Ground of Locality and Generality

[ABrotherinFaith]

This was an interesting meeting to say the least...the ground of the Church, (oneness based on locality ) is more important than the Church's condition. I've never heard so many amens to things like we don't have a name and those who don't meet according to this are in division. ..I almost left. ..

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

This was an interesting meeting to say the least...the ground of the Church, (oneness based on locality ) is more important than the Church's condition. I've never heard so many amens to things like we don't have a name and those who don't meet according to this are in division. ..I almost left. ..

It's a contradiction to say "those who don't meet according to this are in division". The ground of the church as local churches currently practice is based on a ministry and not oneness based on locality.
Not only that, how can you say "the church in _____" is not a name. How many times have a seen Facebook posts of a brother visiting different churches with a pose next to the localities meeting hall which clearly displays there is a name.

On the phrase "oneness based on locality", one is more likely to find that in a community church than in a local church

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

This was an interesting meeting to say the least...the ground of the Church, (oneness based on locality ) is more important than the Church's condition. I've never heard so many amens to things like we don't have a name and those who don't meet according to this are in division. ..I almost left. ..

The truth of the matter is that members need this kind of constant reinforcement to feel that the LC is right. Here is the way that I think about it: if LC members really feel that their standing is an improvement in comparison to everyone else, then why must they constantly obsess themselves with that notion?

If the LC really represented something so much better, then you would think that they would also move onto better things. There is just a tremendous amount of irony in them comparing themselves to something that they believe to be so fallen and degraded.

[Indiana]

Watchman Nee "In reading these three portions of the Scripture, we notice that the believers are one in Christ. In the Lord there is no distinction of past status. In the new man and in the Body of Christ, there is no difference whatsoever. If we introduce these man made distinctions into the church, the relationship among the brothers and sisters will be shifted to the wrong ground.” Watchman Nee

www.twoturmoils.com/ShiftingtoWrongGround.pdf

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Watchman Nee "In reading these three portions of the Scripture, we notice that the believers are one in Christ. In the Lord there is no distinction of past status. In the new man and in the Body of Christ, there is no difference whatsoever. If we introduce these man made distinctions into the church, the relationship among the brothers and sisters will be shifted to the wrong ground.” Watchman Nee

www.twoturmoils.com/ShiftingtoWrongGround.pdf

There is a well-known hymn with a line that says "On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." What if those in the LC chose to make Christ alone their 'ground'?

It is a shame that no one in the LC took heed to WN's word about man-made distinctions. Cities, counties and the associated municipalities are all man-man. Why distinguish believers according to these man-made things?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There is a well-known hymn with a line that says "On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." What if those in the LC chose to make Christ alone their 'ground'?

It is a shame that no one in the LC took heed to WN's word about man-made distinctions. Cities, counties and the associated municipalities are all man-man. Why distinguish believers according to these man-made things?

Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and John Darby all sounded similar in their formative days. They all spoke against the man-made traditions of their day, and sought to return solely to the scriptures. Their early writings all abound with these kinds of orthodox principles. Of course they were sincere, and for sure they were all gifted ministers who labored inexhaustibly. They all were much blessed by the Lord. Eventually, however, power at the top of the heap catches up with every man, whether Christian or not. And that was their common failure ... fighting to be on top.

As each of these leaders solidified their power base and slowly transitioned for the worse, the minds and consciences of their loyal adherents were neutralized by the "vision" laid forth in those early writings. For sure, they all spent time questioning the shifting direction over time, but "Who is like our leader, and who can prove that our leader has really changed?" Each and every generation faced this dilemma. That's why their followers all endured continual "storms" or quarantines, or whatever words were used to spin the words of the prophets who rose up to speak for the Lord.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and John Darby all sounded similar in their formative days. They all spoke against the man-made traditions of their day, and sought to return solely to the scriptures. Their early writings all abound with these kinds of orthodox principles. Of course they were sincere, and for sure they were all gifted ministers who labored inexhaustibly. They all were much blessed by the Lord. ...As each of these leaders solidified their power base and slowly transitioned for the worse, the minds and consciences of their loyal adherents were neutralized by the "vision" laid forth in those early writings.

Ultimately the quest for human power becomes synonymous with "building the church", and people will kill each other, thinking they are serving God.

Witness Lee inadvertently exposed the whole sham when he looked at his disciples and said that they were not operating by the spirit of life but by the spirit of human power. I think it was in one of the Elder's Trainings messages.

Gee, I wonder how that happened? How come all the man-pleasers and wanna-be lorders of men gathered around Lee? Hmm... what a mystery. Unfathomable, really, that such a thing could have occurred. (insert dripping sarcasm icon here)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Gee, I wonder how that happened? How come all the man-pleasers and wanna-be lorders of men gathered around Lee? Hmm... what a mystery.

Though I am more familiar with the history of Darby and Lee, initially all types of brothers gathered around the precepts which characterized these three ministers in their early days. Many of these dear brothers would honestly testify that they never followed a man, never became a man-pleaser, never lorded it over others, and neither were they forced to ... in the beginning. Things then changed over time, and all three leaders forced their loyal followers to make the hard choices.

For example, Darby publicly shamed Newton first, and then proceeded with George Muller. These three at the time were the most prominent men in the movement. On the surface it was a dispute over eschatological and ecclesiastical teachings, but actually it was just a power struggle. Actually only one of these three was "playing the game." Those who don't want to play this "game" eventually leave, but the "winner" who stays gets to write the story about the "battle for the truth of God." Those who remain and choose sides with this "winner," may or may not know the real story, and thus remain until the next "storm" arrives.

This happened to me. I lived thru the "Max-storm" of the late 70's and the "Ingalls-storm" of the late 80's without ever knowing the truth about what happened. Then with the "Titus-storm" on the horizon, I began researching our "beginnings" back in 1825 with the Brethren movement. That was an incredible eye-opener in so many ways. What I learned about the Brethren, about Lee in those early storms, and what I had already witnessed regionally and locally all began to gel. One day, considering all these stories spanning 3 continents and 3 centuries, it dawned on me that the program I had devoted my best 30 years to, transformed "beloved brothers into bullies." It was time to leave.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ultimately the quest for human power becomes synonymous with "building the church", and people will kill each other, thinking they are serving God.

The errant Catholic ecclesiastical paradigm saw Peter as the N.T. vicar of Christ, while the equally erroneous Protestant model viewed Paul as the minister of the age. Both were wrong, and both have long used distorted oneness to bring the church of God under subjection to their lust for power. I'm sure all of these brothers initially meant well, but their teachings concerning leadership and oneness set the stage for succeeding generations to go further astray. Every exclusive system follows the same pattern of events elevating leaders and their teachings above Christ and His word.

I grew up in Catholicism and could not believe the atrocities in history perpetrated by them in the name of God. I studied Brethrenism and could not believe how different today's Brethren are from their earliest days. I lived in the LC's and what I see today cannot compare with what I saw in my first meetings. They all are spiraling down the same path, and where they are today is determined only by how far they have traveled on that path.

Eventually in every excessively legalistic system, only loyalty and steadfast determination are required of their members. Items like genuine faith, Jesus Himself, and God's word have long since been discarded as troublesome nuisances.