Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
What does this say about such places such as Toronto, Chicago, Moses Lake, etc where you choose not to meet is not about locality, but about ministry? In a round-a-bout way agreeing with Igzy, it is the emphasis of a ministry where the recovery becomes a movement.
|
And at the same time, that there is a group-wide issue about that ministry could also be viewed as the evidence that, for those whose determination is to follow it, you have a denomination that is willing to take the (marginally) normal leadership of its headquarters. They even decide whether to attend this group in Toronto or that group based on whether you are willing to follow the lead set forth by those at the LSM.
And while it is often argued that the LSM is "just a ministry," it actually is the thing around which the various leaders from disparate locations who call themselves "blended brothers" (or something like that) congregate. Leaders who may be, in part, local elders in various places, are jointly exercising authority over the way local assemblies operate through their joint efforts that center on the LSM. In fact, it would appear that, as far as most LRC members are concerned, the BBs operate through the LSM. And the BBs/LSM are the source of the edicts to set aside certain meetings to do what the LSM commands rather than just having another meeting. The LSM will get involved to wrestle local meeting halls aways from any who would deny even a very few the right to use the hall in the way the LSM wants rather than in some other way.
I see waddling and hear quacking. By golly!! It's a duck!!
They are a denomination. They may also be a movement. (Or they mare prefer the moniker "conversation.") But they have joined the ranks of the denominations. Might have been true by the end of the 70s, if not much earlier. There just wasn't as much evidence available. (And we were too gullible at the time to accept Lee's declaration that we were not despite any evidence to the contrary.)