Problems with the Local Church - Merged Thread

[jesusislord]

After spending months reading past turmoil, meeting in other denomination and thinking, I'm not convicted that the Local Church is the unique move of God. Many problems occurred (elitesms, tribalism, pride issue etc) because the root of existence of the group were already risky.

Brother Nee followed the Brethren church footsteps, claiming have seen something, thus he went to execute it. That's why the LC is always like the brethren never wanted to admit that they themselves are just a group or denomination of Christianity. When this stand has been established, then the LC became an isolated group which they have unique interpretation of the Bible. There's a gap between the LC and the rest of the Christian groups when they have their unique view (they claim they are called to do something in this age) and they can't compromise their practices. Hence the LC appears to the members this is the best and only way to meet. When someone got hurt and there's unpleasant things happened in the church, the saints got hurt and disappointed even more.

[jesusislord]

How can a Christian come out of a denomination? From my understanding is this: Christian shouldn't be restricted to love and fellowship with one another despite meeting in different denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, baptist etc), according to Ephesians 4. Each denomination has different ways of doing things, but as long as all of us are trying to preach and act according to the gospel (vertical relationship) then God is happy. That's the true unity.

But according to Local Church, oneness is determined by the doctrine of the ground of the church, aka by locality. They did say the vertical relationship is the primary factor of oneness but they have bias when it comes to practice. They criticized other denominations (they claim they don't criticize the believers but the system) but isn't it they are too a denomination? It's a weak argument when you leave a denomination then you are not becoming another denomination. What more the LC only promote books that are written by Nee and Lee, members join conferences that held only by LSM, they have their own version of bible and a set of teaching and culture, that basically is another system or denomination.

Denominations are not divisive, denominations are needed because we aren't like the early church where the number is much more smaller. Denominations are diversity. If a member of the Lutheran church is restricted to read only Luther and only allowed to meet with members of the same denomination, then that's tribalism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by jesusislord

Brother Nee followed the Brethren church footsteps, claiming have seen something, thus he went to execute it. That's why the LC is always like the brethren never wanted to admit that they themselves are just a group or denomination of Christianity.

As with all of the LC teachings, we must separate Brethren ideals from contemporary Brethren practice. Whenever a member of the Brethren or the Recovery talks to new ones or outsiders, then will always state their ideals, or founding principles, such as leaving traditions and returning to the pure word of God, leaving the divisions and returning to the oneness of the body of Christ, leaving the clergy/laity system and returning to the priesthood of all believers, etc. As such, each movement was a "new and improved" version of the church, supposedly better than what was currently available. Admittedly each had begun by the Spirit, (Galatians 3) but quickly deteriorated into a work of the flesh.

Unfortunately, J. N. Darby used these lofty and scriptural ideals to lure seeking Christians away from the Anglican state church. W. Nee used these ideals to lure seeking Christians away from the Western denominational missions in China. W. Lee likewise used these ideals to lure seeking Christians away from the established American denominations. None of that is wrong per se, until the followers are brought to a man, rather than the Lord. (Acts 20.30) It is only from the benefit of history that we are able to know the underlying intentions of these gifted men.

What we are left with in all 3 groups in no way resembles their primitive ideals. Actually, in these movements, these ideals are more apt to be seen with those excommunicated from the system. In every case I have studied, in both the Brethren and Recovery movements, the expelled ones had no other "transgression" than clinging to the founding ideals.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What we are left with in all 3 groups in no way resembles their primitive ideals. Actually, in these movements, these ideals are more apt to be seen with those excommunicated from the system. In every case I have studied, in both the Brethren and Recovery movements, the expelled ones had no other "transgression" than clinging to the founding ideals.

Ideas are just ideas. But the truth has no options. There's no prescriptive teaching in the Bible one city must only have one church. If leaders from different denomination turn ideas or ideal into something authoritative and execute it without compromise, it hurts and confused the flock.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ideas are just ideas. But the truth has no options. There's no prescriptive teaching in the Bible one city must only have one church. If leaders from different denomination turn ideas or ideal into something authoritative and execute it without compromise, it hurts and confused the flock.

True. I did not include OCOC as a primitive ideal of the Brethren or the Recovery.