Locality is definitely "prescriptive" for we see the only way the church is
described is either universally or in locality. For example, you never see the
church of Syria or church of Asia Minor, but it is always the churches in Syria
or the churches in Asia Minor.
Since many Christians do not teach or even accept this doctrine of locality
(called biblocality), it doesn't mean they are not saved, but because some might
even directly fight against it, certainly they will lose rewards. It's one thing
to not have it in your conscience and conscious awareness, but another thing to
fight it when it is directly and clearly laid out in Scripture and you have no
evidence to the contrary.
When a scattered church occurs, the locality loses its structure of believers
from the Elder of a locality to the approval of the Elders of its meeting
places.
Absence of when a church is not mentioned such as "church of [this or that
city]" is not a valid reason to reject the biblocality, for Scripture more than
amply mentions enough times the proper organizing of the Church with this
designation. Sometimes Scripture may only say "the apostles who were at
Jerusalem" (Acts 8.14) or various other designations. Why this designation
Apostles at Jerusalem? Aren't Apostles regional workers, not Elders of a
locality? Yes, but each regional of churches also has a central place for the
Apostles to gather as well. Just like Edmonton is the capital of Alberta,
Canada.
In Acts 9 we read, "the churches throughout all Judea" (v.31). Notice it is
not the church of Judea, but the churches of Judea. The designation for the
churches is not developed to a larger extent until some time after believers are
first called Christians in Antioch. Appreciate the development. First it starts
in homes, then the locality is identified as the boundary of the church and
never exceeds this limit.
Why does God do it this way? Because God knows man's flesh all too well. He
knows if man starts thinking of popery or an archdiocese of United States or
Africa as is the case for many denominations, cults and sects, this is too much
power for one man and will surely be abused. God limits the Apostle to a region
of churches or region of cities.
I think it is an unreasonable demand to require every chapter identify the
church of a locality with the specific designation, so your argument doesn't
hold if you can find a chapter that doesn't provide this designation, though
enough chapters do. Even in chapter 21 of Acts, Paul does place emphasis on the
city: "of an important city" (v.39).
Both Paul and Luke held to proper ecclesiology for the church in the churches
of... Paul did not only apply locality to Galatia and Thessalonica.
When the body of Christ is dispersed or misuses proper locality, extending
the boundary beyond a locality like a denomination tries to do, or a
congregation may have too narrow a view (e.g. big churches), that is no
excuse to reject biblocality. Let's say you are dispersed outside of Jerusalem,
well then you are in another locality and would be a member of that church
locale. Don't give into the deception that if you were in the church of Dallas,
but then moved to Paris you are still in the church of Dallas. How silly.
Vague assessments don't count. We see clearly in Scripture the house meetings
developing into the locality of believers as the unit for the church. That is
the objective and what strengthens the body of Christ to create harmony and
cohesive structure for proper fellowship and organizing.
Like T. Austin Sparks said, there are advanced parties and harbingers in
every sphere. He was referring to partial rapture, but the principle holds,
before you can have church locality, you must first develop house meetings.
Ground work must take place before the Apostle returns to that city and appoints
and Elder of the locality, not for the house, but for the entire body of
believers in that city.
The locality church is both prescriptive, evidenced and descriptive. We
should not change this because of the vagaries of men who prefer independency to
proper ecclesiology. Independency will never suffice. Jerusalem and Rome maintain God's "church of...this or
that city" even unto the rewards given to overcomer believers, to reign over 10,
5, 1 cities in story by Jesus. The unit is the church: the believers organized
as one unit in a city! Denoms do not do that, nor do so-called independent
churches.
Peter, James and John all use the same terminology and structure for the
Church. In Fresno, California there are apparently 450 so-called "churches," but
God wants to bring the body of Christ into cohesive union. These so-called
"churches" are the largest employer in the city, but they are not operating
according to God's design, so the body of Christ remains disjoined. There is
only one way to divide the body of Christ, by locality. Certainly not by
denominational teaching or houses or regions. That will never do.
There is no supra-local church. There are just the local churches with Elders
appointed by Apostles. If there are 10
million people in the city or 10,000, it is still the church locality God has in
mind. You may need more Elders of the locality for a bigger city and certainly
many more Elders of meeting places, but never does the unit change. Ultimately,
the unit is moving towards a very large size in the New City in the New Earth,
so the city today is a miniature of what will become. But let us be patient.
Jesus hasn't even returned yet to reign during the millennial kingdom on earth.
There is no ground for regional churches or supra-regional churches since
there is not even one verse in Scripture for this teaching. It is always the
church of Paris in the churches of France, or the church of Ephesus in the
churches of Asia Minor.
When a Christian in a locality finally accepts this proper structure of the
church where Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a church locality,
what is he to do? He is to tell others and may himself become an Apostle if
commissioned by God, or an Elder of a locality if appointed, or an Elder of a
meeting place if approved. But never is he to divide the body of Christ any other way
or make excuses to reject the proper organizing of the Church. Even though there
may be no appointed Elder of the locality yet, that is ok, for all in due time.
Never be impatient in appointing Elders. "Never be in a hurry about appointing
an elder" (1 Tim. 5.22).
There are many meeting places already from the grass roots up who believe the
Bible and reject the false dividing of the church which says "I of Cephas" or "I
of Apollos" (denominationalism) or "I of Christ" (congregationalism or
non-denominationalism). But as Apostles come to your city, they will observe,
speak, and in good time, appoint an Elder of your locality.
If you are a believer who is fellowshipping on another basis you are sinning.
You may even accuse the Christian who teaches correctly of being proud, but
listen to the Christian who is telling you the truth. Many today are leaving the
status quo because they know it is wrong and will stand for Satan's deception no
more! They don't understand why exactly, but they sense it is wrong. The Holy
Spirit is speaking to them in their spirit by revelation in agreement with God's
Word.
“It’s us, it’s us, O Lord,
standing on the local ground” (Song)
One city, one church—the “ground of
locality” maxim*—is the cornerstone of Local Church teaching regarding church
practice; it is presented as characteristic of the New Testament church in its
pristine purity. The local ground is not a prescriptive teaching in the New
Testament; nevertheless W. Nee claimed that Scripture’s descriptive examples
provide an unambiguous precedent. He1
“maintained that there should be ‘one church in one locality.’…A church should
not represent an area smaller or larger than a city and, therefore, its
jurisdiction should correspond with administrative limits of a city.” “In the
Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a city, nor do we
find any church which does not cover the entire area. A city is the scriptural
unit of locality,” W. Nee asserted.2 He believed this biblical pattern applied
in the twentieth century just as it did in the first, hence, he called on
Christians to return to the beginning—one
city, one church. W. Nee also
observed that,3 “in Scripture no other name but the name of a locality is ever
connected with a church,” Following this precedent, local churches adopt the
city’s name, e.g., the Church in Shanghai, the Church in Los Angeles, etc.
Witness Lee surpassed his mentor in
zeal for the local ground, making “one
city, one church” one of the
essentials of the Christian faith. Among the4“main
items of the proper Christian faith,” he inserted“The
church…is locally one—one city, one church.” Anticipating objections, he says,5
“Some may disagree with the point, one city, one church, but as a proper
Christian we have to believe that the church is both universally one and locally
one.” For W. Lee, “locally one” means one city, one church. Clearly, for some,
the local ground dictum is not merely a guide; if we take W. Lee seriously, it
is ranked on par with the essential items of the faith.
Jerusalem is the first church
mentioned in Acts (5:11) and is designated according to its city (8:1). Alluding
to the6 “principle of first mention,” W. Lee asserts,7
“This was the first church established in
a locality within the jurisdiction of a city, the city of Jerusalem. It was a
local church in its locality….The record concerning this matter (the
establishing of the church in its locality) is consistent throughout the New
Testament.” He also describes the replication of this pattern in Antioch;8 “In
the city of Jerusalem there was one church, the church in Jerusalem…. After
this, the testimony and gospel of the Lord spread from Jerusalem to Samaria and
from Samaria to Antioch. As a result, how many churches were there in Antioch?
Acts 13:1…speaks of the one church in Antioch.” From Antioch, Paul travelled the
Gentile world, planting churches in various cities and appointing elders in each
congregation (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Based on Paul’s practice, W. Lee deduces
this9 “indicates not only that the jurisdiction of a local church is the city in
which it is located but also that in one city there should be only one church.
The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city in which that
church is located.” This is the scriptural justification for “one city, one
church.”
Here we re-examine
“one
city, one church”—the “local ground”
maxim. This principle is typically
established based on Paul’s pattern and then extended to other churches
described in Scripture. We ask--are there notable exceptions? In particular we
focus on Jerusalem, the first church described in Acts, and Rome, the last
church in Luke’s record of Acts. Neither of these was established by
Paul. We ask—does Scripture describe Jerusalem and Rome as local churches,
bounded by the jurisdiction of their city? Was Jerusalem a local church or a
supra-local church? Were the Roman believers a city-church or simply a
house-church? Did Rome and Jerusalem view themselves as local churches standing
on the local ground—“one city, one church”? Or were these churches’
self-understandings markedly different? The answers determine whether there is a
unique scriptural pattern or several alternative biblical models of the New
Testament church.
The Jerusalem Church—from Gathered Church to Scattered
Church
The Church in Jerusalem is
presented by W. Lee as the prototype local church standing on the ground of
locality.10 No doubt this church was designated according to its city. Yet, that
doesn’t necessarily imply Jerusalem functioned as a local church limited to its
jurisdiction as defined by the city limits. Nor does it necessarily imply that
the Jerusalem church leaders or members viewed themselves this way. Such
deductions may result from eisegesis—reading the “one city, one church”
dictum back into the scriptural record.
Jerusalem is the first church
recorded in Acts (5:11; 8:1, 3). However, persecution following Stephen’s
martyrdom scattered its members throughout Judea and Samaria. As a result this
“gathered church” became a “scattered church.” Saul persecuted the dispersed
believers in Jerusalem and the surrounding cities until he was confronted by
Christ on the Damascus road. According to Acts, following his conversion “the
church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee
and Samaria had peace” (9:31). Here is a striking counter-example to the
“one city, one church” dictum. It uses the singular,11 “church,” to designate
the believers in an entire region. This contradicts the assertion that,12 “In
the Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a city….” It
also violates the statement,13 “In the Word of God we never read of the
church…in Judea, or the church in Galilee.” This Scripture (9:31) cannot be
discounted or dismissed14 simply because it violates the “one city, one church”
mold.
W. Lee argues that “the church”
here (in 9:31) refers to the universal church. He says,15
Since at that time
the church had spread only to the provinces of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and
since the word whole covers all the places where the church existed,
church in singular is used here in the universal sense, although there must
have been churches in the local sense in a number of the cities of these three
provinces.
However, this explanation ignores
the fact that there were already disciples in other regions, for example,
Damascus in Syria (Acts 9:10, 19). Hence, contrary to Witness Lee’s claim, the
aggregate of local churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria did not equal
the universal (global) church at that time. A more plausible explanation for
this anomaly is that the scattered Jerusalem believers were still viewed as one
church, the Church in Jerusalem, even when they were dispersed. Hence, they were
“the[Jerusalem] church [scattered]throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and
Samaria.” According to the Acts record, they did not become the churches
in Judea, Samaria and Galilee; Luke never designates them as such. Professor
Dunn concurs with this interpretation, saying,16 “When the Hellenist believers
who had been dispersed from Jerusalem met together [in multiple locations] they
were still the church of God.” The Church in Jerusalem doesn’t fit the
stereotype of a local church standing on the local ground. That model describes
churches established by Paul; it does not match the Jerusalem Church. This
conclusion is reinforced by examining striking omissions in the book of Acts.
Local Churches in Acts—Occurrences & Omissions
The ground of locality teaching is
based on occurrences of the term17 “church(es)” in the New Testament. Little
attention is paid to omissions of this term—places where the term “church” could
have been employed, yet it is noticeably absent. It is significant that the
first local church explicitly designated in Acts is Jerusalem; the second is
Antioch (11:26; 13:1).18 During the intervening period, according to Acts’
record, the gospel reached many places, yet none is explicitly designated by
scripture as “the church in [that city]”. Consider the following:
·Philip
preached in the city of Samaria; Peter & John confirmed the disciples. Yet there
is no explicit mention of “the church in the city of Samaria” (Acts 8);
·Saul
(Paul) was converted and stayed with the disciples at Damascus (9:19, 25); yet
the term “church in Damascus” is never used (Acts 9);
·Peter
visited disciples at Lydda, Sharon, & Joppa; yet none of these is designated as
“the church in [that city]” (Acts 9);
·Peter
visited Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, initiating the “Gentile Pentecost,” yet
the believers aren’t called “the church in Caesarea.” (Acts 10);
·Paul
visited Tyre, Ptolemais, & Caesarea, en route to Jerusalem, but none of
these are explicitly referred to as “the church in [that city]” (Acts 21).
Only when the gospel reached
Antioch (Acts 11:26; 13:1) is the term “church” applied to a city besides
Jerusalem. These omissions form a striking pattern calling for explanation.
Except for Jerusalem, none of the groups of disciples gathering in various towns
and villages of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee is specifically designated as “the
church” in that place. According to the “local ground” dictum they ought to be.
These companies are called “the disciples” (Acts 8:19; 9:38; 21:4, 16), “the
saints” (Acts 9:32, 41), and “the brothers” (Acts 10:23; 21:7) in those
locations; but they are never called “the church in (that place).” It seems Luke
consciously avoided this designation, even when it would be natural to use it.
We find this omission striking and significant; it needs an explanation.
The Church in Jerusalem—Local Church OR Supra-local Church?
The terms “the disciples,” “the
saints,” and “the brothers” also describe the Jerusalem believers. In addition,
the title “Church in Jerusalem” is explicitly applied to the Christians centered
there. Moreover, even after groups of displaced disciples existed in towns
throughout the region, the term “the church” (Acts 12:1, 5; 18:22) was still
understood to mean “the Church in Jerusalem.” Why? Apparently
it was the only recognized church. The last
reference is particularly telling. Returning to Israel from his second journey,
Paul “went up and greeted the church and went down to
Antioch.” (Acts 18:22 RcV. Lit.19) In this context, “‘the church’ can only mean
the church in Jerusalem,” says Professor F. F. Bruce. We conclude that, although
congregations existed in towns and villages of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, the
Acts record does not match the “ground of locality” dictum; it doesn’t recognize
many local churches, one per town. Evidently, in regions served by the “pillar
apostles,” Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:9), only one church was recognized—“thechurchthroughout
Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), the [dispersed] Church in Jerusalem,
or simply “the church” (Acts 12:1; 18:22).
Apparently Jerusalem had a status
as “the church,” which other congregations in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee did
not. Jerusalem also had elders (Acts 11:30; 15:2, 6, 22; 16:4; 21:18); evidently
other places did not. Moreover, there is evidence the Jerusalem elders’
administration extended beyond the city limits. The Antioch disciples sent
famine relief funds to the Jerusalem elders for “dispensing to the brothers
dwelling in Judea” (Acts 11:29,) a region extending
beyond Jerusalem’s city limits. Evidently the Jerusalem elders didn’t regard
themselves as overseeing a church whose
jurisdiction was bounded by the administrative confines of their city. The
spiritual and administrative center of this church was Jerusalem where the
apostles and elders resided; the periphery of the Jerusalem Church extended into
the surrounding regions. In Acts the Church in Jerusalem was a supra-local
church.
“The Churches of Judea”—a Pauline Paradigm?
The apostle Paul employs the term,
“the churches of Judea,” (Gal. 1:22) and, “the churches of God which are in
Judea” (1 Thess. 2:14). This use of the plural “churches” matches the “local
ground” teaching, suggesting there were multiple churches in Judea. However, we
note that this phrase is only used by Paul writing to churches he planted in
Galatia and Thessalonica. Yes, Paul described them as “the churches of Judea,”
which matches his pattern of one church, one city. Yet other New Testament
writers, including Luke, do not use this phrase. Probably Paul viewed
Judea as containing multiple local churches; but this was Paul’s own paradigm.
The important question is—did the Judean believers view themselves as distinct
local churches, each standing on its local ground? Or did the Judean believers
regard themselves as one church—the dispersed Church in Jerusalem, “thechurchthroughout
the whole of Judea”? The evidence available in Scripture suggests the latter.
The Jerusalem Church—a Church in Dispersion
The discrepancy between the “local
ground” maxim and the historical record is heightened in the later history of
the Jerusalem Church. According to the historical record the Jerusalem believers
heeded the Lord’s warning of impending tragedy when Jerusalem was besieged by
Roman armies (Luke 21:20) in A.D. 70. Professor F. F. Bruce tells us,20 “When
the Jewish revolt against Rome broke out…the Jerusalem church left the city and
went into dispersion.” They migrated to the vicinity of Pella, across the
Jordan, in the region of Decapolis. Significantly, Bruce adds, “In dispersion
these believers continued to call themselves the church of
Jerusalem,” for decades afterwards. In that era they didn’t adhere to the
“ground of locality;” rather they were the “exiled church in Jerusalem.”
“One City, One Church”—Unique Biblical Blueprint OR Paul’s
Pattern?
The Local Church movement presents
the “ground of locality” dictum as the unique biblical blueprint for the local
church. Other models—house churches, community churches, regional churches—are
denounced as unscriptural. Yet the teaching of “one city, one church” derives
from the a priori assumption that all the biblical data, like pieces of
one jigsaw puzzle, fit together as “one picture.” This assumption underlies W.
Nee’s21 “search for the only
possible biblical pattern to establish the church.” His conclusion that22
“in the New Testament there is one
method and one alone of dividing the [universal] Church into churches, and that
God-ordained method is division on the basis of locality,” relies upon this
axiom. However, Robert Govett23
reminds us that scriptural principles can’t always be reduced to one
all-encompassing pattern. Sometimes opposing divine principles are held together
in tension. The biblical pattern(s) for the local church may fit this latter
category. Perhaps all the puzzle pieces (the biblical data) form multiple
pictures rather than composing one unique blueprint.
We don’t dispute the record of the
apostle Paul establishing local churches in cities where he preached. These
churches were designated by the city (e.g., the church in Corinth) or the
citizens (e.g., the church of the Thessalonians). Typically elders were
appointed to oversee each local church. This was a definite Pauline pattern.
Evidently this city-church model persisted in the era when the apostle John
ministered among the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4). Even though John was a
“pillar apostle” in Jerusalem, apparently he didn’t impose the Jerusalem model
on the Asian churches; they remained local churches—city churches. But, was this
also the pattern for other areas? Let’s consider the case of Rome.
The Church in Rome—City Church OR House Church?
The house-church phenomenon appears
among churches not directly produced by Paul’s apostolic labors. References to
“the church in the house” occur in connection with Rome (Rom. 16:3, 5), Colossae
(Philemon 2) and Laodicea (Col. 4:15)—cities where (apparently) Paul had not
labored. Since Paul’s writings only mention one “church in the house” in each of
these localities, Watchman Nee asserts24 that this house-church was the
church in its city. But, is this identification justified? A crucial question
is—did the believers described as “the ekklesia (assembly) in the house”
view themselves as the church in their city, standing on the local ground? Or
did they simply regard themselves as a house-church? If they viewed themselves
merely as a house-church in a neighborhood or one house-church among several
(actual or potential) house-churches, this doesn’t match the “ground of
locality” model.
Take Rome for example. It is
significant that Paul never speaks of “the Church in Rome.”
Paul addressedhis Romans epistle to “all the called saints who are in
Rome” (Rom. 1:7). When Paul arrived in Rome, he was greeted by “the brothers”
(Acts 28:14-15). He called the “leading men of the Jews” (Acts 28:17,) but (in
striking contrast) no mention is made of the elders of the Church in Rome (cf.
Acts 20:17). Later, writing from Rome, Paul refers to “the brothers who
are with me” (Phil. 4:21), “all the saints” and “those of Caesar’s household”
(Phil. 4:22); but he never refers to “the Church in Rome.”
Professor James Dunn states,25 “The fact that Paul never speaks of the
Christians in Rome as a church (“the Church in Rome”) may well be significant,
especially since it is so out of keeping with Paul’s usual practice….It strongly
suggests that the Christian[s] …shared…[a] fragmented existence….The Christians
[in Rome]…were not seen as a single entity —and if not by Paul, still less by
others.” Even Paul didn’t view the Roman believers as a single entity that he
could designate “the Church in Rome.”
The only church mentioned in Rome
was in Priscilla and Aquila’s house (Rom. 16:3, 5). W. Nee asserts that this
house-church was the Church in Rome; he says,26 “The church in Rome, like
hundreds and thousands of other local churches, first started in the house of a
brother…. Therefore, the church in a certain place became the church in a
certain person’s house. The church in Rome was the church in
Priscilla and Aquila’s home.” Based on a typical scenario, W. Nee
supposes the Church in Rome was just beginning. However, history27 suggests
that, when Paul wrote Romans, the Christian faith was well established,
and a considerable number of believers existed in Rome. Rome was by far the
largest city in the Empire28—650,000 compared to Ephesus (200,000) or Corinth
(100,000)—so the gospel, sown on fertile ground, could have produced significant
numbers. A sizeable number would be29 “too numerous to meet in a single house.”
Moreover, we ask—did the believers in Priscilla’s home view themselves as the
Church in Rome? Did they regard themselves as “standing on the local ground in
the city of Rome”? Or did they simply view themselves as an “assembly” (ekklesia)
of Christians, gathering in that home? The fact that Paul never addresses them
as “the Church in Rome,” but merely as “the church in the house” (16:5,)
suggests the latter. Moreover, if the “local ground” dictum is as crucial as
some claim, Paul missed a golden opportunity to present this vital matter to the
saints in Rome.30 This omission may imply the early apostles didn’t place a
premium on the ecclesiastical exactness expressed in the “ground of locality”
doctrine.
Moreover, the possibility of
multiple “house churches” in Rome shouldn’t be written off. Several “house
churches” may have existed in Rome. Paul greets “the church in Priscilla and
Aquila’s house” (Rom. 16:5). He then greets 25+ believers in Rome,
including several clusters, e.g., “Hermas et. al. and the brothers with
them” (v. 14), “Olympas et. al. and all the saints with them” (v. 15);
that is commendable. However, “the fact that he was unable to greet more may be
significant,” says Dunn. It suggests that31 “Paul knew very few of the purely
local Christians in Rome, and also that the Christians he actually does know
were only a relatively small proportion of the overall Christian community.” If
this was the case,32 “there must have been at least several other house churches
unknown personally to Paul.” Dunn deduces that, in Rome, the Christian faith33
“thrived through a sequence of house groups. Five such may be identified
in…Romans 16—vv. 5, 10, 11, 14, 15.” None of these is designated as “the Church
in Rome.” One is termed “the church in the house” (16:5). Perhaps other house
churches existed in embryonic state (16:14–15) or beyond the scope of Paul’s
knowledge when he wrote. The “house church” model cannot be summarily dismissed
as being without scriptural precedent.
Conclusion
This article has focused on two
churches, the first of which was the Church in Jerusalem, the prototypical
church in Acts. The Church in Jerusalem was designated according to its city.
However, there is little evidence the Jerusalem Church matched the “local
ground” dictum. Saul’s persecution caused the Jerusalem Church to disperse (Acts
8:1). As Professor Dunn states,34 “When the Hellenist believers who had been
dispersed from Jerusalem met together [in multiple locations] they were still
the church of God.” Persecution caused the “gathered” Church in
Jerusalemtobecome the scattered Church in Jerusalem,
dispersed throughout Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Hence it was also called “thechurchthroughout…Judea
and Galilee and Samaria” (9:31). This view is buttressed by the fact that, in
these regions, no other city-churches are specifically named in Acts. This
suggests that Jerusalem was not simply a local church standing on the “local
ground” within the jurisdiction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem does not fit the ground
of locality model; it was a supra-local church.
The second church we focused on was
Rome, the last church in Luke’s record of Acts. The Roman believers
evidently gathered as a loose network of assemblies in homes, some more
established (e.g., Priscilla & Aquila’s house, Rom. 16:5), others less (Rom.
16:14–15). But they were never addressed as “the Church in
Rome,” because they “were not seen as a single entity” even by Paul
(Dunn). The dogmatic assertion that the house-church in Priscilla and Aquila’s
home was the Church in Rome is “going beyond what has been written” in
Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6). There’s no indication the Roman believers viewed
themselves as “standing on the local ground” within the jurisdiction of Rome.
Some Roman assemblies gathered as the “church in the house,” a house-church;
others experienced a more fragmented and tenuous existence.
We conclude that there is no single
model, no unique blueprint, encompassing all the churches described in the New
Testament. Rather there are several alternative patterns. Paul established
city-churches, some of which were later served by the apostle John (Rev. 1:11).
This pattern forms the basis of the “ground of locality” teaching—“one city, one
church.” However, there are notable exceptions. Jerusalem is one; Rome is
another. Jerusalem is a poor precedent for a church standing on the “local
ground;” it was supra-local. Moreover, the New Testament documents the existence
of sub-local, house churches in places where Paul didn’t labor directly, for
example, Rome. Thus the New Testament furnishes examples of churches with
spheres both larger and smaller than the ground of locality maxim allows.
The Local Church dogma of “one
city, one church” is not based on Scripture’s prescriptive teaching but on its
descriptive examples. It rests on the a priori assumption that a unique
biblical blueprint underlies the biblical data; all the “puzzle-pieces” are
forced into “one picture.” When this axiom is dropped, different “pictures”
emerge. Paul’s churches fit the city-church paradigm; other churches (e.g.,
Jerusalem and Rome) don’t conform to this mold. Insisting that “one city, one
church” is the only biblical pattern amounts to using Paul to “trump”35 the
other apostles (e.g., Peter & James). Yet the biblical canon documents the
supra-local church in Jerusalem raised up by Peter and James, along with
city-churches raised up by Paul. The supra-local church in Jerusalem/Judea is
described in Scripture. House churches are also illustrated (e.g., Rome).
Scripture testifies to each of these patterns.
On re-examining the “church
ground,” we find diversity. The city-church is a major pattern; but, it is not
the only pattern. There are also scriptural precedents for sub-local, house
churches and supra-local, regional churches. This diversity implies believers
who “stand on the local ground” in their city ought not to adopt an elitist
attitude toward Christians who gather on different bases. As we endeavor to
practice a biblical form of meeting—“one city, one church”—let us also recognize
that other believers may gather on different, but equally biblical,
bases. Moreover, the existence of multiple patterns in Scripture suggests we
ought to be tentative,36 rather than dogmatic, when teaching concerning the
“ground of the church.”
Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, Canada,
April 2009. NOTES: The views expressed here are those of the author
alone. They do not represent the views of other believers with whom he is
associated—whether elders, coworkers, churches or others. Thanks are extended to
those who offered comments and feedback on earlier drafts.
1.Joseph
Tse-Hei Lee, “Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist
China,”
Church History: Studies in Christianity and
Culture, Chicago:
March 2005, Vol. 74, Issue 1, p. 68. The quote
in context (which is Joseph Lee’s summary of W. Nee’s teaching) reads: W. Nee
“maintained that there should be ‘one church in one locality.’ He emphasized the
necessity to maintain independent local churches because on a doctrinal level, a
local church could serve as a guardian of Christian teaching and contain heresy
within one specific place. At an administrative level, the idea of ‘one church
in one locality’ would discourage denominational competition in the same area. A
church should not represent an area smaller or larger than a city and,
therefore, its jurisdiction should correspond with administrative limits of a
city. Only natural barriers and distance justified meeting in two separate
churches in the same area. He saw no religious and practical reason for a group
of Christians in the same locality to divide themselves into different
denominations.”
2.Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Church
Life (NCCL), p. 55. Similar statements by W. Nee include the
following: “The Church of God has been divided into the churches of God on the
one ground of difference in locality. Locality is the only scriptural basis for
the division of the [universal] Church into churches.” [W. Nee, NCCL, p. 53]
“Not only were the seven churches in Asia [Rev. 2-3] founded on the basis of
locality, but all the churches mentioned in Scripture were founded on the same
basis. Throughout the Word of God we can find no name attached to a church save
the name of a place, for example the church in Jerusalem…” [W. Nee, NCCL, p. 53]
“In the New Testament there is one method and one alone of dividing the
[universal] Church into churches, and that God-ordained method is division on
the basis of locality.” [W. Nee, NCCL, p. 55] 3.W. Nee, NCCL, p. 53. The quote in context reads:
“In Scripture no other name but the name of a locality is ever connected with a
church, and the division of the [universal] church into churches is solely on
the ground of different localities.” [W. Nee, NCCL, p. 53]
4.W. Lee, The Speciality, Generality &
Practicality of the Church Life, chap.1 The specific item—one of six “main
items of the proper Christian faith”--is stated as: “The
church, composed of all the genuine believers in Christ, as the Body of
Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:24), is universally one (Eph. 4:4), and a local
church as the expression of the Body of Christ is locally
one—one city, one church (Rev. 1:11).” [W. Lee, The Speciality,
Generality & Practicality of the Church Life, chap.1 emphasis added] W. Lee
describes “the faith,” “the proper Christian faith” saying, “Concerning these
points of our Christian faith there should be no argument. If we are going to
fight for something, we have to fight for this. There is no need for us to fight
for other things. We have to fight the good fight of such a
faith (1 Tim. 6:12). We have to contend for such a faith (Jude 3). We
have to teach and preach such a faith.” [W. Lee, The Speciality, Generality &
Practicality of the Church-Life, chap.1, emphasis added] Hence, “one city,
one church,” the ground of locality maxim is included by W. Lee in “the faith”
for which believers should contend (Jude 3).
5.W. Lee, The Speciality, Generality &
Practicality of the Church-Life, chap.1 The quote, in context, reads:
“These are the six main items of the proper Christian faith.
All real Christians do not have any disputations about these items.
Some may disagree with the point, one city, one church, but
as a proper Christianwe have to believethat
the church is both universally one and locally one. As the Body of
Christ, the church is universally one; as the expression of the Body of Christ,
a local church is locally one. This doesn’t mean, however, that a real believer
in Christ who does not agree with one city, one church is not saved. Still he or
she is saved, but there is something lacking, not for salvation, but for the
proper church life. The faith is the speciality of the church life. This is
something very specific, very special.” [W. Lee, The Speciality, Generality &
Practicality of the Church-Life, chap.1, emphasis added.] Note that W. Lee
has merged two items—[1] the belief that the church is locally one—“we
have to believethat the church is…locally one,” and [2] the ground of
locality—one city, one church—“Some may disagree with the
point, one city, one church, but as a proper Christianwe
have to believethat the church is both universally one
and locally one.” This assumes that oneness (at the local level)
can only be legitimately practiced within the sphere (scope) of a city. W. Lee
does not demonstrate this from Scripture. This article focuses on the “ground of
locality” dictum; we do not address the more abstract teaching concerning the
“ground of oneness,” presented (for example) in W. Lee’s book, The Genuine
Ground of Oneness.
6.The “Principle of First Mention” is defined as
follows: "God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which
that subject stands connected in the mind of God." [Biblical hermeneutics,
Wikipedia]. Baptist seminary students are advised to “apply the hermeneutical
principles of first mention, full mention,
proportionate mention, the gaps, etc.” [Contemporary Preaching, by Dr.
Gary R. Gromacki, emphasis added]. Watchman Nee also alludes to this principle,
saying, “Therefore, in reading the Bible we must do two things.
First, we must find …where a truth is first spoken of.
Second, we have to find where new meanings and new revelations are added.” [W.
Nee, How to Study the Bible, chap. 5, emphasis added.]
7.W. Lee,Acts 8:1, Recovery Version (RcV,) note 1.
8.W. Lee, The Ground of the Church & the
Meetings of the Church, chap. 1, LA 1965 9.W. Lee, Titus 1:5, RcV., note 1.
10.W. Lee asserts “This was the first church
established in a locality within the jurisdiction of a city, the city of
Jerusalem. It was a local church in its locality…The record concerning this
matter (the establishing of the church in its locality) is consistent throughout
the New Testament.” [W. Lee,Acts 8:1, RcV, note 1]
11.W. Nee based his statements on the King
James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The KJV renders Acts 9:31 as “Then had
the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the
comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” (KJV). Based upon the KJV, W. Nee
asserted, “In the Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a
city…” [W. Nee, NCCL, p. 55] Moreover, W. Nee says, “In the Word of God we never
read of the church in Macedonia, or the church in Galatia, or the church in
Judea, or the church in Galilee. Why? Because Macedonia and Galilee are
provinces, and Judea and Galatia are districts. …‘Then
had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria’ (Acts 9:31,
KJV). The Holy Spirit did not speak
here of the church, but of the churches.
Because there were a number of localities, there were also a number of churches.”
[NCCL, p. 59, emphasis added] Note that this is the only instance in which LSM’s
edition of W. Nee’s Normal Christian Church Life retains the KJV, rather
than substituting the RcV. The RcV. renders this verse (Acts 9:31) as “the
church” (singular). In doing so, they follow the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek
NT text, which rates this part of the text as {B} –indicating “that there is
some degree of doubt,” concerning whether the original text read “church”
(singular,) the preferred reading, or “churches” (plural). The {B} rating is on
a scale from {A} to {D}—{A} signifying “that the text is virtually certain,” {B}
indicating “some degree of doubt,” {C} “a considerable degree of doubt,” and {D}
“a very high degree of doubt.” 12.W. Nee, NCCL, p. 55. 13.W. Nee, NCCL, p. 59.
14.Consider W. Lee’s statement regarding
taking seriously every verse of Scripture, before accepting a certain
interpretation. He says, “As
long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give
up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible.
Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this
interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain
interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain
interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God’s further revelation.
If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error.” [Witness
Lee, On Knowing the Bible, chap.4, emphasis added. Messages given in
Taipei, Taiwan in the 1950s (translated).] 15.W. Lee, Acts 9:31, RcV., note
16. James
D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 540
17.There are 75 occurrences of the (singular) word
“church” [ekklesia] and 34 occurrences of the (plural) word “churches” in
the New Testament.
18.Take, for example, W. Lee’s presentation below;
he starts with the Church in Jerusalem and ends with the Church in Antioch,
skipping briefly over the intervening places and time period. W. Lee says,
“In the city of Jerusalem there was one church, the church in
Jerusalem. Acts 8:1 says, ‘And there occurred in that day a great
persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem.’ There was only one
church, the unique church in Jerusalem. Originally there were one hundred twenty
believers in Jerusalem. Then one day three thousand were added, and on another
day five thousand were added. We have to believe that many more thousands were
eventually added in. There may have been twenty or thirty thousand believers in
that one city (5:14; 21:20). According to 2:46 and 5:42, those thousands did not
meet in only one place; they met from house to house. There were many meetings,
but not one meeting by itself became a church. Rather, all the meetings were one
church. After this, the testimony and gospel of the Lord
spread from Jerusalem to Samaria and from Samaria to Antioch. As a
result, how many churches were there in Antioch? Acts 13:1 begins, ‘Now there
were in Antioch, in the local church, prophets and teachers.’ This verse speaks
of the one church in Antioch.” [W. Lee, The Ground
of the Church & the Meetings of the Church, chap. 1, LA 1965, emphasis
added]
19. The Recovery Version renders this verse, Acts
18:22, as: “And coming down to Caesarea, he went up toJerusalem
and greeted the church and went down to Antioch.” Note that the phrase, “toJerusalem” is in italics, indicating it is not in the original Greek
text. No doubt the Church in Jerusalem is the correct meaning. As F. F. Bruce
says, “the church (here) can only mean the Church in Jerusalem.” The point is
that in the context of Paul’s arrival back in the land of Israel, in the phrase
“he went up and greeted the church,” “the church” was understood by both the
writer, Luke, and his readers to mean the “church in Jerusalem.” The leadership
of the Jerusalem Church was centered in Jerusalem.
20. F. F. Bruce, “The Church of Jerusalem,”
Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Journal Vol.4 (April 1964) p. 12. The
quote, in context, reads: “When the Jewish revolt against
Rome broke out…the Jerusalem church left the city and went into dispersion.
According to the fourth century historian Eusebius, they received an oracle some
time before the fighting began charging then to leave the doomed city of
Jerusalem and migrate to Pella. Pella beyond the Jordan was one of the cities of
the Decapolis it was probably not to the city of Pella itself that the Jerusalem
church migrated, but to the surrounding countryside which belonged to that city,
as well as to other parts of Transjordan especially less frequented parts. The
flight of the mother church to the wilderness and her preservation there may be
reflected in the language of Rev. 12:14. In dispersion these
believers continued to call themselves the church of Jerusalem, and their
successive leaders were drawn for several decades from relatives of James,
members of the holy family.” F. F. Bruce, “The Church of Jerusalem,”
Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Journal Vol.4 (April 1964) p. 12,
emphasis added].
21.H. Mountfort states that W. Nee’s teaching of
one church, one city was the product of his “search for the
only possible biblical pattern to establish the church.”[Huelon Mountfort,
“Watchman Nee (1903 -1972) A Biographical Study,”
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May
13 to May 20, 2002] 22. W. Nee, NCCL, p. 54.
23. Robert Govett, The Twofoldness of Divine
Truth, (Harrisburg: Christian Publications)
24. Take for example W. Nee’s presentation:
“The fact is that the church in the
house of Priscilla and Aquila was the church in Rome. The church in Rome at that
time was in the house of Priscillaa and Aquila…In
[Rom. 16] verses 10 and 11 two more houses are mentioned in which there were
also the Lord’s people. Nevertheless…only in verse 5 did Paul say, ‘Greet the
church, which is in their [Priscilla and Aquila’s] house.’ Even though the whole
household of Aristobulus believed in the Lord, there was only
one church in Rome, which was the church that was in the house of Priscilla and
Aquila. Therefore, although there were believers of the household of
Aristobulus, they could not become the church. Although many of Narcissus’s
household were believers, the believers in his house could not become an
independent church.There was only one church in Rome, which
was the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila.”[W. Nee, Further
Talks on the Church Life, The Stream publishers, 1968, chap. 2, pp. 33]
Again W. Nee says, “In the Bible, when the house is equivalent to a locality or
city, that house is called the church, like the church in Rome.” [W. Nee,
Further Talks on the Church Life, The Stream publishers, 1968, chap. 2, pp.
41] However, (not withstanding these repeated assertions) the question
remains—did those believers, meeting in a house have the consciousness that they
were the church in the city, standing on the ‘local ground’? Did they view
themselves as such? In the case of Rome, there’s no indication they did;
moreover the fact remains the Paul never addressed them as “the Church in Rome.”
25. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word
Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A, p. lii
26. W. Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life,
The Stream publishers, 1968, chap. 2, p. 31 W. Nee makes a similar assertion,
saying “in greeting the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, it is
implied that such a greeting is to the church in Rome, which was meeting in
Priscilla and Aquila’s house. Hence, the church in Rome was
the church in Priscilla and Aquila’s house.” [W. Nee, Further Talks on
the Church Life, The Stream publishers, 1968, chap. 2, p. 32, emphasis
added] Also “the fact is that the church in the house of
Priscilla and Aquila was the church in Rome.” [W. Nee, Further Talks
on the Church Life, The Stream publishers, 1968, chap. 2, p. 35, emphasis
added] Again, he asserts, “The church in the house of Aquila was the
church in Rome.” [W. Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life, The Stream
publishers, 1968, chap. 2, p. 38, emphasis original]
27. W. Nee’s analysis appears to be based
upon a “typical scenario” for the development of a local church, rather than
actual historical facts concerning the development of Christianity in Rome. In
contrast to W. Nee’s scenario—that the Church in Rome was just beginning--
scholars suggest that “The Christians must have been well established and fairly
numerous [in Rome] by the middle of the 50s. Paul had wanted to visit them ‘for
many years’ (1:10; 15:23). They had been sufficiently strong (or provocative) by
A.D. 49 to provide the occasion for the ‘constant disturbances’ within the
Jewish community which resulted in the expulsion of…the Jews.” [James D. G.
Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A, pp. li-lii] There
are links to the personal history of Priscilla & Aquila—they were among the Jews
expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius (approx. 49 A.D.) , which occasioned
their meeting Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:2). Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is dated
by the RcV. at approx. 60 A.D., by which time Prisca & Aquila were back in Rome
(16:3-5). “The famous report of Suetonius that Claudius ‘expelled the Jews from
Rome because of their constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus’…It
is generally agreed that ‘Chrestus’ [a common slave name] must mean ‘Christ’ and
the reference is therefore probably to disturbances among Jews concerning
Jesus…[i.e.] disagreements between Jews who had accepted Jesus as Messiah
(Jewish Christians) and Jews who rejected the Christian claims.” [James D. G.
Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A, pp. xlviii-xlix]
This is the basis for Dunn’s claim (above) that Christians “had been
sufficiently strong (or provocative) by A.D. 49 to provide the occasion for the
‘constant disturbances’…which resulted in the expulsion of…the Jews” from Rome.
No doubt during the intervening decade (49–60
A.D.) before Romans was written the Christian testimony in Rome had
experienced further growth.
28.Population estimates for cities in the Roman
Empire are reported by Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, pp. 131-2.
29.James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word
Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A, p. lii.
30. W. Lee claims that Romans 16 emphasizes the
local church. He says, Romans 16 “presents a display of the local churches.” [W.
Lee, Rom. 16:1, RcV., Note 1] Similarly, he alleges “As we come to Romans 16, we
discover that God is in the local churches.” [Life-study of Romans
Message #31] W. Lee says, “The local churches as the fourth station revealed in
this book [Romans].” [W. Lee, Rom. 16:1, RcV., Note 1]. The “four stations” are
identified as “Four stations are revealed in this book: ….the first station, the
station of justification; …the second station, the station of sanctification;
…the third station, the station of the Body of Christ; and…the
fourth station, the station of the churches expressed in
different localities…. The churches are the ultimate consummation of the
complete salvation of the gospel of God revealed in this book.” [W. Lee, Rom.
16:1, RcV., Note 2, para. 2, emphasis added.] He concludes “In this chapter
[Rom. 16] the church and the churches are mentioned five times…This is a strong
indication that many matters covered in [Rom.] chs. 1--15 concerning God's
complete salvation are for the producing and building up of
the church….” [Rom. 16:1, RcV., Note 2, para. 1, emphasis added.]
However, despite W. Lee’s emphasis on the local church—“the churches expressed
in different localities,” the fact remains that Paul’s references to the
church(es) in Rom. 16 are incidental, rather than being the main focus of his
statements. The first “three stations”—justification, sanctification, & the Body
of Christ—are definite topics which Paul explicitly addresses. In contrast, the
last “(fourth) station”—the local churches—is not directly addressed by
Paul. Hence we say, “if the “local ground” dictum is as crucial as some claim,
Paul missed a golden opportunity to present this vital matter to the saints in
Rome.”
31.James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol. 38A,
p. lii. This observation is based upon the observation that “The relatively
small proportion of specifically Roman names in [Romans 16]…is also striking, in
view of the fact that more than half of all the names recovered from the Jewish
catacombs in Rome are Latin.” [James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, p. lii]
32. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, vol. 38A,
p. lii.
33. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul, the
Apostle, p. 542, note 53.
34. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the
Apostle, p. 540.
35. Professor Clines notes the tendency
among Plymouth Brethren to create “a
de facto ‘canon within the
canon’…[which] tends to give priority to Pauline theology, second rank to the
Johannine [i.e. John’s] writings, and third place to the Synoptic Gospels…Interpreting
Scripture by Scripture ought not to mean making everything fit the categories of
a Paul or a John.” [David J.A. Clines, “Biblical
Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice,”
Christian Brethren Reviewvols. 31, 32
(1982): pp. 69-70, emphasis added]. In many aspects of biblical interpretation,
Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were greatly influenced by Brethren teachings.
36.There are also implications concerning how we
teach the “ground of the church.” As John Stott recently wrote: “Alongside
authoritative preaching, it is often right to be tentative. For God has
not revealed everything; he has deliberately kept some things secret. ‘The
secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us
and to our children forever’ (Deut. 29:29). This is why Christians combine
elements of dogmatism with agnosticism. We should be dogmatic
about those things which have been plainly revealed, and agnostic about those
things which have been kept secret. Our troubles
arise when our dogmatism trespasses into the secret things, and our
agnosticism into the revealed things.” [ John Stott, The Living Church,
p. 102, emphasis added.] Since the “ground of locality—one city, one church”—is
not a prescriptive teaching in the Bible, and (if we are correct in the main
thesis of this article) it is not the sole model exemplified in the New
Testament canon, we ought to be tentative and not dogmatic
in teaching about the “ground of the church.”