What ever happened to Max Rappaport, John Ingells?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry, maybe you didn't notice, but the Assembly in Westminster is actually two different churches - one English speaking and one Chinese speaking. Remind you of anything??? Really it's not much different than the Local Church of Witness Lee. There is a pretense of oneness but really the oneness is just that they are in the same building. What is the basis of their "oneness"? That they share the same address? Or that they sing from the same hymnal? Or that they all used to follow the ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee?

Seems a rather petty thing to call people of different primary languages "divided" and having "pretense" simply because they tend to meet where they understand each other better.

Yes, it mocks Lee's claim of absolute unity in a single meeting in a city. But that was a fabricated construct devised out of the dirt that his church claims to stand on. But in real life, a church with a large collection of different language speakers would be theoretically noteworthy, but practically frustrating. It would lend itself to the very thing that Paul had to instruct the Corinthians about in 1 Cor 14. Or alternately one language/culture group would dominate and the others would struggle to understand and follow along.

Having different meetings, whether in the same building or different buildings, so that people of different languages (and other differences) can meet in an substantial and cohesive way that is beneficial to their "going on" in Christ seems the ticket, especially if they are not then pointing their fingers at every other group that is not theirs and thinking about how they can't get along with them because of (fill in the blank).

I noted somewhere recently that I pass several other churches on my way to where I currently meet. Some would declare that I should stop at the closest one. Others would insist that I should only go to the "right one." But most would point at each of the ones i pass and think mostly about why they don't go there. What it is about them that makes them unattractive to me. And surely there is some of that in the reason that I go where I go.

But if I go where I go to obtain what I believe is what I need most, and/or is least prone to distract me from my focus on Christ/God/the Spirit . . . . And as I pass those other places on the way, do I think about why I don't go there, or do I have a prayer for them as they meet and as they labor in the field that they have been given?

Does that mean I have no thought for the theological differences? No. But do I consider those differences so strongly that I demean their existence and do not think upon them as my brothers and sisters in Christ? I hope not.

Does that mean that we should simply leave the LRC alone? Unfortunately, I don't think so. But at the same time, we need to keep from thinking on them as badly as they openly think and speak about the rest of us.

And guess what. We are now part of the thing they despise and ridicule. Do we simply return the favor? Or do we provide the evidence for them to see their own errors and at least decide for themselves rather than just closing their eyes and never knowing there is a scriptural and reasoned support for those who disagree with them.

So what is it that is wrong with AiM in the way it meets that warrants us scrutinizing it in the same way that the LRC scrutinizes everyone else?