Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I've said before that the "local ground" doctrine was intended to invalidate all other groups as much as it was intended to validate Nee's group.
|
Then you have places like Seattle, WA and Bellevue, WA that have congregations heavily influenced by Lee and Nee. Those local churches influenced by Lee (aka LSM) want nothing to do with the Nee influenced congregations. There's more of a wall than there is inclusiveness.
Back to Kevin's initial question, I'm sure many such as I raised in the local churches that have heard much the same. The argument behind it is so hypocritical. At least in the US, I have yet to find a local church that doesn't take a name. If not having a name is so important, don't take a name.
Or is the bigger issue tax breaks that go along with having a name?
Something that's been brought up on this forum multiple times are those cities um localities that have multiple congregations claiming to meet on the local ground. No one has yet to defend their position adequately why the LSM church is legitimate and all others are not.