What ever happened to Max Rappaport, John Ingells?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

I wonder what is meant by never "moved on". If it's because of the format, I see it's logical have met that way since the 60's. Many former LC members might have trouble meetings any other way where there's no opportunity for anyone to speak with the exception of a pastor and a select few.

Most evangelical churches nowadays have smaller home meetings where there is an opportunity to speak. Most reserve the main Sunday worship service time for corporate worship and the ministry of the Word by the teaching elders/pastors. This format seems to work best to keep the services within a reasonable timeframe of 90 minutes or less. Any longer and you are trying the patients and capacity of the average person, especially someone who is unsaved or maybe new to the Faith. Also there is a concern for the time of the children's workers.

I surely understand why the Westminster Assembly has retained the old familiar Local Church format - John Ingalls is around 80 at this point and I wouldn't expect to see much change. The times I was at the W.A fellowship it was mostly people over 40 and many much older. It was over half Chinese/Asian. I don't think there has been much growth, especially in the area of American Caucasians and young people. I think the reason for this is very simple - If people are going to church for just to fulfil some religious need then there are many more attractive/entertaining/uplifting places to go, especially in So. Calif. Conversely, if someone is really seeking the Lord, the ministry of the Word and true/open fellowship with other genuine Christians, then there are also many better choices than the Local Church or any spinoff church that's basically the same but without hearing the name of Lee every other sentence.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Most evangelical churches nowadays have smaller home meetings where there is an opportunity to speak. Most reserve the main Sunday worship service time for corporate worship and the ministry of the Word by the teaching elders/pastors. This format seems to work best to keep the services within a reasonable timeframe of 90 minutes or less. Any longer and you are trying the patients and capacity of the average person, especially someone who is unsaved or maybe new to the Faith. Also there is a concern for the time of the children's workers.

That has been my experience and I have no problem with it. In the home meeting atmosphere, it is more conducive for everyone having an opportunity to speak. I have heard the pros and cons of opening the floor in the Sunday Worship/Lord's Day meeting atmosphere. Do you let the trained pastor speak an entire message without anyone else an opportunity to speak? Or do you have an open floor to the congregation where there is more of an opportunity to use it as a platform than to build and edify?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The times I was at the W.A fellowship it was mostly people over 40 and many much older. It was over half Chinese/Asian. I don't think there has been much growth, especially in the area of American Caucasians and young people. I think the reason for this is very simple - If people are going to church for just to fulfil some religious need then there are many more attractive/entertaining/uplifting places to go, especially in So. Calif.

Conversely, if someone is really seeking the Lord, the ministry of the Word and true/open fellowship with other genuine Christians, then there are also many better choices than the Local Church or any spinoff church that's basically the same but without hearing the name of Lee every other sentence.

The latter first. I would recommend a community church if not a house church.
I had only been at Westminster in 2010. I can't say for certain, but I recall a fair ratio of Chinese and Caucasian. What caught my attention was the number of youth in the congregation. As I had fully expected most brothers and sisters being over 40 with not much youth.

[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?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Or that they all used to follow the ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee?

That can be said of the older generations, but not necessarily of the younger generations.

[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?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.?

Points well taken! As to the latter part, this is one of the biggest reasons that this forum exists - to provide a venue, an imperfect and messy venue to be sure, but a venue nonetheless, that at times can provide some "scriptural and reasoned support" to all concerned. Also the forum can be a valuable thing for people seeking to know the uncensored history of the movement, which would include the very theme of this thread - "Whatever happened to?".

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

Just sharing my observations bro. Call it scrutinizing if you wish, but unlike the LRC I actually went to the fellowship (more than once), observed with my own eyes and ears, and then reported as to what I saw and heard. If you think I'm being overly critical, I can live with that. But please don't place my criticisms in the same category of the Local Church's "poor, poor Christianity" nonsense, cause what I posted is not even in the same league...not even close.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just sharing my observations bro. Call it scrutinizing if you wish, but unlike the LRC I actually went to the fellowship (more than once), observed with my own eyes and ears, and then reported as to what I saw and heard. If you think I'm being overly critical, I can live with that. But please don't place my criticisms in the same category of the Local Church's "poor, poor Christianity" nonsense, cause what I posted is not even in the same league...not even close.

I don't think that we would intentionally duplicate the LRC's nastiness. But sometimes I like to remind myself as I think about other groups that my observations may still be somewhat colored by the LRC's skewed view of what should be.

And that is the reason that so many want to leave the LRC and duplicate it. Because they still think there is something almost magical about those teachings concerning ground, or stand, or something.

I'm far past being that way on a grand scale. But I still find myself thinking about certain of the leeks and garlic of the LRC. Just smaller amounts so that it is not immediately identifiable (to me) as having come from that storehouse of leeks and garlic.

Of course, we have to be careful that in throwing out leeks and garlic we don't throw our faith out with it.

[UntoHim]

Just saw your reply now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify Mike. Sorry I got a little chippy with you...probably just a little of those leeks and garlic pieces stuck between my teeth