The Not-So Practical Expression of the Church

[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...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

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.

Are we free to choose among assemblies (all other things being "equal") according to personal preference?

I think is a key sticking point. Of course, I would agree that we can't just meet anywhere we like IF the Lord has somewhere particular He desires me to meet, even if it is against my preference.

However, are we certain - in a context where there are numerous free groups or others that aren't in division to choose from - that meeting based on our personal preferences is contrary to God's will?

This issue is a similar discussion to whether God permits freedom to use rock-bands or freedom in how we preach the gospel to wide varieties of people.

While slightly off-point, below is something I had written previously in a conversation with someone about the use of rock-music to reach young people, both as a gospel tool as well as a practice in the regular assembly. I think it bears on this question concerning the liberty we may or may not have in pursuing "preferences" - be it in choice of assembly, in practices of the assembly, or in preaching the gospel:

Christ Himself, Paul and the other apostles spoke much about and often confronted the need for freedom in the gospel. The point, of course, is not "freedom for freedom sake," but rather should have one end, to bring the all-inclusive Christ to others! At the end of the day, people should be not be focused on "methods," but rather their First Love, Christ. However, Christ is so expansive and he himself made himself all things to all men, that He might reach people where they were at. Whereever Christ, or Paul, went they could build bridges to their hearers.

The open invitation of the gospel brought the clash of Jewish and Gentile customs and lifestyles. As Christ became "the end of the law for righteousness," Old Testament ceremonial laws had to be approached in a way that now clarified the grace and freedom we enjoy in the gospel (Colossians 2:13-3:2). As Paul and others expanded the reach of the gospel to other peoples, the ways of approaching people changed.
On one hand, in the one new man, there is no Jew and there is no Greek. (Col. 3:11). There is only Christ who is all in all. The Lord is Lord of all, with abounding riches for all who call on Him (Rom 10:12). On the other hand, when preaching the gospel, Paul became "all things to all men" in order to reach unbelievers with the gospel of Christ. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 9. He became a Jew to reach the Jews. He lived under the law to reach those who lived under the law. He became weak to reach the weak.Consider Paul at Athens beginning a philosophical discussion using their heathen poets. (Acts 17). Consider Paul’s reasoning for circumcising Timothy (Acts 16:3)) but refusing to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3-5).

Yes, it is true that gospel is just “just Christ Himself” and our various methods or preferences could get in the way of that. But we should not say that as a slogan "We must preach Christ alone" in retort to those who would use "methods" or "culture" to reach people. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul was being extremely practical, not simply speaking "high truths." When he said he became all things to all men, it was a practical statement. He compares preaching the gospel to the training of an athlete. His "methods" were so that his preaching wasn't mere "shadowboxing." The phrase, "the gospel is just Christ Himself" is a true one, but if we are not reaching people, we might be "shadowboxing." What we think is "just Christ" may actually be our own unexamined practices, habits or culture.

Paul explicitly addresses this freedom in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22: 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. …21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
and in Galatians 5:1: It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery
Note that it doesn't just say "Christ has set us free." That phrase would mean simply we are free from sin. Rather, this verse doesn't just tell us what we are free from, but also what we were freed for: namely, for freedom. Of course, this is not a freedom to do whatever we wish. Indeed, we are slaves of Christ. But, in order for the multifarious wisdom of God (which far exceeds our human-contrived methods) may be made known through the church, we must realize that we are free from our traditions, our cultural ways of doing things - to pursue and to preach Christ however He might lead us.
And again, the purpose is always to lead others to Christ. The gospel itself should never be perverted simply for "success"- but the message of the gospel far exceeds the boundaries of any one method.

The way that Jesus dealt with the woman at the well (John 4) was out of the norm and in the end he brought the conversation and focus back to the central foundation – Christ Jesus reminded the disciples (John 4:34-35) to keep their eyes open and look around to see the fields ripe for harvest. We need to see that we’re free to make changes in anything to which God’s Word doesn’t speak directly. So, for example, we can change musical instruments used in worship, or the times of worship, or the technologies we use. The bottom line still needs to help us to be better able to share the Word with more clarity with more people so that in the end they can clearly see Christ.

In conclusion: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love" (Galatians 5:13).

If our object is Christ, and to serve one another in love, do not restrict one another freedom to fulfill this command unconstrained by our limitations of traditions or methods.

Is there a parallel to the "choice of assembly" question?

Peter

[OBW]

I like Igzy’s basic discussion and also YP’s addition of the question about what is the assembly.

Taking Igzy’s approach of practicality, we might even take the issue to an even greater extreme. What if there are so many Christians in an city that even the idea of one controlling eldership is absurd. But assembly by assembly the faithful meet together on a regular basis. They may develop differences in understanding of side issues over time, and my also develop differing outward practices. But they continue to be fully open to each other and to the believers within each other group. If any happen to be at the meeting of one of the other groups when the Lord’s Table was observed, they are fully welcome. In fact, they are treated in all respects as if they are a regular part of the group even when they are otherwise strangers only there for a visit.

In short, does having a preference in who you regularly meet with create a problem if there is practically no barrier between the groups?

If the answer is “no,” then what must be added in the separation of these groups to make their separate existence “sectarian” (in an un-scriptural sense)? Does more regular fellowship with other groups with similar preferences make them sectarian relative to the groups with which fellowship is more sporadic? Does the amount of fellowship with any other particular group in and of itself create a situation of sectarianism?

Now. Let’s go the last step. If an affiliation of assemblies of like minds decides to have some of their leaders join in a process of doing the “heavy lifting” of studying scripture and providing more consistent direction for the group (such as through a seminary or even a (gasp) headquarters) are they now sectarian if their stance remains open to all believers?

I know what I think about these questions.

So in terms that the LC understands, is a denomination by definition sectarian (in an unscriptural way), or is it so only if it willfully excludes other believers or insists on more than the common elements of faith for inclusion in their group?

If the answer is the latter, then I submit that my observation is that the LC is clearly sectarian and some denominations are not.

So returning to the original question, I think YP is more correct. An assembly is an assembly. There is nothing sacred about city boundaries so that a discussion about multiple groups in an area is irrelevant as a point of contention. The issue is not separate assemblies. It is not even names on a sign outside the assembly. It is the inclusion or exclusion of any particular Christian that walks through their doors because of something outside of the basics of the faith or heresy.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

So in terms that the LC understands, is a denomination by definition sectarian (in an unscriptural way), or is it so only if it willfully excludes other believers or insists on more than the common elements of faith for inclusion in their group?

If the answer is the latter, then I submit that my observation is that the LC is clearly sectarian and some denominations are not.

Hold on!

I'm asserting that being sectarian is all about practicality not theory.

Thus, groups can be more or less sectarian and it's not a question of some kind of either/or fallacy. Moreover, all the members of those groups are part of the one unique assembly in that place, which is not under any kind of an earthly universal coordinated administration.

An assembly with some congregations meeting with the dreaded works of the Nicolaitans is still one of the Lord's own assemblies. The majority of the various meetings of believers in town might hold to those teachings and works and it might work as a strong frustration to the Lord's practical building in that place. This is not good and should not be celebrated or condoned. Moreover, to the extent that others would require that I submit to the authority of their particular hierarchies, well, that's a practical problem, isn't it? People become sectarian by insisting upon such things.

All I'm suggesting is that it is theoretically possible for believers who are nominally associated with various denominations to still participate in the practical manifestation of the assembly which is God's own intent and purpose. The groups, the denominations, do not really exist. All that really exists are all the believers and the problems that the enemy continually raises to prevent God's glory from being shown forth in the oneness.

In the Local Church, we were all taught that the only way to go on was to abandon all the denominations and only meet as "the local church." Well, without saying the denominations are healthy or preferable or even acceptable, they really aren't the issue, either. We need to stop trying to put God in our kind of a box. We need to accept that Christ may do some building within the meetings of the denominations. In fact, I would testify that at least I have seen some of this. God's ultimate goal is thwarted at some point because the new wine always bursts the old wineskins but, here's the point to consider: how does the wineskin remain forever new? It can only be so if it is Christ Himself alone.

THAT is my point. If we meet in Christ and fellowship in Christ and magnify Christ ONLY, the other sectarian matters become poor historical anomalies and not a big deal to the Lord.

The LC uses the most dire terms to describe the denominations but although there's perhaps some ground to go off about Mystery Babylon the Great as the Mother of all the Harlots of the Earth, someone please find me the denunciation of all "her daughters" in the Bible. I'm having trouble finding that for some reason and, to be blunt, "harlotry" and "adultery" really aren't the same thing at all. In fact, "taking another name" is kind of by definition NOT the role of the harlot.

Did everyone just fail to perceive this confusion of terms in the zeal of putting down the sectarian believers?

[OBW]

YP,

I think we’re talking past each other again. I understand what you are saying.

But I was going back to Igzy’s original postulate that began with the assumption that the LC’s doctrine of “one church in one city” is viable. Then if working it out results that one group is that one and another is not defeats the very doctrine. That effectively refutes the presumption that it is true.


My postulates are more from the angle of, assuming it is true in some way other than as the LC defines it:

1. How do you define the church for purposes of that doctrine?
2. What demarcations among assemblies are acceptable?
3. What demarcations among assemblies are not acceptable?

While you may not have said it this directly, I understand you to say that the “ground of unity” should be more a statement of fact than a line of demarcation. I think that my examples are consistent with the notion that we are all one. I just took it from the arena of single assemblies in an almost first century kind of context into the 21st century where there are many assemblies and they are actually different in some aspects from one another, even within the same “denomination.”

As for my questions above, my answers, in brief, are:

1. That for purposes of this doctrine, the church is universal and is expressed in assemblies that, while not homogenous, are actually one with each other because they realize their oneness is in Christ.
2. Differences that are not in the nature of excluding others are acceptable.
3. Differences that are an exclusion of participants in another group are not acceptable.

I have omitted issues relating to determinations of true heresy, and church discipline. These are viable exclusions even if there really is only one actual assembly in any particular city.

As to the notion of “quarantine” that is something other than excommunication, I wonder if this is not more accurately in the realm of refusing certain ones to speak without necessarily excluding their participation. In any case, I’m not sure that however such a thing is practiced it would prove or disprove the LC’s ground doctrine.

I think that the problem with the teaching of oneness is in its ramifications. If it is about agreeing on all points, then it is a fallacy that cannot actually be practiced since the ones claiming to be “it” violate their own teaching. But if it is a general openness to, and oneness with, all Christians for the very reason that they are Christians, then it is very real truth that is in operation in the midst of differences of opinion and ways of practice.

I may not be saying exactly what you are, or approaching the discussion in the same manner, but I think we are saying roughly the same thing.

Igzy has postulated that the LC’s “ground” teaching is a circular fallacy if it is about unifying all believers in all assemblies within a single city under one eldership and therefore one primary set of teachings and practices. You appear to agree, but ask “what is the church?” I like that question and have included the question in my hypotheticals. But until I reread Igzy’s post, my first question was “why do we even assume that there is anything doctrinal about ground relative to the church?” The answer is because Igzy said we would assume it to be so.

I think that Igzy has started by taking the ground of the church as taught, and the church as understood by the LC and shown that as a line of demarcation, the doctrine of the ground cannot operate. Since that is how it is actually carried out, the doctrine defeats itself, although its followers cannot see that. While I had trouble sticking with his line of reasoning (mostly because I kept forgetting that he was simply assuming the LC doctrines as correct) I ultimately see what he is saying.

I like your discussion beginning with “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.” It really is not about somehow gathering all believers in an area into one place (a large football stadium??) to meet together. It is about meeting with believers, whoever they are, and not being exclusive or sectarian. I’m not even sure if mostly meeting with certain ones because of preference is an issue unless it is coupled with an exclusion of those with different preferences.

So I start by accepting that Igzy’s proposition appears sound and therefore shoots the LC’s “one church one city” doctrine, as practiced, stone cold dead. So where do we go from there? I say we look closer at what is oneness and what is unity. I think you have already done this at some level.

While Paul gave the Corinthians a long talk (almost 4 chapters) about aligning behind various teachers, was the issue that some preferred certain a teacher over others or was it that there began to be an atmosphere of competition and rivalry because of those preferences? I think it was the latter.

I receive spiritual help from a man who is part of a group that believes salvation is not certain or permanent. He is welcome at my assembly, even to speak. I am welcome at his and would be welcome to speak if I were so inclined. But as a regular matter, I prefer not to need to deal on a regular basis with the disagreement about the security of salvation and mostly meet with others who think similarly. Are we sectarian for this? Has oneness been broken?

Our assembly has regularly prayed for all others in the area. We do not pray that they will see our way. We pray that God will be worshipped. That the gospel will go out. That the believers will grow. I do not know how many other assemblies practice this kind of thing on occasion. But even if not officially done, I believe that for many, the attitude of unity exists even where such outward displays do not occur.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

YP,

I think we’re talking past each other again. I understand what you are saying.

...
I think that the problem with the teaching of oneness is in its ramifications. If it is about agreeing on all points, then it is a fallacy that cannot actually be practiced since the ones claiming to be “it” violate their own teaching. But if it is a general openness to, and oneness with, all Christians for the very reason that they are Christians, then it is very real truth that is in operation in the midst of differences of opinion and ways of practice.

I may not be saying exactly what you are, or approaching the discussion in the same manner, but I think we are saying roughly the same thing.

OK yes.

I follow now.

The Local Church version of their kind of Doctrine of Locality is inherently divisive and therefore self-defeating and consequently perfectly impractical.

Basically the stand is that they are one with everyone else so long as everyone else becomes one with them.

What a mockery Satan has made out of what is supposed to be about building the Body...

[Shawn]

hi All,

To me the practice of the local church meeting in one city only becomes real when the distinctions of each group, drop by drop, lose their significance. As I am meeting in a "local church" already, I will qualify this to include the distinctions of my own fellowship, till something that expresses the oneness of the believers is manifest for all to see.

I appreciate Only by Grace's practice within his smaller city, but would suggest that while it is commendandable to gather together, to withdraw back into each group shows the reality of the oneness has not yet been manifest. This I see as handshaking over the fence as opposed to a true embracing of each other as a testimony of the church.

I believe that the New Testament picture of how a local church for each city is possible to see "recovered," but to go to a city, set up a table and boldly declare "we have taken the ground" is true only in that the ground of another denomination has actually taken place.

However a fellowship can begin in a city where a vision of "taking the ground" may be developed with other brothers and sisters within that community that may start in gatherings as Only by Grace had mentioned and as this vision is confirmed by the Spirit, the fences may start to diminish. Gatherings of home meetings may begin to become more practical in neighborhoods, rather than based on which group you belong to. The distinctions that made each group different from each other will start to become less important and finally, a coordination free of any denominational restrictions can begin to occurr that can begin to impact the community in gospel outreach as well as works consistent with a compassionate, Christ filled church.

Am I dreaming? Is this something that had a wonderful beginning in Acts, but is impossible to realize today? I believe the desire for this is in every believers heart, as seen in Only by Graces post that can be sought after and prayed for in each city. Will it look like my "local church?" No, I don't think so, but if this vision is practiced, something will be manifest that even the unbelievers will have to acknowledge that a work of God has been done in this city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Igzy has postulated that the LC’s “ground” teaching is a circular fallacy if it is about unifying all believers in all assemblies within a single city under one eldership and therefore one primary set of teachings and practices. You appear to agree, but ask “what is the church?” I like that question and have included the question in my hypotheticals. But until I reread Igzy’s post, my first question was “why do we even assume that there is anything doctrinal about ground relative to the church?” The answer is because Igzy said we would assume it to be so.

I think that Igzy has started by taking the ground of the church as taught, and the church as understood by the LC and shown that as a line of demarcation, the doctrine of the ground cannot operate. Since that is how it is actually carried out, the doctrine defeats itself, although its followers cannot see that. While I had trouble sticking with his line of reasoning (mostly because I kept forgetting that he was simply assuming the LC doctrines as correct) I ultimately see what he is saying.

Mike,

Yes, this is what I was getting at, more or less. That is, preceding from the assumption that the LC practice of locality is viable, one can prove it is not viable.

It's not viable because depends on the required acceptance of an arbitrary set of elders as being indeed those whom God has set over the whole city. Since there is no way to prove with any degree of certainty that these elders actually have the position they claim, their assumed authority is fairly open to question and objection. Since these (LC) elders would never consider any objection legitimate, they are in fact imposing a unreasonable and indefensible requirement on the Christians in the city, and thus causing division. The model is self-defeating.

This glaring flaw in the doctrine has not been so evident because the LC has never had much competition from other groups in the same city claiming to be the church in the city. But that has begun to change. Now there are several cities which host more that one group claiming to be the city-church there. Which one is legit and how does one know? The LC model cannot answer this question, because it can't do the heavy-lifting real world problems require. When competing groups have appeared they have simply been brushed aside. The LC attitude has been "we thought of this first so we're the real thing" or "we follow the true apostle or "we have the best doctrines." These are decidedly unscriptural evidences of legitimacy which you would expect from a movement or denomination, not a legitimate church. The LC model has really only ever been a means to "we're-it-your-not" oneupmanship for churches in their movement, not a model for actually addressing all the problems which a genuine city church, if it could exist, would address.

Their model does not work because it is fundamentally flawed. But that doesn't mean you could not have a city-church. It just mean you have to give others the freedom to set up other "city-churches" in the same city. As soon as you insist on a particular leadership, you are imposing an arbitrary and unreasonable requirement on others.

[Hope]

Dear brothers and sisters,

Whenever I read a series of posts that addresses the so called ground of locality doctrine, I realize what a variety of understandings existed and what the evolution of the practice became and how far the present doctrine is from the original understanding. When the so called "church life" began in the 60s there was no such thing as a taking the ground meeting. The original thought behind the phrase "taking the ground" or "standing on the ground" was like a declaration that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is my personal savior. It was a declaration that all believers are one in Christ, and there is only one Body of Christ both universally and locally.

I can remember George Whitington in Denton along about 1967 explaining to a guest that the stand of the church was not "us four and no more." He explained that all the genuine believers in Denton comprised the "church in Denton." The basis for their gathering was not for a special doctrine or practice ie "security of the believer," or "speaking in tongue," etc but that all believers are one and they desired to express the oneness in a local practical way.

Eventually, the most serious development of the deviations wasthe phrase coming to mean the establishment of an LSM franchise. This turned everything upside down. This growing serious divisiveness became worse over time. Other things were going on which tended to mute the rising roar of protest in my spirit and in my mind. On several occasions over time, I heard from the Lord, my spirit and reason that we were drifting, drifting drifting and finally arrived at full fledged division by 1984. I had crises of conscience in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984,1986 and finally in 1989 I could go on no move and left.

I am so grateful to the Lord for moving me from Texas. Sheryl, my wife, told me after the move that my personality had changed during the 80s and a positive, optimistic happy person had become depressed and gloomy. She said she was worried for my mental health. The perversion of the desire to practice oneness with all believers was a big contributing factor to the inner turmoil. I believe the same could be said for many of the posters on this forum. Thus whenever "the ground of locality" comes up stand back for there is going to be plenty of action.

In Christ Jesus, there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LC model has really only ever been a means to "we're-it-your-not" oneupmanship for churches in their movement, not a model for actually addressing all the problems which a genuine city church, if it could exist, would address.

I would only suggest that the genuine "city church" in fact does exist, that it is not this group or that group but indeed all the people in all the groups, that it is flawed and troubled and full of many things that it should not have but that it exists nonetheless and our goal should simply be to join the Lord in His labors therein without worrying at all about what some other group might or might not be doing so correctly.

[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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

I think this is as good an answer as any to Only By Grace's question. Where do we see the "real" assembly of the called-out ones? Answer: where the saints receive one another. In the local churches where I met, we were strongly cautioned against meeting with "divisive" and "degraded" christian denominations. Some LC saints told me how for many years they had only met with the LSM-affiliated local churches. There was the unstated assumption that to meet with other groups of christians would necessitate leaving the "ground" of oneness and thus the "blessing" of God which follows.

In hindsight, I see something different. We local churchers would receive christians, and made a big point about that, but it was only to receive them on our ground. In other words, we are inclusive, we will meet with you, but only if you come to our meetings and partake after our fashion. In a nutshell, we will allow you to meet with us, but we will use this meeting as a basis to recruit you into what we deem to be the proper assembly life.

I think the 'scattered' groupings in each geographic area and population cluster can fall into the same thinking. Each group will allow others to enter the Lord's Table and break the bread and share the wine; they receive others as brethren, but are not likely to reciprocate as they are doing it the "preferred" way and we don't want to change. Usually the "right" way is dressed up with a few Bible verses so it seems like God's ordination and not man's preferences.

But it is better than the LSM model, because at least the believers CAN go to the different assemblings and fellowship. With the LSM model, the "Table of Oneness" and the "Ground of Oneness" seem to by definition exclude all the other "Tables" and "Grounds" out there. At one time it seemed to me that a stand for the "oneness" was preferred to the "divisions" in each city; now it seems more perniciously divisive, both because of the logical inconsistencies Igzy mentioned, and also because of the poisonous fruit now openly displayed. You don't see the Baptists and Presbyterians suing each other for the right to be the "Church" in some area.

What irony! We laud the departure from the monolithic RCC system 500 years ago as a rescue from God, then we endeavor to set up our own (Well, as long as I am in charge, it's good, right?).

OBG, I apologize that something so simple (believe into Jesus and receive one another) could get so horribly complicated and convoluted and full of contingencies. The fact that an "outsider" is willing to consider fellowship on an "LC" forum is a great blessing to us. Please be patient as we unravel and detoxify ourselves!

[Only by Grace]

Originally Posted by aron

I think this is as good an answer as any to Only By Grace's question. Where do we see the "real" assembly of the called-out ones? Answer: where the saints receive one another. In the local churches where I met, we were strongly cautioned against meeting with "divisive" and "degraded" christian denominations.....
OBG, I apologize that something so simple (believe into Jesus and receive one another) could get so horribly complicated and convoluted and full of contingencies. The fact that an "outsider" is willing to consider fellowship on an "LC" forum is a great blessing to us. Please be patient as we unravel and detoxify ourselves!

What a kind post...and a thoughtful apology, which I accept, though I never have personally felt an affront. But, I think I understand where you're coming from. And, thank you, aron, for receiving this outsider into your forum fellowship. Until I had friends in the LC, I'd never really heard so much talk about "receiving" one another. I have always felt "received" by other Christians. (Possibly another discussion!).

I had a post all ready and sat on it all week...trying to explain a perspective that you all kind of worked through without me. I guess my point was this: If a believer (or a group of believers) aren't guilty of thinking, believing, or speaking "I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos," then maybe the admonishment in 1 Corinthians isn't really directed at those who don't have that issue. My guess is that God is much more concerned about the condition of the hearts of those inside the building than the sign on the lawn. When Paul spoke to the believers who were saying they were of Paul, Apollos or Cephus, this was just one of many, many things that Paul was scolding and warning the Corinthians about. Could it be that there has been just too much zealous correction of perceived division? Could a little exhortation towards oneness suffice and then move on, waiting for God to convict those whom He will (and to whom the exhortation truly applies) by His Spirit, rather than by a forced unity?

So…given that no heresy is being taught in specific denominations, can’t the sign on the lawn serve more as reference point to nonessential preference -- either location, the order of service, the type of music, and of how often you might take communion per month -- rather than a sign of division? Some say division, I say preference. Real division to me is whether or not the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, as taught in scripture, has been defiled in some manner. In that case, division is a must! "Receiving" in "Christian fellowship" is not an option. Otherwise, let true believers be free to worship and gather in His name with those whom they want to gather. Receive one another whether by embracing or shaking hands over the fence…and then get down to the REAL business…which is not necessarily believers in uniformity singing Kum-ba-yah, but rather, believers from all places preaching salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ and growing up in the Lord so that we can be salt and light! Time is short. Let's love our brothers and sisters, let's love those who aren't yet our brothers and sisters. And let's join God in His work by getting that gospel out there!

I keep reading, “God isn’t happy with division.” (meaning, denominations?) Well, maybe not. But there are a multitude of other things, very serious things, that God isn’t happy about…let’s keep this one in its proper place in the big scheme of things – a parenthetical to the real subject of God’s purpose: to bring lost souls into the knowledge that Jesus saves, and to disciple new believers so that they can grow up in that knowledge and so that we can all minister to one another with the love of Christ Jesus.

Well, I just read my post and it sounds a little preachy, which was not intended. It's just my perspective is one that has never been focused on "division" or "oneness," but rather just bringing people to Jesus and helping them grow up in Him. I'll stop now. Forgive my long-windedness!

And aron, again, thank you for the sweet, reflective tone of your post. My heart is blessed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

Could a little exhortation towards oneness suffice and then move on, waiting for God to convict those whom He will (and to whom the exhortation truly applies) by His Spirit, rather than by a forced unity?

That is as succinctly and clearly stated as anything that I have seen on this forum. I agree; and thanks for your perspective.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

That is as succinctly and clearly stated as anything that I have seen on this forum. I agree; and thanks for your perspective.

I also agree.

[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

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

AMEN!

TERRY That's a fact! We are One in the Spirit! We are One in the Lord!

Don Jr.