Ministry Churches

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So let me get this right. The "ground of the church" is something biblical and God ordained, but it was "never known" for the first 1900+ years of church history? ... the understatement of understatements that stands out is "AS FAR AS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE". Here we are, over 50 years of the Local Church movement in America, and these dear Christians have formed a full-blown denomination (complete with it's own faux seminary - the Full-Time Training), and everything is based upon "as far as we have been able to determine".

As I mentioned on this forum previously, one could make the case for the "one church per city" model in existence with the Puritans on New England's "virgin soil". Like Calvin's Geneva in Europe, wherever the Protestants triumphed, they brooked no competition. If you were not "in the church life", you were expelled or even killed (e.g. the fate of Anabaptists, Quakers, and other groups).

How is this different from the Nee model of 1937? Not sure, except it clearly didn't come from China's "virgin soil" and is therefore disqualified?... other than that, Nee's 1937 church model looks like a splinter sect, among the dozens or even hundreds of Protestant splinters, basing its existence on the declaration that it's not a splinter. Talk about majoring in the minors.

Oh, and btw, the RCC before the Protestants also had the "one church per city" rule. The RCC certainly wasn't a splinter sect (tho the Greek Orthodox & Syrian Orthodox & Russian Orthodox would disagree!) It was all about the one holy catholic apostolic church back then. Funny how we seem to come full circle. Our logic leads us round and round, like a dog chasing its own tail.

Anyway, with the "as far as we have been able to determine" clause, it doesn't appear to me that they looked very far, or very diligently.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Oh, and btw, the RCC before the Protestants also had the "one church per city" rule. The RCC certainly wasn't a splinter sect (tho the Greek Orthodox & Syrian Orthodox & Russian Orthodox would disagree!) It was all about the one holy catholic apostolic church back then. Funny how we seem to come full circle. Our logic leads us round and round, like a dog chasing its own tail.

Anyway, with the "as far as we have been able to determine" clause, it doesn't appear to me that they looked very far, or very diligently.

They did not even diligently search the scriptures. Except for Revelation, the bulk of the NT does not support Nee's model.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They did not even diligently search the scriptures. Except for Revelation, the bulk of the NT does not support Nee's model.

Nee, Lee, and the blendeds don't need the bible, they just need verses taken out of context processed through the sausage machine known as God's economy. Good thing that Nee and Lee saw God's economy or God would have never had thought of it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They did not even diligently search the scriptures. Except for Revelation, the bulk of the NT does not support Nee's model.

It's interesting how Nee got away with promoting this teaching. There are definitely verses where churches are referred to by their city, but the big problem is that this isn't done consistently. The glaring example that comes to mind is the house churches mentioned in the NT. I don't think Nee/Lee ever addressed this properly in the context of their teaching.

I was looking into this earlier, and I found the following statement Lee made regarding the house churches:

Today, however, so-called churches are designated by a street or an avenue. Some might say, “In the Bible there are no street churches, but there are house churches.” Concerning house churches or home churches we need to be careful. Yes, the New Testament does mention the church in the house of certain saints (Rom. 16:5a; Col. 4:15-16). If we read the New Testament carefully, we will see that in these cases the church in the house was the same in limit as the church in the city. In other words, the limit of the house church was equal to the city. The church in that house was the church in that locality, in that city...

Witness Lee, The Heavenly Vision

I notice that Lee made the assumption that the house churches could be automatically equated with being the church in that city. I see house churches as distinct assemblies because they are addressed as such. I would also turn around Lee's words and say that if we read the NT carefully, without bias, it isn't completely clear what house churches had any city-wide affiliation.

In Paul's epistle to Philemon, it was addressed to: Philemon... and to the church in your house. If we are to accept what Lee says, that the house church equals the city church, then why didn't Paul instead address the letter to: Philemon... and to the church in Colosse?

Better, yet, why didn't Paul request that his letter to Philemon and the house church be read in Laodicea just like he requested in his epistle to the Colossians? I see lots of problems with the kinds of assumptions Lee made. The exceptions to his teaching should have warranted a decent explanation at the very least, not just a few sentences claiming that the exceptions don't matter if we study the Bible carefully.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I notice that Lee made the assumption that the house churches could be automatically equated with being the church in that city. I see house churches as distinct assemblies because they are addressed as such. I would also turn around Lee's words and say that if we read the NT carefully, without bias, it isn't completely clear what house churches had any city-wide affiliation.

In Paul's epistle to Philemon, it was addressed to: Philemon... and to the church in your house. If we are to accept what Lee says, that the house church equals the city church, then why didn't Paul instead address the letter to: Philemon... and to the church in Colosse?

Better, yet, why didn't Paul request that his letter to Philemon and the house church be read in Laodicea just like he requested in his epistle to the Colossians? I see lots of problems with the kinds of assumptions Lee made. The exceptions to his teaching should have warranted a decent explanation at the very least, not just a few sentences claiming that the exceptions don't matter if we study the Bible carefully.

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?

[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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

The Local churches call themselves local churches, but in reality and practice they are ministry churches. Content is strictly from Living Stream Ministry. It's not for all believers. Only those who have a taste for the ministry Living Stream publishes will meet with the local churches.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Nearly every Christian Church/Church group releases their membership numbers. The Local Church of Witness Lee never has, at least here in America. It's almost like a state secret at this point. The reason is obvious. Despite their best efforts over the past 20-30 years, the membership growth of natural born, non-Asian members in America is pathetic. Most longstanding Local Churches in America have dwindled in size. When is the last time you heard of an American Local Church expanding to another location because of natural growth? If God actually cared about "locality" (aka the doctrine of dirt) would he not at least bless it a little?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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...

... 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.

A couple of comments on the disconnect which follows placing the basis of the existence of your Christian fellowship upon a nebulous 'ground' that risks being continually redefined by leadership.

First is that the condition, so-called, of the non LC churches is incessantly harped upon. I left the LC, went back to Christianity, and couldn't stop the constant critical thoughts in my head: every Christian meeting, I found the doctrine deficient (no God's economy?@!), or the singing horrible, or the preacher ignorant, or the congregation lethargic, or whatever. I couldn't get past the condition, so-called, to see that God loves these people. It took me years to humble myself and realize that my doctrines didn't make me, or anyone, more special in God's eyes. Can you get through 3 LC meetings without someone bringing up the poor condition of fallen Christianity? I doubt it.

Yet when considering the deficiencies of the LC, suddenly we're told that God sees no wrong. Hypocrisy.

The second point, going toward what Freedom writes of above, is the image of LC churches "taking the ground", but the actuality was not in the city but in the suburbs. Nobody wanted to send their kids to inner-city schools, so "taking the cities of the earth" meant setting up shop in the more hospitable suburbs, and giving the "church in ..." some obscure name that nobody has heard of. The Church in Dun Loring? What's that? What that is, is that nobody wanted to go to Baltimore, or Washington DC. They just wanted to pretend to take the cities of the earth.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They did not even diligently search the scriptures. Except for Revelation, the bulk of the NT does not support Nee's model.

Even in Revelation, we have an example of how quickly Nee & Lee could induce us to look away from scripture to their "local church model." Notice how in Revelations 2 and 3, the epistles are directed not to the church in Smyrna or Pergamos, but to the angel of the church in Smyrna or Pergamos. Lee said, "Pay no attention to the angel. That's just a messenger." Okay, but Jesus did pay attention to the angel; He directed his epistle to the angel.

But we don't care about that, right? We only care for the normal local church of Nee's model. So whatever is in scripture that doesn't align, just ignore it.

Even more pernicious, is that what is in scripture, and is covered and included in the normal local church model of Nee and Lee, is merely there to direct you into their local church system. Jesus Himself is only there to get us to church. And once in church, the focus is clearly placed on church, not on Jesus.

I was in a coffee shop the other day and there were two earnest young men, Bibles prominently open to one of Paul's epistles, praying fervently. I let them finish, and went over and introduced myself. It turns out one of them was the equivalent of a LC "full-timer", who was financially supported (and of course directed, or controlled) by the mother church. The other was a young college student, who was the "mark"; the worker's job was to draw the other one into the church fold.

I think it was the Church of Christ. The worker said they don't take a name, but meet as the church in that city. Denominations are wrong, divisive, and unbiblical, he said... In our discussion I mentioned something of music and the worker said that they don't use instruments there, because it isn't in the NT.

And so on. No openness, or friendliness. Just get on board or get out. So I moved on. Paul's epistle lay there, open on the table, merely useful as a means to convince the mark that the Church of Christ was the True Church. As I said, Jesus Himself was merely there to point toward the Church of Christ. I'm not kidding; Jesus' purpose was merely as the entry point to the church. From then on it becomes church, church, church.

Contrast that to what we see in the gospels. Jesus focuses on Himself! He is the way! Look at the Bible study he conducted in the book of Luke. He opened the scriptures to show them concerning Himself! He is the fulfillment of prophecy, the One whom the Father has chosen. (24:27). Then the two brothers rushed back to Jerusalem, and told the rest - yes the church was there, but the focus of the church was Jesus. Groups like the Church of Christ and the LC have instead made their focus on the church.

And I believe that this focus has produced a distorted, "fun-house mirror" effect. The church looks away from Jesus, and at the church, through this distorted lens, and it just gets weirder and weirder. Truth leaves. Love leaves. The conscience is ignored. Now the obsession is "building the body" and "being one with the brothers" and so forth.

And, as the title of this thread suggests, the obsession is on the ministry and the ministry churches, so-called. Jesus is a bit player in the drama, merely there to usher you into the supposedly normal church life as presented by Nee, Lee et al.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I think it was the Church of Christ. The worker said they don't take a name, but meet as the church in that city. Denominations are wrong, divisive, and unbiblical, he said... In our discussion I mentioned something of music and the worker said that they don't use instruments there, because it isn't in the NT.

And so on. No openness, or friendliness. Just get on board or get out. So I moved on. Paul's epistle lay there, open on the table, merely useful as a means to convince the mark that the Church of Christ was the True Church. As I said, Jesus Himself was merely there to point toward the Church of Christ. I'm not kidding; Jesus' purpose was merely as the entry point to the church. From then on it becomes church, church, church.

Any group that takes a definitive standing according to a particular practice risks becoming an exclusive group. Wasn't this is the exact issue that WN/WL noticed once upon a time and had hoped to avoid? Did they not see the inevitable fate in insisting upon a new practice in attempt to remedy the problems created by insisting on other practices?

It needs no saying that if a practice is insisted upon, the attitude will probably gravitate towards that of "my way or the highway". How sad it is that those in the LC would divide with other Christians over a practice that they believe is able to produce 'oneness'.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It needs no saying that if a practice is insisted upon, the attitude will probably gravitate towards that of "my way or the highway". How sad it is that those in the LC would divide with other Christians over a practice that they believe is able to produce 'oneness'.

The matter of oneness is a heart matter. If a brother or sister desires oneness, there would be no issue of practices, ministries, etc.
When in the local churches there's insistence of using a publication as the means to produce oneness, that produces division and not oneness. As a result the only thing that differentiates local churches from Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc is their unique doctrine that promotes oneness within their own denomination.