Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.
So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.
Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-
|
Very good Unto. It's one thing for an assembly to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church" in whichever city it may be. It's another to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church", but not taking LSM publications as the basis for fellowship. This is precisely the denominating factor why one Local church (and it's members) can be received for fellowship and another cannot.
I am reminded of an example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake (parted fellowship with LSM in 1986) sought to visit the Church in Euphrata, but was promptly shown the door. What is the issue? By all appearances it's fellowship according to a ministry. This must be what is implied when it's said to be meeting on the ground of oneness.