I challenge you to find the one time in scripture that says the two words in the following order, “local church.”  Where did the idea of “local church” come from?  In material written and statements made about the church, that language is everywhere today, as if it were in the Bible, and yet it isn’t.  God never says, “local church.”  Why do people use this terminology not found in God’s Word?

Saying “local church” assumes there is some other kind of church than “local.”  The word translated “church,” a term found only in the New Testament, is the Greek ekklesia.  Ekklesia means “assembly.”  That’s how Tyndale translated ekklesia in his first printed New Testament in English.  One would not say, “local assembly.”

Okay, you might read, “local assembly,” used like the following.  John was a “local assembly member.”  The speaker is referring to a political institution that is local and not regional, state, federal, or just somewhere else than in his present locality.  There are other assemblies in other places than just in this town, so this is a “local assembly.”

Here’s another one.  John worked at a “local assembly plant.”  In that case, a factory in town assembles things.  Something is being assembled, but it isn’t people in this case, but a product being assembled, that is, put together.  All the pieces will be in one place after they are assembled, however.

Despite the aforesaid mentions of “local assembly,” there is no such thing as a “universal assembly,” even though those words might be used too.  Here’s how.  This grease was a “universal assembly lubricator.”  In other words, it was a grease that would work for all manner of assembly of metal parts into whole products anywhere in the world.  But I digress.

Something universal can’t assemble.  It wouldn’t be universal anymore.  It would be local.  The terms “universal” and “assembly” are mutually exclusive.  Since a church, ekklesia, is an assembly, it can’t be universal.  It must be local if it is an assembly.  For that reason, someone shouldn’t say, “local church.”

“Local church” isn’t in the Bible, because the church is only local.  Every church is local.  It wouldn’t be a church if it wasn’t local.  This is what I call “local only ecclesiology.”  When I googled those words, “local only ecclesiology,” the first four finds were written by me, the fifth by James Bronsveld, and the sixth by Thomas Ross.  There are only at this date 521 usages on the world wide web.  I would say I may have invented the terminology to refer to a position, and I found that it had spread to a few other people, who don’t even take the position, but are referring to the biblical position.

People, who use the terminology “local church,” I submit, are making room for some other kind of church than a local one.  There is no other kind of church than a local one.  I contend that starting today, everyone that uses the terminology, “local church,” and believes in only the “local church,” should stop saying, “local church.”  Call “the church,” “the church.”  It is only local.

Some say, ‘it might be confusing to call the local church, “the church,” because many people will think of the universal church.’  There is no universal church.  The church is the church.  When I say, “the church through history,” I mean only a local one, because there is only a local one.  If I say, “the church is in a downward trajectory,” I mean only local church.  I’m using it in a generic fashion, like scripture sometimes does, but it is still local.

If I say, “the phone had modernized,” is that a universal phone?  No.  Everyone knows it’s local.  If I say, “the car has changed through the years,” is it a universal car?  No.  Everyone knows it’s local.  Let’s assume an assembly is local.  A church is an assembly.

I just read a man, Caleb Greggsen, who had written, an article for 9 Marks, entitled, “A Strict But Clear Definition of the Church Brings Freedom,” in which he wrote:

My church’s statement of faith defines a local church in this way:  [Local churches are] congregations of baptized believers covenanted together in faith and fellowship, marked by the right preaching of God’s word and right administration of the ordinances.

Greggsen isn’t being strict or clear.  He said it was a definition of “the church.”  So say in your definition, “the church is. . . ., ” not “local churches are.”  What’s ironic is someone saying, “local churches are congregations.”  That’s like saying, congregations are congregations, or like I once heard someone say, “pizza pie.”  Pizza is pie in Italian, so someone is saying, pie pie.

His definition is confusing, not clear.  Are the congregations covenanted together?  Or are the baptized believers covenanted together?  His desire to keep alive a “universal church” caused him to be unclear in his definition of a church.

What do you think?  Could we all today stop using the two terms, “local church”?  A local church is the church.  It is the only church.  It isn’t and never has been universal.  The two words, “local church,” are not found anywhere in the New Testament.  God doesn’t use those words, because the church is only local.

When God says, “the church at Corinth,” He doesn’t say, “the local church at Corinth.”  He doesn’t need to.  It is the church that is in Corinth, the only one.  It couldn’t be universal, unless every believer on earth was in Corinth, which we know isn’t true.  The exact wording is “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2).  It’s even using the definite article, “the” (yes, also in the Greek).   The church of God is at Corinth, not “a church of God.”  If there was another church than a local one, wouldn’t this be “a church” and not “the church”?  You know it would be, but it isn’t.  Why?  Because “the church” is a local one only.

Join me in not making room for another church than a local one by not using the word “local” to refer to “church.”  Church is only local.