Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”
Boxjobox,
Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.
Drake
|
I would agree that the LRC was raised up through the ministry of WL and WN, though to be fair some churches, like the church in NY were raised up by other ministries and then "brought into the fold" of the LRC.
I also would agree that WL has the authority to appoint elders.
However, this is where I diverge from WL's doctrine. I don't believe that the NT teaches that elders must be appointed by "the apostle". As long as you are faithful to the word in the NT you are fine. Otherwise, what happens now? WL is dead, who appoints elders now? What happens if a new church is raised up via the gospel, saints moving, etc. Who appoints the elders now?
So the ultimate authority is not WL, or WN. It is the NT. Elders are the husband of one wife, raise their children well, etc. You could create a score card. Everyone may love one brother because he is charismatic with great messages, but, oh well, teaching the word well is not a major category but perhaps you could give bonus points. Maybe in the event of a tie.