Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
The view of the Universal Church by brothers Nee and Lee created a direction and momentum that eventually consumed their positive ministry. They saw the universal church as something that had an administration. Brother Nee came up with the notion of "the work", and that proved to be the administrative arm of the universal church. Call the result a denomination if you like. For sure it is not the Lord’s testimony which is intensely local.
This is a vital topic that needs to be explored and searched out in the scriptures.
|
I agree. Brothers Nee and Lee were not alone in this view, obviously. They seem to have thought that 1) a base upon "the proper ground" and 2) an administration that was rigorously modeled after the one developing among the first century assemblies would both minimize any human error, and allow God's mercy to cover any that might creep in.
The fruit of the "work" concept, placed into the template outlined above, now bears its evident fruit. In addition to lawsuits among the believers (Mansfield, Harvest House), in addition to "quarantine" of believers (Titus Chu, among many others), we see a rigid, controlling hierarchy strong-arming in the Lord's name, with "rank and file" being led by the Spirit apparently only to the degree of how much they are "absolute" and "one" and "desperate" with the latest move out of Headquarters.
But I daresay you could apply the preceeding paragraph to more than a few christian groups over the centuries. The "universal church" interpretation, making its dominance felt in various degrees among the fellowships of believers, does seem to have spread its great branches, and allowed many "birds" to roost there.
The LC phenomenon is not an isolated one. And I don't think we can do it justice if we treat it as such, as an anomaly in the story of christianity. Ohio's discourse on the Brethren is case in point. Both christian history and scriptures have a lot yet to reveal to us here.