What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the "local ground" is worse than useless, it is an error. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this earth" but the "local ground" is the foundation of turning the LRC into an LSM Franchise.

Originally, thru Brethren teachers and W. Nee, the "local ground" teachings were an attempt to correct the evils of corrupt hierarchical authorities. Initially, the elders were placed as the "ultimate" authority in the church, and no outsider could come in with their agendas. These elders alone had the authority to choose if and which outside ministries could benefit their congregations.

Many of the "old-timers" I knew in the LC's definitely espoused this ecclesiastical structure of the church. Many who voiced their complaints that the "nature of the Recovery changed" pointed to the controls and takeover by the workers in "The Work." I would include this in the original "vision" which attracted many to the Recovery in those early days.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many who voiced their complaints that the "nature of the Recovery changed" pointed to the controls and takeover by the workers in "The Work." I would include this in the original "vision" which attracted many to the Recovery in those early days.

It's clear from example after example in history that extra-local (extra-congregational) authority presumed directly from God corrupts. The only exception is the original Apostles. Every attempt since to install apostles or even bishops has produced bad results.

Another exception is an organization that has extra-local authority as part of the culture of that organization, like the Methodists. However, that arrangement is different from presuming an extra-local authority directly from God.

What's ironic is the LCM back in the 60s and early 70s pointed to the emergence of bishops in the 2nd century as a point of degradation in the Church. But what are the BBs but bishops and cardinals?

[ZNPaaneah]

Actually the early church also had this corrupting influence from the Judaizers who "were from James". I think James repented of this and refers to this in his epistle:

"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Actually the early church also had this corrupting influence from the Judaizers who "were from James". I think James repented of this and refers to this in his epistle:

"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

How can anyone deny this doesn't happen in the local churches? EM and RK have credit that any other brother's word has no weight.
EM said it or RK said it, must be true. We've seen that in application.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

How can anyone deny this doesn't happen in the local churches? EM and RK have credit that any other brother's word has no weight.
EM said it or RK said it, must be true. We've seen that in application.

But I think this is very important to the maturation process. How can you truly appreciate what it is to "meet in the name of Jesus" without having experienced this?

Also, what is a "cult" other than having an unhealthy respect of a person or group of people?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's ironic is the LCM back in the 60s and early 70s pointed to the emergence of bishops in the 2nd century as a point of degradation in the Church. But what are the BBs but bishops and cardinals?

Back in those days Lee was adamant that overseers were elders, with overseeing simply the function of the office of the elders. Ignatius' heresy of promoting the bishopric supposedly gave rise to RCC hierarchies. Here are some of Ignatius' more shocking statements written on the eve of his martyrdom:

Let us take heed brothers, that we do not set ourselves against the Bishop, that we may be subject to God. ... It is therefore evident that we ought to look upon the Bishop even as we look upon the Lord Himself. ... Whereas you are subject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ. ... But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from any man; but the Spirit spake, saying on this wise: Do nothing without the bishop, keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; flee divisions; be the followers of Christ, as He was of His Father. (Miller Church History page 179)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Back in those days Lee was adamant that overseers were elders, with overseeing simply the function of the office of the elders. Ignatius' heresy of promoting the bishopric supposedly gave rise to RCC hierarchies. Here are some of Ignatius' more shocking statements written on the eve of his martyrdom:

Yeah, Ignatius. Time and again he was made the example of one who erred by creating the extra-local office of bishop. He didn't have a good name in the LCM in the early-mid-70s. Then I remember a few years later a young leading one referring to Benson as a "bishop." He meant it positively. I was stunned.

Like in "Animal Farm," when the pigs started walking on their hind legs like humans, their slogan changed from "Four legs goood. Two legs baaad," to "Four legs goood. Two legs beeeter."