Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Nee's model, though I clinged tightly to it for years, had some serious flaws ...
What identifies a denomination? I once thought that the name did it all. Upon further consideration, I concluded that the single most defining criteria for a denomination is its controlling headquarters. Think Jerusalem, Rome, Anaheim.
Since Nee's model includes a para-church structure called "the work," which is ruled by the senior worker, a ruling hierarchy is immediately established.
Nee assaulted the clergy-laity system as a cure all for the church body life. Problem is the Bible itself identifies elders and deacons for every church.
Several verses rebut Nee's one-church-one-city model. Acts 9.31, Rom 16.5, and Col 4.15-16 come to mind.
Nee's demands that every elder must have apostolic appointment will by nature guarantee the loss of localism, as in local church. Nee's demands that every city have only one set of elders creates an unwieldy bureaucracy quenching the Spirit of God.
Nee's brand of oneness stresses a common judgment of evil, which evil is determined solely by the leading worker. The oneness of the N.T. however is the oneness of the Spirit. The phrase "in all things charity" has always been absent in these exclusive systems.
Perhaps Lee had some noble intention to implement Nee's ecclesiastic polity when first coming to the US, but those intentions had vanished completely starting in 1974 and ending in 1985.
|
Nee's model is probably a product of deep searching after his excommunication by the Darbyites. His implementation of the model, however, is flawed because he set up his "local churches", which would surely exclude other Christians even if that's not his intentions. I suppose since the overriding need in 1920s China is evangelism rather than ecumenism, church planting is unavoidable. But I think his implementation could have still been salvaged (his continued popularity among mainstream Christians attests to his inclusivity) had it not been Lee's systematisation. At any rate, the point is moot. The experiment has failed.
I also note your use of Acts 9:31, Rom. 16:5, and Col. 4:15-16 to counter Nee's local church model but these verses do not really provide much refutation. Acts 9:31 does not provide information on how the early churches organised themselves. Col. 4:15-16 talks about the church in Nympha's house, which is probably where the church in Laodicea met. Both Colossae and Laodicea is connected along the Lycus River.
Rom. 16:5 is probably the strongest argument against Nee's localism since it's very evident that the Roman congregation that Paul wrote to was distinct from "the church in [Prisca and Aquila's] house". This anomaly, however, can be explained contextually. Prisca and Aquila who were probably among the pioneers of the church in Rome were expelled from Rome (together with 40,000-50,000 Jews) by Emperor Claudius in AD 49. They resettled in Corinth where they met Paul and ministered with him (Acts 18:1-4). When the expulsion order was rescinded by Emperor Nero in AD 54, the Jewish Christians returned to Rome only to find that the Gentile Christians were no longer as welcoming as before. Resolving this animosity is a key ingredient to their sponsorship of Paul's mission to Spain (Rom. 15:24). Thus, the balancing act in Rom. 2-4 and the reconciliation effort in Rom. 9-11. It is in this context, perhaps, that Paul had to commend Prisca and Aquila to the recipients, explaining that the couple "risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks
but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well" (16:4). Gentile Christians everywhere loves Prisca and Aquila and so should you. Oh, and greet the Jewish Christian church in their house too (v. 5).