Church Ground Becomes the Lining Up with a Man and a Ministry

[Cal]

The problem is to "recognize" proper churches globally implies to not recognize "improper" churches globally, which is carte blanche, eventually, to not recognize any church you don't want to recognize, which is exactly the path the LCM took.

The whole business of defining in black and white what is and what isn't a church is something the Lord and the Bible, wisely, did not equip us to do to. The Bible never, ever authorizes us to discount any group of believers as "not being a church." It just doesn't. Nee and Lee were out in the weeds on this, biblically and, manifestly, by the fruit they've borne.

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem is to "recognize" proper churches globally implies to not recognize "improper" churches globally, which is carte blanche, eventually, to not recognize any church you don't want to recognize, which is exactly the path the LCM took.

The whole business of defining in black and white what is and what isn't a church is something the Lord and the Bible, wisely, did not equip us to do to. The Bible never, ever authorizes us to discount any group of believers as "not being a church." It just doesn't. Nee and Lee were out in the weeds on this, biblically and, manifestly, by the fruit they've borne.

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

Igzy nailed it: "group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads." Maybe if they just turned to their spirits like they tell everyone else to do they'd discover that Jesus makes the churches, and would then be able to accept all that Christ accepts.

Just kidding. I know that's not possible. To me, what they got in their heads has made them out of their heads.

When looking back on the local church I wonder sometimes if I'm not confusing it with a circus. They do act like they are clowning around ... except for the lawsuits.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

That's interesting. And it should be obvious to anyone that the reason LSM recognized them is because (1) they were unaligned with Titus and (2) they were aligned with LSM. It had nothing to do with them being "properly on the ground" or "properly in fellowship" or anything like that. It had to do with whose rear they were kissing.

[Indiana]

Stephen Kaung’s fellowship is rare and insightful, (other thread), but he had a background, a church environment in China to strongly put him on this track of avoiding over –spirituality, or false spirituality, to where the human being is lessened in the process. He actually encouraged to seek to be human to counter the tendency of aiming at spirituality. (This needs to be understood in the right way, but I feel that due to my experience, I understand him to a degree and need more understanding.)

Because of Lily Hsu’s book we can see what he had to deal with in China, with both Nee and Lee as they went through changes that would effect the Body of Christ in the “local churches” to this day, including the record of questionable non-human behavior and views of the blending brothers, who hold sway over the churches today. (I could explain best by giving my example, or have my former wife of 17 years tell you what it was like to be married to “an angel”, lacking normal human behavior. Or hearing the wife of Ron Kangas validate Kaung’s word. In Seattle none of the wives of the elders meet in the church anymore. They could help confirm, as could many of the children.)

I have been meeting with a Kaung associated assembly in Seattle since January and because I am in the environment and notice the behavior and attitude of leading ones and others, I, for the first time, realize what Kaung saw, and Sparks, that there is no need to call ourselves, or our ministering ones, anything that would be distinctive.

No matter what, if you are calling yourselves the church in Seattle, Atlanta, Los Angeles, you are being distinctive from others in each city; and, collectively, the churches as a body have a distinction, especially when using such expressions as the Body coming together for 7 conferences or feasts a year. The term, THE LORD’S RECOVERY now looks different to me. Why call yourselves anything that would lift you up over others and thereby give impressions that you are superior? This is unnecessarily disturbing to the Body of Christ and it is insensitive behavior to its members, unless “we” really do want to be distinctive and special, as a ministerial church.

Further, to lift up as if with signs and banners THE minister of the age and THE ministry of the age is to be intoxicated with the same. It is creating more separation, as the churches rise higher and higher and further and further away from the Body and its members of which there are far more in a city than the names of those who appear on “local church” phone lists. Why not consider the New Testament way of lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone, who is our Head and leader in flocks of God with shepherds joined to Him for the building up of His Body in every place.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Why not consider the New Testament way of lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone, who is our Head and leader in flocks of God with shepherds joined to Him for the building up of His Body in every place.

Indiana, it makes my day to read this from you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Indiana, it makes my day to read this from you.

Ditto that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Stephen Kaung’s fellowship is rare and insightful. (other thread), but he had a background, a church environment in China to strongly put him on this track of avoiding over–spirituality, or false spirituality, to where the human being is lessened in the process. He actually encouraged to seek to be human to counter the tendency of aiming at spirituality.

During my final years in the LCM, I was able to occasionally listen to Chuck Debelek. He was increasingly "different" from the norm, whether GLA or Blended. He would say "shocking" things, at least to me, about how God wanted to live thru us in our daily lives. Regardless of how mundane it seemed, God wanted to live in our human living, without any of the pretensions so common in religious circles.

Obviously brother CD was on his way out. What a breath of fresh air he was. He was becoming far too "independent" for the liking of either Anaheim or Cleveland, who both demanded regular "rear-kissing," to borrow Igzy's Texan slang. Whenever one takes the way of "lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone," as Indiana said, he will be automatically be branded by the resident powers-that-be as "independent."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's interesting. And it should be obvious to anyone that the reason LSM recognized them is because (1) they were unaligned with Titus and (2) they were aligned with LSM. It had nothing to do with them being "properly on the ground" or "properly in fellowship" or anything like that.

Politics pure and simple.
Concerning the Great Lakes area, perhaps the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concerning those who may have been "perfected" , I mean offended by Titus, but didn't want to abandon the ground of locality doctrine?
While not being partial to Anaheim, by default it was preferred over Cleveland?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Politics pure and simple.
Concerning the Great Lakes area, perhaps the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concerning those who may have been "perfected" , I mean offended by Titus, but didn't want to abandon the ground of locality doctrine?
While not being partial to Anaheim, by default it was preferred over Cleveland?

The enemy across the country is better than the enemy next door?

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.” ― G.K. Chesterton

[Freedom]

What really caused me to see through the ground of locality teaching was just seeing how it is practiced. Not only has the local ground been used as an excuse to divide, but it is a practice that has become purely nominal.

If those in the LC really think the ground of locality is legitimate and worth creating separate and distinct groups from all other Christians, then they should at the very least practice what they preach. If they can't practice their doctrine, why use it as reason to divide from other Christians?

As Terry mentioned, I have commonly seen saints meeting with a LC even though they don't actually live in that city. Of course, there's really nothing wrong with that, however, saints who do that are defying LC doctrine (meet in the city you live in) by meeting extra-locally. I have also seen situations where someone will get offended by a situation at the LC in their city and then start meeting with a neighboring LC. Simply put, it is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Many LC's have subdivided into districts. It is not uncommon for a LC in a larger city to have 2 or more districts and only meet together on occasion. They are essentially meeting as multiple churches, since a church is an assembly of Christians. Again, it's just plain hypocrisy.

Ultimately, the issue is about allegiance to a man and a ministry. Those who practice that are given the title of a "local church". That's all it really is these days. I'm not sure if there was a different dynamic back in the day, but not in my LC experience. It is purely a means by which those under the LSM ministry setup franchise churches.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ultimately, the issue is about allegiance to a man and a ministry. Those [churches] who practice that are given the title of a "local church". That's all it really is these days. I'm not sure if there was a different dynamic back in the day, but not in my LC experience. It is purely a means by which those under the LSM ministry setup franchise churches.

The church in Seattle started in 1970 in a move from Yorba Linda, California, and nearly the whole congregation came, and they hit the Ground running. It was a move for Christ and the church, not for a man and a ministry. There were resounding amens and testimonies confirming that we were "home" and we were "going to stand right here till Jesus comes, standing on the local ground...no division, sect or group but its the local church standing on the local ground."

I came to a meeting in Aug 1970 when they were still moving some of the people up, in the middle of a recession, when many people were moving out of Seattle. A sign at Boeing said "last one out turn off the lights". They were in a genuine move of the Lord as all could attest about the moves in those days.

I, and many others joined them '71-'73, because "we saw a river flowing and we jumped right in standing on the local ground... " Tony Rosmarin got this booklet into my hands in the brothers' house early on and it impressed me very much, as I had been getting into the hands of the Seventh Day Adventists the previous year.

THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH by Witness Lee

For the church life, there are two main and basic aspects. We must be thoroughly clear about these, for without them we have no reality of the church life. The first is that Christ Himself is the life, the content, and everything in the church. It is absolutely not a matter of forms, doctrines, or certain kinds of expressions. Those who are really in the church life are those who are experiencing Christ as their very life day by day. Christ is everything to them; therefore, Christ is their life and content whenever they come together. The practice of the church life is a life of Christ and a life with Christ as everything.

The second main aspect of the church life is that of the standing or the ground of the church. This term, the church ground, was first used by Brother Watchman Nee in 1937. Before 1937, we never heard or saw this term, and the matter of the ground of the church, as far as we have been able to determine, was not known.

The ground of the church is not the foundation of the church. The foundation of the church is Christ. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). The ground is completely different from the foundation. The foundation is a basic and integral part of the construction of a building, whereas the ground is not. The ground is a piece of land, called the site, upon which the foundation is laid. It is not part of the construction, but simply a lot upon which the construction is placed. We must not mistake the ground for the foundation or the foundation for the ground. They are two vital, yet distinct entities for the construction of a building. Although the foundation may be deeply embedded in the ground, it is still distinct and separate from it. The ground is the standing on which the foundation is laid.

There are many so-called churches established in Los Angeles. One, the Roman Catholic Church, claims to be built upon Christ as its foundation. Another, the Presbyterian Church, also claims that its foundation is none other than Christ. The Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Nazarenes, and many others claim the same thing. In fact there is not one so-called Christian church which does not. They all claim Christ as their foundation, but they have absolutely neglected the ground.

What are the actual grounds upon which so many of these so-called churches have laid Christ as their foundation? What is the ground of the Roman Catholic Church? Without a doubt, it is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church claiming Christ as its foundation is built upon the ground of Roman Catholicism. Upon what ground is the Presbyterian Church built? It is clear that their ground is a certain system of government called the presbytery. They have laid the foundation of Christ upon the ground of the presbytery. What about the Baptists? They with Christ as their foundation are built upon the ground of baptism, baptism by immersion. Then there are the Lutherans. They have laid their foundation upon the ground of Luther and his teachings. You see, all the "churches" claim the same foundation, which is Christ; but they all stand upon different grounds. It is the different grounds that create the problem for the unity of the church, not Christ as the foundation.

Let us suppose that every group of Christians in Los Angeles would be willing to relinquish its own particular ground: the Roman Catholics would give up the ground of Roman Catholicism, the Presbyterians would give up the ground of the presbytery, the Baptists would give up the ground of baptism, etc., --all the groups would be willing to abandon their own ground. What would be the result? All sectarian grounds would disappear and spontaneously only one unique and common ground would exist, the ground of locality, the ground of Los Angeles. All the saints in Los Angeles would then be in the one church in Los Angeles without any division. All the different denominations would be gone, and only the saints with Christ would be left. Then all the saints here, with the one Christ, would form the one unique church in Los Angeles. Composed together and built upon Christ as their foundation, they would be standing simply upon the ground of Los Angeles, which is the local ground, the unique ground of genuine unity. That is the only proper ground for the local church in Los Angeles and the only ground which can keep all the saints in this locality in oneness.

When Paul went to Corinth to preach the Gospel and do the work of the Lord, did he establish a Pauline church with Christ as its foundation? Did Apollos who also ministered in Corinth, establish a church upon the ground of Apollos with Christ as its foundation? Or did Peter, who may also have gone to Corinth, form a Petrine church with Christ as the foundation? Of course, they did not. In Corinth there was no Pauline church, no Apollonian church, and no Petrine church. Then what did they do? When Paul went to Corinth and brought people to the Lord, he established the church in Corinth. Upon what ground? Upon the ground of Corinth. He set up a local church in Corinth with Christ as its foundation upon the unique ground of locality. When Apollos went to Corinth, he did not set up another church. He built up the saints upon the same unique foundation and upon the same unique ground, the ground of Corinth. Paul planted them on that ground, and Apollos watered them on that ground. I Corinthians 1:2 says, "The church [singular] of God which is at Corinth." Paul, Apollos, and Peter brought their varied ministries to Corinth, but they all built one church with one foundation upon the one ground of unity. So eventually only one church existed in Corinth with one kind of saints, one foundation which is Christ, and one ground which was the common standing in the entire locality. One church, one foundation, one ground--it is so clear.

The problem today is not with the foundation, but with the ground. This is why we say that if we would have the church life, we must consider the ground as the second essential point we must take into account. Without Christ as our life and content and without the ground of unity with the saints in the locality in which we live as our definite standing, we cannot practice the church life.

There are multitudinous so-called churches and free groups in Los Angeles. Why is there so much division? The problem, as we have seen, is not due to the foundation, but to the ground. You may say that the free groups have no ground. But it is hard for us to believe that any free group exists without any ground. The ground may be unwritten and undeclared, but nevertheless understood. How could there be a group without any ground? If so, they must be floating in the air! Even a single man requires some ground upon which to stand, though it be only a square foot of earth. With every free group, there must be some kind of ground. Don't be cheated, don't be deceived. They do not have any designated or denominated ground, but they do have a ground which is understood.

Brothers and sisters, upon what ground are you standing? Are you standing upon any denominational or sectarian ground, declared or undeclared, written or unwritten? Any ground that supports a division among God's people is not right. Any sectarian ground is not justified by the Word of God and is against the basic principle of the Body of Christ. We must give up every other ground and meet together only on the ground of locality, which is the ground of unity, the unique ground of the church. No matter where we are, we have to gather together on the one unique ground of the church in order to keep the unity of the Body of Christ. It is only by taking the ground of unity that the unity of the Spirit will be kept (Eph. 4:3), and it is only in this way that we will have a proper, genuine, local expression of the Body of Christ.

The Scripture clearly shows us that in every locality the expression of the Body of Christ, that is, the local church, should be just one. There is no place in the Scripture where there was more than one local church in any given city. If you are living in Los Angles, you must be built up together with other believers in Los Angeles as the church in that locality. If you are in Tokyo, you must be built up with those who are saved in Tokyo as the church in that locality. As a Christian living in any locality, you must be built up with the other Christians in that locality as the unique local church there, which should be called the church in that place. The one that was built up in Jerusalem was called the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8 :1), and the one in Antioch was called the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1). In the same principle, the one in Los Angeles should be called the church in Los Angeles.

How simple, how uncomplicated is this divine way which the Scripture shows us! Wherever we live, we are the church in that place and we build the church in that place. If all God's people could see this principle and abide by it, there would be no divisions. We can testify that we have seen this ground of unity taken and the church life practiced upon it in many places, and we are seeing it today. From our observation and our own experience we can boldly declare that it really works and is the most blessed way. Regardless of the grounds upon which others are standing, we must pay the price to stand upon this unique ground of locality, the ground of unity, to be built up with the believers as the proper local church in the locality where we live.

We must come out of the divisions, not to form another division, but to come back to the proper ground, the ground of unity. There is no reason for us to be divided. We are all members of the one unique church. Why not simply come together with the believers in the locality where we live to be an expression of that church? Let us not be complicated and confused by Christianity. It is a shameful thing to ask people to what church they belong. If they are believers, they are our brothers--that is all. I belong to the unique church, and they belong to the same unique church. More than thirty-five years ago in Shanghai, a brother with a Bible in his hand was taking the street car to go to a meeting. Another believer on the street car was distributing tracts to the passengers, and when he saw the brother with his Bible he said, "Oh, you must be a brother!" The brother answered that he was indeed a brother. Then he asked him, "To what church do you belong?" The brother answered: "I belong to the same church to which you belong; the same church to which the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John, and Martin Luther belonged, and the same church to which all believers belong." When he heard that, he said, "That would be wonderful!"

Surely, it is wonderful. Oh, let us all come together on the unique ground of unity to have a proper expression of this one church in the place where we live. May the Lord be merciful to us.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Even in the local churches, I can say brothers and sisters don't meet locally. Which indicates meeting according to a man and his ministry publications. The locality I was meeting with in the 90's, there were brothers and sisters who would come from Sultan, Redmond, Renton, Burien, etc just to meet with this local church. Far from meeting "on the ground of locality". The ground is really the ministry.