Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
When you or I say to take the ground of locality, what exactly does that mean? You have to take the name of "the Church in ______". To call an assembly "the Ecclesia in _____" or the "______ Assembly" are considered to be taking a name? I still go back to a post on another thread where each assembly that has a tax id has to be registered by a name.
|
It is not obvious whether you are taking a position just asking questions. And I like where those questions lead. So, not necessarily to you but to any who argue a “ground” requirement, if the first assembly of any type in the city of Dallas was of a flavor or doctrinal/practical slant that we would call Methodist, or even RCC, then does their existence in the city, whether with or without name except to the extent necessary to register with the government, make them “the church” for that city? Are they, by definition, the church in Dallas and every other group that starts up afterwards a division? Add to that fact that the city of Dallas as we now know it grew from a small community on the Trinity River to encompass the majority of a county that is nearly 900 square miles plus a little of the county to the North. As it grew, it took in smaller communities, even some that were organized cities. Would the one assembly in Renner, which we will argue looked very Baptist as we know it cease to exist and become part of that Methodist-looking group in Dallas when it voted to join and become part of Dallas? Even if they maintain their separate meeting places and styles, does the Renner group relinquish its separate charter, bank account, and elders to be subservient to the original Dallas group, or at least to be a joint operator of this single enterprise? If their separate styles and meetings are OK as long as they are functionally one (as all Christians should be) does the separate existence of the groups change the nature of the relationship, or just provide something for a “oneness” theology to complain about as they seek to proselytize all others to their way?
My problem with the “ground of the church” being anything except Christ is that any other required ground is sectarian. Any claim of standing for all Christians in a city is hollow if you are refusing to actually stand with at least part of what is already there, but instead separate one more time to create the latest group in town then argue that everyone else should do the same and come to you. Whether that new group aligns behind the person of Witness Lee, or merely aligns behind a doctrine of one practical church/assembly per city, the basis is not Christ, but some other doctrine, teaching, or teacher.
Further, while much is said about being one in Christ, scripture never says that we are to be one in city. It says the church is built on Christ, not on dirt, boundaries, or politics. No matter how you sell it, the “ground of the church” as taught be Lee was an extrapolation from verses that prescribed nothing, were not the only ones describing the term “church” (we see churches in cities, houses, and even some translations refer to the whole of Judea and say “church” in the singular), and do not provide any indication that there is anything that the church is built upon but Christ. Lee was fond of saying that a foundation must be on the ground somewhere, so he used the “to the church in” verses to claim that it was declared to be cities. But the scripture only requires a foundation of Christ. There is nothing beneath that in terms of a metaphor of a building. If we need to have some ground below the foundation, then it must also be Christ because Christ is not held up by something else — dirt, ground, or cities — but He is the one thing that upholds the entirety of the universe, both physically and spiritually.
I will acknowledge that some groups do require that you actually be a member of their congregation, or at least their denomination, to partake of communion. But other than being told that is true, I do not know which groups those are. So for those who like to point to that as the reason that Christianity is divisive and the LC is not, your point is made upon what might be argued to be exceptions rather than the rule.