[Cal]

Thanks, Hope, for your summary and definitive "answer." That was a good overview.

My issue on this local ground matter is two-fold. First, I think the teaching shipwrecks Christians, or at least spoils them to any other experience. I mean spoils in a bad way. Local grounders seem quite unwilling to consider that the experience they had way back when could be comparable to any non-local ground experience today. They seem like fuddy-duddies. Though I'm sure they see themselves as pure and faithful and of a high standard.

Obviously, I use words like "crank" and "fuddy-duddy" to be a bit provocative. But honestly it's what I see when I listen to local grounders. It's interesting that local grounders often harken to the good old days of the LC movement--presumably in order to cement a connection between their local ground doctrine and that experience--but they forget that a leading value of those days was to be "fresh and living" and "not religious."

But few things sound more plodding, lifeless and religious than someone arguing that the boundaries of a city must be the boundaries of a church. I mean, no offense, but did anyone read Gubei's arguments for the local ground? They sounded like an LSM accountant had escaped his office and started writing for AFaithfulWord.org.

My second issue is that I'm totally fascinated about how no one can answer any practical questions about the teaching. It's kind of fun to keep asking the same questions and keep getting no answers. The longer the silence the more I'm convinced I have a valid point.

Do I seem a bit rude? If so, please forgive me, but I don't think my rudeness is anything compared to the crime of those who would torpedo Christians' perfectly valid corporate experiences in the name of a teaching they can't even answer any practical questions about.