Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
It's interesting to note that the letter attributed to Clement (First Clement 94-95AD), the 3rd Bishop of Rome, chastises the congregation in Corinth for ousting their elders. This is the first glimpse of Rome attempting to control other churches.
While Lee espoused the "local church" it was never local and it is not local today. He consistently tried to control all of the churches world wide which is what led him into problems abroad and at home. That is why you have someone like Mel in the leadership of a local church---it was Lee's attempt at having control which superseded any level of spirituality.
The same problem happened in Detroit with RK, HA, and TS as elders. RK and TS came from Eldon hall and were taught by Lee. They had no business being elders but they were self anointed when they arrived. TS left the church, divorced and who knows what happened to him. RK didn't migrate with us to Ft. Lauderdale but took the opportunity to move back to Anaheim where he is a big honcho in the LC.
This is an inherently significant problem with non-democratic congregations. Yes, democracy and the congregational model (Cambridge Platform 1648) can be messy but when you have one leader whom everyone follows it can lead to all kinds of machinations. When a "God (Lee)" appointed elder such as Mel is in charge and he really believes he is the anointed one in a locality there is going to be trouble. Imagine what it must be like if you are someone walking around thinking that you are the voice of God in a city such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. What power you have, what insight you have and what will befall those who go against you as you carry out God's(Lee) mission in your locality.
|
Great post!
The "open" branch of the Plymouth Brethren, in response to Darby's centralized control, enacted the principle of unanimity for all serious church decisions. While it too has its drawbacks (it can easily be sabotaged by a few dissidents), it is an attempt to make decisions only after all the congregation has arrived at one mind via the prayer of each.
Lee's proposed solution to all the "evils" of denominationalism was autonomous "local" churches, each let by elders / shepherds. Today the LC's have become a far worse denomination than any of the ones they long have condemned. What kind of hypocrisy is that to declare to the world that all control is local? During the heyday of the "new way," Lee had become a far worse Pope than the one he had condemned his whole lifetime.
While in the LC's, I personally participated in two migrations to startup new churches. Over time I watched Titus Chu manipulate and nearly destroy two prosperous LC's via his full-time worker relocation programs. His primary concern was making sure that every satellite LC remained steadfastly under his dominion. The condition of the actual saints or the church seemed to be the last of his concerns.