Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
|
When there are groups who claim to be "standing on the ground", a man and a ministry come into play. That ultimately has been the deciding factor by which the LCM recognizes if a group is legitimate or not.
Terry has mentioned the church in Moses Lake several times. They are apparently practicing the local church according to Nee/Lee except that the don't practice allegiance to a ministry. That alone is enough to not be recognized as a local church even though the general practice is still the same.
Apparently, there are still two groups calling themselves "the church in Toronto". The
General Partnership Business church in Toronto is the one who receives LSM, and thus they are recognized as being legitimate. It's very ironic. The fact that they are registered as a partnership business does not lead me to consider them as a legitimate group, so when allegiance to a man and a ministry is considered a determining factor in what groups are legitimate, it can lead to some really bizarre results.