Is One Church One City a bad idea or unBiblical?

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by PeterG

... I don't see an important reason for no holy kiss. I think it's a lovely gesture that we don't have to be without. Christians should not be cold and distant. A physical expression of our love and connection is appropriate. Probably a hug is okay too.
Applied to the situation of Christians in the city: We should also not be distanced from each other through various denominations. That’s inappropriate.

Sorry for the random question about the holy kiss, and thank you for your responses. Personally, I believe that while Paul instructed the early church to greet one another with a holy kiss, this was appropriate for their cultural and historical context and doesn’t necessarily mean we should take it literally today.

The same can be said about the modes of church gatherings. Here are a few points regarding the historical and cultural context of the "one city, one church" concept in the New Testament:

1. Similarities to Synagogue Gatherings:
Early churches were conceptually and practically similar to Jewish synagogues. Here are some facts about synagogues:
o The Greek words "ecclesia" (ἐκκλησία) and "synagōgē" (συναγωγή) both refer to assemblies or gatherings of people.
o Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that synagogues were common throughout Judea and Galilee, serving as places for prayer, teaching, discussions, scripture reading, singing psalms, and community gatherings.
o Some synagogues catered to specific ethnic or linguistic groups, and they generally operated independently of one another.
o While synagogues in the first century did not usually have formal names, there were exceptions, such as those for Greek-speaking Jews or freedmen, as referenced in Acts 6:9.
o Although synagogues were generally independent, there were informal connections between Jewish communities, especially in regions where Jews were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. These connections were often based on shared religious practices and communal ties.

2. One Gathering Per City:
In the early stages of the church, it was common for there to be one gathering in each city. However, as Christianity spread, some cities, like Rome, likely had multiple gatherings, each considered a church. This is evident in Paul's letter to the Romans, where he greets Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their home, suggesting multiple "home" churches in Rome that were not organized under a single leadership.

3. Meeting Locations:
Early Christians faced severe persecution, and the Roman government did not recognize Christianity as a legal religion. Consequently, they had no means to build or own church buildings, leading them to meet in homes or open spaces. Naturally, when persecution subsided, churches began to construct places of worship similar to synagogues.

4. Jerusalem's Early Church:
The first church in Jerusalem gathered in both the Jewish Temple and in homes before persecution dispersed them. This indicates that both practices were valid and acceptable.

5. Sharing Possessions:
The early church practiced communal sharing of material possessions for a few years. However, after Herod's persecution, this practice ceased. Does this mean the church failed, or that we should return to this practice at all costs? I don’t think so. Similarly, the early churches did not have formal names or denominations, but over time, churches began to form denominations and adopt names. This gradual change does not imply that the church failed or that we must revert to early practices, especially since attempts to do so have often resulted in new denominations or even cults.

6. Historical Considerations:
How far back should we look? Should we consider the Day of Pentecost in Acts 1, when Christians had everything in common? Or Acts 8, when the saints dispersed throughout Judea? If we take that route, should we dress in tunics, speak Aramaic, and sit on the floor? Or should we reflect on the time when churches were established among Greek and Roman cultures?

7. "One City, One Church" teachings is absent from the New testement:
Neither Jesus, Paul, nor any apostles explicitly stated that “one city, one church” is a requirement for proper church mode; this notion seems to have been developed by men, particularly groups like the Exclusive Brethren, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee, among others. The New Testament teaches the essence of the church, focusing on repentance, faith in Jesus, unity in Spirit and faith, love for one another, humility, and good works, etc. On contrary, the “one city, one church” doctrine is purely outward.

8. Diversity of Denominations:
Taking into account that the church has exisited over 2000 years, I believe it is acceptable to have Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches within one city as long as they respect, love, and serve one another while preaching the gospel. The real issue arises when groups, like Exlusive Brethren or Lord's Recovery or fundamental Baptists gatherings while claiming to have no name yet exhibit pride and isolation, looking down upon other churches in their city.

9. Unity of the Body of Christ:
Throughout the history of the Brethren, Lord’s Recovery, and similar groups, the “one city, one church” and alike, have never produced unity within the Body of Christ. Instead, they have always led to the creation of prideful and isolated sects. If this teaching was genuinely of God, we would expect to see at least one city thorughtout the history where it successfully united believers in practice, not just in words.