Ground of Locality and Generality

[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.

[OBW]

Reviewing the past day of posts, I see two that I will add comments to:

Indiana quoted Nee as saying:

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.

The introduction of various doctrinal differences over the years has created a problem with certain aspects of the oneness of the body. But not all aspects.

Added to all that went before is the problem of "ground." It has always been differences of opinion. And Nee's "ground" is just one more opinion which came along to separate us into yet another (or more) new group. Devising another disputed doctrine called "ground" does not cause the position on it to rise above any other difference of opinion and put the blame upon everyone else.

Then a few posts later Ohio astutely said:

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.

The one thing that is exceptional here is the observation that no one is free from error. The Catholics took a rather strange understanding of a simple declaration by Jesus and declared a pope while the Protestants turned Paul into the author of their gospel raising the question of where you find the primary source of their teachings — Jesus or Paul. I fear that the tendency often is to read Jesus in light of Paul rather than real Paul in light of Jesus. I find little to no fault in Paul — except where it is used as the primary source of teaching that does not really follow after Jesus very well (if at all).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

The introduction of various doctrinal differences over the years has created a problem with certain aspects of the oneness of the body. But not all aspects.

Added to all that went before is the problem of "ground." It has always been differences of opinion. And Nee's "ground" is just one more opinion which came along to separate us into yet another (or more) new group. Devising another disputed doctrine called "ground" does not cause the position on it to rise above any other difference of opinion and put the blame upon everyone else.

The subject of oneness is a tricky issue, and I think that you have a good point here. Divergence in opinions/doctrines is something that divides, that is a given. The caveat to that hopefully that none of us are naive enough to think that somehow we can all be organized to be 'one', or that there is even a simple solution to the problem. Is it unfortunate that Christians have so many disagreements? Yes. Is it avoidable? I don't think so.

When Jesus prayed for oneness in John 17, the goal was a simple one, that the world may believe that He had been sent by the Father. Oneness is for the sake of testimony. It is not for the sake of proving or validating a certain practice or method of organizing people.

The missing part of the equation, is of course how to be 'one'. I do not have the answer to that and I don't even presume to completely understand what that means. I do know what won't create oneness. Insisting on practices will never create anything close to oneness. Where I think oneness starts with is not purposely instigating differences of opinions or divisions, kind of like not sticking your hand in a beehive. Those in the LC have long felt that they have developed practices necessary for oneness and thus proceeded to force such practices. Whether or not those practices were good was overshadowed by the fact that they were mandated.

With that in mind, I want to address the following statement that WL made:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

THE GROUND OF LOCALITY BEING FOR ONENESS NOT FOR DIVISION

I regret to say that some of the saints who have read our publications concerning the ground of locality have used them to cause division. Some have said that they are taking the ground of locality in a certain city and that they do not want to have fellowship with others. This is a true division. The ground of locality is for oneness, not for division. If we take the ground of locality as a standing to be independent from other believers, we are divisive.

Witness Lee, Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ, Chapter 13

This an interesting statement by WL, because here he admits that practicing the ground of locality can and has caused division. Granted, he didn't attribute any of the blame to himself (and this should have been done before anything else), but the division that he speaks of needs to be at least taken to be a possibility by those in the LC.

I take no issue with WN or WL seeking after oneness or even thinking that they had the prescription to make it work (had I been in their shoes I would have been no less naive). Although WL's statement can be taken as a much needed admission, it still contains the implication that somehow there is a correct way to practice locality that will produce oneness. It is time for those in the LC to start considering the misplaced blame and why this practice has failed to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.