[OBW]

Gubei,

The main problem I see with your analysis is that it puts too much emphasis on a boundary of human politics as being important to the body of Christ. Elders are not according to cities, they are according to assemblies. To presume a singleness of elders over all assemblies within one human political boundary (a function of the kingdom of the world) is to presume a hierarchy that is not supported by scripture.

Even if you argue that without causing several separate groups to become joined under a unified eldership that is seen by God but not seen or acknowledged by man, what is the point? Since these elders do not necessarily confer with each other, the fact of the oneness and acceptance as elders at God’s level has no bearing on the conduct of the separate assemblies. There is nothing prescriptive about that, even if in the heavenly view it is true.

This would be true if we simply allow that each assembly is a separate assembly with its own leadership which is headed by Christ. Since man is at least partly responsible for the existence of that leadership, there may be some that are not true spiritual leaders while others are. We still do not “see” this standing or lack of standing before God, but He does.

So the emphasis on “ground” is meaningless to this analysis. Whether we will have a single assembly in each city, in each neighborhood, and a few small cities joined together, or grouped as we do throughout the cities of the world, we are all assemblies that are headed by Christ. We may have differences in flavor, in emphasis, and in some other “minors” but we are one as Christians. The totality of our leadership within whatever arbitrary geographic area you choose is the leadership for that area, but it is not according to Nee’s or Lee’s formula that springs from “one city one church.”