[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by AnotherGuest

Nee needed to find a model to develop his indigenous church movement and he did so with the "ground of locality" teaching expressed in his work: "The Normal Christian Church Life" and others. Nothing wrong with this IMHO. But what eventually emerged in both Nee's and to a greater extent Lee's attitude and teachings was a Laodicean "we're it" and everyone else is "not it" mindset. I don't belief Nee started this way but that is what ultimately evolved.

"we're it" and everyone else is "not it" mindset- and therein lies the rub. This is one of the main problems (among many) with the "Ground of Locality": it requires people to take a stand against the very people that they claim to be "one" with - their brothers and sisters that reside in the city. This was not such an issue with Nee and the early LC in China for most cities and villages did not have an established Christian church. But when the rubber met the road here in the West, the "Local Church" model was exposed for what it was: just another division/denomination of Christianity. No doubt Witness Lee compounded the error by establishing and developing what we all know today as The Local Church of Witness Lee. They haughtily claim to be "The Lord's Recovery", but they cannot point to any evidence that the Lord established their little sect. In fact, there is tons of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.