Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers
|
We have all come to that “fork in the road” and were forced to make a decision to stay or go. Can you stay to effect positive change in your situation? That really is a decision to make with the Lord leading you, the Author and Perfecter of your faith.
I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”
Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.