Chapter 5
“The people are one and they all have one
language…now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them” (Gen.
11:6)
There
is probably not one entreaty more compelling to serious Christians than
believers being one. The sense of
oughtness in joining hands and hearts seems an organic part of the very
salvation package we have all received. The Lord Jesus prayed “That they all
may be one” (John 17:21) and His petition echoes in the chambers of our inward
being. The Bible uplifts themes of oneness,
sharing, one accord, fellowship, like-mindedness, and equality. These are critical, as they all but decide
the worth of our church experience.
Alternately division is labeled as something of the flesh, mentioned in
the same breath as idolatry, sorcery, and hatred (Gal. 5:20).
It’s
not hard to see why, then, that seeking believers would be attracted to any
group emphasizing Christian unity. When
I first encountered the Local Church Movement and its boasts of oneness, I was
certainly impressed. So, without knowing
anything of the group’s checkered attitudes, I “bought the farm.”
The
problem (which I could not have known as a newly saved twenty-one year old) is
that religious groups can appropriate erroneous versions of oneness. It isn’t very hard to do. Consider the scenario: some particular people
are very concerned with oneness. They
catch a vision to build something high and profound. They are like-minded, speak the same thing,
achieve one accord in their efforts and are successful in the early part of
their work. Later, some frustration
begins to come in; different speaking, and then that which they greatly fear
comes upon them—division. Those in the
group blame each other for the problem, and some blame the devil, but no one
blames God, who, as it turns out, is directly responsible for “messing up”
their one accord. No, this is not per
se, the account of a Christian group gone awry.
It is none other than the story of Babel from Genesis chapter 11. It is also the first scriptural intimation
that oneness, even for good reasons, can displease God.
But
telling the difference between authentic God-endorsed oneness and a counterfeit
can be difficult. There are not many
warning signs along the way. Where some
do appear, positive looking things will always seem to draw attention away from
them. For example, the first time reader
of Genesis 11 will not detect anything out of order. There was a common language and a group
morale that involved energy and self-sacrifice.
An accord, a general agreement of thought and action could be seen in
their determination to “build a tower.”
Their stated mission of “building” was constructive and their desire to
make it “high” was inspiring. Yet the
punch line was that God hated it. The
“green” reader is a bit confused. What was the problem? The road markers were all positive. Indeed,
things like zeal, one accord, and a vision of building are biblical. Why would God find the oneness generated by
these things loathsome?
The
answer lies in the most central proposition of the
church life—Christ Himself. Before a oneness is sought of works and goals, the more primary
matter of His Person must be held. This
involves His virtues, like righteousness, truthfulness, love, kindness, and
mercy. Our oneness is firstly
there. When we begin to do something, we
do not forget the Person we are in.
During their gospel work, John and James got frustrated and wanted to
call down fire from heaven on those rejecting their ministry. Jesus rebuked them, and some Bible
manuscripts add that He said to them, “You do not know of what spirit you are
of” (Luke 9:55). Even the oneness of a
spiritual enterprise can become ugly when it is outside the attributes of
God.
Genesis
11:5 says, “the Lord came down to see the city and
tower which the sons of men had built.”
This implied that He was not a part of the project at Babel. We do not find God needing to come down and
see Noah’s ark or Moses’ tabernacle or David’s temple, for He was intimately
involved with all those efforts. Nor did
He have to go down and see what Jesus or the Apostles had done. Yet, the oneness at Babel was forged outside
of Him and so knew nothing of His Person.
It was organized lawlessness.
Without the restraint of His attributes upon their inward parts, nothing
they proposed to do would be withheld from them (Gen. 11:6).
The
LC Movement and other groups of the same ilk habitually assert that their
oneness is of Christ alone. But one
man’s claim is as valid as another man’s.
Therefore, we don’t stop with asking what is taught about oneness. If oneness really is of Christ, there will be
fruit of it—something visible, measurable, and verifiable. Alternately, if the advertised “oneness in
Christ” is false, if it grossly contradicts His truth or virtues, then fruit
will tell us that, too. Produce always
reveals the nature of a tree, even if the decorative sign hanging on its
branches tells another story.
In
recent times, LSM-inspired attacks upon Midwest churches became a blunt
unpleasant blessing to those of us who had been praying for clarity. In our particular situation here in Columbus,
I recall looking across a courtroom at LSM followers who were hoping to win a
judgment against the church here. I was
struck with the blind mockery of voices softly chanting “O Lord Jesus” to a God
whose written word clearly condemned what they were doing—brother going to law
against brother (1 Cor. 6:6). But in all
of this, fruit was borne, rendering unnecessary the need for reasonable doubt,
long continued seeking, or discernment on our part. We became clear that we were not dealing with
the Body of Christ but with something else, an entity whose oneness was not
divine.
If
we had not been certain enough, more evidence was forthcoming. For in order to explain the shriveled, rotten
fruit they had produced, more untruths were to come. The group tried to say that it was only suing
the corporation of the church, but not the church itself (although it wasn’t a
disembodied corporate entity that ended up paying the legal expenses). In further
attempts to establish the legitimacy of the group’s methods, allegations were
made against the eldership of the church about mismanagement of funds (without
which there could be no future for their lawsuit and no justification in front
of others). And when all of that didn’t
work, the most outrageous nonsense—saying that there had never been a lawsuit
at all (this one got big laughs from the lawyers).
No
limits seemed to exist as to how much the these people would feign ignorance,
use exaggeration, play “nicey-nice” with prospective recruits in the church,
utilize hollow piety, and spin the truth (both of the Bible and of the events
going on in the church), while pleading their innocence. The “tree” eventually
bloomed with this kind of fruit on every branch. We were fully convinced that it was not the
oneness the Lord spoke of when He prayed that “they all would be one, as you
Father are in Me and I in you.”
Oneness according to Paul, not
Nimrod
Nimrod
founded Babel (Gen. 10:10) and the oneness of his realm was primarily
established in human endeavor and a common language. It is different in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul presented the oneness of the
New Testament as “the oneness of the Spirit”
(Eph. 4:3). From the moment a person
receives the Holy Spirit, oneness with all other Christians is the immediate
result. The Spirit in him is the same
Spirit in them—not the same kind, but
the same one. Since we are charged to keep that oneness (not invent it), the only real danger lies in
doing ignorant things to disturb it.
Unfortunately,
given our LC Movement background, many of us have been taught to combatively
insist on numerous things, including non-essential items. Yet the intended framework of our oneness is
not so complex, studded with tiny thoughts and nuances. It is composed of seven general items
representing the Person and work of the triune God (Eph. 4:4-6). Attempts to forge unity outside of these
things have historically damaged the Body of Christ. Every group that tries to do so, claims the
Ephesians 4 framework, but then cites the necessity of additional items. Oneness becomes to them a matter on their own
terms. They lament division and long for
unity among believers, but think that it looks like everyone else dropping
their “extras” and coming to join them and their
extras. The classic LC mindset also
runs along these lines. A popular
consensus among the LSM strain is that oneness would occur if everyone would
“get clear” about the Ministry of the age and the high peak of the divine
revelation. If only the world would be
full of pray-reading, loud repetitious calling, and a pervasive boundless
respect for Witness Lee, then oneness would be found.
But
the Apostle never expressed a hope that we would all agree on every point of
doctrine. He commanded respect and
toleration for a vast multitude of personal convictions (c.f. Rom. 14). Paul did however, write of his hope that we
would all come to “the unity of the faith”
(Eph. 4:13). If we were already one, then why would we
need to attain to it? Because
unfortunately, Christians accumulate many non-faith items that stick to them
like flypaper. In essence we start off well as newly born Christians, exuberant
about the faith and other believers. But
then through various “helps” we learn to begin adding requirements. Usually these are beneficial things; some are
even derived from scripture. But as the
list of “helpful necessities” grows, the scope of inclusiveness shrinks. These new fixtures involve everything from modes
of having the Lord’s Table to allowable music styles, to particular reading
materials.
It
is impossible for the entire Body of Christ to find oneness in those things, so
the Lord must actually undertake a reducing work among His children, subtracting
everything except for the seven items of Ephesians 4. Through a process of time, maturity, and hard
lessons, He redirects our passion toward “the faith once delivered to the
saints” (Jude 3). With our focus on this
unadorned center commonly held by all believers, we will find ourselves at
peace and in coordination with them far more often.
If
receiving the Spirit produces an immediate oneness with all other believers,
then we must confess that the Body of Christ is huge, beyond finite scrutiny,
and expanding daily. When these same
people who have received the Spirit gather in the faith, they then become a
visible expression of “one Spirit and one Body” (Eph. 4:4). Even from that practical angle, Ephesians 4
and the spirituality contained in it are far too broad to allow any special
organization plant their flag on it. Yet
the LC Movement, which represents a oneness far
smaller than that of Ephesians 4, repeatedly speaks of itself as “the Body.”
One of their workers recently said of departing members, “You can’t leave,
there’s only one vine; you can’t go with a different vine.” This remark discloses a basic delusional
assumption that the Local Churches are the fullness of the Body of Christ. Whether this is an official teaching or not
is immaterial. Once the membership
commonly holds an attitude, it is every bit as powerful as an official decree.
I was stunned at the singular unwillingness of LSM adherents to admit to this
view as I spoke to a room full of them in Columbus. Yet spend time around the casual talk of
anyone in the LSM camp and you will quickly find that they have named and
claimed rights to the title of “the Body.” In fact, “The Body” as a term is
invoked so often that it has taken on a passcode
significance. Decoded by context, it
means those who continue submissively within the Local Churches and submit to
LSM authority.
It
is commonplace for exclusive groups to think that only their associated
churches comprise the inward reality of the Body of Christ. J.R. Caldwell, a believer among the Brethren
wrote,
…When we turn to the last glimpse
historically of the church found in Scripture, namely in III John, and find
there the Apostle John and the more spiritual of the saints “without” and
Diotrophese and his followers “within,” it is vain to assert now, when
confusion has developed a thousandfold, that any circle of confederate
assemblies forms a full and divinely recognized “within.” As a matter of fact, the assertion is a mere
assumption, and is disproved by the experience and testimony of very many who,
though regarded by some as “outsiders” are really “inside,” and enjoying richly
the fellowship of the Father and the Son.
(Ironside 142).
Oneness—Franchise or
Otherwise?
I
vividly recall one of the current “Blended Brothers” strongly asserting that
oneness was not a matter of uniformity.
Then in the very same breath he talked about how good it would be,
though, if we were all on the same page in the same book. In one breath, an admission that oneness is not
uniformity, in the next breath, a longing for that uniformity.
The
same desire fills the heart of most Movement workers as they set up shop in new
cities and seek to start a “proper” Local Church there. This involves the implementation of
materials, practices, activities, conference and training schedules, meeting
styles, and in-house lingo. It is fairly
the same from one city to the next, a fact of which Movement members are very
proud. After all, it shows their
“oneness.” However, this oneness is very
much the same as that of a fast food chain.
McDonald’s, for instance, is immediately recognizable due to its golden
arches. By seeing them, even without
walking through the door, we know what is inside—the uniforms and even menu
items and costs. With little variation,
from Paris to Los Angeles to Singapore, we are all clear about what McDonald’s
has to offer. In fact, if any location
does not conform to the “oneness” of the chain, it is deemed “not proper” and
will not be allowed in the franchise!
Having traveled somewhat extensively, I came to realize that this was
substantially the oneness of the LC Movement.
Of course we cannot say that congregations sharing the same
characteristics, activities, and even practices are wrong. But it is objectionable when such things are
legislated as the oneness of the Body and on the basis of them, some churches
are then said to be “proper” and others “deviant.”
A
longstanding attempt at justifying the franchise approach has been the use of
the lampstands in Revelation 2 and 3.
“They are all the same,” is the LSM teaching. However, stated without qualification, this
thought has problems. Simple surface observation will show that plenty of
differences existed between the seven churches and all of them were not
negative. These had to do with their
specific experiences of Christ (what He was to each of them), the environment
in which the believers were charged to overcome, and their promised rewards.
The
only dimension where all the churches were the same was in their spiritual
reality and function. Even then, the criteria described is more than magnanimous, embracing
nearly every serious Christian assembly that exists on this earth. Look at the inventory of necessary things
according to the popular interpretation of the lampstands: Each is made of gold
signifying the holy nature of God the Father.
Each has the same shape—“Christ who is the image of God” (2 Cor.
4:4). Each has the same shining,
signifying that their illumination comes through the Holy Spirit. These matters
cannot be itemized on a checklist of physical things. They are spiritual realities. Thus, rather
than demonstrating a universal oneness that is small and tight, the lampstands
provide an extremely broad description, admitting just about any healthy
congregation. The legitimacy of a church
simply cannot be determined using the same externals that establish a
franchise. At least according to the
Revelation picture, the only required “sameness” between churches is the divine
trinity. Naturally, these observations catapult us into a new way of looking at
other Christian congregations. Rather than condemning their disparate worship
and ministry styles, we should ask more profound questions. Are they living the holy life, glorifying the
same Christ, and touching the same Spirit?
If there are no definite indications to the contrary spelled out in
scripture, we should be conservative about passing negative judgments.
While
oneness is a strongly biblical fact, what we call the local ground (one
city-one church) is far less certain. I
realize that this will be received with some degree of trepidation, so I will
state my positive convictions from the outset.
I believe that a city-church pattern of sorts endured throughout the
first century, running parallel to the original apostolic ministry. There are
many verses that connect the practical church life with a city. This ancient
example of assembly practice should invite our respect. While we cannot say that as a teaching it
bears the same authoritative stamp as well-established truths like Jesus being
the Son of God, neither should we arbitrarily discard it as meaningless.
Yet
a few balancing thoughts should give pause to enthusiasts who covet “taking the
ground” in every city. For one thing,
each mention of the city-church in scripture is a description, an example, and
does not involve commands. No verse
amounts to a charge that says, “Thou shalt have one church in every city.”
Obviously, this begs the question of how much biblical
examples ought to count as binding truths, especially in the absence of an
accompanying teaching or command.
Actually, we have clearer scriptural support for the practice of head
covering and foot washing than we do for the ground of locality. At least in either of those cases, there was
not only an example recorded, but also a clear charge to practice alongside
it. Not so with “the local ground.” Thoughts concerning its indispensability will
only emerge from the Bible with the help of generous deductions and
implications.
Yet
with such tentative scriptural support, this particular teaching of church
structure has warped into ecclesiastical primacy in the LC Movement. Time and tradition have served to transform the
biblical record of church practice into inflexible rules of form. Blueprints have been derived from passages
that were more than likely never intended to be blueprints at all.
Tragically,
what began as a proposition that contains exciting potential—all the Christians in a city are one church
in that city!—has slowly narrowed to a myopic “vision” that is all but
unlivable among Christians today. Even
if it were the Holy Spirit’s mind to ratify one-city-one-church as a binding
practical necessity in the Bible, we wonder about the long cavalcade of extras
hitched to it:
one-city-one-church-one-leadership-one-meeting-place-one-meeting-one-schedule-one-ministry-one-hymnal-one-Bible-translation-one-culture-one-opinion. It is doubtful that such an unwieldy package
was ever meant for imposition on the saints down through church history.
However,
rigidity and heaviness may be the least of the problems associated with “the
local ground.” Wherever the teaching has
found strict application, it has frequently inflicted harm upon its own
adherents. The Brethren themselves
became casualties of church ground politics.
Ironside wrote of their “one rule of the solemn game of ‘playing church’…that
there could only be one church in a city” (84).
He
told the story of an aging, saintly man among the Brethren who located a small
group of believers within a particular city, a godly group that had developed
an interest in spiritual things along Brethren lines. However the local Brethren assembly in the
same city was “rotten” with “unseemly gossip and un-Christlike wrangling.” The elderly brother decided not to direct the
new group into the sick Brethren fellowship but counseled them to simply
continue in their fellowship without abolishing their weekly meetings and to
begin breaking bread. Upon the return to
his home assembly, however, he was accused of “a definite overt attack on the
ground of the one Body.” The new group
was judged as being “off the church ground.”
The elderly shepherd was excommunicated and sat for months in the back
of his home assembly “with tears streaming down his face” as he was made to
occupy “the place of the immoral man or the blasphemer” (Ironside, 84-85).
This
scene is only made worse by the fact that the man was none other than Dr. Edward
Cronin, one of the very founders of the Brethren Movement. What followed the incident was a rallying cry
among zealots to support the quarantine both of the “outlaw” group and its
instigator, called “the wicked old doctor” (Ironside 89). Those who were reluctant to agree with it
were also summarily excommunicated, not the least of which was William Kelly, a
prolific writer and notable saint among the Brethren. John Nelson Darby pleaded from his deathbed
for mercy upon Kelly, but it availed nothing.
The “guardians” of church orthodoxy would eventually destroy Kelly as
well. Thus a founder of the Brethren and
some of its most notable champions became victims of the monster that “the
local ground” had become.
If
a city-church emphasis is scriptural, (which, I believe it is in principle, but
not in legality), then rest assured that it exists to benefit the saints,
stimulate their fellowship, promote their oneness, and not be a cage or a
purging instrument. As Jesus said, “the
Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath,” then we could also say
that the local ground, a far lesser precept, was made for the saints and not
the saints for it.
Our
contemporary world also demands further contemplation when it comes to applying
“the local ground” in modern cities. The
setting of city-churches that we observe in the pages of the New Testament does
not exist anymore. Neither that world
nor that Christian community exists on this far side of twenty centuries. Pretending that things are the same will only
succeed in making a Christian today look very
strange.
I
realize that it is risky to adjust church practice based on a theory of
changing times. Nevertheless, in the
absence of any scriptural data to forbid it, we must take changing times into
consideration. For one thing, the
geopolitical makeup of cities has altered dramatically. Now clusters of municipalities occur together
and it is doubtful that the Spirit intended oneness to be measured along their
finite borders. Rather, it seems that the divine intention was to establish
that believers who live in proximity to one another should somehow fellowship
and coordinate together. Unfortunately,
human nature always manages to seize some principle of expedience from
scripture and convert it into a gospel truth that is then legalized, boxed,
packaged, and mass-produced.
Changes
have not only occurred on the map. The
Body of Christ itself has hugely proliferated and diversified beyond all human
endeavors to bring it under one organizational roof. Yes, some Christians have acted divisively
during this process but it is terribly shortsighted to think that all of the
church’s diffusion into every corner of the globe and into every gender,
racial, and social-based need has come from sectarian activity. In fact, there has been noticeable progress
made in terms of how congregations look at themselves and others. Just thirty years ago, it was a badge of
honor to be known as a “Lutheran” or a “Baptist” first, and then as a
Christian. Now many congregations refuse
denominational names altogether, in favor of simpler, more inclusive
designations. Chief among them are the community churches that seem to be
appearing everywhere. Greater
inter-congregational involvement rides the coattails of these new attitudes.
The
LC Movement will dismiss all of this as being ecumenical. Yet, against a positive, shifting backdrop,
such Scrooge-like judgments will sound like the worst forms of ignorance. The very central pillar that the Movement
claims to stand for—oneness—looks as though it is being accomplished through
other avenues. As time passes, and the
church at large progresses toward “making herself ready,” LC Movement
principles which used to sound “cutting edge” will begin to seem
redundant. While members tirelessly
lecture themselves and others about oneness, the Lord imperceptibly carries it
out in His Body, without fanfare and issue making. Thus, the very people who make the most noise
about Christians being one in a city might actually miss the Spirit’s operation
of those things. It would be reminiscent
of the Jews who taught in the synagogues concerning the Messiah day and night
and then missed Him when He came. Two
thousand years later, many still teach about Him and hope to meet Him in the
future. This goes on even while they are
surrounded with “unworthy” Gentiles who have not only met the Messiah but have
a daily relationship with Him. In a
similar way, if the overall developmental trend continues in the Christian
public, the LC Movement may increasingly find itself campaigning for the
horseless carriage in a world full of Cadillacs and jet planes.
Perhaps
our changing world is the main reason why the Spirit refused to issue an
authoritative “Thus says the Lord” about “the local ground.” Any model of church structure not allowing a
high degree of elasticity might trap the saints in the cultural and spiritual
setting of a bygone time. The church
itself would harden into an Amish universe of sorts, an irrelevant oddity
completely out of sync with its surrounding community.
“That
local church has deviated!” is a popular charge from the LC Movement’s
watchtower. Indeed, as long as the ideal
of “the Local ground” is treated as truth, its pattern and accessories are
non-negotiable items, binding on all persons in all places at all times. Change is an ominous word, viewed with
suspicion. Since the “pattern” of church
has been received once for all it is thought, even small alterations to it can
be alarming.
Let’s
consider this matter from precedent. The
blueprint of God’s house was originally delivered to Moses along with a
charge: “see…that you make all things
according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:6). The external features of God’s dwelling
place—its boards, linens, furniture and vessels—were all defined, and, it is
presumed, supposed to remain the same forever. Enter David. Probably no one in the Old Testament loved
the house of God more than he did, yet no one was more instrumental in changing
it. An age had passed and God’s people had entered a new era. Their spiritual progress (spearheaded by
David) all but demanded a modification of God’s house. Over the years, the previous pattern of the
tabernacle at Shiloh had become an empty shell. So, the things of the tabernacle were
brought up into the temple and, functionally speaking, disappeared into it (2
Chron. 5:5).
David
dared to build a house for God, not altogether different from the original
Mosaic pattern, but not identical to it, either. Without knowing better, one might say that
David had departed (deviated!) from
the approved pattern delivered to Moses.
But he described these alterations as the product of divine revelation
impressed upon his inward parts (1 Chron. 28:11-12, 19). What was new about his blueprint? Everything. What was the same? Everything, depending on how you looked at
it. Although the temple structure and
furnishings were based upon previous tabernacle design, they were crafted into
very new forms (see the similarities and differences by comparing Exodus 25-40
with 1 Kings 6-8). However, even as the
external features of God’s house underwent rigorous modifications, a set of
constants remained untouched. The
indispensable themes of propitiatory blood, spiritual washing, feeding, and
light continued to be the unique way in which men would approach and fellowship
with the Lord.
Eventually,
the reality of God’s house does not lie in a collection of surface
arrangements. Rather, it is defined by
attendant spiritual realities proceeding out of the Person and work of
Christ. If we can’t bring ourselves to
think this way, and continue instead to grasp church structures as paramount,
we will not be able to account for God’s manifold blessings poured out on so
many “incorrect” outward arrangements among congregations down through
history. We will find it hard to explain
why churches with the proper “pattern” (according to the LC Movement) are struggling
for their lives today, yet slowly dwindling—a strange way indeed for God to
vindicate His “very best.”
Today
various Christian groups are dramatically increasing not only in numbers but
also with real disciples, indicating that the Lord’s smile is upon them. In the midst of this continued blessing,
however, I cannot locate one Local Church that has grown like their
“Christianity cousins.” Nor have I
sensed a flow of life in any Local Churches that are currently pickled in LC
Movement culture. But I have heard many
stories from church veterans about how things briefly were that way back in the
sixties and seventies. Under these circumstances, it seems that we are dealing
with another Shiloh tabernacle, now largely empty of the ark, but full of
memories about when it used to be there.
Our
survival today depends upon developing new flexible attitudes. One of these has to do with how we see local
Christians who do not meet with us. Are
they our competition, our curse, or our supply of proselytes? I used to think of them as all three. But I can’t see any of those poor attitudes
when I look through the window of Romans 16.
There the inward workings of a first century city-church are on display,
not taught, but shown to all. And what we see is a fellowship that knows
nothing of the rigidity associated with LC oneness. Instead, the scene is alive with diversity
not only between individual believers but groups as well (16:5, 10, 11,
14-15). I would grant the possibility
that all the Roman saints met in Aquilla and Priscilla’s home (although Paul
strangely specifies the church that is in
their house as opposed to simply saying “the church”—Rom. 16:5). Still, even if they did all meet together on
a regular basis, Paul recognized definite group identities among them. Apparently, they were together enough to pass
salutations to one another and yet not so integrated that their group
distinctions disappeared.
Referencing
this casual Romans template, workers from the Midwest (including me) restarted
our labor in Uganda, Africa. Disappointing
earlier efforts (which were still somewhat influenced by the LC Movement) had
produced a predictably lackluster church.
Tired of the stagnant growth rate and alarmed by narrowing attitudes, we
began calling together pastors in Kampala (the capital). We invited them to participate in the church
life without renouncing anything.
Our
implementation of “the ground” would allow for every born again Christian to be
received on the basis of the biblical faith alone. They were allowed to keep their meeting
places, peripheral beliefs, tongues-speaking, native music, and if they wished,
their particular congregational identity and names. Neither were they required to meet with the
congregation Keith Miller had raised up under his direct care during phase two
of the labor. We did agree that once
every six or eight weeks, leaders throughout the city would bring together
people from their congregations for a “whole church comes together meeting” (1
Cor. 14:23). Since transportation issues
in the third world are frustrating, only a limited number have been able to
participate, but as of the most recent count, there are over seven
hundred. With children the number
approaches one thousand.
Apart
from these large corporate gatherings, a resident worker, Keith Miller, holds
workshops for pastors, giving spiritual help to them but never assuming any
official authority over them. All are
free to come and go as they please, and to receive as little or as much help as
they have appetite for. From the
citywide perspective, he shares local administrative oversight with these
men.
Naturally
this will elicit cries that we have embraced the clergy-laity system. The truth is that rather than “open fire” on
anyone with a title, we decided to take a step back and exercise a little
reflective wisdom. First, we had to come
to terms with the fact that these men raised up the people who were with them
and that it would be irresponsible to tell them to abandon their posts (We had
already lost hundreds of people by foolishly doing this). Instead, we stressed the need for them to be
genuine servants of the saints, not kings, and to learn to bring others into
their spiritual function. We have found
this a far more winning strategy than to lash out at the pastoral system, neutralizing
the shepherds, and scattering the sheep.
There
are plenty of problems with the Ugandan model.
However, as an approach to practicing the city-church, it is light years
ahead of Movement assumptions that local oneness is about teachings, hymns,
ministers, structures, leaders, etc.
Such ideas continue to prove themselves ineffective the world over.
Admittedly,
the limitations of trying to transplant this approach are fairly severe. Uganda is a lot different in culture and
Christian development than nations like the United States or Canada. Much of Africa still has the advantages of
Christian simplicity that industrialized countries do not. Parachuting into an American city and then
presenting a simple plan to church leaders that we should all come together
will garner responses ranging from rejection to suspicion and perhaps rightly
so. Oneness movements usually end up in
the hands of “one,” and it is not Jesus Christ.
Still,
in Columbus we have sought friendlier relations with other Christian groups
than ever before. We exercise to overlook denominational walls, acting and
living as if they do not exist. Recently
we have had very positive encounters with various groups and their leadership
entities. Each case has been pleasant
and one of them recently involved our annual Mountaintop Youth Event, where a
local megachurch coordinated together with us.
We used their facility, while some of their members attended our Sunday
morning gathering. We also joined
forces performing community service in several Columbus area suburbs.
During
all the years we counted “the ground of locality” as a central belief, we had
never experienced such a thing. Our
doctrine, while touted as the solution to achieving practical oneness, had
actually become a way of excluding others.
Not once in our history had we treated another Christian group as a
legitimate part of the church in that city.
It was a case of the belief-to-practice ratio being at an even
zero. However, once we freed “the local
ground” (and ourselves) from so many ridiculously binding restrictions, we
suddenly felt as though there really was only one church in this city.
Even
if the church landscape at large won’t permit close coordination and
fellowship, increased friendly contact will bring with it some important
opportunities. There are plenty of
spiritual and practical things to learn from cell-churches, house churches,
megachurches, and community churches.
Properly used, the ground of locality puts Christians next to one
another to insure sharing in the common spiritual experiences of all. This community chest approach should keep
congregations from becoming anemic, shrinking and dying.
Get
out, pay visits, and tell people that you are a student of the Body of
Christ. Many who are broad-hearted will,
in turn, welcome your presence. A little
humility can go a long way, so don’t be afraid to admit that your church is not
doing very well in this or that area. Schedule appointments with key people, but bear in mind that many
will have serious time constraints.
They probably won’t have time to fellowship for hours.
As
this sharing of ideas is going on, one consideration always needs to be kept in
mind. That is, while XYZ Community
Church has a lot of great ideas, programs, and perhaps lots of neat technology,
it is probably composed of a very different social demographic than your church
and has five thousand people. Obviously
if you try to implement everything they have, you will “nuke” the thirty people
who are with you. Let wisdom temper
everything. Use the things that are
helpful or that can reasonably improve the near future of the people you’re
with. Anything more grand than this
involves time, fellowship, patience, and numerous steps. In the meantime, learn from everyone, but
don’t try to be everyone.
Congregational identity is important. It
becomes very disorienting if the church is like a chameleon, constantly
committing to random, wholesale changes.
The best way to avoid trouble is to understand the features, strengths,
and weaknesses of the people you serve.
Market the features. Accentuate
the strengths. Minister
to the weaknesses.
On
the note of congregational identity, let’s consider how a church identifies
itself to the city in which it is located.
One of the great claims of the Local Churches is that they do not have a
name. Now this is where a serious contradiction emerges, because ninety-nine
percent of them are called “The church in [city].” LC faithful protest, by
saying, “That’s not a name, it’s a description.” But there is a limitation to
how far a person’s common sense will allow him to go along with this
explanation. After all, Kentucky Fried
Chicken is also a description, but when we see it duplicated everywhere we know
that it is more than a description. It is a name.
“This
was how the Bible referred to the church,” says the response. And so we enter what I call “The Name
Game.” When consulting the Bible, we
find the church on the earth referred to as “the church in [city]” about ten
times, “the church of God” ten times, and “the church of Christ” two
times. Of course if you check the
original Greek, “church” never shows up even once. That’s right.
The Greek word for “church” is ecclesia, which means a called out gathering,
or assembly. So, for those who wish to
remain closer to the exact Apostolic thought, you could say “the assembly in
[city]” or “the assembly of God” or “the assembly of Christ.” All of these, of course, are also
“descriptions.”
With
this in view, we wonder if it makes sense to argue for the formulaic “church in
[city]” while using the Bible as grounds for it. Ecclesia is used about 115 times in the New
Testament and is always incorrectly translated “church,” except for Acts 19:32,
39, 41, where it is properly translated
“assembly.” The first complete English
Bible was the Tyndale Bible, which appeared in 1524, and that Bible did not use
the term “church” at all. It used the
word “congregation.” Sometime after the
Tyndale Bible was introduced, “congregation” began being replaced with
“church.”
For
those who grab a concordance and deduce that only the word “church” should be
used to describe a congregation in a city, consider this bewildering etymology
and ask yourself whether you would like to engage in “The Name Game.” Our English word, “church,” is derived from
the Greek kuriakon, meaning “the
Lord’s house,” and referring to a building.
However, the Greek word kuriakon
does not occur in the Bible. Under its
listing for “church,” Elwell Evangelical
Dictionary says that the English word “church” derives from the late Greek word kurioton.” It was later than the Greek in which the New
Testament was written. Upon hearing the
word, the Apostles would have very likely said, “Huh, what?” Thus,
the simple translation that we think exists between ecclesia and “church” is
largely fictitious.
Even
the English word “church” has roots of which most of us are not aware. Webster’s New World Dictionary (3rd
Ed., 1988), tells us that “church” is “derived from the Middle English word chirch/kirke, which is derived from the
Old English word cirice (and the old
Norse kirkja) which is derived from
Germanic kirika, which is derived
from the classical Greek kyriake (oika) which means “lord’s house.” Again, all of this etymology springs from a
word not even used in the Bible.
I
am not presenting these things to outlaw the use of the word “church,”
influence all the Bible translators on earth to change “church” to “assembly,”
or cast aspersions on those who use “church” to identify themselves. I believe “church” is a perfectly legitimate
word for use among Christians (God knows what we mean when we say it). My grievance is with those who adopt an
intolerant stance on the name issue when a 30-minute word study will prove that
it’s not worth a war.
Ironically,
all of these concerns for the right name come from a group that adamantly
denies possessing one. We recently
received a phone call from a brother asking if we had given up the name, since we are now known as
Columbus Christian Assembly. One of the
elders here asked him in turn, “Well, what was our name before?” The point is well taken. Regardless of how they deny it, every no-name
group eventually is named, and perhaps even more strongly than those around
it. Years back I heard about a
congregation that refused to be called anything. With the passage of enough time and with
their strong resistance to names becoming well-known, they were eventually
called “The Group with No Name.” That
was their name. The same is true of the
simple groups of 19th century non-denominated brethren who became
“the Brethren.” We also see “the Church
of Christ” and “the Church of God” beginning with intentions of avoiding the
denominational menagerie. They chose a
thoroughly biblical way of describing themselves, but were clearly named, as
time passed. Today when these groups
make efforts to say, “That’s just our description” it boils down to arguments
over semantics. They’re in the phone
book, registered with the state, have a sign, and are identified by the people
around them. They have a name.
All
of this resistance to congregational identity is perhaps, missing the point,
anyway. There is only one name in the
New Testament that we are told never to deny or change. It is not what we call a congregation,
it is what we call our Savior. “The
name” is not “the church in [city]”. It
is Jesus Christ. Many LC Movement
people habitually overlook this point.
I
personally do not treat the area of church names as an anything goes
proposition, especially since the Bible designates churches by geographical
location. A lot of
Christians have gotten creative and departed from that thought, (i.e. The
Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, Mars Hill, Mosaic, Xenos, or Baptists, Methodists,
Presbyterians, etc.). But making
an issue of names is the fastest way to invalidate the claim to not having
one. The challenge back in our direction
will always be, “Then what should we be called?” LC members, of course, will respond with “the
right answer” of “the church in a city” consequently doing exactly what they
condemn (of course, they will not realize it).
In the ensuing debate, the real casualty will always be the oneness of
the Spirit, which “the local ground” and the “proper name” were supposed to
preserve. The city church is invalidated when either an aggressive
denominational or non-denominational stance is taken, thus restricting
inter-congregational fellowship.
As
we probe these much more liberal considerations of the local church, problems
may very well surface. Congregational
unraveling could occur, as present church members no longer feel bound by the
strict application of “the local ground.” Neither will warnings about leaving
the church life have the same electrifying effect as before. Without the
restraint of one-city-one-church, saints might run wild. However, even those most faithful to “the
local ground” have been accessories in destroying local churches. Ecclesiology is notoriously impotent to
restrain the flesh. When divisive
sentiments are kindled in the human heart, philosophies of oneness wither. This was why Paul did not confront the
divisive Corinthian situation with a teaching of “the local ground.” He had a perfect opportunity—possibly the
best in all of scripture—to espouse one-city-one-church. He could have said,
“O, foolish Corinthians, do you not know that there is one church in a
city?” Instead, he dealt with the
heart, not church practice, presenting “Christ and Him crucified” as the
solution.
Actually
this places a tremendous responsibility upon us as leaders to consider the
quality of discipleship that we are giving to people. If, in a church environment people can so
easily leave and go somewhere else, it says something about the Christian life
promoted in that congregational culture.
Have the ethics of love and forgiveness, self-sacrifice and grace been
deeply implanted in the membership psyche or at the first petty offense do they
bolt for an exit?
Real
spiritual substance must penetrate our relationships. Without it, views of the church and teachings
of oneness can only artificially prop up a group of people. We are to be one with each other as Christ is
one with the Father. When structures
such as the city-church can help facilitate that, we heartily endorse
them. But when those structures begin
offending the very reality they claim to preserve, then it is time to adjust
them or change them.
Ironside,
H.A. A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement
(Loizxeau Brothers, 1985).