The Not-So Practical Expression of the Church

[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.

[Shawn]

In every fellowship regardless of its size or affiliation there are a few mature ones who stand out, who have a good apprehension of the word and who have led proper lives as christians. You know brothers whom you feel you can confide in and whose wisdom in answering tough questions with practical, yet spiritual answers have been a help to you as you make tough decisions in your life. You can find the rest of the qualifications in Timothy and Titus.

These are elders.

There is not an arbitrary light that shines on them from the heavenlies that singles them out by God to be appointed as Elders; they simply have, whats the word from the other forum, uhh, let me remember, oh yes, Gravitas!

I'm sorry to add a little humor to how a previous poster considered the choosing of elders, but it helps to make my point; that Elders have walked the walk and will be so recognized by fellow members of their fellowship.

If there is a need to be apointed by apostles, the apostle will look for ones who have a position in the church of respect of others as well as some of the elements as described above. I do not see how it can be more simple than that.

Shawn

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Shawn

In every fellowship regardless of its size or affiliation there are a few mature ones who stand out, who have a good apprehension of the word and who have led proper lives as christians. You know brothers whom you feel you can confide in and whose wisdom in answering tough questions with practical, yet spiritual answers have been a help to you as you make tough decisions in your life. You can find the rest of the qualifications in Timothy and Titus.

These are elders.

There is not an arbitrary light that shines on them from the heavenlies that singles them out by God to be appointed as Elders; they simply have, whats the word from the other forum, uhh, let me remember, oh yes, Gravitas!

I'm sorry to add a little humor to how a previous poster considered the choosing of elders, but it helps to make my point; that Elders have walked the walk and will be so recognized by fellow members of their fellowship.

If there is a need to be apointed by apostles, the apostle will look for ones who have a position in the church of respect of others as well as some of the elements as described above. I do not see how it can be more simple than that.

Shawn

Hi Shawn,

You explanation really boils down to validation by personal assessment of qualifications. But it doesn't at all address what happens when there is disagreement on the assessments. Right, one group can follow one set leaders and another can follow the other set of leaders, but the LC model doesn't allow for this.

So your point still doesn't answer the question of how can you know which set of elders are in fact the ones over the whole city, or how you can know for sure who the apostle is.

Take Toronto, or Columbus, or any of these contested cities. Who are the real elders? And for that matter who is the real apostle now, Titus or the BBs? These are questions which cannot be answered definitively.

You ideas sound good in theory. But as I said before they can't do the heavy lifting of the real world problems of the LC model. When there has been disagreement of this kind in the past the result has been anger, accusations, recrimination without resolution.

As I said before, if the one city-church principle is really viable, then there must be a better means of solving these problems than simply pretending that it is evident to everyone exactly who the elders are and who the apostle is. Your claim of "simplicity" is being refuted by situations in real cities as we speak. Real people have been hurt by their being expected to pretend simplicity exists where there is none.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Shawn

There is not an arbitrary light that shines on them from the heavenlies that singles them out by God to be appointed as Elders; they simply have, whats the word from the other forum, uhh, let me remember, oh yes, Gravitas!

Let me also note that I never conveyed that there was "arbitrary light" shining on anyone. What I said was, for any group to require believers to accept a certain specific set of elders as being over the whole city is an arbitrary decision and thus one no one is qualified to make.

How can that group have such certainty that their elders are over everyone in the city to the point they can say all who do not submit to them are at odds with the city-church? It is indefensible. Yet, this is the LC model.