Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Why is the church in Moses Lake a "rebel church", while WN could form an independent church? And Martin Luther, for that matter? Why wasn't WN's church a "rebel church" also? Why wasn't Luther's church a "rebel church"?
|
It all depends on which side of the divide one stands.
I left the Recovery in 2005 during the lead up to LSM's official Whistler ITERO quarantine of Titus Chu. What troubled me so much was the simple fact that we were forced to choose sides. I thought we were a "local" church, with local autonomy. Not so! All my brothers and sisters were forced to choose between regional headquarters in Cleveland, and national headquarters in Anaheim. Things got real ugly.
Martin Luther was condemned and targeted for assassination by the Pope and his thugs. There's a reason why the mafia grew up in Italy. Since I grew up with Prussian ancestry in a Catholic home, Luther was viewed with mixed feelings.
The church in Moses Lake was condemned for no other reason than they wanted to remain true to their vision: a "local" church, with local leadership, answering only to the Lord.
LSM will never accept that! They condemn it as "independence," but consider that every single positive example in the Bible exhibited "independence" also. What about Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and Caleb, David, Samuel, Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and so many others I left out?
They all were independent, and dependent on God alone! Otherwise they could never be faithful to their Lord and God.
We applauded W. Nee for leaving the "system," but now that same "system" inside the Recovery goes after those who leave for the same reasons!