Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

Cal · 11-08-2011, 07:37 AM

The LRC is perfectly within their rights to "meet as the church in the city" if that's what their conscience dictates. What is in question is the right to say every group that doesn't "meet as the church in the city" is therefore not a valid expression of the church or, even less so, is divisive. This where they get into trouble. They are claiming to have knowledge they can't possibly have given the pattern in the NT.

The mention of churches in houses throws a monkey wrench into their thesis that the only valid churches are city churches. House church mentions in the NT create just enough doubt about the city church thesis to render unreasonable any insistence on the city church model, not to mention the one city administration model.

Zeal for an ideal is not always a bad thing. But hard-nosed zeal for an ideal which is neither commanded nor sufficiently blueprinted is folly.

There is nothing wrong with seeing all the Christians in a city as one church. Whenever I get the chance I mention it. I bought some items at a sale at a Methodist church. I didn't quibble over the price and let them keep the change and they thanked me and I said, "It's okay, we're all in the same church, right?" I always enjoy the reaction to that when I do it. It's usually a mixture of "Huh? followed by "Oh...yeah."

11-08-2011, 07:37 AM	#11
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield The LRC is perfectly within their rights to "meet as the church in the city" if that's what their conscience dictates. What is in question is the right to say every group that doesn't "meet as the church in the city" is therefore not a valid expression of the church or, even less so, is divisive. This where they get into trouble. They are claiming to have knowledge they can't possibly have given the pattern in the NT. The mention of churches in houses throws a monkey wrench into their thesis that the only valid churches are city churches. House church mentions in the NT create just enough doubt about the city church thesis to render unreasonable any insistence on the city church model, not to mention the one city administration model. Zeal for an ideal is not always a bad thing. But hard-nosed zeal for an ideal which is neither commanded nor sufficiently blueprinted is folly. There is nothing wrong with seeing all the Christians in a city as one church. Whenever I get the chance I mention it. I bought some items at a sale at a Methodist church. I didn't quibble over the price and let them keep the change and they thanked me and I said, "It's okay, we're all in the same church, right?" I always enjoy the reaction to that when I do it. It's usually a mixture of "Huh? followed by "Oh...yeah."