Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches. On the one hand, they claim to practice localism organized practically in terms of geography. On the other hand, they will insist upon allegiance with LSM. And that is what serves as evidence they are a movement that is indeed following a man.
|
Let's call it what it is.....ministry churches. To call it the ground of locality is a deception. Someone could be living in Crestline, California. There may be community churches there but none standing on the local ground. All this talk about locality, one would have to drive down highway 18 and meet with the Church in San Bernardino for the local standing.
Or what I was familiar with for a few years. Brothers and sisters meeting as the Church in Bellevue, Washington would come far and wide from Renton, Kent, Sultan, Everett, etc in order to meet "locally".
Call it localism. I call it ministry churches.
For a local church in Moses Lake that received Lee's ministry from the 1960's until 1986, how come it's no longer regarded as a local church? Everything points to receiving according to a man's ministry.