[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

When I was meeting with the local churches, Philemon was nothing more than a footnote.
Seriously, could it be that Philemon doesn't fit into LSM theology which is why little attention is given this book?

For me, Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is a glaring exception to the supposed ‘pattern’ in the NT that LCers would point to, in attempt to claim that churches are always referred to by the city in which they are located it. I’ve heard LCers make this claim on numerous occasions. It is false. Either they aren’t willing to admit the exceptions to their ‘rule’, or it is a claim that is being made in ignorance.

The following is a quote that was brought to my attention:

The real situation today is that almost no Christians take care of the standing. Most only care for the condition. Why do Christians like to join a particular group? It is because those in it are spiritual, or their meetings are good. However, we have to realize that the standing is much more important that the condition.

Witness Lee, The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life, Pg 41

I was considering just what is so appealing about the ground of locality teaching to LCers. It seems that a big part of it might be this notion that they have the “proper standing” (which they think no one else has).

My experience in the LC has left me with a big realization about the ground of locality. It has become a complete joke. Not that it wasn't so already, but besides the doctrinal aspects of the teaching, the contradictions regarding the practice of the teaching are just too obvious. Some members will regularly meet in a LC located in a city that they don’t live in. Members get offended and meet with a neighboring LC. Some LC’s meet “sub locally” (in districts). Basically, the whole notion and practice of the ground is nominal. They claim to adhere to locality, but in reality, they have thoroughly deviated from it. They will rationalize this deviation in all kinds of ways. I’m not saying that they need to start to practice locality correctly, I’m just saying that if it’s so important to them, it is quite hypocritical that they won’t/can’t practice it true to what was taught.

I know that I’m rambling a bit here, but what I am getting to is this: in the quote that I posted, WL stated that ‘standing’ is more important that ‘condition’. The implication of this is that as long as you have the proper 'standing', then everything goes. Members everywhere were taught to believe that because they were practicing locality, everything else would be fine and work itself out. This allowed WL to do questionable things, to allow questionable people to run his ministry office and none of this was supposed to be viewed a problem. This also meant that no one would dare speak up or leave, or else they risk losing the “proper standing” of being in the local church.

I believe that this is a trap for current members. My experience was that my LC was constantly declining in condition. I know other members who have felt that way too. In spite of this, no one speaks up. Why is this? Are they really that afraid of the confrontation that might follow, or they just couldn’t handle possibly being kicked out, thus being forced to meet somewhere not practicing WL’s ground of locality? I'm afraid that for many, the answer might be the latter. Some members are so thoroughly convinced that the only correct standing is that of locality, that they might be willing to tolerate an unreasonable amount of nonsense for the sake of locality.