IN%"tdm7695@geopsun.tamu.edu" 7-OCT-1990 23:15:41.96 (10/18/90)
THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH
For the church life, there are two main and basic aspects. We must be
thoroughly clear about these, for without them we have no reality of the
church life. The first is that Christ Himself is the life, the content and
everything in the church. It is absolutely not a matter of forms,
doctrines, or certain kinds of expressions. Those who are really in the
church life are those who are experiencing Christ as their very life day by
day. Christ is everything to them; therefore, Christ is their life and
content whenever they come together. The practice of the church life is a
life of Christ and a life with Christ as everything.
The second main aspect of the church life is that of the standing or the
ground of the church. This term, the church ground, was first used by
Brother Watchman Nee in 1937. Before 1937, we never heard or saw this term,
and the matter of the ground of the church, as far as we have been able to
determine, was not known.
The ground of the church is not the foundation of the church. The
foundation of the church is Christ. "Other foundation no one is able to lay
besides that which is being laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). The
ground is completely different from the foundation. The foundation is a
basic and integral part of the construction of a building, whereas the
ground is not. The ground is a piece of land, called the site, upon which
the foundation is laid. It is not part of the construction, but simply a
lot upon which the construction is placed. We must not mistake the ground
for the foundation or the foundation for the ground. They are two vital,
yet distinct entities for the construction of a building. Although the
foundation may be deeply embedded in the ground, it is still distinct and
separate from it. The ground is the standing on which the foundation is
laid.
There are many so-called churches established in Los Angeles. One, the Roman
Catholic Church, claims to be built upon Christ as its foundation. Another, the
Presbyterian Church, also claims that its foundation is none other than Christ.
The Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Nazarenes, and many
other claim the same thing. In fact, there is not one so-called Christian
church which does not. They all claim Christ as their foundation, but they have
absolutely neglected the ground.
What are the actual grounds upon which so many of these so-called churches
have laid Christ as their foundation? What is the ground of the Roman
Catholic Church? Without a doubt, it is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church
claiming Christ as its foundation is built upon the ground of Roman
Catholicism. Upon what ground is the Presbyterian Church built? It is clear
that their ground is a certain system of government called the presbytery.
They have laid the foundation of Christ upon the ground of the presbytery.
What about the Baptists? They with Christ as their foundation are built
upon the ground of baptism, baptism by immersion. Then there are the
Lutherans. They have laid their foundation upon the ground of Luther and
his teachings. All the "churches" claim the same foundation, which is
Christ, but they all stand on different grounds. It is the different
grounds that create the problem of unity of the church, not Christ as the
foundation.
Let us suppose that every group of Christians in Los Angeles would be
willing to relinquish its own particular ground: the Roman Catholics would
give up the ground of Roman Catholicism, the Presbyterians would give up
the ground of the presbytery, the Baptists would give up the ground of
baptism, etc. -- all the groups would be willing to abandon their own
ground. What would be the result? All sectarian grounds would disappear
and spontaneously only one unique and common ground would exist, the ground
of locality, the ground of Los Angeles. All the saints in Los Angeles
would then be in the one church in Los Angeles without any division. All
the different denominations would be gone, and only the saints with Christ
would be left. Then all the saints here, with the one Christ, would form
the one unique church in Los Angeles. Composed together and built upon
Christ as their foundation, they would be standing simply upon the ground
of Los Angeles, which is the local ground for the local church in Los
Angeles and the only ground which can keep all the saints in this locality
in oneness.
When Paul went to Corinth to preach the gospel and do the work of the Lord,
did he establish a Pauline church with Christ as its foundation? Did
Apollos, who also ministered in Corinth, establish a church upon the ground
of Apollos with Christ as its foundation? Or did Peter, who may also have
gone to Corinth, form a Petrine church with Christ as the foundation? Of
course, they did not. In Corinth, there was not Pauline church, no
Apollonian church, no Petrine church. The what did they do? When Paul went
to Corinth and brought people to the Lord, he established the church in
Corinth. Upon what ground? Upon the ground of Corinth? He set up a local
church in Corinth with Christ as its foundation upon the unique ground of
locality. When Apollos went to Corinth, he did not set up another church.
He built up the saints upon the same unique ground, the ground of Corinth.
Paul planted them on that ground, and Apollos watered them on that ground.
1 Corinthians 1:2 says, "The church [singular] of God which is in Corinth."
Paul, Apollos, and Peter brought their varied ministries to Corinth, but
they all built one church with one foundation upon the one ground of unity.
So eventually only one church existed in Corinth with one kind of saints,
one foundation which is Christ, and one ground which was the common
standing in the entire locality. One church, one foundation, one ground --
it is so clear.
The problem today is not with the foundation but with the ground. This is
why we say that if we would have the church life, we must consider the
ground as the second essential point we must take into account. Without
Christ as our life and content and without the ground of unity with the
saints in the locality in which we live as our definite standing, we cannot
practice the church life.
There are multitudinous so-called churches and free groups in Los Angeles.
Why is there so much division? The problem, as we have seen, is not due to
the foundations but to the ground. You may say that the free groups have no
ground. But it is hard for us to believe that any free group exists
without any ground. The ground may be unwritten and undeclared, but
nevertheless understood. How could there be a group without any ground? If
so, they must be floating in the air! Even a single man requires some
ground upon which to stand, though it be only a square foot of earth. With
every free group, there must be some kind of ground. Do not be cheated, do
not be deceived. They do not have any designated or denominated ground, but
they do have a ground which is understood.
On what ground are you standing? Are you standing upon any denominational or
sectarian ground, declared or undeclared, written or unwritten? Any ground that
supports a division among God's people is not right. Any sectarian ground is
not justified by the Word of God and is against the basic principle of the Body
of Christ. We must give up every other ground and meet together only on the
ground of locality, which is the ground of unity., the unique ground of the
church. No matter where we are, we have to gather together on the one unique
ground of the church in order to keep the unity of the Body of Christ. It is
only by taking the ground of unity that the oneness of the Spirit will be kept
(Eph. 4:3), and it is only in this way that we have a proper, genuine, local
expression of the Body of Christ.
The Scripture clearly shows us that in every locality the expression of the
Body of Christ, that is, the local church, should be just one. There is no
place in the Scripture where there was more than one local church in any
given city. If you are living in Los Angeles, you must be built up together
with other believers in Los Angeles as the church in that locality. If you
are in Tokyo, you must be built up with those who are saved in Tokyo as the
church in that locality. As a Christian living in any locality, you must be
built up with the other Christians in that locality as the unique local
church there, which should be called the church in that place. The one that
was built up in Jerusalem was called the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1),
and the one in Antioch was called the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1). In the
same principle, the one in Los Angeles should be called the church in Los
Angeles.
How simple, how uncomplicated is this divine way which the Scripture shows
us! Wherever we live, we are the church in that place and we build the
church in that place. If all God's people could see this principle and
abide by it, there would be no divisions. We can testify that we have seen
this ground of unity taken and the church life practiced upon it in many
places, and we are seeing it today. From our observation and our own
experience we can boldly declare that it really words and it is the most
blessed way. Regardless of the grounds upon which others are standing, we
must pay the price to stand upon this unique ground of locality, the ground
of unity, to be built up with the believers as the proper local church in
the locality where we live.
We must come out of the divisions, not to form another division, but to
come back to the proper ground, the ground of unity. There is no reason for
us to be divided. We are all members of the one unique church. Why not
simply come together with the believers in the locality where we live to be
an expression of that church? Let us not be complicated and confused by
Christianity. It is a shameful thing to ask people to what church they
belong. If they are believers, they are our brothers -- that is all. I
belong to the unique church, and they belong to the same unique church.
More than thirty-five years ago in Shanghai, a brother with a Bible in his
hand was taking the street car to a meeting. Another believer on the street
was distributing tracts to the passengers, and when he saw the brother with
his Bible he said, "Oh, you must be a brother!" The brother answered that
he was indeed a brother. Then he asked him, "To what church do you belong?"
The brother answered: "I belong to the same church to which you belong, the
same church to which the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John,
and Martin Luther belonged, and same church to which all believers belong."
When he heard that, he said," That would be wonderful!".
Surely, it is wonderful. Oh, let us all come together on the unique ground
of unity to have a proper expression of this one church in the place where
we live. May the Lord be merciful to us.
=========================================================================
Text is written by Witness Lee
From the booklet "The Ground of the Church" by the Living Stream Ministry,
P.O. Box 2121, Anaheim, CA 92804
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Thomas Moriarty | Internet: *
* 808 San Saba Dr., | tdm7695@geopsun.tamu.edu *
* College Station, Texas USA | tdm7695@calvin.tamu.edu *
* 77845 | Bitnet: *
* | tdm7695@tamgeop.bitnet *
* Home Telephone Number: | t1m7695@tamvenus.bitnet *
* (409) 693-5829 | *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[It's unclear what this posting means in concrete terms. It seems
primarily to condemn division among Christians. However it is
not clear what one can do about it. Commonly there are at least
three different approaches:
(1) To separate the human organizations from the Church as the body of
Christ. That is, we are all members of the same Church, established
by Christ, and constituting his body on earth. However for reasons of
both history and convenience, there a number of organizations,
commonly called "denominations" by Protestants. As long as one
regards these as simply associations formed for the sake of
convenience and order, but realizes that the Church of Christ is above
them, they need not cause any problem. If you take this view, then
the correct response to concerns about division is to make sure that
we do not give these denominations more prominence than they deserve,
and to make sure that we maintain unity with all Christians, whether
part of our denominations or not.
(2) There have been a number of people who have decided that all
existing denominations think entirely too much of themselves, and that
the only way to have true Christian unity is to abandon the existing
denominations and simply have one Church of Christ. The problem with
this is that this new Church of Christ forms its own organization, has
its own opinions that do not allow other Christians to join it in good
conscience, and generally behaves exactly like the denominations it
intended to replace. Thus it becomes yet another denomination, and
contributes to the problem it tried to solve. This has happened a
number of times. The currently denomination called the Church of
Christ is in fact the result of one such attempt.
(3) If you are believe that the unity of Christ's Church cannot
coexist with multiple denominations, the most satisfactory solution
seems to be to become a Catholic. This is the one group that has the
best claim to being the specific organization that Christ set up.
--clh]hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (10/22/90)
In article <Oct.18.03.14.02.1990.1138@athos.rutgers.edu> Thomas Moriarty writes: ... >There are many so-called churches established in Los Angeles. One, the Roman >Catholic Church, claims to be built upon Christ as its foundation. Another, the >Presbyterian Church, also claims that its foundation is none other than Christ. >The Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Nazarenes, and many >other claim the same thing. In fact, there is not one so-called Christian >church which does not. They all claim Christ as their foundation, but they have >absolutely neglected the ground. This may be true but what your author neglects is that each of these denominations believes that what he calls "ground" is required by the foundation. The Catholics believe the Pope is chosen by Christ, the Baptists that Jesus requires baptism by immersion etc. In other words, rightly or wrongly they trace their beliefs to Christ. It reminds me of the story of the 2 clergymen arguing about who was right. Finally one said, "Well at least we're both serving God." The other replied, "Yes we are. You in your way and I in His." The disagreements among Christians are not over following Christ, they are over what Christ asks us to do to follow him.
watson@uunet.uu.net (Steve Watson) (10/25/90)
Better late than never (I was a good boy and waited for our poor moderator to catch up, then there was an apparent net.disconnect which put several newsgroups off-the-air for a few days at this node). From Local Church posting (my apologies for misplacing the attribution): >The brother answered: "I belong to the same church to which you belong, the >same church to which the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John, >and Martin Luther belonged, and same church to which all believers belong." >When he heard that, he said," That would be wonderful!". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen. But starting your own new sect won't accomplish that. Our moderator gives several approaches to X'n unity: >(1) To separate the human organizations from t he Church as the body of >Christ. That is, we are all members of the same Church, established.... I'd vote for this approach anyday: we can have a 'spiritual unity' which is independent of the organizational kind. >(2) There have been a number of people who have decided that all >existing denominations think entirely too much of themselves, and that >the only way to have true Christian unity is to abandon the existing >denominations and simply have one Church of Christ. The problem with >this is that this new Church of Christ forms its own organization, has >its own opinions that do not allow other Christians to join it in good >conscience, and generally behaves exactly like the denominations it >intended to replace. Thus it becomes yet another denomination, and >contributes to the problem it tried to solve. This has happened a >number of times. The currently denomination called the Church of >Christ is in fact the result of one such attempt. > As a former member of the Church of Christ, I can attest to the truth of CLH's comments about that denomination: "We're just Christians", they say, but then go on: "Of course the Bible teaches, and every True Christian believes that <list of unique doctrines>". So you're right back to Square One, with just another denomination. Except that this NEW denomination refuses to acknowledge itself to be such, and goes around with this very arrogant superior attitude towards those who haven't yet seen the light. So actually you're WORSE off than when you started: you have a 'non-denomination' which exhibits all the worst characteristics of denominationalism! Even some of the inter-denominational evangelistic groups (e.g. Navigators, Campus Crusade) occasionally fall into this error :-(. BTW, there is a peripheral connection between Local CHurch and C. of Christ: Watchman Nee (mentioned in the LC posting) was much read and admired by C of C people I used to know (I'm not sure if he was ever formally connected with the C of C). He was also an associate, at one time, of Witness Lee, who started the Local Church. >3) [Join the Catholic Church] >--clh] I'll probably get royally flamed by the RC's for this, but here goes.... The Catholic Church (in the view of this not unsympathetic outsider) seems to have acheived exactly the OPPOSITE of the desired effect (as expressed in my comment under option 1 above). They have an organizational unity, but their internal diversity is almost as great as that existing across Protestantism. When I see the debates about birth control, American bishops vs. the Vatican, Latin vs. vernacular, anti-Vatican-2 bishops (e.g. LeFebvre in Montreal), Liberation Theology etc., I question whether there exists a church-wide spiritual unity. Not to condemn; just I don't think RC's are any better off than the rest of us. Sigh. -- ====================== disclaimer =============================== "Blame me, not the Company I keep..." - Steve Watson UseNet: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net [If you want to achieve Christian unity through organizational unity, i.e. by having just one organization that *is* the visible Church, then the sort of diversity that you see in the Catholic church is exactly what you'd expect. I don't think it's their goal to make everyone the same, but simply to have them all in communion with each other in a single organically united Church, agreeing on a set of essential doctrines. By the way, my comments about organizations calling themselves by names like The Church Of Christ was not meant to apply to any specific denomination. There have been several efforts like this. Some have managed to escape the limitations implicit in the way they started. --clh]