PART TWO The One True Denomination

Chapter Six ---------------------------------Feedback Box:

"Central Church Government"

Is there any Biblical precedent for Central Church Government, where anyone has any authority over a church in a distant city? No! The Council of Jerusalem was no exception!

THE ISSUE

When theologians want to justify Central Church Government, (especially Catholic theologians), they turn to Acts 15 and read about The Council of Jerusalem.

The Council, composed of leaders of the Church of Jerusalem, gave orders (or did it?) to several of the churches Paul had established in distant Gentile lands.

Because that Council, obviously endorsed by God, (seems to have) subjected distant churches to its own human authority, Roman Catholic administrators, located in Rome, believe it is Biblical to exercise jurisdiction, with regard to doctrines, membership, property, and the training, ordination, and assignment of clergy, over churches across the globe.

But Catholics are not the only denomination with central authority over distant churches. The headquarters of several denominations, such as Methodists, exercise authority to recall and replace pastors in distant cities, and to build or sell distant church property. Most denominations exercise authority to accept distant churches into their fellowship, or to remove them. Most Bible colleges exercise authority to train pastors for service in distant churches, and most churches think it would be presumptuous to train their own. (Much less ordain or appoint their own members, without training!)

Another factor mitigating Catholic centralized authority is the measures taken to arrive at doctrines during councils attended by representatives from around the world. Another is the fact that even after affirming doctrines, "Rome" doesn't rigorously enforce them by human methods. They are treated as if they are almost "advisory", at least in America. (Take these factors into account before simplistically comparing centralized authority in Catholic v. Protestant churches.)

Many Protestants attack Catholics for their central church authority. But how much difference is there, by Biblical standards, between Catholic authority, and the central authority which most Protestants take for granted?

What does God's Word say? Was the Council of Jerusalem an example of Central Church Authority?

SUMMARY OF THIS CHAPTER'S CONCLUSION:

There is no Biblical precedent, in the Council of Jerusalem, for any group to exercise authority over any church in another city.

The Council of Jerusalem communicated Four Rules which Gentiles should obey, but the rules were well within what the Gentiles already recognized as worthy of their obedience. They were considering obeying far more! The Gentiles had been almost ready to become full-fledged, circumcised Jews, studying and observing every physical detail of Moses' laws!

The Council essentially said "People from here told you how to apply the Bible in your lives. We didn't authorize them to say that, and we're not going to say that. Just keep doing what you know is right and you will do well." When James proposed this approach to the Council, he told them "the Gentiles have their own Bibles", verse 21. In other words, James had confidence in the Gentiles to study their Bibles for themselves, and take responsibility for themselves to interpret them correctly and live by them.

UNABRIDGED CONCLUSION:

Here is James' speech, where he explained why he was proposing the Four Rules for Gentiles, after which the others approved his recommendation:

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. [In other words, "God had a Plan for the Gentiles from day one."] 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The whole church accepted James' proposal, and then wrote the following letter:

23 ...The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, YE MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, AND KEEP THE LAW: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you NO GREATER BURDEN THAN THESE NECESSARY THINGS; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There are at least five reasons this passage is not a precedent for central church government, or for replacing the authority of the Bible with the authority of human leaders:

(1) THE RULES ARE PRESENTED AS THE MAXIMUM rules which Jerusalem was willing to present to distant churches. "19...my sentence [Gr: judicial ruling] is that we trouble not them... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." tells us the list that follows is a MAXIMUM list of rules which may proceed from any central authority, in the same spirit that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the powers not specified ("enumerated") in the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states!

This is no more than the traditional Protestant interpretation. These verses are popular with non-Jewish Christians because they seem to say "these four things are all you have to obey from the Old Testament." ("And if we needn't obey it, why bother to even read it?" Christians today reason.)

The traditional assumption is that the Four Rule Limit was a limit to what their Bible (our "Old Testament") could tell individuals to do.

Is that a very smart assumption? Is there any reason to believe the Four Rule Limit was any more than a limit to what one church could command another church in a distant city? Was it anything more than a limit to Central Church Authority?

An analysis of these verses concludes this section. It will show there was never any intent to limit what Gentiles should obey from the Old Testament. It will show the Church of Jerusalem had no intention of telling any other church what to do.

But even if the Council of Jerusalem actually did assert unprecedented jurisdiction to impose doctrines on other churches, it did so only to say "these four and no more". Never again in all Biblical history did any group, church, assembly, or hierarchy presume to impose any authority whatever on a church in another city, (other than the authority of common sense, or the power of persuasion), and even in this one instance they spoke only of doctrines. They did not ordain, train, assign, or recall any pastors, or accept any church into their fellowship, or reject any church from it.

(2) THE DOCTRINE CAP (the Four Rule Limit) WAS FOR ALL TIME. Because this centrally imposed doctrine cap was made part of the Bible, and since future such Councils did not add to the Bible, this doctrine cap would seem to be in force not just for that time, but for all time. Later councils which debated new, complicated, and controversial doctrines, (discovered between the lines of Scripture), and imposed their findings on the world, would seem to fall under the judgment of verse 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..."

It was appropriate for subsequent councils to try to discern God's Will, and even to then offer their conclusions to the whole world. It is unbiblical for any council to impose its conclusions on believers in another city.

(3) THE COUNCIL'S PURPOSE WAS TO NEGATE DECREES, NOT ENACT NEW ONES. The Council was convened in the first place, not to initiate any new jurisdiction over other churches besides itself, but to negate the bogus judgments of circumcision proponents who had misrepresented themselves as authorized by the Jerusalem church. (Verse 24)

Chinese missionary Watchman Nee, in "The Normal Christian Church Life", writes on Page 65: "A local church is the lowest scriptural unit, but it is also the highest scriptural organization. Scripture warrants no centralization in Rome which could give Rome authority over other local churches....Then why, when a question arose concerning circumcision, did Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders there? Because those who were responsible for the erroneous teaching in Antioch had come from Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the place where this problem originated; therefore, it was to Jerusalem the apostles went to have it settled. If a boy were caught in mischief, we would report his misdeeds to his father. In going to Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas were bringing the case to those who had control of the brethren who had created trouble, and once they brought the matter to the responsible source, a speedy settlement was effected. ....the apostles [missionaries] had been responsible for teaching in the [foreign] churches, and the elders for any decision made regarding local matters. When the apostles and elders both repudiated responsibility concerning the teaching propagated by these troublesome brethren from Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas on their later visits to different places were able to show to the churches there 'the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem' (Acts 16:4)."

(4) GENTILES WERE ADVISED TO STUDY FOR THEMSELVES.

In verse 21, the Council gave its reason for ordering obedience to only four of Moses' commands, but not to circumcision. Its reason was that Moses already has his preachers all over the world.

Huh? What does that have to do with ordering obedience to the Four Rules? After seeming to undermine Moses' circumcision rules, why did the Council speak with approval of Moses' preachers all over the world?

What might we say, today, that would be our cultural equivalent of saying:

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

In today's culture, we would express precisely the same thing by saying "You all have your own Bibles."

Remember that the Old Testament was all the Bible that existed in "Bible Times", and saying "Moses" was shorthand for saying "The Old Testament". And remember that before printing presses, when scrolls had to be hand-copied, access to the Bible was by going to the Synagogue where the scrolls were kept, and listening to them being read out loud. Saying this is available "in every city" is like saying, today, "you all have your own Bibles and you can read them any time you like."

So why did James say "the Gentiles have their own Bibles" as if he thought that would explain the reaon for the message he proposed?

"You have your own Bibles" is something told to people who are being encouraged to research some question they ought to decide for themselves. It is not something told to people expected to obey, without questioning, some order just given.

This indicates James' Four Rules for Gentiles must not be orders given by the Jerusalem Church to distant churches, which leave no further need to study the Bible.

After James finished speaking, then the Council, by endorsing James' proposal, and by being persuaded by James' point about the Gentiles all having their own Bibles, showed they, like James, meant for the Gentiles to determine how they themselves should live, through their own Scripture study, independently of the Jerusalem church.

But exactly how independent did the Jerusalem church mean for the Gentile churches to be?

Were the Gentiles supposed to obey without question the Four Rules for Gentiles, and then use their own Bible studies to determine several other issues?

Were the Gentiles supposed to study their own Bibles to scrutinize even the Four Rules for Gentiles?

Perhaps the Council meant "Moses has his expositors all over the world, so you don't need us explaining to you how to apply Moses' laws in your lives. You can determine this for yourselves."

Or perhaps they meant

"Look you guys, you don't need us telling you what to do. Just keep studying Scripture and refrain from what is obviously wrong.

"You know, things like IDOLATRY. You've heard the Bible condemn idolatry since you were little. Idolatry deadens the mind because it is so idiotic; it requires you to believe evolution, reincarnation, and a host of other silly fables without a shred of scientific evidence, while rejecting the scientifically substantiated Word of God.

"And promiscuity, which deadens the heart -- the emotions. Sinners call it 'making love', but real love is selfless; promiscuous 'love' is selfish physical desire. Promiscuity breaks hearts. It hardens hearts. It is incompatible with love. You can't love and be promiscuous. You can't be unfaithful and trustworthy.

"And eating meat whose blood was not drained. That just might deaden your body. It is very unhealthy. It will at least make you sick.

"And drinking blood. You know what the Bible says about that! That deadens your very soul. That is the most barbaric thing Satan has ever dreamed up. To drink another's life, Genesis 9:4. If you think being a Vampire, 'The Living Dead', would be desirable, you are close to concluding that Heaven is not a place you could enjoy.

"In other words, we aren't going to tell you anything you don't already know. If you want to know more than you already know, don't ask man. Ask God. You've got the same Bibles we do so you don't need us telling you what God says. Be faithful in what you know you should do, and you will do well."

"Testing for Leaks" Section

Is there any other logical reason James might have added Verse 21?

What if he meant "Moses has his defenders in every city all over the world. So Moses doesn't need our endorsement. Moses' writings will survive just fine without our help."

Was that it? Was James' concern for what God wanted for the Gentiles interrupted by a flash of nostalgia for the "good old days" when people obeyed Moses' laws to the letter, a practice he had to assure his hearers would not be forgotten if Gentiles were allowed to become Christians without first becoming Jews? Was James saying "boys, I think Moses' memory will survive. Why, every little town on the planet has a Moses Museum"?

I doubt if that was what was bothering James, but that's the interpretation a friend came up with rather than accept the interpretation that James was assuming the Gentiles would all read their Bibles and figure out for themselves how God wants them to live. (Even though my friend is a Gentile, and he, too, believes Gentiles ought to read the Bible for themselves to determine how God wants them to live.)

My friend's interpretation must have something rational going for it, though, because the Interpreter's Bible offered a similar possibility:

"The claims of Moses are sufficiently safeguarded by the publicity that he receives in the synagogue; therefore there is no need to demand circumcision of the Gentiles."

The Interpreter's Bible thought this awkward, however, compared with: "the Jewish law is still dear and familiar in every city, even in largely Gentile communities, and therefore the [Gentile] majority must make concessions to the scruples of the [Jewish] minority."

Is that what the 4 Rules for the Gentiles are all about? So the Gentiles won't "offend" the "scruples" of the Jews?

This "answer" only raises more questions. Such as: Who believed Jews could be satisfied with this weak "compromise"? If Christ couldn't satisfy Jewish lawyers, who thinks uncircumcised Christians can? If we are doing what's right, why should we compromise?

Here's another interpretation offered by the Interpreter's Bible:

"From the first God intended, through the teaching of Moses, ultimately to call even the Gentiles to himself, as is prophesied by Amos 9:11-12 (and quoted in v. 16-17); and in proof of this is the fact that men preach Moses not only in Jerusalem, the ancient 'dwelling of David' [v. 16], but in every city."

If this is what God meant, then we might paraphrase, after filling in a couple of blanks that open up: "14 From the beginning of the Christian Church, God has called Gentiles, 15 as He prophesied He would in Amos 9:11-12: 16 'I will restore David's Temple 17 for the use of Jews and Gentiles left who are called by My Name.' 18 God planned this from the beginning. 19 But let's offer Gentiles a compromise to make it easier for God to reach them. 20 Let's just give them four little rules. 21 Moses' followers in every city prove God is doing what He promised, and that the 'Moses Bandwagon' is going somewhere, so let's climb on just a little ways."

[Technical note: Amos 9:12 differs slightly from Acts 15:17. Amos says "that they [the ruins of the temple, which God will restore] may possess" the Jews & Gentiles, according to KJV. I assume it means "that the temple may be possessed by the Jews & Gentiles".]

If the Moses Bandwagon is in more cities than the Jesus Bandwagon, then, why not get all the way on the Moses Bandwagon? And if the Moses Bandwagon is doing such a good job carrying Gentiles, why do we have to make it easier for the Gentiles to climb on?

The fact is Moses was preached in every city, but hardly any Gentiles could climb on, because of the cultural demands of Moses' laws, especially circumcision. Besides, Moses alone never was God's wagon for the Gentiles. That's why Jesus came.

I think it is more logical, less confusing, to interpret verse 21 as "You all have your own Bibles, so you can flesh out, for yourselves, without our help, how far you want to carry the four basics of verse 20."

(5) THE COUNCIL DID NOT UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

"You have your own Bibles" is not something told to people who aren't expected to read them. Since this statement came in the context of determining how the Gentiles should live, the Council expected the Gentiles to read the Bible to determine how they should live. The Bible they referred to was, of course, "Moses" (and the prophets).

Therefore the Council affirmed -- it did not undermine -- the authority of the Old Testament over the lives of Gentiles. It was only the authority of any church over any distant church which they undermined.

Today it is the opposite: we gladly accept the authority of distant church bureaucrats over us, but we refuse to submit to anything in the Old Testament!

This is so ironic because "Bible Believers" who reject the authority of the Old Testament but demand obedience to every word of the New, use for their Scripture 1 Timothy 3:16, ("All scripture is given by inspiration...") which was written when the only "Scripture" in existence was what we call the Old Testament!

The teaching that Gentile converts to Christ should be circumcised was an invention of man, not of Moses.

It was an attempted amendment to the Bible. So the Council's ruling that they need not be circumcised was not a ruling undermining the authority of the Old Testament in any way, but only undermining the authority of humans from one church to impose human doctrines on another church.

In an effort to imagine how the Circumcision proponents must have justified their demand that Gentiles be circumcised, the best I could come up with, from Scripture, was to equate "The Lord's Supper" with a Passover meal, so Christian converts must be circumcised to participate in it if they are to obey Moses, since Exodus 12:44, 48 says foreigners ("strangers") may not participate in the Passover unless their males are circumcised.

But do we have any reason to assume Christians, then, equated "The Lord's Supper" with Passover? Christians today do not, either by its contents, or by its scheduling.

Paul's opposition to imposing circumcision on Gentiles is not opposition to obeying Moses, since Moses himself did not impose the obligation of circumcision on Gentiles, even though he offered the protection of all the rest of his laws to uncircumcised "strangers".

Leviticus 24:22 "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God." Also Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16, 29.

Circumcision was a covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17:11. Leviticus 12:3 says Israelite male babies must be circumcised on their eighth day. Other than that, the only other times Moses spoke of circumcision, it was the metaphorical "circumcision of the foreskin of your heart"! Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6!

The Circumcisers must have justified their demand that Gentiles be circumcised by assuming that only Jews can be saved, so the only way a Gentile can turn to Jesus and become a Christian is by first becoming a Jew! Thus their demand was not just circumcision, but the keeping of the law, verse 1, 5.

But where can they find that in the Old Testament?! Nearly the opposite, as Jesus pointed out:

Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. 28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

God must have made the Israelites just as mad when He told them through Amos:

Amos 9:7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

To interpret the letter of the Council of Jerusalem as not containing "commandments", as if the Church of Jerusalem had any power to enforce anything, is consistent with the lack of enforcement powers available to any other Christian in the New Testament, starting with Jesus who told people what they ought to do but only looked on with sadness if they chose otherwise. Much of the New Testament consists of apostles like Paul expounding doctrines to people of churches in other cities. This is not "Central Church Government". Apostles were but individuals, with no authority to compel obedience in any way. They "ruled" by logic, persuasion, and common sense -- by persuading readers that their words had authority only insofar as they had the support of God's Word, (1 Corinthians 14:37, Acts 17:10-12), and did not proceed from their own "authority". They did not rule by any manner of worldly physical force.

Christians divide themselves with their human summaries of Scripture, or their individual versions of the highlights of Scripture, which they call "doctrines". "Doctrines", when defined as anything less than a verbatim quote from Scripture, are suitable for pondering by logical thinkers who may decide "I AGREE with that". But no human verbal formulation, however helpful, is a legitimate basis for cutting Christians off from one another.

But what about Acts 16:4? Does that indicate the 4 Rules for Gentiles were, after all, "commandments"?

Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. 5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

"Decrees" comes from the same Greek word usually translated "doctrines" in the KJV, which simply means "teachings". "For to keep" does not suggest some sort of "law" which they have to "keep", but rather, "to be on watch, keep watch" (Analytical Greek Lexicon, Zondervan) or "watch, guard, defend, protect" (Logos computer lexicon). The sense of obeying a law comes indirectly from "keeping" (protecting) a law.

This is an appropriate duty towards Four Rules which are not meant as statutes from superiors but as warnings from equals.

The absence of Central Church Authority does not, in God's system, lead to anarchy, or to each Local Church becoming a "law unto itself". Churches from one city to another really are supposed to be united -- not by any human thinking, but by The Same Word which God has given to each church.

Nee, page 63: "...what one church ought to do, all the churches ought to do. The responsibility of the churches is individual, but their actions should be uniform.... 'I have sent Timothy to you...who will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church' (1 Cor. 4:17). ....And so I direct in all the churches' (1 Cor. 7:17). The Lord could never give a command to one church which in any way contradicted His command to another church. ....'For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus' (1 Thes. 2:14)."

THE "ONLY TRUE DENOMINATION" IS "THE CHURCH OF (your city)". THE ONLY BIBLICAL ORGANIZATIONAL DIVISION OF CHRISTIANS IS BY CITIES

Had Jesus recognized any central authority over the churches, that's who He would have addressed in Revelation 2-3, rather than addressing the seven churches individually. Had there been any central authority over the churches, you would think Jesus would have at least MENTIONED it!

Nee, page 53: "Locality is the only scriptural basis for the division of the Church into churches. [Of the seven churches in Revelation:] ....They were seven churches, not one.... There were seven different churches simply because the believers lived in seven different places. [Their names] are clearly all the names of places."

Page 61: "When our Lord sent messages to His children in Asia, [Revelation 2-3] He did not address them as 'the church in Asia,' but 'the seven churches which are in Asia'. His rebuke of Ephesus could not be applied to Smyrna, because Smyrna was independent of Ephesus....Each church stood on its own merits and bore its own responsibility.

"And not only were there these seven churches on earth; there were seven lampstands representing them in heaven. In the Old Testament there was only one lampstand with seven different branches, but in the New Testament there were seven distinct lampstands. Had the New Testament representation been the same as the Old, then believers in the seven Asiatic churches might have [been understood to be] united to form one church; but there are now seven separate lampstands, each upon its own base, so that the Lord is able to walk 'in the midst of the seven golden lampstands' (Rev. 2:1)."

Page 55: "In Scripture the localities which determine the boundary of a church are neither countries, nor provinces, nor districts. Nowhere do we read of a national church, or a provincial church, or of a district church.... That cities were the boundaries of churches in the apostolic days is evident from the fact that on the one hand Paul and Barnabas 'appointed elders for them in every church' (Acts 14:23), and on the other hand Paul instructed Titus to 'appoint elders in every city' (Titus 1:5)."

"The divine wisdom in decreeing that a locality should fix the boundary of a church" rather than a country, province, or district, is the relative permanence of cities compared with nations or provinces. Provinces and districts are rearranged all the time, and nations are swallowed up by others, but "There are cities that have passed from one country to another and still have their original name, and there are cities in existence today that have retained the same name for centuries." Page 56-57.

The point of dividing churches into areas is so that everyone in the world doesn't have to drive to Jerusalem every Sabbath. There should be fellowship gatherings within traveling distance of their homes.

(To some extent, electronic fellowship, and fellowship by mail, has mitigated this practical necessity. If your idea of "fellowship" is listening politely to a lecture, you may as well attend the Church In The Box. But if your concept of fellowship includes interaction, getting to know one another, and intimacy, then there still is no substitute for face-to-face meetings.)

Nee, page 82: "Locality is the divinely-appointed ground for the division of the Church, because it is the only inevitable division. ...As long as believers remain in the flesh they cannot exist apart from their dwelling places....Local division is the only division which does not touch the life of the Church."

Cities in NT times were much smaller than cities today, so "neighborhood" might more accurately be recognized as today's counterpart of NT cities.

Not to say the NT can be coaxed into chopping up neighborhoods into tiny little pieces. NT churches were by no means small. 3,000 converts were added to the first church in just one single day! Acts 2:41. The Corinthian church was so numerous that Christians there were safe from persecution, Acts 18:9-10.

Page 59: "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. A province is not a scriptural unit of locality; neither is a district. Both include a number of units; therefore, they include a number of separate churches and do not constitute one church."

(The reason Paul could address all the Galatians in a single letter was apparently that the believers were not in a city; it was a rural church. I surmise this because, according to my maps, none of the cities mentioned in the Bible are in Galatia. The only city in Galatia which my map shows is not one mentioned in the Bible: Ancyra [Angora].)

If someone asks you what church you go to, or are a member of, and you live in Des Moines, you should answer "I belong to the Church of Des Moines". Because no body more limited than that is a Scriptural church, and if you are a believer, and especially if you interact with other believers, you are part of God's church in Des Moines, which consists simply of all the believers in Des Moines.

Nee, page 82: "Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, 'To which church do you belong?' The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted--in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, 'I belong to the church in Ephesus...."

Nee, page 57: "The Word of God recognizes only two churches, the universal Church and the local churches; there is no third church whose sphere is narrower than the local, or else wider than the local and yet narrower than the universal Church....

"We read in 1 Corinthians 1:2 of 'the church of God which is in Corinth.' Corinth was a unit-locality, and the church in Corinth, a unit-church. When discord crept in and its members were on the point of splitting the church into four different factions, Paul wrote, rebuking them: 'Each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ....Are you not men of flesh?' (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4). Had these people formed four different groups, they would have been sects, not churches, for Corinth was a city, and that is the smallest unit which warrants the forming of a church.... This is Paul's definition of the church in Corinth":

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

So What Do We Do Now?

Christians may not agree how much precedent the Council of Jerusalem provides for central church government. But everybody seems to agree that God never meant for the church within any city to be divided!

Catholics answer "That's what we've been telling you Protestants all along! You never should have left us!"

Vast theological differences divide Catholics from Protestants, and Protestants from each other. But have you ever wondered why theological differences divide Christians, rather than give them something to talk about, something in common, something all of them care about deeply, something they all theoretically want each other to understand correctly?

The theory is that Christian A really cares about Christian B, and vice versa. Neither wants the other to labor under heresy. Both want to see the other in Heaven. Their heart is broken at the thought of the other suffering in Hell. That's the theory.

Then why do A and B up and leave each other as soon as they locate the least disagreement? Why do they never speak to each other again?

Simple: because of the heresy which Protestants and Catholics share: the doctrine that one theological ruler should soar so much higher than the "laity" as to do virtually all the preaching. ("Nico-laitans", in Revelation 2, means Nico=ruler, laity=people. See Chapter 16 for more about the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans.)

Where the only response to theological stupidity that is allowed, is to leave, and go find some place that seems to have a little less of it, people leave each other. They divide. And as soon as they think they have gotten far enough away from it to escape being annoyed by it, they find it again among themselves, they being human, and have to split again.

Only when people are allowed to respond to errors by correcting them can errors become a magnet to draw Christians together.

Yes, a magnet. That is exactly how God means errors to act upon us: to draw us together. It is a universal longing, to see someone in error, and to be able to offer advice, which corrects him. We are drawn to opportunities like that. Like a magnet.

Unfortunately our generation has made such opportunities rare. Our generation ridicules our universal desire to share advice with each other. This generation leaves advice for the professionals: the psychologists, the preachers, the teachers.

When the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans (See Chapter 16) blocks our natural drive to offer correction when we hear error, that is like taking that powerful magnet, error, and turning it backwards so that our magnetic fields repel each other rather than attract.

So how do we restore Biblical unity? How do we approach our city full of fragmented churches which hate one another and attack anyone who suggests they speak with one another, and restore it into a single Church of Yourcity?

Believe it or not, there is a way. A Plan which you alone, if necessary, can implement in your city in order to transform your entire city.

The Plan is chapter 17 of this book.

The goal is not to get everybody to quit their wrong churches and come to your right church. They wouldn't all fit! Remember that the Church of Jerusalem gained 8,000 members in just two days, so they could not all meet together at the same time in the same place. They met from house to house.

Yet when they held a council, they were able to reach a conclusion which spoke for the entire "Church of Jerusalem". This could not have been possible unless there were some sort of intercommunication between the various groups. So that is our goal today. Not sycophantic, mind-numbed endorsement, or "tolerance", of each other. Just intercommunication.

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

There are practical ways to achieve this. Chapter 17 lays out a Plan which is not only achievable, but if it is done prayerfully, it may not even prove all that controversial!

Chapter 7 "Hereticks are the ones who start denominations over doctrines!"

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)