View Single Post
Old 09-05-2016, 08:18 PM   #6
testallthings
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 297
Default Re: Nee's Local Church

Evangelical,

W. Nee didn't contradict himself. It is you who are mixing two different topics (I guess answering so many posts it is not an easy matter. May I suggest you take your time and wait a couple of days before replying? It helps in understanding the points others are making and gives you (me) time to meditate, and many times to cool down (I am talking about myself!). In the one I quoted (and Freedom quoting Kuan, too) the topic was who are we? If there are other Christians in the same city we cannot claim to be the church in that city, we are only a part of the church in that city. But we can certainly answer that we belong to the church in that city (that's what Nee said in your quotation). Now I understand that for practical reasons we may talk about being the church in a certain place (if we really have the same realization Nee and Kuan had), even though that gathering is only a miniature of the entire church, made up of all the believers in that city but I am afraid that in the local churches established by Lee, especially after 1972, what Nee said is not adequately stressed. The fact that outside a meeting hall of a local church there is a sign that says The Church in ____________ is a sign I am sure W. Nee would not approve (and I am sure this is only one of many).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
When I first "came in" to the Local Church, it was still a local church. "Denominations" were exposed and condemned. There was a meeting hall, of course, but there was no name on the property because to "take a name" would be to become a "denomination". The "local church" was NOT a denomination. The "local church" was "one" with all Christians in the city. This was the prevailing teaching in the church in Houston where I first began my journey. They were quite proud of this standing and made much of the fact that there was no name and the meeting hall was just that...a place to meet. The church had an address, but not a name. All Christians were welcome.

How the worm has turned. I was in Oklahoma City over the weekend and decided to drive by the meeting hall. There was a HUGE sign out front!

"The Church in Oklahoma City Meeting Hall" it proclaimed. Last summer I drove by 6355 Windswept in Houston. Same thing. A HUGE sign out front.
I don't know why this shocks me so much. Yet another sign of the apostacy? Or, is it an admission of what it always was...another denomination?
We used to hand out business cards with "Jesus is Lord" on the front and a simple address on the back. That ended years ago. I guess that carries the virtue of honesty too...Jesus isn't Lord there anymore, or, He never was. Don't hand out cards that imply otherwise. (Maybe "Lee is Lord" cards instead with a disclaimer that Lee is dead.)
I guess in a way it makes sense. When the local churches became a franchise outlet of the Living Stream Ministry, it only makes sense to advertise. In fact, the font on the sign, at least in Oklahoma City, looks like the Living Stream Ministry font used in its publications.
Oh. And remember when "the ministry" began? Lee's ministry meetings were separate from church meetings. In Austin, the "ministry" messages were advertised prominently as Lee's ministry and was strictly separate from church meetings. The "Ministry Meetings" were held in the community room of a nearby shopping mall. Local church elders delivered the messages. In Austin, it was George Whitington who delivered Lee's messages, beginning with what later became "Life Studies". That didn't last long either. The meetings moved from the mall to the hall. At that point, "the Ministry" and "the Church" merged, and once again the truth of the situation became evident. It was a Witness Lee takeover, never to look back.

Just keep in mind....in the beginning it was not so.

Nell



Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
...
If we consider implementing the instructions in the quotation you gave, I cannot see how it is practical to not have the name of the locality. Suppose someone wants to write a letter to the church in Shanghai (the ones who live in Shanghai but don't say they are the church in Shanghai). Who does he give it to? When he asks them if they are the church in Shanghai, they say, "no we are not the church in Shanghai".

It seems when Paul wrote a letter to any church, it was addressed to a church which had a clear identity according to its locality. This seems right and only practical to me.
Do you think the Church in Corinth, or the Church in Jerusalem had a mailing address? It is more logical that letters were sent to the elders of those churches.

1n 1934 W. Nee held a conference in Shanghai. Here are some instructions,

"Those wishing to come must notify us before January 10, 1934. It is better if you can notify us earlier. Please send your letters to: Mr. Watchman Nee, 28 Wen-teh Lane, Hardoon Road, Shanghai... When you hire transportation, say, "To Ai Wen Yi Road, Hardoon Road, Wen-teh Lane." When you come to Hardoon Road, Wen-teh Lane is next to a car repair shop.
(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 25: Collection of Newsletters (1), Chapter 2, Section 9 from www.lsm.org)

What I want to prove by this? That outside the meeting hall in Shanghai there was no sign that said THE CHURCH IN SHANGHAI. You had to look for a car repair shop to make sure you were in the right place!!

Peace
__________________
TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD
testallthings is offline   Reply With Quote