The LCS Factor

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion.

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging.

I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament.

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

Shawn,

I hear your point and I understand that many feel we can draw a distinction on the issues related the "ground of locality". If you have some time to listen to T. Austin Sparks message I think it would be valuable to consider. He makes a particularly strong point on this fact. It goes something like this (i'm paraphrasing):

"It is a very great peril when we try to resolve a spiritual reality into a technical system". ... "It has been my (TAS) struggle to avoid this problem".

He's saying that when we try to put our hands on this spiritual reality of our oneness with all believers we mess it up and it is very dangerous when you try it.

My main point is that the "ground of locality" is heretical as a doctrine. When men try to implement it as a "practical" reality there are always problems. I believe that this happens because trying to implement it "practically" goes against the reality of what God is doing. Our oneness with all believers is something we acknowledge in our hearts but we cannot implement in practical reality. Here is why I say this...

If we try to bring everyone into the same "practical expression" it requires us to use the "tools of men" (incorporation, buildings, scheduled meetings, etc.) None of these things do anything to promote or take away from the fact that we are one. This is a reality. It just is. Nothing men can do can advance it. The only thing we can do by trying to implement it among ourselves is to deny the reality of our oneness by trying to make some "practical expression" of it. We implicitly "divide" and "section" off the Body of Christ from itself in the very attempt.

It's one of those oxymoronic items. If you try to do it, you fail. If you don't try to do it, then you may still fail if your heart isn't right. The only way it can be done, is to not do it but acknowledge the reality of it. It's unsound doctrine to teach others that they should try to implement it. What is sound is helping each person learn how to be one with every other member of the Body of Christ. This isn't a group thing. This is a one at a time issue.

What I am talking about here is faith. We believe we are one because we are one. To attempt to make a "practical expression" of it like Lee did is actually an act of unbelief. It's basically saying, "we are only one if we can see it with our eyes." I don't believe that is faith. I believe it is unbelief.

Matt

P.S. I realize there are other views on this and I've got no corner on the market on what I am saying here. However, I do think that the "ground of locality" issue has been tested, reviewed and it will fail again and again. God will not fail in this, but men always will. In order to succeed you have to have control over the whole Body of Christ. Only Jesus Christ has that! He is the Head!!!

[Shawn]

Thanks Matt,

Your words do show the way to oneness is not to try to practically implement it and hope the Spirit will justify the actions, but to seek to be one with all our brothers and sisters, where ever the Lord has placed us, and the oneness will appear; not of our efforts, but through the manifestation of the Spirit of God ruling in each heart.

The missing ingredient was love from a pure heart for all of God's children; without this essential virtue, pride and prejudice usher in yet another denomination.

Grace to you,

Shawn

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Matt

My main point is that the "ground of locality" is heretical as a doctrine.

Matt,

Well, the story about Sparks and Lee is interesting but certainly far from proving some kind of heresy concerning the ground of locality. Hate to say it, but if your idolatry proclamation is based on this ... whew! Ever hear the story about the foolish man building his house upon the sand?


SC

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Matt,

Well, the story about Sparks and Lee is interesting but certainly far from proving some kind of heresy concerning the ground of locality. Hate to say it, but if your idolatry proclamation is based on this ... whew! Ever hear the story about the foolish man building his house upon the sand?


SC

It does not have to be proven that the "ground of locality" is heretical in order to demonstrate that this "concept" (i.e. ground of locality) was lifted too high and that many, many people began to bow down to this conception even when it brought them into conflict in their consciences with the Lord.

SC, let me ask you a question. Is the LC type congregation in your locality unique in anyway from other gatherings of believers in your locality? If so, what is it's uniqueness?

Yes, I did hear about that story about the foolish man building upon sand. I think I've thought about it in regards to Lee and his desire to build God's House on the "ground of locality"! Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

The "Rock" is Jesus the Messiah. This is the only firm foundation. All else is shifting sand...

Matt

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Matt

SC, let me ask you a question. Is the LC type congregation in your locality unique in anyway from other gatherings of believers in your locality? If so, what is it's uniqueness?

Matt,

You're tossing me softballs here. Is our group unique? What makes it so? Yeah, it's unique. It's unique because we don't have a name. Do you have any idea how much grief that has caused us over the years? That one fact is a huge separator from everyone else, trust me. Every single time I'm forced to identify "my church," I have to decide whether to go into paragraph mode or simply tell them, "The church in __" and hope it ends there.

All the churches who truly take no name have this "problem." So they're all unique, LSM churches, non-LSM, whatever.

My beef with the LSM on this point is that they in fact have made the "Church in __" their names. Case in point: Raleigh, NC where they became "The Local Church in Raleigh" or some such thing.

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.


SC

[Nell]

There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"?

This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal.

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Or how about the meeting hall being in one city and all the members living in the suburbs. Or a church in one city and a guy from that city being an elder in another church in another city.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SC if you don't have name for your church who to people write checks to for offerings? And which organization gives them a charitable donation receipt for their tax write off? And what name is used to buy real estate and to sue over real estate? Or are all those places left blank on the checks, receipts, contracts, court documents, etc?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Nell

There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"?

This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal.

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

All these postings about THE church in a city and the “ground of locality” remind me of a testimony a brother gave in a meeting when we were in Dallas I believe. This was many years ago and he spoke of the Church in Dallas, saying he was on the telephone with someone from the telephone company and they said to him, “What do you mean, you are THE Church in Dallas—how can you be the only church in Dallas?” This brother responded with, “Well you are the only phone company in Dallas!” Again, this was many years ago when this was the real case. Since that time of course the telephone monopoly has been broken. We praise God that there is NO monopoly on worshipping and serving the Lord as the “Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.”

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

I was impressed with what Watchman Nee had to say on page 96 of The Normal Christian Church Life.

"We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church. This is something from which there is no escape. If I am dissatisfied with the local church, the only thing I can do is to change my locality; then automatically I can change my church. We can leave a denomination, but we can never leave a church. To leave a sect is justifiable, but to leave a church-whether on account of unspirituality, wrong doctrine, or bad organization-is utterly unjustifiable."

Is Watchman Nee's content in this book based on principle and not doctrine?

Terry

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

I was impressed with what Watchman Nee had to say on page 96 of The Normal Christian Church Life.

"We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church. This is something from which there is no escape. If I am dissatisfied with the local church, the only thing I can do is to change my locality; then automatically I can change my church. We can leave a denomination, but we can never leave a church. To leave a sect is justifiable, but to leave a church-whether on account of unspirituality, wrong doctrine, or bad organization-is utterly unjustifiable."

Is Watchman Nee's content in this book based on principle and not doctrine?

Terry

Terry,

It's just Watchman Nee's reasoning. It's not biblical.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.

SC

You don't have to prove this to me. On a personal level I can relate to it and I understand exactly what you are talking about. I won't go into the details here, but I do understand. I've been queried in a parallel sense for many years.

But, my question isn't about whether it is difficult for you to answer the question about the name of your gathering. My question was about the uniqueness of your group? What is it's uniqueness relative to other groups in your locality?

Is your uniqueness in the fact that you don't take a name? Or is it something else? Is it because, in your mind, you "stand" on the "proper" ground?

Matt

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Matt

But, my question isn't about whether it is difficult for you to answer the question about the name of your gathering. My question was about the uniqueness of your group? What is it's uniqueness relative to other groups in your locality?

Matt,

Oh, yeah, we're unique in many ways. Trust me. Our meetings don't have a pastor, don't have a song leader, don't have many participants, don't pass the plate, don't involve self-improvement talks, don't have much adornment of any kind. Some of our uniqueness is a bad thing: we're uniquely unattractive in many ways, sad to say. Some is a good thing. But anyone and everyone who visits us is left with the sensation, this group is different.


SC

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SC I frankly don't care about the name thing. No awkwardness felt over here. Sorry. Fact is: you have to have a name and it has to be registered. That's just a legal fact of life. So why live in pretense about it?

Do you think someone in your church writing out a check doesn't know there's a name of an organization that has to go on the payee line? How concrete is that for you? Do you think when the IRS wants to see your church's filing for non-profit status that you can leave the name of the filing entity blank cause ya know: we don't have a name! Go ahead and do that and see what happens.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Matt,

Oh, yeah, we're unique in many ways. Trust me. Our meetings don't have a pastor, don't have a song leader, don't have many participants, don't pass the plate, don't involve self-improvement talks, don't have much adornment of any kind...
SC

May I add a note of caution, in all kindness. This may not be your case, but just a warning. I, and many others, were proud to say these very things at one time. Boy, what lessons in humility I have learned! What really ugly, destructive things were going on in MY "Church" that didn't take a name!

I am so much happier now in a church with a name, though not denominated. A place where I find life and am constantly encouraged to stay humble in Christ. If you have the "IT" factor in your gathering, you can very easily lose "IT". Then if you lose "IT", but boasted how you have "IT", you may find yourself pretending you still have "IT". This is actually taken from a message from church last week.

Note: "IT", also known as life, peace, spirit, truth, and many other names

so, just sayin' - be careful of pride.