Don,
Quote:
|
Once the LSM was formed in 1973 and WL and Max Rapoport began to attempt to head up the local churches into a single “move” with a central “coordination” then the practice of the church in the city began to be divisive.
|
I disagree. Actually, the local churches were, by definition, divisive from the beginning. But that division was not as willful or organized in the early days and was therefore somewhat benign. But any time you come into a divided situation and claim to have the answer and that those who follow you are not divided, there is a problem.
Quote:
|
Consider how they came to have multiple sets of elders in Toronto. It was due to the so called “Work.”
|
There are not multiple sets of elder sin Toronto because of the so-called “Work.” There were multiple sets of elders in Toronto long before Witness Lee was born. And if those multiple assemblies with multiple elders can become more one with each other in Christian fellowship, it will not matter that they hold some few preferences differently and continue to meet as separate assemblies. Without even going to Toronto to see for myself, I bet there is a trend in that direction.
And you keep referring to the practical side of the church as “local.” Yes, I agree that it is local. It is very local. But leaving it “local” in such a vague way on this forum is the equivalent of saying “one city one church,” or even if you disregard political boundaries, only one assembly covering some patch of land and no one is going from within one patch to join with believers in another.
I am not saying you are proposing this. And I am not saying it would not be ideal. But unless you are somehow weighing in with Gubei, you seem to be suggesting something that I do not think you intend. Reading the remainder of the post could be read either way, so a clearer stand on what is “local” would be helpful.