[Gubei]

The blue is what Igzy wrote.


1. There is a pattern of city churches in the NT, but it is not perfect. There is no evidence that the house churches mentioned were city churches. So extrapolating a commandment from an imperfect pattern is folly.

To begin with, the ground of locality does not extrapolating a commandment. It is repeated presumption of Igzy that the ground of locality FORCES (Igzy himself has used such words as “insists” or “enforces”) something. The original statement of the ground of locality is just to present the truth to others. It is the later proponents who made the errors of insisting something by taking divisive stand using the ground of locality. Despite the so many request of me, he has not distinguished between the two – truth itself and its wrong application. That’s why Igzy did not quote anything from the books of WN in his posts. He repeatedly used the wrong applications of the truth by LSM etc as evidence to oppose the truth.

Furthermore, Igzy’s model (free movement of saints between all kinds of Christian groups, probably in the preference of “community churches”) itself is contradictory to this assertion. He admits that at least there were two kinds of churches at the time of the NT – the city church and the house church. If we do not use our ability of inference – which ultimately leads us to the conclusion that the house churches in the NT is actually tantamount to the city churches at that time, the only thing we can confidently say is that there should be only two kinds of churches – the city church and the house church. But Igzy’s previous posts obviously give us the impressions that he admits all kinds of “churches.” This is what he called “imperfect” and “no evidence.”

My point is that even though I admit his right to be against the ground of locality, I cannot accept his so unfair treatments between his model and others’ model.

2. The Bible doesn't prescribe city churches, and gives evidence of non-city (house) churches. That's enough to not make an issue of it.

The same point. How come there are so many churches now except city churches and house churches? Who prescribed those? Igzy’s resort to the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus does not apply in this case, as I already explained before. To Igzy, house church is all non-city churches. Is this right conjecture?

3. To require everyone, and call everyone divisive, who does not subscribe to city churches, is a self-serving attempt to control others.
The same point. Igzy is taking the example of the wrong application of the ground of locality in order to attack the truth itself. When does the ground of locality itself require EVERYONE, and call EVERYONE divisive?

The same point. Igzy is taking the example of the wrong application of the ground of locality in order to attack the truth itself. When does the ground of locality itself require EVERYONE, and call EVERYONE divisive? To me all the denominations (meaning such names as Baptist, Methodist etc) looks "divisive", not everyone. I know there are a lot of wonderful Christians even in denominations.

4. To my observation and analysis, no working model of city churches has been proposed. Each model contains the seeds of its own destruction and ultimate divisiveness.

What is the definition of the “working model”? Even the practice of head-covering, which was so plainly introduced by Paul is controversial. There are sisters who cover their heads and others who do not cover their heads. Very simple. There are saints who accept the ground of locality and others who do not accept it. Very simple. This is the natural outcome due to agreement and disagreement on issues. If we follow Igzy, all the practices and even fundamental truths in the Bible contains the seeds of its own destruction and ultimate divisiveness. Once again, his treatment of the ground of locality is not fair compared to other practices or truths.

5. All arguments for city churches I've heard sound sanctimoniously vague. People who argue for city churches usually end up saying that "we" (What do you mean "we," Kemosabe?) somehow have to find a way to "make it work," and if we don't it's our failure. I tell you what. You pray to the Lord and ask him to give you a way to make it work. When he gives you an answer, let me know. I'll be all ears. I've been asking on this thread and others over and over for a model that works. It's been really strange, but none of the advocates has provided one.

It is very interesting to see how Igzy deals with his model on this issue. When he evaluates the ground of locality from the view point of “working,” he assumes that all Christians should agree with this truth for the truth to be declared to be “working.” Let’s apply the same principle to his model – free movement of saints between all kinds of Christian groups. Seemingly, his model is working as long as saints freely move. But, how about in terms of his assumption he used – all Christians should agree with the truth. NOT AT ALL! This is due to his model’s peculiarity. Contrary to the ground of locality which aims for practical unity of Christians in a city, his model, to begin with, aims for “free movement” at the expense of practical unity among Christians. From the start, his model assumes a state of there being a lot of churches in a city. So, his model is really practical for free moving of saints, not for practical unity of Christians in a city.

6. The local ground teaching stumbles believers. Who knows how many precious believers are shipwrecked because the LC movement poisoned "Christianity" for them. I'll bet there are thousands who don't follow the Lord with much vigor now because someone told them they can't meet with anyone but the LC. Who wants to defend this stumbling to the Lord at the judgment seat?

He is mentioning those who are divisive with the wrong application of the ground of locality, not the truth itself.

7. The local ground teaching divides practioners from all other believers, both by its exclusive bent, and by the delusions of specialness it puts in the mind of its adherents. LCers are generally almost completely incapable of esteeming non-LCers as "better than themselves."

It depends on who you are talking about. By “almost completely,” how many LCers do you mean? Have you ever traveled outside your country to meet “almost completely” all LCers?

8. The local ground teaching restricts the Lord from moving in fresh ways. Members are not free to follow the Lord as he leads, but must get full permission from leadership. If leadership is corrupt, members must disobey the Lord to comply.

Not at all. You can follow your Lord ahead of local leadership. Once again, your assumption is that local leadership is forcing something and corrupt. Think about this. No one can force you to do something in this modern age. Leadership is leadership not by its forcing power but its exemplars. It is saints who decide if they are going to follow the leadership. Any local leadership which restricts the saints who want to follow the Lord, is not proper. That’s why I repeatedly are saying “moving position of eldership” in a city. Think about this. Even though the president of a country was elected legitimately, he can be functioning badly as president. But, we cannot deny the fact he is the president. This is the point when conflicts arise between leadership and people. But, even in democracy, the power of president is controlled by such measures as impeachment. I believe this is why Paul opened the door not to follow local leadership by saying (1Tim 5:19) 『Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.』

9. Critical problems with leadership cannot be resolved peaceably. If a "leading elder" or "apostle" goes bad, there is no mechanism for resolving the situation other than a complete breakdown of the system, which we have seen in cities like Toronto, Columbus, Mansfield, etc, etc. In these situations the sheep are scattered, and left wounded and dying, all because there was no fail-safe on leadership, all because of a fanatical adherence to an imperfect Biblical model which is not even prescribed by Scripture. So much for being as wise as serpents.

So, do you believe the reason the ministry of Paul looks like a failure was due to the ground of locality?

The saints in Toronto, Columbus, Mansfield, etc, etc are those who live in their cities. They have their right to deny any eldership or apostleship. What do you mean by “peacefully?” Any voting system where majority wins? God will reveal his will sooner or later. Let’s be patient.
Igzy’s model does not give us any peaceful method that resolves conflicts. His method is to agree to disagree. This is nothing short of avoiding conflicts by turning to other new party. That’s why we see a lot of denominations now.

10. The local ground teaching is a distraction from the real work of the Great Commission. Love God, love people--those are the two great commandments. The local ground teaching has definitely been shown be a detriment to the second. It has been shown to be easier for Christians to work together to spread the gospel and shepherd people if Christians can drop their pet doctrines (which are the source of division). The local ground is another pet doctrine which hinders the cooperation of Christians.

Igzy, the cooperation of Christians is not the target revealed in the Bible. Now your notion is very obvious to me - “Christians are divided. Let’s accept this solemn, undeniable fact. So, let’s try to find ways to cooperate, rather than seeking practical oneness.” Please try to envision an imaginary US which is divided into two – the North and the South, but still cooperating well. Do you want to call that a practical oneness among them?

Your model simply suggests that we do not need to arrive the point of practical oneness, so we should be satisfied with the current situation by allowing saints to freely move. This is not at all practical oneness any more than the EU is a one country of practical oneness.

Gubei