Quote:
Originally Posted by VolkHenry
Concerning this latter point, it's make a lot of sense to me why Brother Nee developed his ecclesiology in manner he did, given his historical context. In that period of China's history, the mission field was ripe for God's work. Brothers and sisters from every denomination and missionary society were in the country to evangelize the Chinese people. Innevitably, this led to conflicts between ministries within differing denominations and their converts. It seems to me that Brother Nee's doctrine of "locality" circumvented these organizational differences and allowed believers to unite around what he saw was the biblical principle. Likewise, his promotion of lay eldership vs an ordained pastorate, seems to have been influenced by this same context. Lee further elaborated on Nee's ideas, and created a denominational model based on these two ideas. Nee's model seemed to have more of an organic character, whereas Lee's is highly institutional. At least, this is what I see as an outsider.
I bring up these points, because as an outsider, I have some questions about LC ecclesiology. 1.) It seems as though the LC has become merely another institutionalized denomination among others. The primary dividing ground for denominational fellowship is the doctrine of locality. As I understand the model, each local church is (supposedly) autonomous and they are solely united by maintaining fellowship with one another (as in Baptist ecclesiology). However, it appears the leadership of the "Blended Brothers" and LSM have become a centralized authority for the LC, replacing the autonomous nature of the assemblies. (As I understand it, LSM's involvement is more direct than let's say the Southern Baptist Convention, where the leaders only have authority over mission boards and denominational organizations, not over the churches themselves). 2.) Elders in the LC are actually pastors (in function, not in name), ironically despite WN and WL's opposition to pastoral model. 3.) Aside the doctrine of "locality," the LC essentially holds to a Baptist ecclesiology with it's insistence on the autonomy of the local church and plural eldership.
Would you agree with this assessment? Where am I correct, where am I incorrect? Having not actually been in the LC, I would love to get an insider's opinion on my take.
|
Welcome to the forum! You hit on a key point I think, regarding the ministry. What I'm seeing these days is humans get all caught up in this ministry or that ministry, so that the ministry is what is their oneness, not Christ. So if you don't agree with a ministry or the minister, then you are not one and are out. This is what pervades Christianity today. The flesh likes to grab hold of some teaching or practice.
As Christians, the life in us has long yearned for true oneness in the body of Christ. As you point out, Nee probably saw the "ground of oneness" for the LC as being that way. But as soon as we substitute anything as a way, we loose focus of the true Way, Christ alone. The LC got all focused on this doctrine and on the WL ministry, which became a supplanting centralized authority (which is what typically tends to happen). So I think you are accurate in your views of the LC.
However, the LC does promote a very needful practice - the open meeting format which encourages the participation and sharing from all. And in a home gathering, this is much more possible than it is today in most larger church/ministry-based gatherings. Seeing what I'm seeing now, I'm beginning to think a pure way to meet is a home ekklesia gathering, that is apart from any church ministry and unequivocally receives all believers, regardless of where they're from, doctrines they hold, or practices they are fond of.