Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Simply put, the LR one church per city doctrine is actually a one leadership per city doctrine. It's nothing more than a way to subject as many Christians as possible to a single leadership, which is itself subject to Witness Lee.
|
Why is it that we never thought through Nee's and Lee's mandate that ONLY an apostle can appoint elders? Ironically, it was not even Paul who appointed elders in their scheme, but Titus (1.5)
With such a restrictive mandate in place, were there then no legitimate elders for 1900 years until Nee came along? Is this how real church history should be viewed? What happens to all the LC's after Lee passed? Who then is authorized to appoint elders? Where is the scriptural mandate, and official qualifications for, the authority of the Blendeds to appoint new elders? How in the world then did the Blendeds receive authority to de-legitimize elders appointed by Titus Chu, once recognized by Lee as an apostle, as they did in Mansfield, OH?
Obviously we were sold a bill of goods. The Bible never mandated that elders must be appointed by apostles. Yes, initially it happened, but never was this sanctioned by scripture. That's why Paul gave specific criteria for elders and deacons, so that churches could flourish after the apostles left us. That's why Paul told the elders in Ephesus that they were selected by the Spirit if God. (Acts 20.28)
The appointment of elders, on the other hand, provided great power to Lee, and he was all about control. He appointed many elders whose only qualification was blind loyalty, a criteria which never crossed Paul's mind. To Paul, elders were consecrated to God on behalf of the church, and not devoted to a work or a man's ministry.