[aron]

"- young people staying together to live the Body life and practice the spiritual life.

- training for the purpose of edification

- learning to read the Scripture

- to pray

- to build up a good character.

- of learning how to deal with sin, the world, the flesh, and the natural life.

At a suitable time, the young people would return to their respective churches in various places to be tempered together with other saints to serve the Lord in the church."

~W. Nee, as quoted by LSM

So how does this differ from a Bible institute or seminary? They also desire to build up character (or they did, 100 years ago), to create community, and to propagate the truth as they see it. All this is and was of course not merely for the edification of members but to prepare them for service in the churches.

Yet Nee said, "My thought is not to establish a Bible institute or seminary". What gives, here? Upon further thought, maybe what made sense was, "My thought is not to establish a (Western) Bible institute or seminary", but rather an Asiatic one.

At that time, Bible institutes and seminaries in China would be run by Westerners, and inculcate the natives with European mores, traditions, and values. Nee created an indigenous one, with Chinese, or local values. So "denomination" was synonymous with "Barbarian" (i.e. European/American, or Western), and "indigenous" was synonymous with "local" or "Chinese".

By contrast, on American soil, the Western denominations had their seminaries and Bible institutes to train up pastors for Methodist and Presbyterian and Baptist and Congregational flocks, which assemblies were perhaps affiliated and sympathetic with each other, but essentially independent. They were truly local. But the Nee model, sprouting from what Lee called "virgin (Chinese) soil", was shaped by the "Jerusalem principle", i.e. Centralized Control, by "Authority and Submission", i.e. unquestioned obedience, and by "handing over" and "lining up."

In the American colonies, the tradition of independence and individual rights had led to the American Revolution, as a reaction to English attempts at "Authority and Submission", "handing over", and "lining up." In China this never happened. So perhaps the best explanation for Nee's alternative "training center" model is as a Chinese-culturally-flavored one. But it's still a seminary or Bible institute by another name. It's just not Western in orientation.

In my local church, 30 years ago, it was really local. We gave talks among ourselves on Sunday morning. Today it is all about conformity to the center. Instead of "each answering to the Lord", per Hymn 834, each group now must answer to Anaheim. According to Lee, each local church must be "absolutely identical", with no differences whatsoever. This rigid conformity to the center is arguably a reflection of Lee's native culture, just as "handing over" and "lining up" reflected Nee's.