Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
If Canfield were true to his convictions, then he would remain with the established Chicago leadership, in order to maintain the oneness and stand on the local ground, would he not?
|
Yes but I am under the impression that those under the influence of the Cleveland based Recovery have in their own minds delegitimized the Anaheim based Recovery churches claiming that they have become ministry churches and not "genuine" local churches meeting "on the ground of locality". I assume this is the position David has taken and thus considers himself a purist in this matter and therefore justified in his rejection of "The Church in Chicago's" administration.
My own view is that neither the Anaheim based nor the Cleveland recoveries follow their own idealistic teaching. One is based on Witness Lee and the other on Titus Chu. The recent division was over the Blended Brothers understanding of Witness Lee vs. Titus Chu's understanding. This kind of activity is in direct opposition to what Paul taught in 1st Corinthians and even what Watchman Nee taught in his Normal Christian Church Life regarding ministries and ministers not being a basis of fellowship among Christians. So even if David's article was correct it's irrelevant to the current situation that exists unless David is outside the influence of both Anaheim and Cleveland and is beckoning others to leave these ministry based churches for locality based churches - whatever and wherever they are. If this is the case then at least he has positioned himself to be an apologist for his idealistic view and is not merely the pot calling the kettle black.