Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Again, I don't claim that the ground of locality without all the other nonsense would have been better, but I think the main issue was that the LC was misrepresented for what it really was. So many bought into the Nee/Lee teachings on local churches, only to find out that it couldn't even be practiced according to what they taught.
|
No. I wasn't suggesting that you might think that the ground of locality was anything in itself. But even in the early-mid 70s, I know of at least one case in which in some manner a lack of willingness to accept Lee and his ministry lead to the ignoring of another group that they originally concluded was otherwise "on the ground."
And the fact that there was some kind of rush to come to Dallas (71 or 72) to "take the ground" was because another group that they were at odds with was sending people to Dallas. While there may be some interesting analysis of the Dallas situation, in hindsight, it would appear that there was another "on the ground" group that the LCM didn't get along with, therefore would not meet with. Doesn't that sort of kick "ground of locality" in the teeth? If you admit that they are on the ground of locality yet you compete with them and won't meet with them, then it seems that you have something in addition to the "ground" on which to create division.