, of the golden lampstands, and of the local churches, as well as the Lord Jesus Himself in His speaking to John, are at least as strong as the apostle Paul in affirming the ground of oneness in locality, simply stating that a given local church equals the city it is in (Rev. 1:11; cf. 2:1,etc.).

There is absolutely no exception to this pattern in the New Testament. As Watchman Nee states in his “Introduction” to The Normal Christian Church Life, “In the divine pattern, nothing is left for man to decide.” To the contrary, when some believers in one locality even began to consider themselves as belonging to a particular group of believers that was distinct from the other saints in that locality, the apostle strongly and immediately rebuked them as being “fleshy, infants in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1-4).

Yet, some who would deny this teaching never tire of pointing out that it is not presented as a prescriptive teaching in the New Testament, but rather is only taught by way of example. I would reply, first of all, that this gives no basis to deny the teaching, because God often teaches us, in the Bible and otherwise, by way of example. Yet, it is indeed quite important that the teaching concerning the proper way to meet is given by example, not by precept, and we need to consider why this is. I believe there are mainly two reasons.

First, for those who do not accept this teaching, they are free to go their own way concerning the matter of church fellowship. To take the way of the church, the way the Lord has ordained, is by no means easy, and the Lord does not force his believers to do so, since there is no direct statement in the New Testament saying, “You must meet together with all of the Christians in your locality.”

Yet we must be clear that, if we do choose to go our own way in this matter, we will pay a great price in terms of our following the Lord, our fellowship with Him, and our service unto Him. To have the church is the desire of God’s heart; it is His eternal purpose (Eph. 3:8-11), and it is what Christ gave Himself up for (Eph. 5:25). Thus, if we forsake the church to take the way of the sects, our ability to touch what is on the Lord’s heart will, of necessity, be severely limited.

In his “Introduction” to The Normal Christian Church Life, Watchman Nee refers to the example of the Lord’s word concerning divorce in Matthew 19:8; yes, Moses allowed it, but only because of “the hardness of your heart…from the beginning it was not so.” As Brother Nee goes on to say “God’s will had never altered.” We may add that, the Lord today has, so to speak, given so many of His dear believers a “certificate of divorce,” allowing them to go their own way concerning the matter of church fellowship. We should realize, however, that this is not at all His desire; Rather, God has given them such permission only because of their “hardness of heart….from the beginning it was not so.”

In contrast, if we really have a heart to know the Lord’s will, then His way in this matter, what really is according to His heart, will become plain to us as we prayerfully consider the New Testament pattern; shouldn’t this pattern be enough for us? I’ve been struck lately by the Lord’s word on the night He was betrayed:
He who has My commandments and keeps them, he is the one who loves Me. — John 14:21a

It is not a small thing to receive a commandment from the Lord, because He will not give His commands to those who do not love Him. As Darby states in his Synopsys concerning this verse, “He who is mindful of the Lord’s will possesses it, and observes it.” Very simply, the reason why so many believers are short of the Lord’s commands, and in particular why so many have no interest in taking the way of the church, is that they don’t love the Lord that much, and so they don’t have the heart to receive His teaching; the way of the church really is only for those who are seriously committed to following the Lord. For this same reason I have never thought it was a small thing for anyone to have some clarity concerning the ground of locality; it should indicate that they have at least some heart for the Lord and His desire.

Many desire to follow the Lord, but do not have His commands, and leave His way by inventing their own commands. If this is our case, if we realize we are short of the Lord’s commands—His speaking to us and His leading in our lives—it should drive us to stop ourselves and spend time before Him until, in His presence, we do become clear.

The second reason the ground of locality is taught by example and not by precept in the New Testament is to help us realize that we should not try to impose it on others. It shows us that if we are concerned—as we certainly should be concerned—for our brothers ands sisters to be brought into the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ, and to meet on the proper ground, they must see our example of it, just as we have seen the example in the New Testament. In today’s tragically confused situation among the Lord’s children, it is necessary to teach concerning the proper ground, and to defend it when it is attacked, but the primary witness must be in our own living and fellowship; in the absence of such a witness all of our teaching will be in vain.

Now I would like to respond to two different claims that have been made, each of which seeks to show that there is a basis in the New Testament for meeting today on something other than the ground of oneness in locality. The first such claim refers very specifically to Acts 9:31:
So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied.

The claim regarding this verse is that it refers to one church that was composed of believers in a number of cities, and thus provides a basis for having a such a church today, i.e., a single church comprised of believers in multiple cities. However, this statement is properly understood simply as a collective reference to all the believers in that area; there’s no indication that it’s speaking of a particular church administration. (In fact, it’s really just saying that the church as the entire Body of Christ on the earth was located mainly in that area at that time.)

If this verse does indicate, indirectly, that the church in Jerusalem was extending its authority to these other areas, the significance of this is not at all positive, and certainly not a pattern for us (which is why the Holy Spirit leaves the reference so indirect, rather than referring to a definite church administration; it would not recognize such an extralocal church authority.) We know that historically, the early church very quickly degraded from the Lord’s arrangement into a system of hierarchy, and in part this involved the churches in the larger cities, such as Rome, coming to dominate, and eventually assimilate, those in smaller ones, so as to expand and enlarge the central authority. It may be that by referring to “the church” in Judea, etc., rather than to “the churches,” the Holy Spirit is indicating that this process was already taking place in Jerusalem.

Certainly from this point on the book of Acts shows us that the church in Jerusalem was on a path of steep spiritual decline; whereas in the first few chapters we see a marvelous testimony to Christ carried out by the church in Jerusalem, towards the end of this history we see a church that was dominated by a single brother, James, and which was assuming a commitment to uphold the law of Moses, rather than the testimony of Christ (cf. Acts 21:19-25). So, if this verse does refer indirectly to a church whose administration extended beyond the borders of a locality, it is only to warn against such a practice.

As for actual churches in the New Testament that may not have met on the ground of locality, the only real possibility are the references to churches that met in the believers’ homes (Rom. 16:3-5; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col 4:15-16; Philemon 2). However, when we look at each of these cases closely, we see that there is never any reference at all to there being more than one of these supposed “house churches” in the same locality, so they clearly provide no basis for saying there can be more than one church in a city.

We also realize that in each case, these gatherings were fully in fellowship both with all of the saints locally and, through the apostle, with the other churches universally. Finally, there is never really even any indication that any of these gatherings were different from the church in their city as a whole; rather, in each case it was a matter of a home being used as the base for the one unique church in that city, as we shall in a moment.

First, however, I want to note that even if we say that these churches did meet on a different ground, i.e., on the ground of a home rather than on the ground of locality, then at most it provides a scriptural basis for a house church, and one in which the believers are clearly in a very close and practical fellowship with all the other believers in their city, as well as with the Lord’s servants. Does such an example in any way justify the situation in Christianity today, with its endless sects, divisions, and separations among the believers? Clearly, it does not.

Now to consider the examples of the churches in the saints’ homes. Romans 16:23 speaks of Gaius as being host of “the whole church.” It seems clear that at the time he wrote Romans, Paul was in Corinth, based on his earlier reference to the collection that had been made in Macedonia and Achaia for the saints in Jerusalem (15:26), of which he spoke at length to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9). In addition, he also mentions a Gaius in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14). Of course, the New Testament makes it very clear that there was only one church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). So, what we have here is a clear example of a brother who opened his home to host “the whole church,” as it says, in his city.

First Corinthians 16:19 speaks of the church in the home of Aquilla and Priscilla. This epistle was written from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Again, the New Testament shows us very clearly that there was only one church in Ephesus (Rev. 1:11, 2:1-7), so what we see here is another example of a couple having the church in their home.

Colossians 4:15 speaks of the church in the home of Nymphas in Laodicea, but the verynext verse speaks of the local church in Laodicea, which shows us that Nymphas was the host of the local church in Laodicea. Of course, Revelation 1:11 and 3:14-22 also make it clear that there was only one church in Laodicea.

Philemon 2 speaks of the church which was in the home of Philemon. In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul makes it clear that Philemon lived in Colossae, and was very much involved in the church life there, because he mentions both Philemon’s slave, Onesimus (Phlm. 10-16; Col. 4:9), and his son, Archippus (Phlm. 2; Col. 4:17), in a way that makes it clear that both were quite active in the church life in Colossae. The New Testament never specifically refers to “the church in Colossae” (the epistle was addressed to “the saints in Colossae”; 1:2), but clearly this case provides no basis for saying that the church in the home of Philemon was something other than the church in Colossae.

Romans 16:5 speaks of the church which was in the house of Prisca and Aquilla. It has often been claimed that this church was a second church meeting in the city of Rome. According to those who make this claim, the book of Romans was written to the church in Rome, so the phrase “the church in their house” refers to a second church in the same city.

The answer to this claim is very simple: when we actually read the book of Romans, we find that it was not addressed to the church in Rome, but to the saints there (Rom. 1:7).Therefore, the church that is mentioned at the end of this epistle is not a second church in the city of Rome; rather, it is mentioned as the culmination of the book of Romans. As Witness Lee has pointed out, this epistle shows us the gospel of God (1:1) in its fullness; that is, how sinners become sons of God for the building up of the Body of Christ in the local churches. In this case, the issue of the gospel of God was the unique local church that existed in the city of Rome, which Paul thus greets as the natural culmination of this epistle.

This understanding is confirmed by the fact that the greeting to the couple that hosted the church, and to the church itself, is the first of all the greetings in this chapter, so that the rest of the greetings are rightly understood as being to those of whom this local church was composed. Furthermore, there is no reference to any other supposed church in Rome in all of the greetings, despite the fact that several times in this same chapter the apostle refers to groups of saints (Rom. 16: 11, 14, 15). Finally, in this same chapter, Paul provides us with a clear example of a church in a city which met in a specific home: he refers to Gaius, with whom he was evidently staying in Corinth when he wrote this epistle, as being “my host, as well as of the whole church” (v. 23).

Moreover, this church met in the house of Prisca and Aquilla, a couple who were clearly among the very closest co-workers of the apostle Paul. If there was another church meeting in Rome besides the local church there that Paul was caring for, could we even imagine it would have been established by these ones? The thought is completely ridiculous.

However, it is indeed significant, as has been pointed out, that the Bible does not refer to the church in the home of Prisca and Aquilla as being “the church in Rome.” In contrast, consider the seven churches in Revelation 1-3 (Rev. 1:20b). There the Lord specifically refers to each church as being “the church in” a given locality (Rev. 2:1, etc.). A crucial principle for studying the Bible is that what the Bible does not say is often as important as what it does say, and it matters that in such a book as Romans the Bible omits any explicit reference to “the church in Rome.”

We cannot be certain why this is, but it may relate to how the church there had developed to that point, either in the realization of the saints or in its testimony before the Lord. Witness Lee, in his book, Knowing Life and the Church, states that at the beginning of the work in China, many of the churches there were like “the house of Obed-edom.” This was the house where the ark of God briefly dwelt on its way to the city of David, and which was therefore blessed by God (2 Sam. 6:11-12). Brother Lee goes on to state:

The house of Obed-edom, however, can last only a short period of time. Those who know God will not leave the Ark in the house of Obed-edom; instead, they will bring the Ark and set it in the city of David. The Ark can stay in a certain person’s house for a short time, but eventually it needs to enter into the temple.— page 132

Perhaps this was the situation of the meeting in Prisca and Aquilla’s home as well; a place where the Lord really was dwelling, but which also needed to be further developed to fully stand as the Lord’s testimony in Rome; it could even have been the reason for Paul’s letter to the saints there, no doubt based on fellowship with his co-workers, Prisca and Aquilla, who were already there. If so, it makes us appreciate Paul’s labor with the saints in Rome, and the nature of his letter to them, all the more:
For I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established... — Romans 1:11

What this clearly does show us, however, is that we cannot insist that, in order to stand for the oneness of the Body of Christ in a given locality, the saints in the church there have to refer to themselves, or even consider themselves, as “the church in” that locality. The church in the house of Prisca and Aquilla certainly was standing for the oneness, even without being specifically designated as “the church in Rome.” Even so, while we must avoid designating ourselves in any kind of sectarian way, there may be many places today were the believers are to some extent standing for the oneness of the Body of Christ, without referring to themselves as “the church in” their place. As I have tried to emphasize in my earlier letters, we cannot regard the designation of “the church in” a given place as a formula. Rather, we must keep the ground of oneness in locality as a spiritual reality, not as a mere outward form.

The matter of the churches in the homes is quite a significant topic in the New Testament, and worth much more consideration as to how it might apply to our church life today. The point of this study has simply been to show that the existence of these churches in no way contradicts the teaching of the ground of oneness in locality.

May the Lord lead all of His believers in His way, and may He in His mercy bless these articles to that end.

David Canfield
Chicago

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Ground of Locality (2) - Lesson from Jeremiah 24

15 June 2011

My previous note on the ground of oneness in locality dealt with the need for a proper emphasis related to this teaching. That is, for our standing on the ground to be meaningful, we must be in the reality of the oneness of the Body of Christ. This does need to be stressed today, because in our church life in the past we separated the ground from the oneness, thus making the teaching of the ground something vain, a mere outward form. This does not mean anything is wrong with the teaching itself; certainly I believe the ground of oneness in locality is biblical, and vital for the practice of the New Testament church life. Rather, the problem is with how we practiced that teaching, i.e., turning it into a mere form.

Throughout the history of the church the Lord has begun various works among His people, but each time what began as something genuinely of the Lord turned into an outward form, with very little reality of God left in that work. As Watchman Nee expressed it so well, God would pour out a blessing, while men would make a cup to contain His blessing. However, after a while God’s blessing would move on and other men would make a new cup would to contain the new blessing. This process has been repeated over and over until today in so many places there is no more blessing, but only different men arguing over which cup is best!

Therefore, if we are blessed by the Lord to participate in His work in the present age, we must be in fear before Him. It is very possible that what we are in may be something genuine today, and yet become a form tomorrow, because the reality of God is no longer there. If this does happen to us, we must ask the Lord to bring us anew into His present work. Otherwise, if we choose to remain with the outward form of His work, as so many have throughout the history of the church—treasuring it because it is what we have known for so long, and where we are firmly attached—we will not be able to go on with Him.

In the Old Testament there is a very important passage that bears on this matter of holding onto the things of the Lord, and in particular to the ground of locality, as outward forms. In considering it I’m reminded of the Lord’s word in the New Testament:

To whom much is given, much more will be required.
— Luke 12:48b

That Old Testament passage is Jeremiah 24, which relates the vision of the “two baskets of figs before the temple of Jehovah” (v. 1). On the negative side this passage serves as a warning against maintaining merely outward forms as we follow the Lord. Positively, however, this passage can be very helpful to those of us who left the fellowship of churches we were previously in, by giving us an understanding of our experience and helping us to gain the profit from the trial we went through.
The Lord gave this vision to the prophet Jeremiah a few years before the end of the kingdom of Judah. Jeremiah writes of the two baskets:

One basket had very good figs, like the figs that are first ripe; and the other basket had very bad figs which could not be eaten, they were so bad.
— Jeremiah 24:2

In the Old Testament, Jerusalem was a type of the genuine ground of oneness. It was the place where the Lord put His name (Deut. 12:10-18; 1 Kings 9:3), and thus the unique place where all of God’s children should gather to worship Him. Yet, in this vision, the Lord declares that it is the ones who flee Jerusalem who are the “good figs” that He will eventually bless; it is these who will come to know Him as their God:

Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge those who are carried away captive from Judah, whom I have sent out of this place for their own good, into the land of the Chaldeans. For I will set My eyes on them for good, and I will bring them back to this land; I will build them and not pull them down, and I will plant them and not pluck them up. Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am Jehovah; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart.
— Jeremiah 24:4-7

In contrast, it is the ones who insist on staying in Jerusalem that are pictured as the “bad figs” that He will reject:

And as the bad figs which cannot be eaten, they are so bad—surely thus says Jehovah—so will I give up Zedekiah the king of Judah, his princes, the residue of Jerusalem who remain in this land, and those who dwell in the land of Egypt. I will deliver them to trouble into all the kingdoms of the earth, for their harm, to be a reproach and a byword, a taunt and a curse, in all places where I shall drive them. And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence among them, till they are consumed from the land that I gave to them and their fathers.
— Jeremiah 24:8-10

This passage perplexed me for a long time; based on our teaching, it should have been the ones who stayed in Jerusalem, who stood for the oneness, who were blessed, and those who fled to Babylon who were cursed.

Only in the light of the turmoil that took place among the churches several years ago did this passage become clear to me. Yes, Jerusalem was indeed the place God had chosen for His name, but by the time of Jeremiah 24, due to the degradation of His people, the temple worship had become utterly vain, a system of ritual that God no longer accepted. In mercy the Lord granted His people more time before He left the city altogether (Ezk. 10) and it was finally destroyed, but it was only so that Jeremiah could warn the people to flee from the coming, and certain, destruction.

All that was left of that entire system was the appearance and the form; the reality of God, of His worship, and of the oneness of His people were all gone. What Darby states of Jerusalem in his Synopsis concerning a much later time, when Joseph and Mary went to the temple to have Jesus circumcised, was true at the time of Jeremiah 24 as well:

Jerusalem was not after all the place in which God visited the remnant of His people, but the seat of pride of those who said “the temple of the Lord.”[cf. Jer. 7:4]

In such a situation, what will we care for? Will we submit ourselves to the Lord and to His judgment, because we care more for Him as the reality than we do for the outward things? Or will we insist on holding onto the outward appearance and the form? This the lesson of Jeremiah 24 for us today; it is showing us that, when a move of the Lord degrades to the point that the Lord is no longer in that work, we must be prepared to leave it and follow the Lord in a fresh way. If so, He can eventually have a way to bring us to His testimony anew, but if not—if we hold onto the outward form of the Lord’s work when He is no longer in it—we are finished with the Lord.

In verse 8 of this passage the Lord connects those who stay in Jerusalem with “those who dwell in the land of Egypt.” In the Old Testament, Egypt was the place where God’s people were kept in captivity under Pharaoh; it is a picture of Satan’s world system that today struggles to enslave Christians so as to keep them from following God and serving Him. This connection between Jerusalem and Egypt shows us that, far from being God’s dwelling place, Jerusalem by that time had simply become another place for God’s people to be held in captivity; it was the “world” in another guise, from which God once again had to deliver His people. In the same way, we may hold onto outward forms today by claiming that we are serving God, while in reality the system we are in is just our own version of the world that has captured us for itself.

In such a case, God must do a work to deliver us so that we can follow Him again. As in the Old Testament, this may well require His judging work upon the system that has captured us, to the point that we become “exiles” from that system. As some commentators on this passage have pointed out, to be an exile in this way means we no longer have anything to trust in besides God Himself; no forms, no pretensions to piety, no false security, no strength of our own, no hope in this world. Yet, it is on this very basis—when we have nothing of our own to trust in or depend on—that we have access to the grace of God, and it is this grace which is able to operate to bring us into His desire anew. To receive such grace only requires us, as we submit to His judgment, to exercise the faith to believe that He will indeed carry out what He has promised to do.

In a deeper sense this is why the blessing of God rests upon those who leave, rather than on those who remain; the former have placed their trust in God Himself and in His grace, or at least have the opportunity to do so, while the latter pretend to believe in Him, but actually trust in the system. In brief, the former are on the proper ground to experience the grace of God, while the latter are not; rather, by staying in the system they remain, to quote from Darby above, in “the seat of pride.” Jeremiah 24 tells us that the vision it relates was given after Jeconiah the king and those with him were carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 24:1). This was the second, and largest, of the three major deportations of Judah, it is described simply as “the deportation” in Matthew 1:11. Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is described in this way:

And [Nebuchadnezzar] carried out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house, and he cut in pieces all the articles of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah, as Jehovah had said.
—2 Kings 24:13

In type, the carrying away of the “treasures” and the cutting in pieces of “all the articles of gold” portray the loss of spiritual reality. Although Jerusalem and the temple had not yet been finally destroyed—that would happen a few years later at the time of the third deportation—all of the spiritual riches had already been lost.

So many times this tragic portion of the history of Israel has been repeated in the history of the church. So many times the Lord has begun a genuine move among His people, as in the case of the Reformers in the 1500s, the Moravians in the 1700s, and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1800s. Eventually, however, in each case the spiritual reality of His work was lost, and it became on the whole a lifeless form. Those who insisted on maintaining the form really suffered a kind of spiritual death, and I don’t believe there is any example of such a group ever being recovered to the Lord’s testimony.

Most recently, the history of the Plymouth Brethren provides a striking parallel to this history of the children of Israel. After a glorious beginning in the first half of the 1800s they went through a long period of gradual decline, interspersed with times of severe turmoil and division, until they eventually lost almost everything the Lord had committed to them; today the branch of the Exclusive Brethren that was never subject to being excommunicated is one of the most rigid sects in the world. Now it appears that this sad history may be repeating itself once again, this time among in the churches affiliated with the Living Stream Ministry; certainly the process has already begun.

When I was first saved, by the Lord’s mercy I had the faith to believe that He must be doing something on the earth today, and early on I began to look for His present work. (I was very much helped in this regard by reading a number of books by Watchman Nee.) When I did touch the church, I knew immediately—as in, before the first meeting started—that this was what I had been looking for, because I saw the saints in the corporate enjoyment of Christ; I had really never seen anything like that before! I would not have expressed it that way then, but within me I knew that this was what I had been seeking.

That was in 1984. By the time I was put out in 2006, more than twenty years later, most of the churches had become strongly sectarian, as a result of Satan’s working against the Lord’s testimony. I will always treasure the time I had in that church life and the genuine experiences of Christ that we shared. Moreover, I continue to appreciate and benefit from Brother Lee’s ministry, and am so thankful to the Lord for allowing me to be under his teaching. However, by the end so much of the reality of Christ had been lost, as the headship of Christ was replaced with the leadership of the brothers affiliated with the Living Stream Ministry, and the freedom of the Spirit was replaced by certain approved practices, such as the Holy Word for Morning Revival, the “Seven Feasts,” and the “One Publication.” As we found out when we were excommunicated by them (they called it a “quarantine”), by that time they could no longer be one with anyone who did not accept their leadership, or their view of Witness Lee, their current ministry, and their practices.

Just as was the case with those who left Jerusalem before it was finally destroyed, it was not my choice to leave; rather, I was put out by the brothers. Today, however, I feel it really was the Lord who “sent me out” of that system “for my own good,” as He states in Jeremiah 24:5, and I am so thankful to Him that He did. That kind of religious system was never what the Lord brought me into when I first touched the church life, and I would not stay there when it became such a system.

Those of us who left no longer had the structure of a familiar church life to provide a kind of guidance for us, and this has caused a number of the saints and churches to struggle. Yet, at least we are struggling before the Lord, and this can give the Lord the opportunity to once again bless us after this period of testing. I can say that in my own case this has been a very difficult time in a number of ways, but I also feel that through it I’ve come to know the Lord more deeply, and I would never go back to where I was before.

In contrast, I fear very much for the dear saints, the produce of the Lord’s work over so many years, who remain; I really wonder whether the Lord can ever have a way to recover them to Himself, or whether they will waste their lives serving a religious system.

May the Lord grant us His mercy and grace so that we would learn the lesson of Jeremiah 24 of not trusting in outward forms; may we insist on having Him as the reality of our church life, whatever the cost may be to us. May the churches stand clearly and definitely for Christ in each locality, and may all of the Lord’s children be brought into the reality of the oneness of the Body of Christ!

David Canfield
Chicago, Illinois

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Ground of Locality (1) A Proper Perspective

28 April 2011

For some time I’ve been considering our conversation, while we were at Ashland Woods, regarding the ground of oneness in locality, and wanted to send you my thoughts on the proper place of this teaching; I hope to consider the teaching itself in a later note.

We need to remind ourselves, first of all, that the oneness of the Body of Christ does not come from the ground of locality. Rather, the reverse is true; the ground of oneness in locality really comes from the oneness of the Body of Christ, and this oneness, in turn, comes from the organic relationship the believers have with God Himself, and with one another as those who are in the Father and in the Son:

I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, that they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me.
— John 17:20-23

This prayer is so far beyond any merely human thought. We are in the Father and in the Son, and have been given the very glory the Father gave to the Son, so that we may be one in God and one with each other! Surely every genuine believer, when they consider the Lord’s prayer here, must have a deep feeling of our need to be one in a very practical way with all of our fellow believers in Christ. This is the real source of the ground of oneness in locality, which is simply that in each locality where the believers live, we should all come together in the Lord’s name to be the unique church in that place (e.g., Acts 8:1, 1 Cor. 1:2, Rev 1:11).

Thus, to be genuine, the oneness we practice in a locality must be the expression of the spiritual oneness we possess as the believers in Christ. This requires us to be those who are pursuing Christ in a serious and committed way, experiencing both His riches and His cross, so that we can grow in Him and be transformed. The real reason why Christians are so divided today is the shortage of this growth in Christ; when Paul rebuked the saints in Corinth for being divided between himself and Apollos and Peter, he told them they were “infants in Christ” and “fleshly” (1 Cor. 1:11-12, 3:1-4), so that he had to give them “milk to drink” and not “solid food” (1 Cor. 3:2).

In my view, the real reason some saints among us now question the value of the local ground is that, to a large extent, we have separated it from our spiritual oneness. We seem to have had the concept that if we just call ourselves “the church in” our locality it automatically means we are standing for the oneness of the Body of Christ, even if in reality we had special requirements for fellowship, such as appreciating a certain ministry, accepting the leadership of certain extra-local brothers, or following certain practices. This really has made the teaching of little value, and the saints sense this.

In fact, to practice these things shows that we are actually taking “The Church in” as our name, rather than as a simple description of who we are, and as the basis for our fellowship; we are treating it as a mere formula without any spiritual reality. In that case, instead of causing us to stand in the unique fellowship of the Body of Christ, that very designation is separating us from it. The outward form does matter—a special name denotes a special fellowship, something other than the unique fellowship of the Body of Christ—but not when it is separated from our relationship with Christ Himself.

To be practically in the oneness requires us to receive all genuine believers, without making issues over teachings, ministries, etc. Our focus must be on Christ Himself, not on such minor points; only when we have this proper focus can we experience the real oneness. In contrast, if we are not clear concerning the oneness, then the ground of locality becomes something vain.

The Normal Christian Church Life was one of the first books published among us on the practical church life, and it deals in part with the matter of the local ground. Witness Lee calls it Watchman Nee’s “main work concerning the practicality of the church” (Watchman Nee: A Seer, p. 258). How striking it is to note, given our history, that in his “Preface” and “Introduction” to such a book, Brother Nee warned repeatedly against taking these teachings as a mere form; several times he expressed his deep concern that some would attempt to use them merely as a method, apart from a vital relationship with the Lord:

One of the prayers I have offered in connection with this book is that the Lord should keep it from those who would oppose and use it as a chart for attack, and also from those who agree and would use it as a manual for service. I dread the latter far more than the former.
— page 7

It is wearisome to me, if not actually repulsive, to talk with those who aim at outward correctness, while they care little for that which is vital and spiritual.
— pages 12-13

We hope that this book will not fall into the hands of those who wish to improve their work by improving their methods, without adjusting their relationship to the Lord.
— page 13

May none of my readers use this book as a basis for external adjustments in their work, without letting the cross deal drastically with their natural life.
— page 18 (Living Stream Ministry, 1991 printing)

Tragically, these words have proven to be prophetic among us. We did indeed take the teaching of the ground of locality as a method, as a thing to hold onto in itself, without sufficient regard for the spiritual reality needed to support it in life. In fact, it became something of an idol among us, and as such it needed to be torn down, so that we could no longer practice it apart from a living relationship with Christ.

This is just like the case of the bronze serpent in the Old Testament. It was really something provided by God to meet His people’s need (Num. 21:5-9), but eventually it became an idol that had to be crushed (2 Kings 18:4). In fact, as J.N. Darby points out, almost every spiritual thing the Lord gave to His people, they turned into an idol of one sort or another. Whether it was the law, or the temple, or the priesthood, they took it as something that had value in and of itself, apart from God. In doing so, they made these spiritual things worthless—things which God had given to His people in order to connect them with Himself, not to separate them from Him—and brought themselves under God’s judgment. He is indeed a jealous God, and hates that we would attach ourselves to anything, even good and spiritual things, apart from Himself.

Is the ground of locality biblical? Indeed it is. Is it something good, important, and even vital to the proper, New Testament church life? Certainly. But, if we come to trust in the ground in and of itself, so that we no longer depend on God as the real source of our oneness, then that misplaced trust needs to be dealt with until we repent and once again come back to God so that we may fulfill His desire.

I recently finished the book Knowing Life and the Church by Witness Lee and was very, very much helped by it. In one chapter he considers the time in Israel’s history when the ark and the tabernacle, signifying Christ and the church, were separated from each other due to the degradation of God’s people (1 Sam. 4-6); what a lesson for us today!

From that moment forward, those who do not have a vision, which constitutes the majority of the people, look only at the outward appearance of the church and neglect the reality of Christ. Only a few people like David do not focus on the outward form and appearance of the tabernacle but care only for the Ark, for Christ. God’s eyes similarly are not on the outward form but on the reality; God does not look on the tabernacle but on the Ark. He does not regard the outward appearance of the church but the reality of Christ. From the beginning of Israel’s degradation, God was interested in the Ark and its location, not the tabernacle. Similarly, God is interested in where Christ can be found, not in the outward appearance of the church.
— page 122

This history shows us, in type, that we may indeed separate the outward form of the church from Christ. This is abnormal, but sadly, it is not unusual. In such a case, God’s heart is always with the reality of Christ, and not with the outward form of the church.

May God give us a heart like His to focus on Christ, and not on the outward form! May we never be satisfied with the mere appearance, but insist that Christ Himself be the content of our church life! May God bring us into Himself as reality, and into the reality of the oneness of the Body of Christ! And may the churches stand clearly in each locality as the testimony of Christ and of the blessed oneness that we, His believers, have in Him.

David Canfield
Chicago