Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin
Yet, some who would deny this teaching never tire of pointing out that it is not presented as a prescriptive teaching in the New Testament, but rather is only taught by way of example. I would reply, first of all, that this gives no basis to deny the teaching, because God often teaches us, in the Bible and otherwise, by way of example. Yet, it is indeed quite important that the teaching concerning the proper way to meet is given by example, not by precept, and we need to consider why this is. I believe there are mainly two reasons.
First, for those who do not accept this teaching, they are free to go their own way concerning the matter of church fellowship. To take the way of the church, the way the Lord has ordained, is by no means easy, and the Lord does not force his believers to do so, since there is no direct statement in the New Testament saying, “You must meet together with all of the Christians in your locality.”
Yet we must be clear that, if we do choose to go our own way in this matter, we will pay a great price in terms of our following the Lord, our fellowship with Him, and our service unto Him. To have the church is the desire of God’s heart; it is His eternal purpose (Eph. 3:8-11), and it is what Christ gave Himself up for (Eph. 5:25). Thus, if we forsake the church to take the way of the sects, our ability to touch what is on the Lord’s heart will, of necessity, be severely limited.
David Canfield
Chicago
|
By now, sufficient time has passed to ascertain the promised blessings and the supposed fruits of taking this "narrow way" of the ground of locality. One of the primary difficulties in making an impartial assessment of this practice is that those who promote it benefits also misuse it for their own gain. While we don't have good data on China under WN, since it was cut short by the Communist takeover, we do have adequate history from the Brethren under Darby and the Recovery under Lee. In both cases, the practice produced narrow minded exclusivism and expulsions of those who refused headquarter mandates, both of which resulted in arrogant Laodicean pride in those who remained "
true to the vision."
It seems that the real "price" involved to go this narrow way of meeting on the ground of locality is to be robbed of the liberty to follow one's own heart for the Lord. I say this because nearly every brother who has left the program, willingly or reluctantly, did so because of violations to one's own conscience. I know of many who had no desire to leave the "narrow way," on the contrary the reason they left the Recovery was to once again return to the narrow way that leads to life.
At this point in time, I find it hard to believe that dear brother Dave Canfield still clings to the tired notion that leaving the Recovery is "
forsaking the church, the desire of God’s heart, His eternal purpose." Has Canfield not realized how far askew the Recovery has deviated from God's eternal purpose. It has become just another denomination, headquartered in Anaheim, that is just all about WL. Being in Chicago, he witnessed firsthand the hypocrisy of siding with LSM agents, and how Chicago leaders flip-flopped their stand for freedom due to personal offenses.
Most annoying is Canfield's method of using fear to lure departing members back into the fold, threatening them with a "great price" which must be paid in this age or the next.