[OBW]

Roger's "little" dissertation made my longer posts seem like limericks. As such, it was difficult to even consider doing more than a quick scan during the final week before a serious tax deadline.

But I got the idea that Rogers did not really understand Nee's position on the "practical" aspect of the church. He made it seem that Nee considered the church in terms of assemblies to be different from what Paul wrote when he said the church in (wherever). But that is not the case. Nee and Lee both consider that to be the declaration of the singularity of an assembly, and that any subdivision is strictly as a partial subdivision of the "practical" church that is equal to the city. (I may have missed where he morphed the statement I first read into something more like we understand.)

As to how Nee's model did or did not work in China, I wonder if the thing that made it work had nothing to do with ecclesiology outside of the fact that they were not answering to a non-Chinese HQ. Ultimately they all answered to Nee since he was, by default, the only one who had no one who was more spiritual than him. The claim of many cities in China with their separate assemblies was made a lie by the ability of one man to rule them all.