The Not-So Practical Expression of the Church

[Cal]

The doctrine of the local ground is one of the foundational principles of the Local Church movement. It, along with idea of oneness manifested through one ministry, form the two sides of the vice which firmly holds LC members in the grip of the movement. Take away these two concepts and LCers would feel free, as led by the Lord, to leave the movement anytime. This we know is not the case.

My assertion in this argument is not that the local ground teaching is true or false, but rather that it is not viable. It is one of the boasts and selling points of the teaching that it produces a "practical expression" of Christ’s Body for the world to see. My assertion is that it can only hope to do that by insisting on assumptions which are arbitrary and thus ultimately sure to cause contention and eventually division.

So, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the local ground one-church-one-city teaching is viable. At first glance this is possible. One can argue that one does not agree with the local ground teaching. But one cannot argue that the Bible has no ground for believing the teaching might be valid. To be fair, there is also ground for believing that one church per city is not a binding principle. So, whether or not the principle of one church per city is binding cannot be resolved simply by consulting scripture. The principle must pass the test of viability in practice—it must really be practical. A practical church is not simply one that manifests in space and time the attributes of the universal church, as the Local Church movement believes. It is one also whose existence does not depend on arbitrary requirements, because any such requirements are the guaranteed seeds of destruction.

It’s the situation of more than one group vying for the title as the true church in a city which exposes the weakness and lack of viability of the local ground principle. Imagine a city in which an LC church exists. In the same city is a separate group of people who begin to be stirred by the Lord to seek practical oneness. These seekers also see something of a pattern of city-churches in the New Testament and decide to begin to meet in such a way if they cannot find an already existing city-church. After finding the LC church and visiting with them for a while, however, they determine amongst themselves that the LC group is actually sectarian. The reason they make this determination is not important. The LC church might protest vigorously, but the fact is any group or individual has the right to determine for themselves whether a group claiming to be “the church” is in fact merely a sect. Though the LC group might complain, thump their chests and even eventually sue the fledgling band of seekers for the rights to be called “the church,” in the end they cannot rightfully expect anyone to accept that they are expressing anything but their own opinion, no matter how much Bible knowledge and pedigree they claim to hold. Yet, this is what real LCers in their error do.

So the little group has the perfect right to go about their business and meet “as the church.” Whatever the LC group thinks is meaningless. They don’t hold the franchise rights to being the church in the city. No one does. They could and most likely would come up with a laundry list of reasons why the little group is not the true church, and would likely convince many of their own members of it. But that and a $1.69 will get them a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Their opinion about who is the church in the city is not binding on anyone.

Both groups, then, have the right to make the claim of being the one church in the city; and since neither can prove in a sense that satisfies the principle of practicality (that word again) that they actually are that church, it must follow that the “one church in the city,” if it exists, cannot conform to the model of one group under one human leadership.

But, in fact, it wouldn’t matter if it did because there is another problem: There is absolutely no way to practically determine who the one human leadership of the one church in the city actually is. People can make claims or form opinions, but, again, none of that can be binding on others. LC practice has fallen back on the principle that the “apostle” appoints elders, so only elders approved by Witness Lee or his successors are really elders, so only the churches they lead are really churches. But that amounts to just kicking the can down the road, because there is neither any way of determining, in this day and age, who is truly an apostle. You can, again, form an opinion about it. But your opinion can never be binding on others to the point that you can decide for them that they are at odds with the true city-church because they do not recognize a group of leaders appointed by someone you think is an apostle.

The LC also falls back on the claim that genuine local churches have fellowship with other local churches. But that, as employed by the LC, is a circular argument, and a convenient means to dismiss any group which doesn't fall in line with their movement. It should be true that a genuine church has fellowship with believers and groups outsides its walls. But for anyone to decide he or she can determine exactly which persons and groups that church should have fellowship with is going a step too far.

So the arbitrary requirement necessary to make the LC model of the church operate is the acceptance of the presumption that one particular set of leaders have indeed been appointed by God to lead all the Christians in that city. We’ve seen that just who these leaders are cannot practically be determined with anything approaching certainty, so the LC model requires believers to simply accept as a matter of course that the elders set forth by them are indeed who they claim them to be. Such a requirement, however, is neither logical nor reasonable, and will eventually be a source of contention and division, which we have seen in various practical historical examples, it has been. When believers go to godless courts asking those courts to decide which one of them is the true Church, something has gone very awry. Yet such a result naturally follows from the completely arbitrary assumptions--who the city elders are and who the apostle is--required by the LC movement.

Ironically, the demise of the LC principle of “the practical expression of the church” is its lack of practicality.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ironically, the demise of the LC principle of “the practical expression of the church” is its lack of practicality.

Igzy, I agree with 99% of what you say here (excepting of course your implicit acceptance of the notion of the "universal church", but I digress)

HOWEVER

I would assert that the real problem is an unclear notion of what is the \ekklesia\ in the first place.

In actuality, the practical expression of the Body in the assembly should be found in BOTH those groups TOGETHER and that the one who separates out is in a division. They should freely intermingle and fellowship and not worry a bit about who can lay claim to a designation of proper churchiness. In fact, if they try to lay hold of that, they would certainly start down the wrong path again.

I apprehend the local ground as the principle of unity with all the believers and not a point of demarcation between me and they. To concern ourselves with the minutia of local administration as an indicator of the presence of God's assembly is the tail wagging the dog. (A so-called international ministry attempting to direct the minutia is the flea wagging the tail that wags the dog.)

Thus, I would agree that the doctrine of the ground as practiced by the Local Church is not viable and it really never has been.

But I never received from that teaching more than an understanding that all the believers in a place were in fact the assembly in that place. It gets manifest practically whenever those believers meet on no other basis than that they are the believers meeting there.

It's really not a big deal, in other words, or at least, it shouldn't be.

I think that's very practical.

You want to break bread in oneness with all the believers. I want to do the same. We do so separately until the Lord joins us up. It's a test of our oneness what we do at that point. Later, we can have a fight but we should still break bread together. If I withdraw or you exclude, it may not be immediately apparent what the reality is but it shouldn't take more than getting back to that bread breaking meeting to be perfectly clear. I have surely seen the practical manifestation of Christ in the assembly and I know it when I see it. To argue something contrary is just self delusional.

Try not to consider a large group of a hundred. Consider a group of only four believers in a little hidden outpost in a despised region. There is nothing wrong for them to meet as the unique assembly in that place and even for many other groups of four or more to do the same thing. They are not multiple assemblies - they are all part of the very same assembly, and, God willing, there will be meetings where all that assembly can assemble. They do not need to be controlled by anything but the flow of life and the headship. No titles, no deputies, no legalistic meeting requirements. If different groups end up being somewhat distant, with different practical administrations and such, this is not healthy but it doesn't end their being part of the same assembly. No one has to meet with me to qualify for credentials of being "in the church." You are the assembly when you assemble with the others. Never exclude or withdraw for preference and opinion and DO NOT TRY TO DO SOMETHING FOR GOD and everything else the Lord will handle.

The Local Church error is way too much top-down thinking. The assembly is bottom-up practical building.

Lee taught that there must be a practical assembly for the brothers to bring problems to when it could not be resolved by two or three. According to this view, the assembly must be mostly about solving the problems. Rather, the assembly is mostly about displaying the riches of Christ that we enjoy with one another.

Meet with the believers and let God's glory shine forth in your gathering and let Him worry about who is right enough.

[Cal]

YP,

I follow your point. Basically the problem with the one church one city practice comes in when someone insists on a certain human leadership.

The link between one church and one eldership is stamped in LC thinking. There was one young brother who debated with us for a long time who was firmly convinced that you couldn't have a one church without one eldership. He considered coordination under one leadership as evidence of genuine "practical oneness." But as I indicated, there is no way to determine with whom that eldership rests except by mutual agreement and consent, which most ironically, actually puts the power of leadership with the members, since they determine by consent who the leaders are.

The LC has it backwards. They say that the elders are determined by someone above them (some apostle or "work") and the elders dictate to the members. But the problem comes in with determining who has the authority to appoint elders, or with otherwise determining who the elders are. We have no way of knowing for sure who this is. So difference of opinion are bound to happen. And since there is no practical, objective way to determine who the elders are, let alone the apostles, the whole idea of practicality of the LC city-church model flies out the window.

This is precisely what we see happening today when there is more than one group vying for the privilege of being a particular city's church.

Igzy

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

You are the assembly when you assemble with the others.

YP:

Your post brought to mind, somewhat, the phrase "to each his own." It is certainly somehting when a Christian group - who internally believes to be following God's way - can nevertheless be unjudgmental of local free groups around them. The question I have, however, is whether there is an affirmative obligation to engage, meet with, coordinate with, etc... the other gorups around you? Or is mutual respect enough?

Put another way, is it the 'local church' when they don't actually, in time and space, assemble?

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

YP:

Your post brought to mind, somewhat, the phrase "to each his own." It is certainly something when a Christian group - who internally believes to be following God's way - can nevertheless be nonjudgmental of local free groups around them. The question I have, however, is whether there is an affirmative obligation to engage, meet with, coordinate with, etc... the other groups around you? Or is mutual respect enough?

Put another way, is it the 'local church' when they don't actually, in time and space, assemble?

Peter

I do not advocate "to each his own" but you have asked a good question, Peter.

Based upon the concept of the locality doctrine I have received, and tell me if you did not hear this, but the brothers and sisters in the Baptist churches in my locality are in actuality part of the unique assembly of God here, simply, and unfortunately, are meeting in a division.

One clear mandate is THAT we assemble. Those who assemble are obviously the assembly. Those who would decline to coordinate for the practical purposes for which coordination is directed in the New Testament demonstrate their intention to remain separate and then we don't need to concern ourselves with further analysis. But the thinking gets off when a group attempts to establish and maintain some form of group identity other than that of the general assembly in our respective places which we are all spontaneously a part of by faith in Christ.

The Local Church makes a pretense of having such a general assembly identity as their only character but, at least, for those of us fellowshipping here, we can honestly state with knowledge that this is not true and that such a claim is unfortunately a false self-delusion. I would like to tell my dear brothers there that no matter how strenuously you insist that you are in the genuine "local churches," your strong will cannot change at least this reality. You are in something else and you can't see it and you need the eye salve, dear brothers. (This really breaks my heart.)

In other words, if I understand you correctly, Peter, you postulate Group A and Group B who decline to cooperate in the breaking of the bread. I don't think you can rely upon "mutual respect" to win the day there. Anyone who declines to break bread with another genuine believer for anything but reasons of gross sinfulness is themselves guilty of causing a division. To say "we break bread as and with Group A and not as and with Group B" is the very definition of a division. Someone else may know the verses better than I do but I think I have seen this principle by now. Again, if we declare that our bread breaking is in oneness but only give lip service to the notion as it relates to someone else doing the same thing, our oneness isn't really oneness. Yet surely our lack of oneness, or any other grave problems that might be seen in the churches in Revelation, doesn't destroy God's desire and purpose in the Christian meetings. He earnestly seeks to be manifested among His saints and will build all the saints together into the unique assembly as those saints afford Him opportunity.

It's not a matter of our declarations or considerations. It's a matter of His inward realities and outward expressions.

On a further point, it is against nothing in the New Testament that there are parties within the assembly, even if the ultimate goal is to be in one accord. Parties are simply not the same thing as making a division. The word "quarantine" comes to my mind in this context. If some brothers feel that some other brother's teaching is problematic, divisive, confusing, etc., does "turning away" really mean "disfellowshipping?" I do not think so. The correct response is to help the saints to understand what the problems are with the other teachings and to show them what the Bible actually says which contradicts such things.

Coming back to my main point, even if that brother's worrisome teachings continue to be a trouble to you, how do you ban him from the table meetings? How do you have that right, unless this is YOUR table meeting, rather than the Lord's table meeting? Those who fail to discern the Body will be dealt with directly by the Lord.

All of these things of churchiness proceed from not honoring the Lord's real headship of His Body in our practical assembly and instead relying upon the notion of the "universal church" and the exercise of the "deputy authority" therein. God's authority is a big theme in the New Testament but it is not something to be played with and immitated as we have seen shamefully done in so many ways. We cannot assume we have God's authority by reason of maleness, age, loyalty, correctness, or any of the other reasons for which people in the world assert they have the right to be acknowledged as the leader in charge. When God's speaking is frustrated, He'll use a donkey.

You know, Witness Lee used to use the word "inoculate" when discussing how to deal with various dissenting opinions. That's a good word. It means you are working on something to help fight off the sickness from within. "Quarantine" has a similar relationship to the semantic domain of "health" but it implies that a diagnosis has been made by an expert and that the recommended solution is further separation. I don't think that's such a good word. And practically speaking, I'll be frank, "quarantine" as I have heard practiced by the Local Church, is really just "amputation." That's the technique of either the most extreme life-saving last-hope measure or an unskilled surgeon. And there is no hope of healing from an amputation.

I have more within me but I have no more time at present.

I apologize that I must stop here.

[Only by Grace]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Based upon the concept of the locality doctrine I have received, and tell me if you did not hear this, but the brothers and sisters in the Baptist churches in my locality are in actuality part of the unique assembly of God here, simply, and unfortunately, are meeting in a division.

One clear mandate is THAT we assemble. Those who assemble are obviously the assembly. Those who would decline to coordinate for the practical purposes for which coordination is directed in the New Testament demonstrate their intention to remain separate and then we don't need to concern ourselves with further analysis. But the thinking gets off when a group attempts to establish and maintain some form of group identity other than that of the general assembly in our respective places which we are all spontaneously a part of by faith in Christ.

The Local Church makes a pretense of having such a general assembly identity as their only character but, at least, for those of us fellowshipping here, we can honestly state with knowledge that this is not true and that such a claim is unfortunately a false self-delusion. I would like to tell my dear brothers there that no matter how strenuously you insist that you are in the genuine "local churches," your strong will cannot change at least this reality. You are in something else and you can't see it and you need the eye salve, dear brothers. (This really breaks my heart.)

A quick question from the Baptist bleacher seat...from my perspective, I assemble at a "local" church in my community...one of say, 8-10 meeting places. The "local" assemblies meeting places happen to have "Baptist," "Church of Christ," "Community Church," "Foursquare Church," and a few other titles on their signs. However, I know that I could walk into any one of them on any given Sunday and break bread with these fellow believers. Likewise, if other believers show up to break bread in our fellowship, no one is withholding the bread. So, where does the assumption come that we (who attend a fellowship with a sign on the lawn) are divisive or are insisting that "we are the one genuine church" in the neighborhood. That really just isn't happening...at least not in my small community. So, could it be the group that is doing that kind of "insisting" is the one who is divisive?

We do have "community" gatherings, where we invite all believers in the area to join in at one of the buildings...but again, the practicality of it all is that there is not a building large enough to hold us all on a regular basis. So, we coexist, each congregation, or assembly if you will, worshipping with our "few" brothers and sisters -- our group meets at 10:45 a.m, while there are two services 8:30 (contemporary) and 11:00 (traditional) worship services at a group who assembles a few miles away. Why is the assumption (not yours, necessarily, but someone is assuming and teaching), that there is something wrong with that model or practice. And furthermore, in my rural community of a couple of "sister towns," there is no Lee-like or Nee-like assembly that I know of...so what do the local believers in our area do? Do we wait for someone to claim the ground and then all head over there? Or, should we build a giant church in the middle of town and all meet there? Or, should we not be meeting in our current buildings at all becauses the group that has gathered in one place might speak in tongues, and in another place they might not? Or, in one congregation they sing hymns and in another they sing with a guitar and drum? I don't see us as divisive Christians...rather, we are all just "practically" assemblying with brothers and sisters where we seem to "fit," but we are not fighting one another or "insisting" we've got it all figured out...my guess is that we would all find that while we "disagree" on some things, we all agree that we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and that we are saved by His grace, and that we long to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Can you explain why (or if) (from the LC perspective or from any of your individual perspectives) this would be considered a wrong way for Christians to meet on a Lord's day, or to break bread with one another?

Thanks...trying to understand the mindset...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

A quick question from the Baptist bleacher seat...from my perspective, I assemble at a "local" church in my community...one of say, 8-10 meeting places. The "local" assemblies meeting places happen to have "Baptist," "Church of Christ," "Community Church," "Foursquare Church," and a few other titles on their signs. However, I know that I could walk into any one of them on any given Sunday and break bread with these fellow believers. Likewise, if other believers show up to break bread in our fellowship, no one is withholding the bread. So, where does the assumption come that we (who attend a fellowship with a sign on the lawn) are divisive or are insisting that "we are the one genuine church" in the neighborhood. That really just isn't happening...at least not in my small community. So, could it be the group that is doing that kind of "insisting" is the one who is divisive?

We do have "community" gatherings, where we invite all believers in the area to join in at one of the buildings...but again, the practicality of it all is that there is not a building large enough to hold us all on a regular basis. So, we coexist, each congregation, or assembly if you will, worshipping with our "few" brothers and sisters -- our group meets at 10:45 a.m, while there are two services 8:30 (contemporary) and 11:00 (traditional) worship services at a group who assembles a few miles away. Why is the assumption (not yours, necessarily, but someone is assuming and teaching), that there is something wrong with that model or practice. And furthermore, in my rural community of a couple of "sister towns," there is no Lee-like or Nee-like assembly that I know of...so what do the local believers in our area do? Do we wait for someone to claim the ground and then all head over there? Or, should we build a giant church in the middle of town and all meet there? Or, should we not be meeting in our current buildings at all becauses the group that has gathered in one place might speak in tongues, and in another place they might not? Or, in one congregation they sing hymns and in another they sing with a guitar and drum? I don't see us as divisive Christians...rather, we are all just "practically" assemblying with brothers and sisters where we seem to "fit," but we are not fighting one another or "insisting" we've got it all figured out...my guess is that we would all find that while we "disagree" on some things, we all agree that we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and that we are saved by His grace, and that we long to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Can you explain why (or if) (from the LC perspective or from any of your individual perspectives) this would be considered a wrong way for Christians to meet on a Lord's day, or to break bread with one another?

Thanks...trying to understand the mindset...

I think maybe your small-town situation is significantly different from many but still I would say that it should be better without a sign on the lawn since the tendency is to rally around the flag, at least on some level. (Which, not coincidentally is the precise error of a group of people moving somewhere and "taking the ground!") And surely you are aware that there are some, even many, groups who would refuse the bread breaking in oneness that you suggest is possible among the congregations in your place.

The problem is partly one of terminology on a certain level. You consider each of the meeting places to be an "assembly" but we are discussing the fact that each of the believers in those congregations is actually part of the one "assembly" in that place and your special group meetings are potentially a difficulty for the practical oneness with the other believers in that place. It's not that saying you are the "one true church" is the problem; rather in your case, it's the opposite issue entirely. Probably your fitting in in a particular congregation is according to your personal preference or family tradition rather than the cross of Christ and we really should submit to the Lord with regard to where and how we meet. Your memberships in the various groups are certainly not fully interchangeable, even if they aren't as rigid as they once were in Christian history. And surely there are other groups which do not feel to participate in what might be called a trans-denominational fellowship that you would invite them to, probably mostly on the basis of your particular sign, which they do not accept or condone. Your sign can become a cause for stumbling both to yourselves and to others. At the same time, you don't need to have a properly constituted establishment of LSM either. You and the other believers in that town are completely in control of whether or not you meet as the Lord desires. No imprimatur from a pope or college of cardinals could affect the reality anyway.

At the end of the day, I think the Lord is a whole lot less concerned about the sign on the lawn than Local Church people think He is. Lee dismissed the Lord's blessing and presence in the other places and I believe this is evidence of his lack of clear vision concerning the reality of the assembly. For Lee, the assembly was something of a defintion which we should endeavor to have precisely match the scriptures and, hopefully, but sometimes almost as an afterthought, there should be the life and love and glory of God present there. What I've been studying and discussing recently is the opposite view entirely, a view that is aided by discarding the antiquated notion of catholicism but instead focusing on the the reality of what really is the assembly. When you meet and do not exclude and God is manifest among you, I would defy any one who insisted that their definition is greater than the reality of God's glory. Talk about an empty form! If we meet and Christ is there, while we can always seek to do better, we should not be too critical of the details and problems.

Essentially, you propose an analysis of denominational groups as "parties" within the local assembly rather than true "divisions." Without going too much into the issues of heirarchy and practical functioning of the members at this point, I think you see my point about practicality. Ultimately, one giant building isn't practical anyways, as any large city-church among the Local Church denomination with multiple meeting halls is testimony to. At the same time, some believers could carefully avoid meeting with the believers in Hall 3 for one reason or another and that would be no different than the signs on the lawn as far as that goes. And also, I know the Chinese and Spanish-speaking saints always have their own kind of things going on in the Local Church and that can be quite practically divisive as well.

But, I'd challenge you about this much, anyways: what's practical about the sign on the lawn except to distinguish your group from the other groups? In what way do these things help you to gain Christ or minister Christ to others? I'm not trying to be condemning here but just asking you to recognize that the signs aren't maybe such a great idea. And the signs actually represent your preferences and that's probably not the best idea in either since Christ wants us to be practically one with both the tongues-speakers and the non-tongues-speakers. The sign doesn't actually say "tongues-speakers only" but it kind of does once you get inside and the people meeting there pressure you to seek "The Baptism." Surely we can all come up with other examples of this sort of thing.

But if there are practically separate groups and there are non-sinful customs that grow up among them in their meetings but they remain in real and living fellowship with all the other believers in the general assembly of God in that place, and not merely among those with the same sign, the sign doesn't really mean much anyway, does it? In fact, the rigid enforcement of uniformity not only among the smaller groups but even among the general assemblies is just a huge error that is born out of the concept of "universal church" that I just can't seem to get over.

So, in other words, I hear you but I'd suggest that it's way too easy to become accustomed to and even protective of the distinctions and separations and this is precisely what the enemy is always attempting to engineer among us...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

A quick question from the Baptist bleacher seat...from my perspective, I assemble at a "local" church in my community...one of say, 8-10 meeting places. The "local" assemblies meeting places happen to have "Baptist," "Church of Christ," "Community Church," "Foursquare Church," and a few other titles on their signs. However, I know that I could walk into any one of them on any given Sunday and break bread with these fellow believers. Likewise, if other believers show up to break bread in our fellowship, no one is withholding the bread. So, where does the assumption come that we (who attend a fellowship with a sign on the lawn) are divisive or are insisting that "we are the one genuine church" in the neighborhood. That really just isn't happening...at least not in my small community. So, could it be the group that is doing that kind of "insisting" is the one who is divisive?

Can you explain why (or if) (from the LC perspective or from any of your individual perspectives) this would be considered a wrong way for Christians to meet on a Lord's day, or to break bread with one another?

Thanks...trying to understand the mindset...

Where I live there are multiple churches, assemblies, congregations etc. They vary from Baptist, Community, Prebyterian, etc. On any given Sunday I could walk into an assembly and partake of the table. The matter of the table to me is about Jesus as our Christ. If something other than Christ becomes primary to taking the table, that something is horribly divisive.

Terry

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

A quick question from the Baptist bleacher seat...from my perspective, I assemble at a "local" church in my community...one of say, 8-10 meeting places. The "local" assemblies meeting places happen to have "Baptist," "Church of Christ," "Community Church," "Foursquare Church," and a few other titles on their signs. However, I know that I could walk into any one of them on any given Sunday and break bread with these fellow believers. Likewise, if other believers show up to break bread in our fellowship, no one is withholding the bread. So, where does the assumption come that we (who attend a fellowship with a sign on the lawn) are divisive or are insisting that "we are the one genuine church" in the neighborhood. That really just isn't happening...at least not in my small community. So, could it be the group that is doing that kind of "insisting" is the one who is divisive?

Can you explain why (or if) (from the LC perspective or from any of your individual perspectives) this would be considered a wrong way for Christians to meet on a Lord's day, or to break bread with one another?

The practical expression of the church should not be equated with one's proper way to meet. When I read Grace's experience, I sense the practical expression of the church. That is receiving one another not according to a particular denomination, but according to Christ. I share a similar experience to Grace. There is no Church in ____ where I live, but there are baptist, lutheran, presbyterian, community assemblies. I've met with several of them and as Grace expereinced, I too have experienced not one has withheld the table to visitors. To practically express the church, one needs to receive and not insist.
When I hear the arguement of "shaking hands across the fence", my question is where is there a fence in the Body of Christ. Fences simply don't exist, but in man's labeling of believers. It hinders receiving our fellow heirs.
It's not about where we worship God, but worship in spirit and truthfulness.

Terry

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

[font=Verdana]

My assertion in this argument is not that the local ground teaching is true or false, but rather that it is not viable. It is one of the boasts and selling points of the teaching that it produces a "practical expression" of Christ’s Body for the world to see. My assertion is that it can only hope to do that by insisting on assumptions which are arbitrary and thus ultimately sure to cause contention and eventually division.

Igzy, I do believe it's viable but unlikely. It would require believers alike to set aside their ministrial preferences and pride.
Theoretically there can be the practical expression of the church, but in order for it to happen there cannot be on emphasis on the ground of locality teaching. As church history has shown, with each doctrinal teaching, division is a symptom that follows.

When I read Witness Lee's The Practical Expression of the Church, I see something remarkable. For this vision to become reality, there needs to be application. One quote in particular that struck me was:

"We must know how to deal with these two kinds of believers-this is the fellowship. We must know how to fellowship with the saints in the different denominations including the Roman Catholic Church, and we must know even more how to fellowship with the believers who are standing on the proper ground to fight the battle for the Lord's kingdom." Page 120

Where is this kind of fellowship I am sad due to the fact whether you're in the denominations or in the local churches, fellowship is related to the organizational ministry your church receives. The type of fellowship I see from the above quote is organism in nature as we are all members of the Body. A type of fellowship that rises above restrivtive walls that ministries and assemblies tend to create.

Terry

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Theoretically there can be the practical expression of the church, but in order for it to happen there cannot be on emphasis on the ground of locality teaching. As church history has shown, with each doctrinal teaching, division is a symptom that follows.

What is "a practical expression of the church"?

I ask the question because it seems that there is very little in scripture that is concretely about "church" per se, but a whole lot about how the believers that constitute the church should live, act, behave, etc. Further, is there anything in scripture that defines what is required for there to be "a church"?

Part of the reason that I ask is that if there is an assembly of believers, what is it that makes one assembly "not church" and another assembly "church"? Does being like the LC make them church and others not church? Or is it the RCC way? Or the way that you suggest? What makes one church and the other not church?

If they are church, then they are a practical expression of the church. To say that they are church (or "a church") but are not a practical expression of the church means what? That they are church but are impractical? This is contrary to the laws of non-contradiction. If they are a church, then they are a practical expression of the church. You may try to define them as not an ideal expression. But if they are not a practical expression of the church, then they are not a church.

The very question "who is a practical expression of the church," besides being a contradiction, is itself sectarian because is presumes to dismiss those who do not meet your definition of "practical expression." But they are all a practical expression. Just as were the various churches mentioned in the New Testament. They were not alike in many ways. Of the 7 written to in Revelation, they had extreme differences. But they were all churches, therefore all practical expressions.

So it is absolutely irrelevant that some church has an emphasis on baptism by immersion, another on miraculous gifts, and yet another on the presbytery. If they are church, then they are practical expressions of the church.

[TLFisher]

This following word is not mine, but from a fellow believer,

To talk about "local church"

According to Brother Nee, "Rethinking the work" principle, from God's perspective, only one local church in various places. Established according to the local church, not the mouth that he is, nor is it registered with the government is not recognized do not know that "local position" principle. From God's perspective, the local church is established according to the Saints as long as that place, that place there is the local church. Christians all in one place, in that local church. Whether he know this principle, regardless of his on the non-implementation of this principle, in the eyes of God, his church in that place; as long as he still live in the ground, where he was part of his local church. All had at that place "their gathering," the saints, and not because the "local church" does not belong to the establishment of local churches.

Having said that, we can apply, in Taipei, Taiwan belong to the local Christian church. Taipei has many local churches, "their gathering": There are Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church gatherings of Taipei, Mandarin Chapel, Ling Liang Church ... there are many famous anonymous groups; in God's eyes, they all belong to the Taipei District Church. So, when we started the middle of the so-called local churches, in principle it can be said that the establishment of local churches, can only say that there is a group to see "local position" lessons, start "their gathering." To put it bluntly, why should the "local position" contention? Because whether you agree not recognize "local position" of the lesson, you are accepted by God. So, Brother Lee passed away before the fishes with the worker said, "You go where the position is not about my co-workers." Will also say, not in the basic beliefs, the truth and the practice of criticizing others.

"If the foot says, I am not a hand, so I do not belong to the body, it can not therefore not part of the body and if the ear says, I am not the eye, it does not belong to the body, it can not therefore not part of the body." (I Corinthians twelve 15 to 16)

We compared the above verses the following sentences.

If someone says you are not "local church" and therefore not part of the body, you can not therefore not part of the body. If you say, I'm not "local church" and therefore not part of the body, you can not therefore not part of the body.

So do not say that others, even you yourself said you do not belong to the body, you can not therefore not part of the body.

"Not to give up our own together, as if some people used the same, down to encourage one another; both saw the day approaching, so much the more." (To ten 25)

So we can not go start another "local Church", because all of them at the local church. Therefore, we can find a group of people who are willing to seek the truth together with "their gathering," perhaps we are not "local Church" party, but we still belong to the local church, the body belongs to, or accepted by God.

Back to topic

God does not care whether the local church failed to even God has failed to allow the local church congregation. You can not see in the Bible that God will restore to the church where the winning condition. So, if someone wants to build a victory local church, that he is not God in the pursuit of a goal set. But, but you can have a group of believers who are willing to become a victorious start with "their gathering", and then hope that victory was put together, this is definitely pleasing to God.

God's goal is to get the winner. If your church is a winner, you go to another church or a winner. Otherwise, even with the victorious church, and you just name only, in which, you will not go along with the victorious; if so, to become "one will win, you and I go to heaven," teaching.

Since God does not care where you meet God, how you will care about where the breaking of bread (the first few posts in the home can be added); God is not only concerned about your winner.

Enoch is the first one to mention the people who were raised to complete the will of God is man. He was the first winner, but in the end he did what? He is ㄧ a walk with God by, meet the heart of God and taught his children were so. In addition, God does not care that he did anything on the ground. Today, God only care about you in the spirit with him, colleagues, fellow workers, the same music, same worries, with God, appreciate him, love him; These are "living in the spirit of" purpose. If so, you are God's winner. To put it bluntly, Brother Nee for the Lord's recovery to restore what is simple and clear, not to restore a lot of interpretation, nor is it to restore the life of the church do this and that is to simply put people back to the before God to do with God, but also to teach children to live in God, let God satisfied.

Today, some groups will talk with a bunch of Farfetched, is to use "split body" bullying tactics scare you so that you obediently continue to be subject to his hijack. Do not care about people's intimidation, to care and you are not a recognized winner of the implementation of the will of God, but also to help others become the winner. It is important to learn to promise to help children to become winner, so you are not afraid of how your child's future.

[OBW]

Terry,

That was virtually impossible to understand. If you understand it, can you edit it into reasonable English?

[UntoHim]

Terry, I assume the original is in Taiwanese or Mandarin. Could you please point us to the original? Maybe somebody can find a better translation machine to put this through. Except for the fact that we know the context, this is virtually unintelligible. It is obviously written by somebody who is/was affiliated with the Local Church in Taiwan.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

To talk about "local church"

According to Brother Nee, "Rethinking the work" principle, from God's perspective, only one local church in various places. Established according to the local church, not the mouth that he is, nor is it registered with the government is not recognized do not know that "local position" principle. From God's perspective, the local church is established according to the Saints as long as that place, that place there is the local church. Christians all in one place, in that local church. Whether he know this principle, regardless of his on the non-implementation of this principle, in the eyes of God, his church in that place; as long as he still live in the ground, where he was part of his local church. All had at that place "their gathering," the saints, and not because the "local church" does not belong to the establishment of local churches.

Having said that, we can apply, in Taipei, Taiwan belong to the local Christian church. Taipei has many local churches, "their gathering": There are Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church gatherings of Taipei, Mandarin Chapel, Ling Liang Church ... there are many famous anonymous groups; in God's eyes, they all belong to the Taipei District Church. So, when we started the middle of the so-called local churches, in principle it can be said that the establishment of local churches, can only say that there is a group to see "local position" lessons, start "their gathering." To put it bluntly, why should the "local position" contention? Because whether you agree not recognize "local position" of the lesson, you are accepted by God. So, Brother Lee passed away before the fishes with the worker said, "You go where the position is not about my co-workers." Will also say, not in the basic beliefs, the truth and the practice of criticizing others.

As I understand from the writer, what we North Americans were ingrained with concerning WN's ministry is not so. Probably the best mirror to WN's ministry is to listen to Stephen Kaung. Best to disregard concepts taught regarding "the ground". As I understood from the first paragraph, the ground is where you live. It's not referencing a specific assembly receiving a specific ministry.
Getting to the second paragraph as I understand, suppose the city you live in, there are many churches/assemblies. All are local churches. Read the excerpt from the above quote:

"Taipei has many local churches, "their gathering": There are Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church gatherings of Taipei, Mandarin Chapel, Ling Liang Church ... there are many famous anonymous groups; in God's eyes, they all belong to the Taipei District Church."

What the writer termed as "local position", I would define as "the ground" or in Exclusive Brethren terminology, "the one place". As the writer had asked, why should this teaching issue in contention? As the writer goes on to say,
"whether you agree not recognize "local position" of the lesson, you are accepted by God". This refers to Romans 15:7 (Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

"If the foot says, I am not a hand, so I do not belong to the body, it can not therefore not part of the body and if the ear says, I am not the eye, it does not belong to the body, it can not therefore not part of the body." (I Corinthians twelve 15 to 16)

We compared the above verses the following sentences.

If someone says you are not "local church" and therefore not part of the body, you can not therefore not part of the body. If you say, I'm not "local church" and therefore not part of the body, you can not therefore not part of the body.

So do not say that others, even you yourself said you do not belong to the body, you can not therefore not part of the body.

"Not to give up our own together, as if some people used the same, down to encourage one another; both saw the day approaching, so much the more." (To ten 25)

So we can not go start another "local Church", because all of them at the local church. Therefore, we can find a group of people who are willing to seek the truth together with "their gathering," perhaps we are not "local Church" party, but we still belong to the local church, the body belongs to, or accepted by God.

Many of us can identify with this portion from the email. How many times in the so-called recovery has a brother or sister been treated as if they're not part of the Body via disfellowship, quarantine (aka excommunication)? Many times not because of a gross sin, but simply by being politically incorrect. The Recovery as we know is very Politically Correct oriented. If you don't "lineup", this is where 1 Corinthians 12 becomes a constant point of reference.

Now to the last paragraph from the above quote. As I understand from the writer, saints can always gather together. Just because they may not meet as the Local Church, they are still part of the local church.