Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Over the years, I heard vague references to these types of situations where there is an 'independent' group in a city alongside an LSM church, and they both call themselves the church in their city, and each have their own Lord's table meeting. Of course, LCers think nothing of having 5 or more separate Lord's tables meetings in districts in the same city. However, the minute a group not associated with LSM has a Lord's table meeting apart from LSM churches, it is labeled as 'divisive'. Oh the hypocrisy!
|
Riverside, California comes to mind. There's former elders among former lcers meeting there, but Ron Kangas describes them as "meeting indepently" since there's already Christians meeting as the Church in Riverside.
"We receive all blood washed,, redeemed, regenerated..." Oh, is that so? Suppose Nigel Tomes or Steve Isitt decided to visit the Church in Riverside. How would that go? This scenario translates into another double-standard "let the past be in the past".....If that was the case Christians meeting as the Church in Riverside, Moreno Valley, San Bernardino, or any other Inland Empire locality would not have any problem receiving Nigel, Steve, etc.
Truly the LS mindset of letting the past be in the past, when I was meeting with a Washington state locality I asked a hypothetical question (prior to the brother's passing), would Bill Freeman be welcome if he wanted to visit? The elder's response to me, "we'd have to fellowship with the blended brothers". That says it all.