Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Witness Lee, Lessons for New Believers, chpt 16, Sect 4 ...
In lesson 14 we saw that the churches in each locality should be independent, each living directly before the Lord and not forming organizations such as federations or headquarters (Rev. 1:11-20). The local ground is the best safeguard against forming organizations and federations. The local ground always restricts the local churches in every locality from forming federations beyond the boundary of a locality, thus losing the nature of locality. The church in every locality should be administered locally; there should be one church in one locality. The church in Jerusalem did not interfere with the church in Antioch; neither did the church in Antioch interfere with the church in Jerusalem.
|
This quote highlights the hypocrisy in the Recovery which so surrounds the word "local." WN's early writings in China on this topic actually discussed the many safeguards of "locality," since their primary "enemy" was British colonial controls manifested through denominational mission boards. But WN's teachings on "The Work" actually have obliterated any benefits which may have once existed. In the hands of Lee, the available mechanisms which surrounded "The Work" have reduced the independence of localities to zero. WL even went so far to say that the decision-making prerogatives of the local eldership was limited to establishing the time of their meetings. There is not a denominational church affiliate today which has
less autonomy than the LC's have.
History has proven repeatedly this is true. In that infamous Rosemead conference, WL even spat on G.H. Lang's book "Churches of God" which had become popular at the time due to Lang's insight on autonomy, born out of Darby's devastation to the Brethren movement. Bill Mallon had bought cases of the book, and circulated copies widespread to many brothers. The recent local lawsuits, instigated and trained by the Blendeds and their operatives, proves what little respect they have for local autonomy. They cared little for people, all they wanted was their money, their property, and their franchised "name."
As someone has so aptly said, "
tell me again about how that church with no name is suing in court over their name."