The Ground Of The Church

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Now I want to talk about the situation of Toronto. You seem to ask me a practical remedy for that city with a view to getting me embarrassed because if I side with any one party – whether it be LSM-affiliated or Nigel Tomes, you can easily attack me for my siding. My remedy is that we should not side with any party for now. I already mentioned that the ground of locality consists of two phase. The church in Toronto “seemingly” is divided now. That means they are in the danger of breaking the phase 1 – accepting other Christians unconditionally. To talk about the phase 2 is needless now. And one-set of eldership is not essential in our Christian life. The winner will be those saints who accept other Christians to the end. The loser will be those saints who reject other Christians first. This is the “spirit” of the ground of locality. As contrary to your understanding, the ground of locality does not encourage conflicts and division. All the saints in Toronto, whether they are for the ground of locality or not, whether they are for LSM or Nigel Tomes, are members of the church in Toronto.

Brother Gubei, you have taken this matter of "locality" to places where "no man has gone before." You have developed concepts never spoken by LSM.

Can you explain the danger of the "breaking the phase 1 – accepting other Christians unconditionally"? Doesn't the Bible teach us to "accept other Christians unconditionally." What am I missing here?

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Gubei, you have taken this matter of "locality" to places where "no man has gone before." You have developed concepts never spoken by LSM.

Can you explain the danger of the "breaking the phase 1 – accepting other Christians unconditionally"? Doesn't the Bible teach us to "accept other Christians unconditionally." What am I missing here?

Ohio,

You are speaking the same language with me now. It seems that you are the first brother who mentioned that - "You have developed concepts never spoken by LSM."

To be honest with you, "unconditionally" is a bit hype because definitely the NT gave us a few cases in which we cannot accept other Christians - for example divisive ones.

According to internet sources, the situation in Toronto is such that LSM-affiliated saints are asking the saints in Toronto to get out of Nigel Tomes’ camp to LSM-affiliated camp. Is my understanding right?

However, judging from the internet sources, I cannot find any thing in the situation in Toronto that is related to the causes by which the NT permits us to cut the fellowship with other Christians – in this case, Nigel Tomes’ camp.

BTW, it is very weird why Igzy and OBW are interested in my opinion for the situation of Toronto. I’ve never been there. I’ve never had any communication with any saint in Toronto. Thus, I’m not in a good position to judge who is right or not.

Gubei

p.s. If I misunderstood your quetion with my irrelevant answer, please let me know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gubei

You are speaking the same language with me now. It seems that you are the first brother who mentioned that - "You have developed concepts never spoken by LSM." To be honest with you, "unconditionally" is a bit hype because definitely the NT gave us a few cases in which we cannot accept other Christians - for example divisive ones.

Brother Gubei, these few scriptures about divisive ones have grown to monstrous proportions, including anyone deemed by LSM to "teach differently." Using the analogy of "contagious leprosy," all other attendants in close proximity suffer "guilt by association." Today's LC conflicts and resulting quarantines are plain unrecognizable to a reader of the N.T.

Hope, I believe, has rightly described the root problem in the LC's to be "the work." This concept pervades all LC thoughts, and since "the work" dictates the leadership and the direction of all LC's, the system cannot provide any self-correction. In this regard, the word "local" is a total farce. Show me one LC involved in "local" community good works. Thus, any good-hearted intentions at oneness, real local oneness, oneness on "the ground," are sabotaged by allegiances to "the work."

Until the matter of appointment of elders becomes congregational or local in nature, the LC's will always have leaders from afar wrestling for control. Many have said that the N.T. always has a plurality of elders and never has a single elder over many churches. It all sounds good, but GLA battles and lawsuits, without exception, were rooted in extra-local controls, whether ties to Cleveland or ties to Anaheim. "The work" appoints elders, relocates workers, and orchestrates all extra-local fellowships. No major decision is ever made just locally. As a result, all churches surrounding "the work" church become merely satellites to the "mother ship."

[Gubei]

Ohio,

To my best knowledge, it was the early (or late) 1980s that WL actually changed the teaching of WN on the ground of locality, claiming that apostles (referring to himself and his co-workers) should not sever their connection to local churches. I think this "later Lee's" teaching is very far way from that of WN. Furthermore, WL said that actually we do not need to have many ministries in this modern age in which by the power of transportation and telecommunication, one ministry can efficiently cover all over the world.
I believe that was the start of our tragedy. Thus my evaluatoin of WL is mixed.

As you said, LSM is functioning as a "mother ship" even in my country. Other than the problems in Toronto, my country have experienced a really serious problem of other kind. But I do not want to elaborate on it.

One thing is clear to me. The source of the problem is not the ground of locality itself.

Gubei

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gubei

To my best knowledge, it was the early (or late) 1980s that WL actually changed the teaching of WN on the ground of locality, claiming that apostles (referring to himself and his co-workers) should not sever their connection to local churches. I think this "later Lee's" teaching is very far way from that of WN. Furthermore, WL said that actually we do not need to have many ministries in this modern age in which by the power of transportation and telecommunication, one ministry can efficiently cover all over the world.
I believe that was the start of our tragedy. Thus my evaluation of WL is mixed.

Gubei, you are right. At the same time WL attacked Lang's book Churches of God which addressed the matter of church eldership and church autonomy. Lang had written the book out of the same Brethren environment which the Recovery faced at the time. Lang ably expounded from scriptures in order to address many deficiencies which developed among the Darby exclusives. These truths were extremely dangerous to the system developing under LSM, hence the need for WL to enact a coordinated assault via quarantines upon all the proponents of the book and the truths within which were slowly spreading.

Like you, for the same reasons, "my evaluation of WL is mixed" also. For these reasons, the "ground of locality" is also paradoxical to me. I see the ideal beauty of it in the N.T., and at the same time, I see its ugly fruit in church history. Hence, the Spirit of God never made it prescriptive in the N.T. It happened, it was wonderful, it was recorded, it ended.

[Cal]

Gubei et al,

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

[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

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gubei, you are right. At the same time WL attacked Lang's book Churches of God which addressed the matter of church eldership and church autonomy. Lang had written the book out of the same Brethren environment which the Recovery faced at the time. Lang ably expounded from scriptures in order to address many deficiencies which developed among the Darby exclusives. These truths were extremely dangerous to the system developing under LSM, hence the need for WL to enact a coordinated assault via quarantines upon all the proponents of the book and the truths within which were slowly spreading.

Like you, for the same reasons, "my evaluation of WL is mixed" also. For these reasons, the "ground of locality" is also paradoxical to me. I see the ideal beauty of it in the N.T., and at the same time, I see its ugly fruit in church history. Hence, the Spirit of God never made it prescriptive in the N.T. It happened, it was wonderful, it was recorded, it ended.

Ohio,

I understand what you say. But, let's think about this. The Spirit of God never made Trinity prescriptive in the N.T. And then, historically, there have been a lot of debates on that. But the truth is not over.

Actually, whether we take the ground of locality or not, the practical aspects of our Christian life won't change much. In this ever-getting busier modern society, most of our Christian activities are restriced to our personal life and limited fellowship with other Christians. But, my point of taking the ground of locality is that the truth is for oneness of Christians.

It's easy to criticize the ground of locality, but how about other models presented by other posters here? Despite the repeated denial of others, their actions of presenting something (i.e. Igzy's "freemovement model" and Hope's "congregationalism model of The Southern Baptist") is to preseting a kind of prescriptive something which also should be evaluated by the yardstick they used to criticize the ground of locality. I do not think they passed the evaluation.

Gubei

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Actually, whether we take the ground of locality or not, the practical aspects of our Christian life won't change much. In this ever-getting busier modern society, most of our Christian activities are restricted to our personal life and limited fellowship with other Christians.

Our place was divided over the recent quarantine and many of the brothers I have known for years became quite discouraged. At different times, several have said similar things to me, in effect, "Where's the church? It's in my heart. It's in my home. It's with my family. It's with the saints I fellowship with." They were so frustrated with the program, with the leadership, with the fighting, with the debates, etc. and were reduced to "me and the Lord and those around me." It was the LSM that tried to make things so grandiose. We began our Christian walk with "two or three" and will probably end the same way.