Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
So when we establish our ekklesia, in the name of Jesus, beware of trojan horses, which will insinuate themselves into the discussion, cloaking bids for earthly power and position. In the case of the "one ekklesia per city" model, you get centralized control, masked as administration, and you end up with "One Publication" edicts, and you get "one apostle of the age", who supposedly is free from all human ambition, and who got run out of the Far East for by angry investors, and set up his sons as "business managers" of Dayster, Living Stream Ministry, etc. Anyone remember "Let's go Linko!!"??
The fruit of your tree reveals of what sort it is, whether or not you honestly and prayerfully got it from God or not. And I don't like the fruit of this tree; the "ground" of this assembly has been revealed.
|
Brother Canfield doesn't see that the Ground of Locality doctrine enabled, justified and entrenched this corrupt behavior, which is why he is still trying to defend the doctrine.
Perhaps he should be reconsidering the doctrine in light of what it has produced, instead of continuing to insist it is the answer. The Ground of Locality has delivered on none of its promises. "You will know them by their fruits."
Once a set of leaders has decided that they are the top authority in a city, they are pretty much unassailable and can do whatever they want, as long as they emboss it with a spiritual patina.
What clause in the Ground of Locality doctrine addresses this inevitable slide into corrupt dominance? What do the members do when this happens? Well, we've seen from the history of the LCs that they don't have a clue.
Basically they designed a car without brakes, believing they'd never need them. The result was a lot of people got injured when the car inevitably crashed.
All the defenders can say is, "Well, that's how the Bible says to do it. Doh"
It's like, guys, God gave you eyes and a brain. Use them.