Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Nee's initial teaching on Authority had numerous warnings, checks, and limitations on authority, whereas LSM's version of Nee's book conveniently left them out, since it was published during a time filled with controversy. Lee was never true to Nee's teachings in the TNCCL, because if he was, he would have submitted to John Ingalls and the Anaheim elders.
|
Witness Lee and his son Philip would never submit to the elders in Anaheim. They rarely even went to meetings. They were too busy with The Ministry to bother with sometime as mundane as the activities of a mere local church. The letter of apology from the new elders in Anaheim to Philip displays how the thing really worked. How did Philip Lee get elders who didn't excommunicate him to publish a letter apologizing for the excommunication?
But the scenario of Whistler really takes this to a new level. The Church in Cleveland rejected the Edict of Whistler towards Titus Chu. So now per Ray Graver they are not considered a lampstand anymore. If the elders in Anaheim didn't have the authority to excommunicate an immoral local man how do coworkers 3000 miles away from Cleveland have the authority to excommunicate Titus Chu and anyone who fellowships with him? The Church in Cleveland didn't excommunicate him so how possibly could those way off there in Anaheim at LSM HQ think they have any authority to do so?