LSM's Sacrament - the "Ground of the Local Church" NIGEL TOMES

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think everyone interested in this subject should consider two things that Tomes brings out.
[LIST=1][*]The doctrine of the local ground is not taught prescriptively in the Bible.

This exposes the hypocrisy because with regards to head covering the teaching of LSM is that if the Bible doesn't prescribe it, then neither should we. Yet they have elevated "One church one city" to the level of "the faith".

Originally Posted by Igzy

[*]The LRC's attempted prescriptive teaching of the local ground has led to nothing but strife and division.

Clearly if the teaching is erroneous it has led to division the minute they created another sect.

However, the strife and division can be directly linked to various sins (Daystar, PL, etc). So to prove that those sins were part and parcel with this teaching you would have to argue that WL taught this with the intention of establishing a sect. Therefore that would make this teaching the first sin, just as James says.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, the strife and division can be directly linked to various sins (Daystar, PL, etc). So to prove that those sins were part and parcel with this teaching you would have to argue that WL taught this with the intention of establishing a sect. Therefore that would make this teaching the first sin, just as James says.

I don't think it's necessary to link those particular things with the fact that requiring the local ground leads to sectarianism. A group can be sectarian without having any other sins, though they likely will have other sins.

A "moral hazard"* is established by claiming to be the only legitimate place to meet in a city. Once you teach your group that it is THE group then tolerance of leadership sins by members is a requirement, since the members are expected to believe there is no where else to go.


* I borrow the term "moral hazard" from economics. It is the concept that incentives to take undue risks are established if the negative consequences of those risks are removed from the party taking the risks and passed to another, usually naive, party.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

A "moral hazard"* is established by claiming to be the only legitimate place to meet in a city. Once you teach your group that it is THE group then tolerance of leadership sins by members is a requirement, since the members are expected to believe there is no where else to go.

I still don't see how, based on this one teaching, you are not able to deal with the sin. There is nothing in the teaching that "trumps" sin. So it seems that "one church one city" is merely a component, but you have to include "deputy authority", MOTA, or something else before you are requiring tolerance of sins.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I still don't see how, based on this one teaching, you are not able to deal with the sin. There is nothing in the teaching that "trumps" sin. So it seems that "one church one city" is merely a component, but you have to include "deputy authority", MOTA, or something else before you are requiring tolerance of sins.

Okay, well look at the track record. How does an LRC member deal with the sins of local leadership? Let's say he goes to the elders and accuses them of sin. They reply, "We disagree. You are rebelling against the one true eldership of this city. We quarantine you!" If the member believes the LRC model, he has no recourse but either to submit or be a spiritual vagabond.

Of course, he can go find other fellowship in that city, but then that means he doesn't believe in the LRC model.

My point was if you believe the LRC model, the elders have the upper hand because you can't vote with your feet--which is another practical reason the model is suspect.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, well look at the track record. How does an LRC member deal with the sins of local leadership? Let's say he goes to the elders and accuses them of sin. They reply, "We disagree. You are rebelling against the one true eldership of this city. We quarantine you!" If the member believes the LRC model, he has no recourse but either to submit or be a spiritual vagabond.

Of course, he can go find other fellowship in that city, but then that means he doesn't believe in the LRC model.

My point was if you believe the LRC model, the elders have the upper hand because you can't vote with your feet--which is another practical reason the model is suspect.

What about BM, the elder in Irving who worked in the LSM.

I think it is the teaching on Deputy Authority which is more often abused in this way.

Based on the reaction to PL I doubt JI, AK, JS, etc. would have had any qualms about dealing with a similarly sinful elder in their locality. Even if the offense was brought to their attention by some other member of the Body.

Another very sinister teaching is the idea of "one ministry". Based on this if you were to stand up in a meeting and say "hey, what is the Biblical basis for 'one church one city' because I don't think our practice is scriptural". I could see that getting you a quick ticket out of the LRC, but it would be based on the "one ministry", the elders would talk to this person and explain that speaking "differently" is not tolerated. They would then assume "deputy authority" as the basis for disciplining this person. Ultimately, the issue is not that you disagreed with "one church one city" but that you told someone else in the church your doubts. Hence, spreading poison and teaching differently, etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What about BM, the elder in Irving who worked in the LSM.

I think it is the teaching on Deputy Authority which is more often abused in this way.

Ultimately, the issue is not that you disagreed with "one church one city" but that you told someone else in the church your doubts. Hence, spreading poison and teaching differently, etc.

Fine, but let's keep the thread on the subject of the local ground. And the fact is it is one of the ways the LRC uses to control its members and keep them on the reservation.

I recall the discussion I had with "Ryan," a particularly zealous and naive young man, who was extra proud of the fact he was on his way to the FTTA to get himself more equipped (indoctrinated).

I asked him what he would do if the Lord led him to leave the LC. His answer was that he didn't think the Lord would ever lead anyone to leave. (Note that he didn't answer my question.) When I asked why, he started talking about the local ground and how to leave the LC would be to violate the one church in the city principle, yada, yada.

So the doctrine is still effectively used to control the members, as is the MOTA doctrine.