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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

8. Non-LSM Local Churches in the Great Lakes Area

Another category of local churches emerged after LSM’s latest turmoil in 2006/7--non-LSM churches in the Great Lakes Area (GLA) of North America. How are they faring? On one hand they’ve severed ties with LSM’s “blended brothers;” they don’t attend LSM’s “seven annual feasts” or use LSM’s HWMR and they no longer “prophesy” (recite) W. Lee’s messages in their gatherings. But, for many scattered GLA churches, little has changed. Witness Lee’s name may not be mentioned; LSM’s Recovery Version footnotes are seldom read as defining statements. Nevertheless, the “default setting” for Bible teaching and interpretation remains Witness Lee’s teachings. In most places, local church practices remain largely unchanged, except regional activities have replaced LSM’s global gatherings. Most GLA non-LSM local churches can be characterized as “LSM lite.”

I find this very interesting. These churches have taken very definite steps to break away from a lot that binds. To sever ties with the Blendeds and not attend the conferences, stop using HWMR, stop regurgitating WL's messages, these are all very significant steps. You still have to meet, so the meetings will continue to fellowship the Bible, by not using WL's messages you open the door for the saints to read and fellowship the Bible without fear. In this environment of "LSM lite" it is possible for someone like Nigel to publish a word this radical. That is a very big step, very encouraging.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

A burst of GLA creative activity following the 2006/7 “turmoil,” called for a thorough re-examination of Local Church teachings and practices, in the light of Scripture.58 But it soon withered under the weight of benign neglect. As a result, 6-years after parting ways with LSM, the GLA churches have yet to provide a statement of their theological differences with LSM. Was it just a personality contest--“we refer Titus Chu to LSM’s ‘blended brothers’”? Or a drive for regional autonomy—“we reject LSM’s leadership; we’ll do it ourselves”? Recently there’s a move in the GLA to restore traditional “local church values” in the name of “preserving our distinct identity,” “not losing our vision & commitment,” and “honoring our unique heritage.” Extra-biblical teachings could be endorsed under such labels, even though they fail to match the “gold standard” of Scripture. Phrases like “our distinct identity” and “our heritage & commitment” can mask mere local church tradition. Yet, the local churches have long proclaimed59 “we don’t follow human tradition; we follow the Bible.” One candidate for this category is LSM’s “local ground” doctrine; already we’ve heard claims “it’s not an essential truth, but it’s an ‘essential practice’.” Yet, evangelical believers acknowledge only two ‘essential practices’ (ordinances)—baptism and Lord’s Table--both were ordained by the Lord (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19). Neither the Lord Jesus, nor the New Testament prescribes the “local ground.” Putting the local ground on par with baptism and the Lord’s Table elevates it beyond Scripture; it repeats LSM’s error of making the local ground into a sacrament.

He is calling for a "thorough reexamination of LRC teachings and practices" and begins by taking a direct shot at the most important teaching of the LRC. If the saints in the GLA can read this short article thoughtfully and without fear, then I think that will be the death knell for the LRC in this region.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

A forthcoming US Midwest conference60 promises to address this topic. It remains to be seen, however, if the doctrine will merely be “tweaked,” with minor “cosmetic surgery”—e.g. “let’s not say all other Christians are not on the local ground (even though we still believe it).” To seriously grapple with this topic the major points enumerated here ought to be addressed, employing Watchman Nee’s (oft-quoted, seldom applied) dictum, “the Bible is our only standard.” Plus long-standing attitudes of sectarianism and elitism should be addressed. Minor “cosmetic surgery” won’t accomplish much; more radical measures, akin to a major operation, are required. Moreover, LSM’s “local ground” doctrine is a “tangled web of interwoven elements,” so individual aspects can’t simply be accepted or rejected independently.

Look at the environment where a conference like this results in all of this push back. This was unthinkable back in 1979. To me this is a dramatic change.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In conclusion we inquire: Is the mission to preserve “our unique identity” misguided? It assumes the local church ought to differ significantly from other Christian congregations. We ask: what’s wrong with being a “normal Christian church” among other “normal Christian churches” in our city or community? Doesn’t history show that the drive for a “distinct identity” is a road littered with “cults,” sects or other aberrant expressions of the Christian faith. Haven’t we ventured down that road before? By seeking to re-create our former local church-life--in the name of “preserving our distinct identity” or “maintaining our particular vision and commitment”--don’t we risk repeating our sad history? Haven’t we “been there, done that” before?

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
April, 2013

[SIZE="1"]NOTES:

As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts.

A word like this in 1980 would have surely gotten you excommunicated. I think this little caveat at the end is just to keep the hounds away from the elders in Toronto and protect them from any liability. I doubt if there were much dissension over this that he would be able to publish it. Obviously this is a very controversial paper. If the LSM doesn't fire back with some serious heat then the only real explanation is that they can't. This word undermines everything the LSM publishes.

If "one city one church" doctrine falls, then the ministry of WL falls with it. How can you say he is the MOTA? How could they say they are the "One true church"? If they are no better than any other Christian group then think of the shame over all the nasty things said concerning other Christian groups. This would demand a reassessment of their practices and teachings.

Luke
14:8 When you are bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than you be bidden of him;
14:9 And he that bade you and him come and say to you, Give this man place; and you begin with shame to take the lowest room.

It is one thing if a few people on a forum like this share these things, but if Nigel Tomes and others start picking this up as well, then this demands that LSM respond. This is far more serious than accusations of being a cult.