I read the following content from a letter to the Blended co-workers from Titus Chu.
http://www.jesusloversincleveland.or...kersJuly06.pdf
"What concerns me the most is your understanding regarding the local church. In 2004 Brother Ron Kangas wrote to Brother Ron Brubacher in London, Canada, an email in which he accused him of embracing “the notion of a local Body,” saying: “It seems you have embraced the notion of a local Body implying that the body, like the church, is both one “universal” and many “local.” Is this a correct definition of your doctrine? Do you believe that just as there are many local churches there are many local bodies? The idea of the local body as distinct from the truth that a local church is a local expression of the body of Christ lead to such a conclusion.”
It seems that Brother Ron Kangas rejects the idea that there is a local aspect of the Body of Christ. Yet Brother Lee clearly taught that the Church as the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12 is “both universal and local.” (W. Lee, Life Study of 1 Corinithians) Brother Lee’s terse statement surely implies the Body has both universal and local aspects. Moreover, Brother Nee strongly emphasized that the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians refers to the believers in Corinth, the local church there. (W. Nee, Further Talks on the Church-life) First Corinthians 12:27 says, “You (the believers in Corinth) are Christ’s Body.” [Note the absence of the definite article in the Greek.] We definitely “embrace the notion” that the Body of Christ is a “two-fold divine truth” revealed in the Bible, as taught by Brothers Nee and Lee, having both universal and local aspects. Moreover, we question whether the statement “local aspect of Christ’s Body” expressed in 1 Cor. 12:27 is adequately encompassed in the phrase: “a local church is a local expression of the body of Christ.” The apostle Paul did not say that. He said in 1 Corinthians 12:27, “You (the believers in Corinth) are Christ’s body.” Since this is a “two-fold” divine truth, the statement that there is a local aspect of the body is not inconsistent with the propositions that the universal Body of Christ is expressed by many local churches and that all the local churches are the expressions of the Body of Christ. We firmly declare that there are many local churches but one Body, as all the local churches are the expression of the one Body.
However, it seems that you brothers diminish the “local aspect” of the Body (even as you diminish the local church) in order to emphasize the universal aspect of the Body. You denounce any who talk about the local aspect of the Body as “embracing the notion of a local Body” (as Ron Kangas has done in his attack on the elders of the church in London, Canada). Such a statement risks denying the “local aspect of the Body,” and ignores the importance which Brother Nee gave it. Might not brother David Wang of London, and others who make similar points, be presenting the same balanced view of both the universal and local aspects of the Body, as was presented by Brother Nee?
I am surprised at the statement made by Brother Ron Kangas. How could he cut off a verse (1 Cor. 12:27) from the Bible? And if Brother Ron does not even see the sense expressed by Brother Nee in which all the local churches are the Body of Christ, how can he lead all the local churches? No wonder you brothers keep on de-emphasizing the local church by quoting what Brother Lee once spoke, that the local churches are merely the procedure. Dear brothers, don’t you all realize that Christ and the local churches are the basic commitment revealed to us by our dear respected brothers Nee and Lee. We should all clearly know that the universal Body of Christ is expressed by many local churches. All the local churches are the expressions of the Body of Christ. And not only so, but there is a sense in which a local church is Christ’s Body (1 Cor. 12:27). We firmly declare that there are many local churches but One Body, as all the local churches are the expression of the one Body. Dear brothers, I do not understand how Ron can even disagree with the Bible itself. If the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth that, “you are the Body of Christ,” for sure the church in Corinth – a local church – is the body of Christ. Also, I am often grieved at your spirit when you speak that the local church is merely a procedure – a spirit of belittling the local church. My dear brothers, don’t you know the procedure decides the outcome, just as eating is a procedure and why we all pay attention to eating healthily. The local churches are a procedure. When the New Jerusalem appears, there will be no local churches. But the New Jerusalem can only come when the local churches are healthy – the Spirit is able to lead each church, Christ becomes the content of the church life, the Bible becomes the unique standard in their belief and practice, and the local church takes the stand which is inclusive to all the saints in that locality. Dear brothers, I am concerned about your clarity on this matter.
Moreover, I am concerned that you brothers may not be clear about the universal aspect of the Body either. Brother Minoru Chen has said that “the recovery equals the Body.” In addition, brother Ron Kangas referred to the (so-called) “seven feasts” as times when the Lord speaks “to the entire Body.” Yet, if the Body of Christ is universal, including all believers in time and space, how can you brothers declare that “the recovery equals the Body,” and how could an LSM gathering “speak to the entire Body”? If this is indeed “a body,” what kind of “body” is it? A “global LSM body”? Are you brothers clear about the truth concerning “the Body,” a topic you’ve repeatedly emphasized for the past nine years? Moreover, during the LSM Summer Training which has just ended, brother Ron Kangas conveyed the idea that believers can be in the local church, yet not be in the Body. Brothers, what kind of teaching is this? Are you brothers seeking to produce a two-tier system where some saints are “merely in the local church” and others (the elite) are in the Body? Where is this thought in the Bible? Where is this concept in the teaching of Brothers Nee and Lee? Do you brothers remember the illustration given by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, even if a member says it is not of the body because it is not a particular member, it is still a member?"
(Pages 11-13 Titus Chu’s Response to Blended Co-Workers July 22,2006)
Comments?
Terry