Originally Posted by JJ

Wow! Check out this old article about “Needed Truth” “Open Brethren” assemblies. Maybe Watchman Nee (and thence Lee) got “the ground of the Church” doctrine and other local church practices from them, not “Exclusive Brethren”.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbrfj/04_21.pdf

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think that over the course of time, the Brethren ran into a lot of issues over the question of what type of relationship should exist between the local assemblies. Ironically though, had they ever existed solely as local assemblies, that would have never been an issue to begin with. It was only an issue because they existed as an informal (or formal) network of churches. The LCM likewise ran into the same issue. There was the teaching of localism, but the practice was something contradictory.

Originally Posted by JJ

I was floored by the part in quotations, because from 1978-2015 I never heard anything about that event..... except Witness Lee did talk about composing 85 new hymns (about 1962), and how they uplifted the Lord’s Table meetings after a while.

Originally Posted by Baruch

I came across a book with some interesting claims about Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches in mainland China and Taiwan. The book is "Religion and Democracy in Taiwan" by Cheng-Tian Kuo, SUNY Press, May 8, 2008.

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church.

"The Local Church headquarters makes important decisions about church activities and personnel. Local churches cannot but obey; otherwise, they would be excommunicated from the church, as occurred in the 1960s. Among the various charges against these saboteurs, Li (Lee) mentioned that they challenged his leadership in general, including refusing to sing the eighty-five new hymns composed by Li for all member churches. These saboteurs were first suspended of their elder positions and left the Local Church one year later to establish independent churches. The Living Stone Church in Taipei is one of the remnants of this split".

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was already actively practiced for many decades by the Exclusive Brethren. Nee was able to read extensively of all the doctrinal nuances of this doctrine, and more importantly, learn of the endless failures and divisions it caused. Nee himself was even excommunicated by the Brethren for breaking one of their trivial rules, yet he knew he would be, because for sure he had read the tragic stories of George Muller and Dr. Edward Cronin.

So I agree with Freedom's assertion that both Nee and Lee mischaracterized their original intentions by claiming to originate strictly "local" churches, the so-called Antioch model, without centralized controls, completely autonomous, without headquarters, ruled by local elders, etc. Later they would introduce stringent controls to takeover these churches, according to the Jerusalem model, with local elders reporting to workers from headquarters, and with centralized ministry and structure. Those who resisted would be expelled. These were their many "storms."

The Brethren began this way. Mainland China began this way. Taiwan began this way. The USA began this way. All started out local, and all soon became highly structured, and btw, not much different from Rome's model.

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been thinking that perhaps the biggest problem of TLR from the beginning was not understanding that Jesus is the king in the kingdom of God, not the super-apostle. And, that Jesus' leadership style is to take the form of a slave, and serve others. So, having "The apostle" working like a human king, who lords it over his subjects, is exactly the opposite of how Jesus told his disciples to lead.

We should have gotten the clue from the way Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Meek and mild, and seated on a donkey's colt. But, no. We still have the image of a king dressed in elegant clothing, riding in on a stallion, with an army around him.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Everything felt autonomous. However, later on, I began to see certain 'situations' arise, such as the one publication edict. So then I started to realize that the notion of everyone in the LCM being equal was all just a guise. There was indeed a headquarters that has the power to issue edicts. Everyone in the LCM was on a leash. That leash might be shortened or lengthened, but it's a leash nonetheless.

Originally Posted by aron

Nee and Lee and their followers didn't see anything "wrong" with their church model, and often point out the admittedly horrible clergy - laity system it replaced. I liked Baruch's citation because it highlights how incompatible these replacement notions are: "strong autonomy" versus "strong centralized control" and "everyone equal" juxtaposed on one of the "equals" being a "supreme master". As soon as you look at it critically it's totally contradictory. Which is probably why they told us, "Don't think, you will only be confused". Only the supreme master, the guru, the deputy god, could think without becoming confused. The rest were to be "one" with the "Lord's speaking thru our brother".

Originally Posted by Freedom

I personally feel that Nee and Lee had every intention of cultivating an environment that would allow for a supreme mastership. And what better way to do it than to get everyone thinking that they each had a special role and purpose within the group. Except what they forgot to mention is that you can only have 'purpose' within the confines of being a small potato..

Originally Posted by Freedom

Somehow everyone in the LCM realizes in the back of their mind that they shouldn't overshadow, criticize or question the supreme master, yet they are convinced that the LCM doesn't have such a leadership structure.

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting to see those concepts side by side: "supreme mastership" and "equality of all believers".

First of all, "equality of all believers" - Jesus taught that some had five talents, some had one, some had ten. Paul said that "star differed from star in glory" (1 Cor 15:41). But in the social(ist) engineering of Ni and Li, all are "small potatoes" except for the supreme master, who is deputy God. How normal is that? Ni set up his proposed "normal church" against the clergy-laity system, which argument made sense in Western-dominated China coming out of the 19th century, but it makes no sense in the 21st century where anyone can function in the community church. Those with more talents become evident by function. Nobody gets accused of being "ambitious" or "drawing others after them". People have differing gifts, and they function. Wow, what a concept!

Second, there's no actual equality of believers in the LSM/lc system, because it matters how you're positioned vis-a-vis the supreme master. Those who have him on speed-dial obviously can lord over the rest, and they do. "Don't you know we have lunch with WL" was the refrain of the FTT 'co-workers' to the rank-and-file who protested their overbearing ways.

Originally Posted by Cheng-Tian Kuo

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man". "The Local Churches constitute the majority of the seven million Christians in China [?] and include a membership of 91,000 Taiwanese associated with more than 170 churches in Taiwan. The Local Church is the second largest Christian denomination in Taiwan".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church. He appointed all elders in local churches. After Ni's death, Li succeeded him to supreme mastership. In addition to inheriting all the supreme powers Ni had, Li's writings, especially the Recovered Version of the Bible he edited, have replaced those by Ni in the church's Bible Study sessions."