NeitherFirstnorLast
So they invoke a state court system that would agree that praying in school is the wrong thing to do and would agree that allowing women to have the freedom to abort their own babies is the right thing to do, and got them to proclaim as State Law (Not Federal Law,) that saying anything against the Recovery is the wrong thing to do. And that it is State Law, I fail to see how this particular court case has a thing to do with the church in Austin Texas.
Apparently they interpret Matt 18:15-20 and 1 Cor 6:1-11 as meaning that one should take fellow Christians to court for religious reasons. Either that, or they don’t think Christians outside of the LC are Christians. I don’t see either interpretation in these two verses. But then, who am I to say their interpretation is wrong? I have no authority to say they are wrong or right. Just my own opinion. It must be right for them or they wouldn’t make a practice of suing Christians. Have they ever sued non-Christians? Did Altman, a Jew, get sued for going against the California Court? Oh right. She wasn’t in the jurisdiction of California, being in Texas. How inconvenient for the LC.
The Local Church’s view on witnesses who say they have been hurt by the LC, points out a problem with them that is pretty obvious to many on this forum. They simply don’t give a damn. The view they give is totally self-concerned. And that is neither Christian nor Biblical. And anyone on this forum who might be guilty of the same thing should take note, if they don’t want to be like the LC. And from what I’ve read, not many on this forum have even the remotest desire to be like the LC.
Quote:
VII. Footnotes
1. The question often arises as to the name of the church. The local churches do not have a name. The only name we hold and honor is the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. To take any other name is to insult Him. The term "local church" is not a name; it is a description of the local nature and expression of the church, that is, the church in a locality. To print the words "local church" with capital letters is a serious mistake, for this gives the impression that our name is "local church." Just as the moon is simply the moon regardless of the locality over which it is seen, so the church is simply the church regardless of the locality in which it is established. When the church was established in Jerusalem, it was known simply as the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8: 1), and in Antioch, the church was the church at Antioch (Acts 13: 1). Likewise, the practical expression of the church in Austin today is simply the church in Austin. As local churches, we meet in the Lord’s name on the ground of genuine oneness.
|
Incidentally, I acknowledge that in this document, the Recovery apologists refer to themselves as the Local Church. And I thought that referring to them as the Local Church was disrespectful. I see now that I was wrong. They do refer to themselves as “the Local Church”. But calling them the Local Church Movement, I do think is a misnomer. Because they are not a Movement. Not since they took on definite denotations. They are, if they are anything Christian at all, a denomination of Christianity, in the same sense as other Protestant influenced denominations.
Their contention they have no name is very misleading. The denotations “the Recovery” and “the Local Church” are names. They don’t, indeed can’t call themselves “the churches of Christ” because that name has already been taken. So they intentionally give the wrong impression. If “the Local Church” isn’t a name, why do they use the phrase as a name in contradiction to the above?
Quote:
Accusation No. 1
6. The Local Church’s Position
|
As a Church in the universal sense, they have two names: “the Recovery” and “the Local Church”. They aren’t even right in saying each local church has no name. They definitely do have a name through association with the universal community. And by their own admission are insulting Jesus Christ.
MacDuff