The Ground Of The Church

[countmeworthy]

I never understood 'spiritually' the ground of oneness or locality. Notice I wrote SPIRITUALLY!

On the outward..on the surface.....the fact we all...most of us anyway..talked the same..used the same lingo, the same hand expressions, the same body expressions...(very evident in the men in particular)..same dress styles, same hair styles...that we could go 'churching' from one locality to another, take in hospitality, go to a meeting and feel right at 'home'..pray read with the best of 'em...get up and share a testimony or re-enforce the message...sing the same hymns/songs....

THAT my friends was 'ONENESS'....
But...that said, I'm not going to be quick and criticize Lee's vision of that type of ministy.

Look. A Catholic person can go to mass anywhere in the world..even have a mass held in his/her home...and all catholics will feel right at 'home'.

Same goes for those who are die-hard Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc... In more recent years, I found myself connecting with the Word-Faith people.

For a time, I got a lot out of it...but I got a LOT out of it because of the foundation I received in reading and studying the Word in my church home in San Diego...back in the 70's. Yes...we were under Lee's ministry but my LORD was/is Christ Jesus. I was 'built' with the saints in San Diego...not with those in Anaheim, Boston or Taipai. When I went to the conferences/trainings in Anaheim & took hospitality, meeting saints from other cities, states and countries, it was awesome. Perhaps I was blessed to be around LIVING SAINTS. Yes, we called on the LORD and Praised the LORD to a fault& pray-read the Word, it seemed...but it was my training GROUND.

It prepared me for what was to lie ahead in the future..which is NOW.
When I connected with the Word-Faith people, the emphasis is confessing the WORD of God...but very few confess the Word of God believing it will transform their way of thinking..from the natural to the spiritual...I mean true spirituality...Explaining true spirituality is a totally different topic I'm not going to discuss here.

Word-Faith takes scriptures and 'faiths' them into their/our being. Of course it makes sense ! After all FAITH is the Substance of things HOPED for..it is the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN. Faith comes by speaking the WORD of GOD until it is birthed in our being.

It WORKS too !!

Where Word-Faith preachers/teachers are screwing up is they are mainly focusing on speaking FAITH over physical healing and $$$ prosperity $$$.

So...here's my point on the ground of oneness and the ground of locality:
Every branch and every brand of Christianity has it's own 'ground of oneness'.

As for the ground of oneness/locality taught by Lee's ministry: As flaw filled as the ministry was...it gave ME the foundation in the WORD of GOD .."All GET OUT!" I don't necessarily credit Lee's ministry per sae..'cause I read the Word of God a LOT on my own. BUT in my tenure in San Diego, we got together a lot in homes to read the Word, pray the WORD, read messages, fellowship one with another..breaking bread from house to house...as well as going to the meetings.

Was it a perfect locality? NOOOOOO but it was one of the best imho. Those were good years. Did everyone have a good experience in San Diego? No...and obviously, by 1978/79, my season in San Diego and the local churches ended.

[Toledo]

I always find the derogatory comments on this site regarding the ground of oneness or the ground of locality to be strange. It is as though none of you ever met with a local church, or ever understood the meaning of the oneness there.

My understanding of the ground of locality is simple enough: we are one with every born again believer in our locality. Actually, we are one with every born again believer throughout all time and space -- from Pentecost to the Rapture, and all across the earth. We are just as one with the Apostle Paul as we are with our own spiritual companion. However, the ground of locality makes this oneness practical: we are able to fellowship with any believer we meet, whether or not they agree with us or meet with us, and we are to start right in the city where we live.

The ground of locality takes the onus off the other guy (he doesn't agree with me...!), and puts it squarely on our own shoulders: "As much as lieth with you, be at peace with all men" ~Romans 12:18. It also give me a way to open up my heart to every believer everywhere, whether he prays like me, or looks like me, or reads the Bible the same as me.

It is not (and was never) a matter of agreement in doctrine, practice, vocabulary, or terms. It is (and always has been) a simple matter of the divine life: God is our father and we are all brothers.

I have many children, both sons and daughters. When they were growing up in my house it was not unusual for them to have disagreements, arguments (and even the occasional fist fight). However, despite any disagreement, argument (or fist fight) they were (and still are) all my children, and they were (and still are) brothers and sisters, related in the life received from their parents.

You may, of course, feel free to mock the ground of oneness, or the ground of locality (or whatever term you may choose to use). I think the LSM has given God's enemy ample ground to accuse them (and us by association with them). However, all your mocking and accusations do not take away one whit from the very life of God Himself that has given new birth to every believer, and has made us all wholly one in Him.

Much of our struggle in these days has to do with baby and bathwater decisions. What do we keep? What do we throw away? I do not believe that every experience of Christ for the past 35 years has gone for naught. That doesn't seem like the sort of Christ I have come to know.

However, if there is a profit to be found out of the years of struggle, where do we begin to look? Do we really want to throw out EVERY teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee? What about their teachings on the blood of Christ, or on the divinity of Christ? Where do you want to draw the line?

I have found that the matter of locality has set me utterly free from denominational Christianity (including that of the LSM churches). Thus, in my locality we are beholden to none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself personally. We do not receive (nor have we ever received) marching orders from any other locality or headquarters. We are free to receive spiritual help through the speaking or writings of any believer, and though we may fellowship and commiserate with other local churches, we are free to follow the Lord and to seek out fellowship with any Christian we may meet.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I always find the derogatory comments on this site regarding the ground of oneness or the ground of locality to be strange. It is as though none of you ever met with a local church, or ever understood the meaning of the oneness there.
[snip]
I have found that the matter of locality has set me utterly free from denominational Christianity (including that of the LSM churches).

Toledo:

My observation is that among those you speak of there is less of a desire to move beyond the Local Church and more of a mere rebellion against it.

In saying so, I think you have implicitly hit the nail on the head of why that might be. So many have not really recognized the LSM denominationalism for what it is and still internally and habitually assent to the claim that the Local Church is the unique expression of the "genuine local church" in every place where it might be found.

Thus, the method of separation is more likely to be based upon exaggerated horrors of doctrine and practice rather than a somewhat disinterested or reluctant distancing on the painfully ironic fact of the Local Church's denominational stands on any number of items.

I received a burned-in vision of the oneness of the believers where I was but it seems pretty clear that the denominational practices in many other places left a large number without the benefit of ever having seen that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I received a burned-in vision of the oneness of the believers where I was but it seems pretty clear that the denominational practices in many other places left a large number without the benefit of ever having seen that.

I had a burned-in vision of the oneness even before I ever heard of these folks. I got it from the Bible. One God, one Lord and Savior, one faith... etc. It was pretty clear to me. I thought it admirable that someone was willing to take a stand on the ground of oneness, and it was a big reason I threw my lot in with this crew.

To use Toledo's parlance, I also found a lot of sudsy, dirty bathwater in the tub, and it surely needed draining! But the 'baby' of oneness is clearly in God's word, and I keep it. We are one not because we follow Lee's teachings nor because we're united in opposition. We are one because one day we believed, and the light came, the true light which shined into the world.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Toledo

The ground of locality takes the onus off the other guy (he doesn't agree with me...!), and puts it squarely on our own shoulders: "As much as lieth with you, be at peace with all men" ~Romans 12:18. It also give me a way to open up my heart to every believer everywhere, whether he prays like me, or looks like me, or reads the Bible the same as me.

It is not (and was never) a matter of agreement in doctrine, practice, vocabulary, or terms. It is (and always has been) a simple matter of the divine life: God is our father and we are all brothers.

Toledo,

I like your writing. This is the kind of speaking I love to "meet on the street" where I live. May God grace you on your journey, with your fellows, in your "locality".

Peace to you, and thanks for sharing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I always find the derogatory comments on this site regarding the ground of oneness or the ground of locality to be strange. It is as though none of you ever met with a local church, or ever understood the meaning of the oneness there.

I have found that the matter of locality has set me utterly free from denominational Christianity (including that of the LSM churches). Thus, in my locality we are beholden to none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself personally. We do not receive (nor have we ever received) marching orders from any other locality or headquarters. We are free to receive spiritual help through the speaking or writings of any believer, and though we may fellowship and commiserate with other local churches, we are free to follow the Lord and to seek out fellowship with any Christian we may meet.

Toldeo, I see a vast difference between "ground of locality" versus "ground of oneness".
Through the ground of locality there are no barriers in following the Lord and whom we recieve through the Lord.
Through the ground of oneness, it is defined by a select group and subject to change at any given moment. Consider the history of the local churches. The 'ground of oneness" changed through the decades.
Problem is when you endorse both teachings, there is an inherrent conflict of interest.

Terry

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Terry

Toldeo, I see a vast difference between "ground of locality" versus "ground of oneness".
Through the ground of locality there are no barriers in following the Lord and whom we recieve through the Lord.
Through the ground of oneness, it is defined by a select group and subject to change at any given moment. Consider the history of the local churches. The 'ground of oneness" changed through the decades.
Problem is when you endorse both teachings, there is an inherrent conflict of interest.

Terry

Amen, dear brother Terry and all you dear brothers and sisters. I am very thankful to Bill W for starting this thread and for all the fellowship thus far in this thread.

The "ground of locality" really is so simple and so beautiful! How precious it is: Focus and center on Christ, be open to receive all genuine believers, be open to receive help from all genuine believers, do not participate in any divisions, and do not become a division. This view of "the ground" was taught and practiced (at great cost) by dear ones in the 20th century like Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, and Stephen Kaung (co-workers of Watchman Nee), along with dear ones like TAS and Bakht Singh.

This view of the "ground of locality" is very healthy and serves as a real safeguard, since violating any one of the above points means forfeiting the ground of locality. The version of "the ground" taught in the LC, sad to say, has not kept the LC from becoming narrow and exclusive, just as it did not keep the various branches of the Closed Brethren who taught a similar version of "the ground" from becoming narrow and exclusive.

May our dear Lord keep our eyes focused on Him alone and may He keep our hearts enlarged to receive all those whom He has received.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Terry

Toldeo, I see a vast difference between "ground of locality" versus "ground of oneness".
Through the ground of locality there are no barriers in following the Lord and whom we recieve through the Lord.
Through the ground of oneness, it is defined by a select group and subject to change at any given moment. Consider the history of the local churches. The 'ground of oneness" changed through the decades.
Problem is when you endorse both teachings, there is an inherrent conflict of interest.

I would deny that the ground of oneness can change simply because some group or another wants to define it differently. Our oneness is based upon the oneness of our God Himself. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. The ground of oneness means that we are one with every believer everywhere at any time. There is never any excuse for division except for open sin.

The ground of locality makes our oneness practical. I am one with every believer in the place where I live. My claim of oneness with the saints in Moscow and the saints in Beijing rings hollow if I cannot be one with the saints in the city where I live.

However, there remains in the ground of locality alone the potential for divisiveness based upon a randomly drawn up city boundary line. The ground of locality by itself would allow the brothers in Livonia to refuse to meet with the brothers in Detroit. The brothers in DC could refuse to meet with the brothers in Silver Springs. The saints in Huntington Beach could refuse to meet with the saints in Anaheim. Watchman Nee warned against the dangers of "localism" which are inherent in the term "ground of locality".

If I am pressed to make a definition, I refer to the ground of oneness expressed in locality. We are in fact one in the triune God. That oneness needs to start in our own locality, but it does not stop there.

As far as a self-selected group of brothers redefining the ground of oneness, there is no such thing. Our oneness is based on Christ alone. Anyone who would add any issue ("one with the ministry"...?) or add any sort of requirement is no longer on the ground of oneness. That's just another name for denomination (e.g. LSM , Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. ).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Toledo

The ground of oneness means that we are one with every believer everywhere at any time. There is never any excuse for division except for open sin.

However, there remains in the ground of locality alone the potential for divisiveness based upon a randomly drawn up city boundary line. The ground of locality by itself would allow the brothers in Livonia to refuse to meet with the brothers in Detroit. The brothers in DC could refuse to meet with the brothers in Silver Springs. The saints in Huntington Beach could refuse to meet with the saints in Anaheim. Watchman Nee warned against the dangers of "localism" which are inherent in the term "ground of locality".

My Bible seems to "amen" these sentiments. "Therefore I judge that we do not harass those from the Gentiles [or from Detroit, or Silver Springs, or Anaheim] who are turning to God, but that we write [fellowship] to them to abstain from the contaminations of idols and fornication and what is strangled in blood." ~Acts 15:19,20.

That word is from James, no less, who seems to be the most "legal" of the bunch. So why should we come along and add rules beyond abstaining from sin?

You either believe or you don't. If you don't, you are "not of us". If you believe, you are "of us". Any demarcations beyond that cause division and loss.

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Word-Faith takes scriptures and 'faiths' them into their/our being. Of course it makes sense ! After all FAITH is the Substance of things HOPED for..it is the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN. Faith comes by speaking the WORD of GOD until it is birthed in our being.

It WORKS too

cmw,

What is the difference between the Word-Faith "speaking the word of God until it is birthed in our being" and the LSM practice of pray-reading the Word?

Did you find any overlap in the two practices? It seems by your description that they are similar.

I always like the enthusiasm I see infused in your posts.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

cmw,

What is the difference between the Word-Faith "speaking the word of God until it is birthed in our being" and the LSM practice of pray-reading the Word?

Did you find any overlap in the two practices? It seems by your description that they are similar.

I always like the enthusiasm I see infused in your posts.

Hey Aron... THANKS for your heartfelt observation of my posts. I not only write 'enthusiasaticly'... I pretty much live 'enthusiasticly' too. That's because the WORD is really Alive to me... The Word is TRUTH..and it IS living and operative...sharper than any two edged sword!

So...going to the question..GREAT question btw!! For I've been very conscientious in my observations of both practices!

I will do my best to explain. In a peculiar way, there are similarites..

I'm going to take an example of a familiar scripture we all learned in the LC and one that Word-Faith uses. Both ministries use the scripture but use it differently.

The scripture is John 10:10 The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy but I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly.

As you might know, I got saved in the LC...not having any real bible teaching background. In the 70's, when I got saved and would read/pray read that scripture what was impressed to me was that this LIFE was Eternal..but also 'life giving'. It took me a long time to figure out what was meant by 'life giving'. You remember the song...Life, life the issue is life..

Our meetings and 'speaking' and pray-reading was always done 'differently' than 'Christianity'. We pray-read in a *sing-song* way.
The reason we pray-read with that enthusiasitc sing-song way was to get our 'spirit in gear'. That's what we were led to believe. You might say to 'Birth' the scriptures into us that they would become living & operative in our being.

So we prayed & pray/read...OH! I CAME...Oh I came that You..Oh YOU would have LIFE...Oh THAT I..that IIIIIIIIIII...Oh that IIIIIIIIIIIIII would have LIFE. You get the picture.

Truth be told...we pray read 'enthusiastically' and 'from our spirit'...in that all too familiar LC tone. But how many people really understood what in the world were they really saying !!!! WHAT does it really MEAN that Jesus came that we would have life and have it more abundantly?

Did does that scripture mean (in the LC) that He came we would have eternal life and to pray-read that scripture and every scripture 'enthusiastically' and in a song-song way, 'chewing' on every word or every two words until we knew that scripture or scriptures by heart?

For me... I did not know what the scripture really meant..other than Jesus came that I would have eternal life and that I would learn to speak from 'my spirit', which came by way of emphasizing the words of a scripture, reading scriptures in that strong/song-song way.

For me..That is what I thought John 10:10b was all about. Honest. I can't speak for anyone else in the LC though.

--------------

Now..30 yrs later..after having a private walk with the LORD..WHEN I walked with Him..I repented deeply for having put the LORD in the back-burner all those years, I stumbled into the Word-Faith movement.
Here, the people are confessing the Word of God positively.

So..they take John 10:10b and they're take on it..is that God doesn't want us to be physically sick. He doesn't want us to be poor. He doesn't want us to walk in ignorance. Jesus came that we would have LIFE! Is being sick the LIFE we ought to have? What kind of LIFE is being poor?

NO ! JESUS came that we would be PHYSICALLY Healthy and Financially WEALTHY..and to be happy.

Now...let me also add...that some Word Faith churches do acknowledge there is tribulation in this world..and we will suffer. But by and large...God's promise to us is that we would be WEALTHY..for we are the seed of Abraham.
We (I) learned to take that scripture for instance and speak it positively over my life.

I learned to make my request be made known unto God..make 'sure' it was in alignment with the WORD of GOD & believe that as I delight in the LORD, He would grant me the desires of our/my heart(s), according to Psalm 37:4.

-------------

So when it came to John 10:10b, I learned to take the BEST of both worlds!

I have to believe that Watchman Nee in particular and I suppose Brother Lee perhaps, truly wanted the church to know the LORD JESUS in a deep, profound way..to have a genuine relationship with HIM and with one another. But something was amiss. I think -brother Lee- had a LOT of chinese/catholic/socialist/communist influences mold his idea of the church life...which is why the saints for the most part never truly GREW strong in the LORD and in His Ways.

Then...Word-Faith..takes the scriptures and speak/confess the Word positively...we are speaking FAITH and LIFE into us...but the speaking is incomplete too! The LC's speaking/pray-reading was in complete and the Word-Faith speaking is incomplete too!

I don't know if that makes sense to you or not. I PRAY it does.

To be continued........

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

cmw,

What is the difference between the Word-Faith "speaking the word of God until it is birthed in our being" and the LSM practice of pray-reading the Word?

Somewhere between the LC pray-reading practice and the Word-Faith practice, the LIGHT came on!

I don't know if you have ever heard about Abraham's FAITH..and how it was 'birthed'. So I'll tell it as I heard it in the Word-Faith movement 'cause I never heard it in the LC.
We know Abraham's name was Abram before God changed it.
While he was Abram, God told him, to look toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to count them....so shall your descendants be." Genesis 15:5

But nothing happened for 25 plus years. He and Sarai were childless..even though GOD promised them an heir & then some.
So why were they childless for so long? Word-Faith teaches says it's because Abram didn't speak what God promised him. He merely believed. He didn't take 'action'.

Now watch what happened when God changed Abram's name to Abraham:

Abraham means 'Father of many Nations'.
[And ABRAM fell on his face: God talked with him, saying, As for me, BEHOLD, MY covenant is with you and you shall be the Father of many Nations. Genesis 17:3

Translate Abraham into English....Abraham introduces himself as "Hello. My name is -Father of many Nations-. Everywhere he went, he SPOKE the Word..BELIEVING he was the father of many nations for that is what his name Abraham means.
Thus 3 months later, after God changed Abram's name to Abraham ( I think) He and Sarah conceived Isaac.

Word-Faith says..Abraham and Sarah conceived Isaac because not only did Abraham believe God's promise but he spoke and confessed God's promise. He went around saying 'I AM the Father of many nations'. His confession of Faith then birthed Isaac.
I had NEVER seen that account in that light !!!! HONEST!!

WOW!! It was an AWESOME revelation for me!

I then took scriptures that were inscribed into my being and began to speak the Word of God with FAITH...not in a self-centered, shallow way but with DEPTH..with HEART..that changed everthing for me.

Remember..in the LC we 'knew' the WORD of God. We could pray read it backwards and forwards. WE/I did not know how to apply it practically because everything was focused on the 'ministry' of the church, for the church. It was for the 'building up of the body of Christ'...only we didn't really know how to BUILD UP the Body of CHRIST! That's why so many LC'rs and ex LCr's are screwed up in the head!

Then you have the WORD-FAITH people who 'see' something but it's all too shallow and self centered.. "JESUS came that I would have life and that means, I am to be WEALTHY and HEALTHY. -MEEEE-...Healthy and WEALTHY-- THAT's RIGHT... MEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :rollingeyes2:

WRONGO-PONGO!!!!

Of Course God doesn't want us to live like paupers..and be sickly people..but that's where Word-Faith has failed. Very few Word-Faith people really know how to take hold of the DEPTH of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of GOD!! [Romans 11:33a]

Then..back in the day..and probably still today..the LSM/LC takes the Word of God..pray reads it..chews it, digests it..and they don't know what to do with it! Because they don't know how to have a genuine, true, deep relationship with the LORD GOD JEHOVA and His Son, JESUS and HIS Holy Spirit!

I hope I made some sense. Thanks for reading my posts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Abraham means 'Father of many Nations'.
[And ABRAM fell on his face: God talked with him, saying, As for me, BEHOLD, MY covenant is with you and you shall be the Father of many Nations. Genesis 17:3

Translate Abraham into English....Abraham introduces himself as "Hello. My name is -Father of many Nations-. Everywhere he went, he SPOKE the Word..BELIEVING he was the father of many nations for that is what his name Abraham means.
Thus 3 months later, after God changed Abram's name to Abraham ( I think) He and Sarah conceived Isaac.

Word-Faith says..Abraham and Sarah conceived Isaac because not only did Abraham believe God's promise but he spoke and confessed God's promise. He went around saying 'I AM the Father of many nations'. His confession of Faith then birthed Isaac.
I had NEVER seen that account in that light !!!! HONEST!!

WOW!! It was an AWESOME revelation for me!

I then took scriptures that were inscribed into my being and began to speak the Word of God with FAITH...not in a self-centered, shallow way but with DEPTH..with HEART..that changed everthing for me.

cmw,

Great story about Abram/Abraham. I loved it.

I myself also morphed from the sing-songy "pray-reading" to a more personal style of declaring God's word by faith.

Some LC readers might object to my using "personal" to categorize my practice, as if theirs was by comparison "impersonal". But I found the formulaic practices in the LCs to be just that. I was even taught a song: "Oh Lord, Amen, Hallelujah/ that's the way to let Him in". I did see personal variations in the practices of the believers as they prayed over the Scriptures, but these were by far exceptions to the rule. The rule, as I saw/practiced it, was pretty ironclad: "Oh Lord, life... Amen, life... Hallelujah, life...oh Lord, abundant... Amen, abundant life... Hallelujah, abundant life."

All of which, of course, was WONDERFUL for a newbie just coming out of the "silent pews". I had a mouth! I could speak! I could pray! Tremendous!

The practice of praying out loud God's word, of hearing my voice declare God's holy breath into being, instead of the curses and threats and idle boasts of my earlier days, was a phenomenal experience for me. But like many things in the LSM program, this seeming "advance" soon became a cage. The LSM-promulgated practice, in this case praying God's word, became the "recovered" truth/experience/practice, and any different experience or practice or interpretation was considered deviant.

So I guess I'm partly with the LSM program, and partly not. Countmeworthy, thanks bunches for the "Father of many nations" story. Like with "pray-reading", or what I usually term "declaring God's word", sometimes you have to speak something into being. Sometimes you have to lead with your mouth, and your brain and heart can catch up later!!

[OBW]

I find Toledo’s apparent defense of the LC “ground” ─ whether of locality or oneness ─ interesting. Following are some quotes from a couple of his posts (in green).

The ground of locality takes the onus off the other guy (he doesn't agree with me...!), and puts it squarely on our own shoulders: "As much as lieth with you, be at peace with all men" ~Romans 12:18. It also give me a way to open up my heart to every believer everywhere, whether he prays like me, or looks like me, or reads the Bible the same as me.

It is not (and was never) a matter of agreement in doctrine, practice, vocabulary, or terms. It is (and always has been) a simple matter of the divine life: God is our father and we are all brothers.

But the practice was exactly the opposite. The onus was always on the other guy. He had to come to you or there was no fellowship. We testified about our efforts to avoid going to someone else’s assembly, even those of our relatives. If we had to go, we told horror stories about the deadness of the service. The sermon had to be picked apart; the music decried as worldly or dead.

If you fail to toe the line on the primary LC teachings, you might not be a real “local church.” If you individually weren’t on the same page, your testimony received silence, or groans. You might be counseled about the “flow.”

I would deny that the ground of oneness can change simply because some group or another wants to define it differently. Our oneness is based upon the oneness of our God Himself. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. The ground of oneness means that we are one with every believer everywhere at any time. There is never any excuse for division except for open sin.

Yes our oneness is based on God himself. It is not based on locality. It is not based on Lee’s teachings. I submit that the oneness of my assembly is greater than that of any in the LC ─ even the entire LC put together. As long as oneness rises from the lips, but excommunication is the practice and separation and even derision of other Christians and their assemblies in your proximity continues, it will always be that way.

Pray for the gospel to go out in every place that God’s name is lifted up. Do it aloud together in your assembly on Sunday. Love your neighbor who is not in the LC, and may not even be Christian. Do justice to all who are oppressed.

The ground of locality makes our oneness practical. I am one with every believer in the place where I live. My claim of oneness with the saints in Moscow and the saints in Beijing rings hollow if I cannot be one with the saints in the city where I live.

Amen. But ground has nothing to do with that. You will find that there are many assemblies around you with affiliations, and no affiliation, whose only “ground” is the acreage their building sits upon. But they are one. They are often one across the “separators” of name that you decry, but cannot get across. They join in the gospel. They join in service. They pray for one another. When disaster befalls one group, others with no obvious link step up to help.

Yes, you can find examples of harsh sectarianism. There are preachers that demean every group that does not hold to their pet teaching, or follow their leader. Unfortunately, the LC has a history of the same. The oneness has been with itself and not with all Christians.

There are now exceptions. The movement away from the old LC ways in some of the GLA LCs has been encouraging. I pray for the day that many ─ even all ─ of the LCs drop their sectarianism, admit that they are another denomination, and join the rest (and much bigger part) of Christianity in a true act of oneness. That will be a true testimony of oneness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find Toledo’s apparent defense of the LC “ground” ─ whether of locality or oneness ─ interesting. Following are some quotes from a couple of his posts (in green).

The ground of locality takes the onus off the other guy (he doesn't agree with me...!), and puts it squarely on our own shoulders: "As much as lieth with you, be at peace with all men" ~Romans 12:18. It also give me a way to open up my heart to every believer everywhere, whether he prays like me, or looks like me, or reads the Bible the same as me. It is not (and was never) a matter of agreement in doctrine, practice, vocabulary, or terms. It is (and always has been) a simple matter of the divine life: God is our father and we are all brothers.

But the practice was exactly the opposite. The onus was always on the other guy. He had to come to you or there was no fellowship. We testified about our efforts to avoid going to someone else’s assembly, even those of our relatives. If we had to go, we told horror stories about the deadness of the service. The sermon had to be picked apart; the music decried as worldly or dead.

If you fail to toe the line on the primary LC teachings, you might not be a real “local church.” If you individually weren’t on the same page, your testimony received silence, or groans. You might be counseled about the “flow.”

Hey OBW, nice to see you again!

This little excerpt displays some of the the difficulty of understanding the LC's. Two totally conflicting views of the "ground of oneness." I read Toledo's account, and I agreed. I read OBW's account, and I also agreed. How ironical. The two contradict, yet both are true. How can this be?

This is why I came up with the concept of "early Lee / later Lee." Toledo's post reflects the teachings of WN which impacted the ministry of "early Lee," and which many have espoused, but which have sadly contributed to their also being quarantined over the years. OBW's account reflects the ministry of "later Lee" so staunchly held today by the "beloved blendeds" at LSM.

This highlights the striking differences that exist today between our foundational teachings and our current practices. The extensive writings between the BB's and the CB's, before and after the Whistler quarantine, all too often illustrated this.

True story: one of my younger brothers actually went on TV for his hobby raising rats in our basement. (Oh the stories to tell about that!) You thought your family was strange. Anyways, he went to NYC to film the game show "To Tell The Truth." At the end of the show, they always ask, "Will the real so-n-so please stand up."

Often, during the CB vs. BB debates, I also wondered, "Will the real WL please stand up."

[Cal]

Yes, good to see you again OBW.

The odd thing about the local ground is that as soon as you begin to teach it as a required practice the onus immediately goes to the other guy. So I didn't understand Toledo's point at all.

If you are talking about basic spiritual oneness then, yes, the onus is on you in a healthy way. But if you are talking about the local ground teaching then as soon as a group "takes" the ground, they are putting the onus on everyone else to meet with them.

I don't see how you can claim it is any other way. But I'd be open to hearing about it.

So, while I see Ohio's point, I disagree that Nee's version would have resulted in anything different, because once you require the local ground, escalation of the teaching to current intolerance levels is only natural. It's another systemic flaw.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey OBW, nice to see you again!

This little excerpt displays some of the the difficulty of understanding the LC's. Two totally conflicting views of the "ground of oneness." I read Toledo's account, and I agreed. I read OBW's account, and I also agreed. How ironical. The two contradict, yet both are true. How can this be?

This is why I came up with the concept of "early Lee / later Lee." Toledo's post reflects the teachings of WN which impacted the ministry of "early Lee," and which many have espoused, but which have sadly contributed to their also being quarantined over the years. OBW's account reflects the ministry of "later Lee" so staunchly held today by the "beloved blendeds" at LSM.

This highlights the striking differences that exist today between our foundational teachings and our current practices. The extensive writings between the BB's and the CB's, before and after the Whistler quarantine, all too often illustrated this.

True story: one of my younger brothers actually went on TV for his hobby raising rats in our basement. (Oh the stories to tell about that!) You thought your family was strange. Anyways, he went to NYC to film the game show "To Tell The Truth." At the end of the show, they always ask, "Will the real so-n-so please stand up."

Often, during the CB vs. BB debates, I also wondered, "Will the real WL please stand up."

Hello dear brother Ohio,

Ah yes, it is very nice to see dear brother OBW again.

If you will allow me to "muddy the waters" a little, I can see three distinct periods in the "Lord's Recovery" in the 1900's. First there was "early Nee" in the 1920's, 1930's, and the early 1940's. Then there was "later Nee/early Lee", a period which covers from the resumption of WN's ministry in the late 1940's all the way to the mid-1980's. Lastly, there was "later Lee/BB's" which began in the mid-1980's and is still with us today.

You all will undoubtedly remember our time with brother "cuttingstraight" over at "that other forum". It was while I was investigating some issues during debate with "cuttingstraight" that I saw a small, but definitely noticable, difference between WN's speaking in the famous "What Are We?" message and in his book The Normal Christian Church Life, compared to WN's speaking after the resumption of his ministry in 1948, especially in his book Church Affairs. While there is a noticeable hardening toward other Christian groups and toward those who would not completely toe the line in the "Lord's Recovery" in "later Nee", there was a good amount of WN's characteristic big heartedness still in evidence.

Concerning "early Lee" and "later Lee": comparing WL's speaking in the Life Study of James with his Crystallization Study of James, and comparing his speaking on the seven-fold intensified Spirit in the Life Studies of Revelation and Zechariah with his speaking on the same subject during the "high peak" years, while not reflecting directly on the "ground of locality", provides good examples of the noticeable hardening of WL's stances from "early Lee" to "later Lee".

Of course, we can disagree on when exactly "early Lee" became "later Lee" and some could argue that the BB's represent a fourth phase that is even more rigid than "later Lee", but I simply wanted to present what I have found from my own reading of LSM's material.

Grace and peace to you, dear brother.

[Oregon]

Having read through this thread I appreciate the open warmness of all who have posted. My experience in the “Local Churches” has deeply affected my life as I am sure it has yours also. I heartedly embraced the matter of one church in every city from my first days in the local church in 1970. I also, sadly to say, was one of the young boisterous condemners of denominational Christianity. But as the these years have passed, with all the turmoil many of us have passed through, my views have been altered somewhat.

I still believe in one church in every city though……simply because when I open the Word of God and read the record of the early saints in the New Testament, to me, it is still very evident that in the minds of the early saints and the apostles all the believers dwelling in a certain place were “the church” in that particular location. The dividing up of the fellowship of the body on different grounds was strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul. The Word is the Word. What any of us have passed through over the years does not alter it.

The fact that the “Local Churches” have departed from what is revealed in the record of the New Testament does not change the truth of the Word itself. I think most of us would agree that “The Ministry” and how you relate to it….has become the real ground of oneness in the local churches. I still have the desire to gather with other believers in my locality and be nourished with them in the Word and in the Lord’s presence and to practice the assembling together that the Word speaks of.