The Ground of Locality

“Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be attuned in the same mind and in the same opinion.” — 1 Corinthians 1:10

“Being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” — Ephesians 4:3

What Does the Bible Say

The “ground of locality” (also called “the ground of the church” or “the local ground”) is one of the most distinctive teachings of the Lord’s recovery. Its biblical basis comes from several groups of passages:

The pattern in Acts. “The church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church in Antioch” (Acts 13:1) — when Scripture refers to the church in a city, it consistently uses the singular. Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in each church” (Acts 14:23), and Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). “Each church” equals “each city” — the church’s scope is the city’s scope.

Revelation 1–3. The Lord told John to write to seven churches in seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. One church per city, one lampstand.

1 Corinthians 1:2. “The church of God which is in Corinth” — Paul treated all believers in Corinth as one church. He then rebuked their divisions: “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos” (1:12).

Philippians 1:1. “All the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” — Paul wrote to the saints of the whole city, along with the overseers and deacons.

These passages form a clear pattern: in the New Testament church is always named by city.

Teaching in the Lord’s Recovery

Brother Watchman Nee

The systematic teaching comes from Brother Watchman Nee’s The Normal Christian Church Life (originally 工作的再思), especially chapter 4.

“Locality is the only basis for church division in the Bible.” — Ministry Samples

“The boundary of a locality marks the boundary of a church, so a church cannot be narrower than a locality, nor can it be wider than a locality.” — Ministry Samples

“In God’s word we do not see a church that exceeds the scope of a city, nor do we see a church that does not cover the whole city.” — Ministry Samples

“The practice of uniting believers from different localities who hold the same doctrinal views… has no biblical basis.” — Ministry Samples

“What makes us distinct from the world is that we are in Christ; what makes us distinct from other believers is that we are in a certain locality.” — Ministry Samples

Brother Nee was influenced by the Plymouth Brethren’s anti-denominational ecclesiology but went further, establishing the city as the only legitimate boundary for church division.

Brother Witness Lee

Brother Witness Lee inherited and developed this teaching, especially in The Practical Expression of the Church and The Ground of the Church and the Meetings of the Church.

“There should not be many churches in one city. One city should have only one church, one local church.” — Ministry Samples

“The church in the universe is one, and the church’s expression in any locality must also be uniquely one.” — Ministry Samples

“All denominations have their own ground; therefore the one has been destroyed by them.” — Ministry Samples

“If the Catholics would give up the Catholic ground, the Presbyterians would give up the presbyterian ground, the Southern Baptists would give up the baptismal ground, they would all naturally be one in the end.” — The Ground of the Church and the Meetings of the Church, Chapter 1

Brother Lee used stronger language about denominations. The Christian Research Institute found in its research that he had written “denominational organization has been used by Satan to establish his satanic system to destroy God’s economy concerning the proper church life,” but CRI also noted that Brother Lee “never claimed that Christians in denominations are lost or outside the universal church.” (CRI)

Understanding in Church History

The New Testament evidence is more complex than a simple “one city, one church” reading.

The Question of House Churches

Romans 16:5 mentions “the church in their house” (Prisca and Aquila’s house in Rome). Paul greets at least five different groups in Romans 16. Scholar Peter Lampe, in From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, argues that Rome may have had multiple house churches with no single organizational structure to unify them until the mid-second century.

Similarly, Colossians 4:15 mentions “the church in her house” (Nympha’s house in Laodicea), and Philemon 2 mentions “the church in your house.” Were these house churches one organizational unit or semi-independent gatherings? New Testament scholarship acknowledges that the question has no simple answer.

Development in the Early Church

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107) is the earliest author to advocate one bishop per city. He wrote: “Where the bishop is, there let the congregation be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2) But scholars note that Ignatius was advocating this structure — not describing universal practice — which suggests the single-bishop model was not yet everywhere the norm.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250) formalized the principle further: “The bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop; whoever is not with the bishop is not in the church” (Cyprian, Epistle 68 (NewAdvent)). But even in Cyprian’s day, large cities like Rome had multiple house churches. Unity was maintained through the bishop, not through a single meeting place.

The key historical finding is that the early church did move toward a one-bishop-per-city model, but that was an evolution. The New Testament itself shows plural elders/overseers; the shift to a single bishop occurred gradually in the second century. The fathers’ pattern was multiple congregations unified under one bishop — not a requirement that all believers gather in one place.

The Rise of Denominations

Denominations did not arise from nothing. The Reformation — Luther, Calvin, Zwingli — separated not from personal preference but from conviction on core doctrines (justification by faith, sola scriptura, solus Christus). The church divisions that followed came from real doctrinal differences, from cultural and linguistic and political reasons, and from human pride. The New Testament does not hide this: Paul acknowledged “there must be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you” (1 Cor 11:19).

Comparison

	Historic Orthodoxy	Lord’s Recovery
Basis of unity	Common confession of faith (Nicene Creed), sacraments, and episcopal authority	The ground of locality — city as boundary, not doctrine, practice, or person
New Testament pattern	Descriptive — churches named by city, reflecting address, not necessarily prescriptive	Normative — city is the only legitimate basis for church division
House churches	A city may have multiple meeting points, united under the bishop	House churches are multiple meetings of one church, not multiple churches
Denominations	Some divisions are sin; some reflect loyalty to truth (the Reformation)	All denominations are essentially division, destroying the unity of Christ’s body
Agreement	Both affirm the unity of Christ’s body cannot be divided; both ground in John 17 and Ephesians 4
Difference	Orthodox tradition allows different churches in the same city (different denominations or traditions) as diversity; the recovery sees this as division; only one church per locality is the correct ground

Where the Tension Lies

The ground-of-locality teaching addresses a real problem. Christians dividing by preference — “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos” — is what Paul condemned. The Lord’s prayer for unity — “that they all may be one” (John 17:21) — is not a suggestion but the Lord’s desire. To grieve over church division is a biblical instinct.

At the same time, several questions deserve careful thought:

Descriptive or prescriptive? The New Testament names churches by city — that is a clear pattern. But does pattern equal command? The New Testament also describes believers holding all things in common (Acts 2:44–45), yet most Christians do not treat that as mandatory for all churches. Moving from description to norm requires an explicit apostolic command — and the New Testament never explicitly says “there can only be one church per city.”

The house-church evidence. The multiple groups in Romans 16, the church in Nympha’s house in Colossians 4:15 — these passages suggest that a city may have multiple meetings, and that unity among them is spiritual and relational rather than organizational.

Defining “city.” Ancient cities were relatively clear geographical units. Modern metropolitan areas — like greater Los Angeles or greater Taipei — have complex administrative boundaries. A street can divide two “cities.” Applying the ancient city concept directly to modern urban structure requires many judgments not found in the New Testament.

A paradox. If the church on the ground of locality is the only correct expression, then every other Christian gathering in the same city — however devout, however faithful to Scripture — is functionally incorrect. That creates a new kind of exclusivity — and exclusivity is precisely what this teaching aims to overcome. Critics point to this as a logical difficulty. Norman Geisler, in his response to CRI’s reassessment, criticized the claim of “only correct expression.” (Geisler)

In 2009, after six years of investigation, the Christian Research Institute published its reassessment, acknowledging that Brother Lee “condemned denominationalism itself” and that his strong language should be read in context. CRI concluded that the local church movement was “misunderstood, neither heterodox nor aberrant, but different.” (CRI)

However one evaluates it, every believer can return to the text: Paul did not tell the Corinthians “you must be in one organization” but “you all speak the same thing… no divisions.” The foundation of unity is not organizational structure — it is Christ Himself. “Has Christ been divided?” (1 Cor 1:13) That question crosses two centuries and still asks everyone who says “I am of…”