Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
I’ve read and studied all of Nees books on the church cover to cover... he and Nees teaching on the ground of the church are identical.
Drake
|
When Nee used the word
local, I see a specific context implied. It was in contrast to organization or outside missions. In
The Normal Christian Church Life he said the following:
Quote:
|
The churches in Scripture are intensely local. We never find any federation of churches there; they are all independent units. (TNCCL Ch 7)
|
Nee's concern was over outside control, over some outside factor being the basis of assembling together. The following further clarifies Nee's view of locality:
Quote:
|
If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place. No subsequent "joining" is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition. If before recognizing a believer as a member of the church we insist that he "join" us or that he resign his connection elsewhere, then "our church" is decidedly not one of the churches of God. If we impose any conditions of membership upon a believer in the locality, we are immediately in an unScriptural position, because his being a member of the local church is conditioned only by his being a believer in the locality. A local church is a church which comprises all the children of God in a given locality. (TNCCL Ch 5)
|
It is clear from the above quote that Lee's idea of a group needing to declare itself to be the
church in X or "take the ground" is not what Nee taught. Nee taught that a church is the church in that locality by default. Lee taught that a specific "standing" must be taken. This is exactly why Kaung felt that for Lee to insist that they call themselves the church in New York City was going too far.