Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Furthermore, after the late 70's, the emphasis on the "Ground of Locality" mostly stopped. Rarely did we speak of the "one church - one city" after that. It still existed to varying degrees, but it was not stressed much.

Really? It seems that it became so ingrained that nothing more need be said. They used it without comment to sue for property and the right to a name in some of the places you have called home — or at least close by home. It is the very catalyst for ongoing strife throughout the GLA. Who is on the proper "ground"? It's not you, so we can declare it to be us.

The ground of locality is the cornerstone of the whole system. Without it, they lose their speciality and revert to just another assembly like any other in the neighborhood. (And what would be wrong with that? Wouldn't you agree?)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Really? It seems that it became so ingrained that nothing more need be said. They used it without comment to sue for property and the right to a name in some of the places you have called home — or at least close by home. It is the very catalyst for ongoing strife throughout the GLA. Who is on the proper "ground"? It's not you, so we can declare it to be us.

The ground of locality is the cornerstone of the whole system. Without it, they lose their speciality and revert to just another assembly like any other in the neighborhood. (And what would be wrong with that? Wouldn't you agree?)

Somewhat.

Actually the cases I was more familiar with used the argument that the LC was built up by the ministry (LSM) and have been receiving the ministry all along, and now you elders want us to stop receiving from LSM thus depriving us of our rights ... yada, yada ...

The "proper ground" was not the ground of locality but being one with the ministry. By steering the church away from LSM, the LC's were accuse of "teaching differently," thus in the way of error, etc.

Thus the claims in the lawsuits were that the elders "abruptly changed direction" contrary to the wishes of the congregation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Somewhat.

Actually the cases I was more familiar with used the argument that the LC was built up by the ministry (LSM) and have been receiving the ministry all along, and now you elders want us to stop receiving from LSM thus depriving us of our rights ... yada, yada ...

The "proper ground" was not the ground of locality but being one with the ministry. By steering the church away from LSM, the LC's were accuse of "teaching differently," thus in the way of error, etc.

Thus the claims in the lawsuits were that the elders "abruptly changed direction" contrary to the wishes of the congregation.

You know more than I do, but I still think the ground of locality is their fall back "ace in the hole" for legitimacy.

Remember Ryan on the other board? He said flat out he thought the Lord would never lead anyone out of the "Recovery." When I asked him to explain why he started talking about being on the local ground. I didn't get the impression he was an old-timer. He was attending the FTTA.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You know more than I do, but I still think the ground of locality is their fall back "ace in the hole" for legitimacy.

You can't file a petition with the court saying you are the only "legitimate" church in town.

But ... sure the ground of locality means something to its members. Didn't Myer and TC part ways after John failed to answer some local ground question "satisfactorily?" That was after the quarantine dust had a chance to settle.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But ... sure the ground of locality means something to its members. Didn't Myer and TC part ways after John failed to answer some local ground question "satisfactorily?" That was after the quarantine dust had a chance to settle.

LC members like to argue over semantics pre recent quarantine and post recent quarantine it seems. And this extends to the non-essentials such as the "ground of locality" which has for them become an essential item of their faith.

Community Church with pastors is verbotem language! After 1000 years in outer darkness purgatory I'm sure John Myer will come to his senses about his language sins and realize the error of his ways.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by me

LC members like to argue over semantics pre recent quarantine and post recent quarantine it seems. And this extends to the non-essentials such as the "ground of locality" which has for them become an essential item of their faith.

Community Church with pastors is verboten language! After 1000 years in outer darkness purgatory I'm sure John Myer will come to his senses about his language sins and realize the error of his ways.

Yes "me," how very true!

I'll never forget one brother, an elder and full-timer, who got so upset with me, he yelled at me "don't make me a pastor." During the same tirade he dumped an f-bomb on me.

Strange but true folks! The "P-Word" had become more dreaded than the "F-word." Yikes!

That P-word was verboten language in the Recovery. Thanks for teaching me a new word. You can say anything else, but not that!

[Cal]

Meeting "on the ground of locality" certainly isn't unbiblical. But then again neither is meeting on the ground of the home. What is unbiblical is insisting that the ground of locality is the only way to meet as a church. The Bible simply does not support this notion.

Insistence on the ground of locality as the only place to meet springs not from a biblical imperative, but from the belief that there ought to be an imperative--from the belief that it makes sense that there should be only one way to meet as the church, so that what are and what are not churches can be defined and standardized.

Unfortunately (from a human standpoint) the Bible seems to disagree. It does not provide an airtight case for the ground of locality. It provides several "leaks," particularly the mention of house churches, including the church in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla in Romans 16. Although LRC doctrine tries to fit this and other mentions of house churches into the mold of the city church, such exegesis is forced and unnatural.

For example, I work for an organization which has many chapters, most of which are associated with cities. But there is no requirement that chapters be so organized. Some, for example, are organized around college campuses.

Imagine that I wrote a letter to the organization members in a particular city. Suppose I spent several pages conveying all sorts of information and at the end greeted several members by name and along with all those salutations said hello to the "chapter that meets in Andy and Pamela's house," much like Paul's greeting in Romans 16.

Would anyone think that the chapter in Andy and Pamela's house was a chapter actually made up of everyone I had previously addressed and greeted and indeed every member in the city? No one would think such a thing. Yet this is how the LRC explains away house churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Remember Ryan on the other board? He said flat out he thought the Lord would never lead anyone out of the "Recovery." When I asked him to explain why he started talking about being on the local ground.

For all intent and purposes, as much rhetoric there is to make "the recovery" so unique, it's not. Learn your history and it will be realized, "the recovery" is really an offshoot of the EB. Sure, the terminology has changed, but the practices are still the same. Including the ground of locality.