[Gubei]

Dear Igzy,

Welcome back.

You wrote.
“I'm back. I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas! If you don't celebrate Christmas that's fine.”

My simple question, to begin with. Do you celebrate Christmas? That is very unbiblical “practice.” It is very weird that you are so quick to abandon the ground of locality which is supported by the Bible, and also so quick to accept that unbiblical practice. Hopefully you do not say that Christmas should be celebrated because the Bible does not prescriptively reject it.

You wrote.
“It's clear to me now that Gubei rather than defending any current practice of the local ground is proposing an ideal model of how the local ground might actually work. I say "might" because his model is theoretical. It has never been worked out in practice and so has not been completely tested. This is not a criticism, it is just a fact. He seems to think the model should be tried. Others reply, Don't bother.”

Igzy, please read the NT. My model was simply conducted by Paul 2,000 years ago. When I say “ideal state,” that does not mean “theoretical.” Actually, the ground of locality should have not been “ideal” in church history, but “common and widely practiced.” The only reason the ground of locality was considered “ideal” by me is due to being divisiveness of human nature.

You wrote.
“What is interesting is that this impasse actually points to the inherent problem with ever trying to put a theoretical local ground ideal into practice: That is, The city church model is supposed to be about practical oneness, but none of us really know what practical oneness really looks like. So the idea is hamstrung from the start. How can we agree to practice a certain model if we honestly don't agree the model is correct?”

Igzy, please read the N.T. And you will know what practical oneness really looks like. To me, the idea stands from the start. And if you do not agree to admit that the ground of locality is in the Bible, the only thing you can do is to say that there is no model in the Bible. But, you have gone too far to suggest your own model.
So, please make this clear. Are you saying that there is no model as to how to meet in the Bible? Or are you saying that we should meet according to your model? Your posts are mixed in this matter.

You wrote.
“So, ironically, trying to work out practical oneness is bound to lead to fundamental disagreements on whether we actually have it or not. These disagreements themselves may become points of division. So the attempt to achieve practical oneness by pushing a particular outward model seems to be doomed to self-defeat. This is what I call the ironic paradox of trying to apply practical oneness in a one-size-fits-all model. It contains the seeds of its own failure.”

Igzy, you are not consistent in defining “being divisive”

You said "Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude," meaning being divisive is not just any model but the heart and attitude of those who hold that model. I totally agree with this definition of your own. And I hope you are consistent in your wonderful definition. Let’s think about the practice of head covering of sisters. Even though I do believe sisters had better to cover their head during church meetings according to the Paul’ instruction, I do not condemn any sister who does not cover their head. Also, I expect other Christians not to condemn me by my holding that truth. So, I do not want to be divisive in my heart and attitude. Now can you say that the practice of head covering contains the seeds of its own failure? Is that ironic paradox? The principle is the same with the ground of locality.


You wrote.
“Now, some might call this defeatism, even unbelief. Others, like Gubei, might say that the problem is not with the idea of locality, but with fallen human nature. But saying that fallen human nature is the problem forgets that the problem with achieving "practical citywide oneness" is not just a lack of geniality, it is also a lack of clear insight to know precisely which "model" of practical oneness is the correct one. Since it is not clear that we can, in this life, ever hope to achieve a level of holiness where we could expect to agree on precisely what "locality" means, a precise viable locality model which is not heavy on liberality is a pipe dream.”

Igzy, it is very clear. “One city – one church – one set of elders in that city.” How can it be clearer?

You wrote.
“Is this defeatism and unbelief? I do not think so. I believe it it realism with faith.”

I think it is a compromise to ease our obligation to keep practical oneness.

You wrote.
“Gubei sincerely thinks his model is according to God. He is "fully persuaded in his own mind." That's good. That's as it should be. However, the real question is: What does he do when others in the city he lives in disagree with him on his interpretation? Does he "condemn" them, or does he drop the matter to preserve the fellowship? If he does the latter, this suggests that his model was not as fundamental to oneness as being willing to drop it was, which suggests that his model (and all others) was just another potential point of doctrinal contention which must, in the end, like head covering and musical taste, be expendable.”

Igzy, please do not wrongly boil down what I said. Despite repeated requests, you are not properly “quoting” what I said. The same thing is happening with OBW. I said the phase 2 (having one set of elders in a city) is not essential in our Christian life. BTW, OBW thinks Trinity is not fundamental. Once again, I want to clarify my belief. I will not drop my belief of the ground of locality, including one-set of elders in a city. But I will keep fellowshipping with other Christians in my city. To me, fellowshipping with them is more important than insisting one set of elders in my city. PLEASE QUOTE THIS!

You wrote.
“It is not that locality is wrong. The issue is: Just what does locality mean? Since the Bible is unclear on this, pushing a particular interpretation is detrimental to exactly what locality is supposed to be about. That's the ironic paradox.”

My simple question to you which you did not answer at all.

Have you ever read the book – “Rethinking our work” by WN? If you did not read, I have to be surprised how you can criticize the ground of locality without knowing what locality is as defined by its first proponent.

Gubei