Comparison and Contrast - Witness Lee versus The Blended

[UntoHim]

As a former longtime LC member, something has puzzled me regarding the various reactions to the Blended brothers' by current LC members over the past number of years. I have known many of these brothers for 30+ years. I have known a number of them personally. Some I knew before they were even elders.

Here is what does not make a lot of sense to me. According to my observation, this men are speaking what Witness Lee spoke. In most cases word-for-word. They are administering the Living Stream Ministry in almost the exact same manner as Witness Lee administered it. They are taking the Movement in the same direction as Witness Lee took it, at least the same as Lee was taking it the last 10 years or so of his life.

If I am not mistaken, during the semiannual trainings and other major conferences, these brothers are doing nothing but reviewing Witness Lee's ministry - in most cases word for word, via the outlines and footnotes produced by Lee himself. I personally attended a couple of meetings at a recent "blending" conference and witnessed a certain Blended brother go over, point-by-point, an outline that was produced by Witness Lee 15-20 years ago. I assume that this outline was used at every blending conference by every blended brother throughout the country (world?).

In regards to "practical" administration of the Local Church Movement, these brothers are handling matters in the exact same manner as Witness Lee. Witness Lee did not take kindly to questionings, much less challenges, by any of his followers. This was true from the little sister in the back row, all the way up to his "right hand man". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When legitimate and concerns are brought up, Witness Lee either ignored them or gave a stern warning that "this is not the way to address problems in the Lord's Recovery!". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When the questionings and or challenges became public, Witness Lee would viciously attack, and the challenger would be forced out. I see the same from the Blended.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

The first thing that comes to mind concerning the differences of Witness Lee's ministry vs the BB's, is Lee did not read word for word, outlines of Watchman Nee. He did have a unique ministry that was able to stand up to scrutiny when compared to scripture and if carried out by those who were not caught up in the "inner circle" struggles, a genuine experience of the Lord could be gained.

Shawn

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

A few years ago I confronted this anomaly and came up with a simple solution which was helpful -- to me at least --to explain the phenomenon you are addressing. I used the expression "early Lee -- later Lee." Some have protested this by saying that "early Lee" was also fraught with problems tracing back to the 50's. My personal view is that WL slowly, over time, became very exclusive, much as JNDarby did, and subsequently, in the end, became very much different than his mentor, WN.

Often "early Lee" conflicted with "later Lee." One example was the matter of writing and publishing. "Early Lee" promoted the writings of others, besides himself. "Later Lee" rejected this, hence, the "burden" for that Feb '86 elders training. The views of GLA leaders often coincided with that of the "early Lee" they had grown to love from the early days. The views of the BB's, however, coincided with the views of "later Lee," whom they watched very closely day in, day out, for many, many years.

I agree with you UntoHim that the BB's are simply teaching and practicing what they "witnessed" WL do and say for years. The recent quarantine of TC simply replicated what happened to JI et al back in the late 80's.

I eventually came to the conclusion that GLA views of WL were somewhat "sanitized" by 3 main things: firstly, TC -- his views of WL were passed on to the GLA leaders and saints. Secondly, the messages we did receive from LSM were highly editted. Thirdly, the annual trainings the GLA saints attended presented a more polished, public image of WL.

Six years ago, when the winds of quarantine and division were first felt, I just knew it would get nasty. I still feel the whole controversy was a power struggle, plain and simple.

"Why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself?" The answer is simple: because WL did nourish and teach us in a way the BB's never did. They became like "monkeys" who imitated a man, yet never were the same man.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself?" The answer is simple: because WL did nourish and teach us in a way the BB's never did. They became like "monkeys" who imitated a man, yet never were the same man.

Not a bad assessment, Ohio, but you left off the first part of the quote.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee...

I would have to add that I never considered myself to be a follower of Witness Lee. Rather I was (and am!) a follower of Jesus Christ. I got a lot of help from Brother Lee, but I never followed him.

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

Thanks for your candor Toledo. I do have a follow up question. In what way are the Blending Brothers asking you to follow them that is so different from Witness Lee. Be as specific as you care to.

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

I think this really happened: WL charged certain trusted ones to continue his ministry via the feasts, publishing books, giving conferences, etc. This charge, coupled with so-called "fellowship" about certain "concerns" about TC, which they heard directly from WL, empowered ones like BP and RK, acknowledged LSM leaders, to take precautionary "strikes" against TC, which we witnessed at Whistler.

I highly doubt that WL directly authorized some to "quarantine" TC, yet the BB's do feel they have been properly "deputized" agents of the body of Christ, and RK has publicly said as much. The pattern they witnessed first hand of WL (think Fermentation) had a pronounced affect on them. They consider their actions over the past few years, including lawsuits and accompanied conspiratorial "training sessions" to replicate WL's own leadership, and were he still alive, would expect him to have acted the same way, and, even more so, would expect WL's own "nod of approval."

Not only do the BB's consider themselves to be "his official continuation," but all of "the loyal" consider them to be also. Most saints consider the "blended brothers" to be a "more noble" form of "continuation leadership" than another ambitious leader such as TC. They would recall all that "talk" about "the age of spiritual giants is over ..."

GLA leaders, partially based on comments by WN, feel that the personal ministry of WL ended with his own death, and feel that his ministry was neither WL's to give nor the BB's to take. They, especially TC, felt that WL was a spiritual father to them, and they had a spiritual relationship with him. They have no such relationship with the BB's, and consider most of them to basically be wannabe's and frauds.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Thanks for your candor Toledo. I do have a follow up question. In what way are the Blending Brothers asking you to follow them that is so different from Witness Lee. Be as specific as you care to.

1) the one publication rule -- WL actually encouraged some of us to write.

2) the seven "feasts" -- WL never insisted that we attend the major conferences. Of course, we were urged to do so, but once a year was plenty, even for those serving full time.

3) the insistence that we use the same material -- this is a new wrinkle added by the BBs.

4) etc...

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

I wish there were a nicer way of saying it, but I simply do not believe that WL ever said such things to them.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Toledo

1) the one publication rule -- WL actually encouraged some of us to write.

Here is the Witness Lee I remembers over the last 20 years of his life:

"It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication.
.... My intention in calling a writers’ conference was to encourage you to write something, but not in the way that came out. This fellowship may preserve and protect us from doing things lawlessly.
If some localities would have gone the proper way of the recovery, using all the materials of the ministry, their number would have increased greatly. Some are wasting their time by writing and publishing their own material. This is not their portion. I would like to see that many brothers had this portion with the riches of truth. This would be marvelous and wonderful, but this is our problem today. I advise all of you to take care of this matter. You have to swallow up the dissension. Do not let dissension eat you up....
(Elders’ Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, pp. 161-164, Witness Lee)

I am beginning to get the picture that many in the Great Lakes area/Canada really didn't take this word to heart. Maybe the distance between them and Anaheim allowed them such freedom. Nobody who was within earshot of Witness Lee would dare to disobey this as far as I recall.

2) the seven "feasts" -- WL never insisted that we attend the major conferences. Of course, we were urged to do so, but once a year was plenty, even for those serving full time.

First of all, I don't think there is a significant difference between "insisted" and "urged", especially when you are talking about Witness Lee - the end result was always the same. "Once a year was plenty"??? Sometimes I wonder if we are talking about the same Local Church. Thankful Jane described well the atmosphere surrounding the trainings...one would dare not even go to the restroom during one of the long meetings. If one lived anywhere near Anaheim they were expected to attend both 10 day trainings. The only exception would be severe illness or hospitalization. No exceptions. If you had to quit you job to go, then you quit your job and went.

3) the insistence that we use the same material -- this is a new wrinkle added by the BBs.

Please review what Witness Lee wrote above. Lee always, always insisted that all the Local Churches use the same material. This was part and parcel of his constant campaign to see that "all the churches are the same". This is not a new wrinkle added by the BBs, not at all.

I am not being contrary just to be contrary. Nobody has provided me significant evidence that the BBs are any different then Witness Lee. Some have said "Lee nourished me and ministered life, the BBs don't". Ok, that is very subjective and I can't argue your experience. Nevertheless, I am looking for some concrete examples here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Not a bad assessment, Ohio, but you left off the first part of the quote.

I would have to add that I never considered myself to be a follower of Witness Lee. Rather I was (and am!) a follower of Jesus Christ. I got a lot of help from Brother Lee, but I never followed him.

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

Yeah, I didn't want to get involved with the loaded question "To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee ... "

I honor your stand, Toledo, and, of course, we all, I assume, would say the same thing concerning following Jesus Christ.

The problem is that I was surrounded by brothers for decades who essentially said, "I follow JC, and I am one with brother so-n-so." I can also say, especially after the start of the "New Way," that WL also required us to follow him. His demands for allegiance were on the same order as the BB's. I could also make a case that TC's demands for allegiance were not too dissimilar from either WL's or the BB's.

This was the dilemma I faced. I got tired of the word games -- proclaiming one thing, yet serving under another set of rules. Eventually I was forced to come to the conclusion that being a denomination had nothing to do with "a name," but had everything to do with headquarters, and the required allegiances placed by those at headquarters upon the churches.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, I didn't want to get involved with the loaded question "To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee ...

The question was not loaded. If you don't consider yourself a follower of Witness Lee then you don't. I added the modifier "to one degree or another" for a reason. I guess it got lost. No problem.

Anyway, this is the root of my concern:

I can also say, especially after the start of the "New Way," that WL also required us to follow him. His demands for allegiance were on the same order as the BB's. I could also make a case that TC's demands for allegiance were not too dissimilar from either WL's or the BB's.

Ok, Ohio, I appreciate your candor here as well.

Could you and/or Toledo address this:

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As a former longtime LC member, something has puzzled me regarding the various reactions to the Blended brothers' by current LC members over the past number of years. I have known many of these brothers for 30+ years. I have known a number of them personally. Some I knew before they were even elders.

Here is what does not make a lot of sense to me. According to my observation, this men are speaking what Witness Lee spoke. In most cases word-for-word. They are administering the Living Stream Ministry in almost the exact same manner as Witness Lee administered it. They are taking the Movement in the same direction as Witness Lee took it, at least the same as Lee was taking it the last 10 years or so of his life.

If I am not mistaken, during the semiannual trainings and other major conferences, these brothers are doing nothing but reviewing Witness Lee's ministry - in most cases word for word, via the outlines and footnotes produced by Lee himself. I personally attended a couple of meetings at a recent "blending" conference and witnessed a certain Blended brother go over, point-by-point, an outline that was produced by Witness Lee 15-20 years ago. I assume that this outline was used at every blending conference by every blended brother throughout the country (world?).

In regards to "practical" administration of the Local Church Movement, these brothers are handling matters in the exact same manner as Witness Lee. Witness Lee did not take kindly to questionings, much less challenges, by any of his followers. This was true from the little sister in the back row, all the way up to his "right hand man". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When legitimate and concerns are brought up, Witness Lee either ignored them or gave a stern warning that "this is not the way to address problems in the Lord's Recovery!". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When the questionings and or challenges became public, Witness Lee would viciously attack, and the challenger would be forced out. I see the same from the Blended.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

Anybody want to take another stab at this one?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

Unto, this next portion I had recieved in an email of words spoken by Witness Lee in 1963.

Fellowship with Other Christians
February 16, 1963
Glendale, CA

Witness Lee said that,

We need “the variety in unity rather than the uniformities in division.” History has taught us this—there is beauty in variety.
God has received a brother whether we agree with him or not (Rom. 14:1-6).
Have the same mind toward one another according to Christ (Rom. 15:1-7).
Receive those whom Christ has received without criticism.

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audi...%20Oneness.htm

I won't lump all the blendeds together. Each blended co-worker is different. Yet could some of them be living examples of these four points from brother Lee?

Terry

[OBW]

It was interesting to read through a few of the older posts in this thread. This topic, more than any other, points to the truth and fire in YP's complaint about "Universal Church."

There is a universal church, but it it not an organization. It is NOT practical. Only an assembly is practical. On occasion, several assemblies may combine for a purpose, but there is no practicality to the universal. It exists only because we are all of the common faith in Christ. But it is not a thing that we can touch, or organize, or administer. We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all. The result is to cause division that might not otherwise occur among members of practical assemblies. Those who want to hold onto some ethereal notion of "universal unity and oneness" lash out at those who would seek for practical harmony with those right where they are.

I know that some will suggest that my view is skewed by preference, but it seems that the ones who are causing the divisions locally are those who are trying to create some kind of universal oneness. It reminds me of the silly poem:

To dwell above with the saints I love —
Oh, won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know —
Well that's another story.

[TLFisher]

Just briefly on comparison and contrast, does anyone recall Witness Lee's speaking in November, 1996 to the elders?

Terry

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all.

Tah dah! See that wasn't so hard now was it! Thanks Mike - good observation of what I was trying to get at here. Not only do these guys teach exactly what Lee taught they carry out their business exactly how Lee caried out his business. I really do not see a lick of difference between them (Lee and the BBs). The One Publication nonsense is simply an attempt to teach what Lee taught (and only what he taught) and then all the attacks and quarantines against fellow members is simply a power play to enforce their "authority". Same tune different band folks. So when I hear all this complaining that "I don't recognize that tune"...sure you do! It's the SAME ole tune just different players, that's all. If you don't like the new band just say so... but don't tell me you don't recognize the tune.

To dwell above with the saints I love —
Oh, won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know —
Well that's another story.

Originally Posted by Terry

Just briefly on comparison and contrast, does anyone recall Witness Lee's speaking in November, 1996 to the elders?
Terry

Terry are you talking about the infamous "Brother Lee's repentence" which was taped and is available on Youtube in Chinese?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Tah dah! See that wasn't so hard now was it! Thanks Mike - good observation of what I was trying to get at here. Not only do these guys teach exactly what Lee taught they carry out their business exactly how Lee caried out his business.

Well, since Mike honored me with lauds (thanks, Mike!), I'll add a couple of pennies worth.

Here's the difference as I see it:

Lee was a flawed brother who I believe did his best to be faithful to what he had seen in the Word, at least up to a certain point in time. The New Way teachings, to my perception, as the imagined steam engine behind the Leeite version of the Universal Church, are primarily what has become the fabric of the organization. But I maintain there was a practical difference up to a ceratin point.

Lee published the pitiful Truth Lessons at the same time as he popularized the phrase "Ti-ti Ta-ta" in connection with the home meetings, which as I understood it, was a Chinese phrase that meant "messy" or something like that. There's a HUGE tension (to say the very least!) between saying that a certain way of practice is "God's own best" and saying that we shouldn't control anything and just let the children play however they please in the home-sweet-home-meetings.

To give it more of the varnish of the day: Ti-ti Ta-ta was Tai Rung Lyao Le (Too Glorious!)

These days, that freedom-based part of Lee's ministry is pretty solidly neglected by the organizational experts at the helm at LSM.

So, concisely, this much I see as different: while still advocating uniformity, Lee at a minimum paid lip service to diversity and being spontaneous to follow the Lord up to a certain point in time. The bold new leaders? I don't see that they even consider it necessary to pay such ideas lip service.

And, in accordance with my other rants against "Universal Church," these who do share with him nearly identical concepts about how to go about building that organizational system have realized, perhaps only institutionally, that the parts of what Lee said that lead to uniformity and conformity are the parts you need to work on to build up the "Universal Church" imagination that they share. Freedom and diversity are of no use and in fact are much too much trouble for ANY institution interested in its own perpetuation, as most are, actually.

You can't have a "Universal Church" any more than you can have an Anarchy Club. The human notions of universality that define denominations such as the Local Church require enforcement of norms that just don't exist beyond their own walls and usually rather quickly degenerate into absurdity inside those walls. The assembly of God in Christ is differently composed in every place where it might be found and it will never have the same complexion, other that with regard to the inward reality of Christ. (Yes, I know that nearly sounds "universal" but you have to FIND it!)

Think about this: Lee loved that Hymnal. Now, nothing against those hymns, per se, but put yourself back 1000 years in the Middle East or Europe and try to imagine everyone throughout "The Church" utilizing a single hymnal! Sure. Print them in China, ship the boxes to Anaheim and then UPS them throughout the Christian world. The only way you could get there is the route that Roman Catholicism took. And folks: Been there. Done that. Let's move on.

Thus, I could envision a Mirror-Mirror Local Church which emphasized only the sweetness and the spiritual and the freedom parts of his ministry and neglected all the organizational stuff, while still perhaps overly stuck on Lee himself. Because I think such a thing is at least theoretically possible, I'd argue that since it's NOT possible under the Big Brothers, then, that's a difference.

I'll concede this much: Lee essentially criticized those brothers, who also left China like he did but didn't count him boss of them, of wanting to only take the "spiritual" part of Nee's ministry and not the "practical" part. And, in fact, the "New Way" was EXPRESSLY designed to be Lee's antidote to that problem, as he saw it. These Big Brother guys could be accused of being just the same in that sense, pushing forward Lee's interpretations of Nee's "practical" ministry for the production of the same practical "Universal Church." I'm not even sure they'd disagree with that characterization. But Lee also did his own thing, for which he was sometimes criticized by those other brothers from China who didn't follow him, and he didn't merely play follow the leader.

What's going on now is just much sicker, it seems to me.

Lee's errors were just Lee's errors.

The Local Church leaders don't merely add to his errors by carrying things out as they do or even as he did - they multiply the errors.

And now I'm back to my "no leaders without followers" soapbox so I know I've gone on way past a pair of pennies now.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry are you talking about the infamous "Brother Lee's repentence" which was taped and is available on Youtube in Chinese?

Unto, thank you for alerting me. I have this comparison and contrast to share. At http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/Offending.html the author of the article had this to present of what brother Lee really said:

What Brother Lee said in the Chinese-speaking conference was his observation and realization before the Lord that the churches receiving his ministry had at times failed in the past to live up to that standard:

We have much to learn concerning receiving people according to God and according to His Son. Because of our negligence in this matter in the past, we have offended the Body of Christ and many brothers and sisters in the Lord. For this reason, I had a deep repentance before the Lord. Brothers and sisters, I hope that we can see our past mistakes by getting into this message through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. Of course, sectarianism in the denominations is wrong; it is something very much condemned by God. Nevertheless, those who are genuinely saved in the denominations are children of God and have been received by God. Hence, we also should receive them, but we would never participate in the division in which they are. (The Experience of God's Organic Salvation Equaling Reigning in Christ's Life, p. 69)

However the YouTube video with English subtitle was a little different. Of course this is all based that translation from Chinese to English was appropriately translated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dw4W65MFpw

The following is what was spoken around the two-minute mark:

"This is a lesson for us all. Our co-workers and responsible ones in each locality. The brothers and sisters need to open their eyes. We have so much to learn, we have acted wrongly in the past. Including me. I have to admit I have very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the body of Christ not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. Of course denominations are wrong! Division is what God regards as most sinful. But the Lord also wants to bring all the saints there is such no condomnation. To understand and analyze this needs a fair bit of effort. Again I say again, a few of you must come together through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. I hope...no I would like to make this part on one hand to accept people just like how God's son does on the other....according to God's son...the undeviating, caring of both parts. On one hand the Jews on the other hand the gentiles God has chosen. What God has done was fair, really fair. I would like to read out to you again: Christ is the ministry of the circumcised the will that He has given to the fathers, and also the ministry, to the gentiles, so that they may glorify God, because of His mercy. What is it to glorify God? Is it to be part of the New Jerusalem? If we cannot be part of the New Jerusalem we cannot glorify God. You only glorify yourself and express yourself. Is that correct? Only if we glorify God in the New Jerusalem, then we are glorifying God in the universe."

Examine comparison and contrast for yourselves.

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a universal church, but it it not an organization. It is NOT practical. Only an assembly is practical. On occasion, several assemblies may combine for a purpose, but there is no practicality to the universal. It exists only because we are all of the common faith in Christ. But it is not a thing that we can touch, or organize, or administer. We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

You got an amen from this corner. Whenever two believers receive one another based on the one faith, then the Lord promised His presence. He said, "On this rock I will build my assembly [church]". God does something divinely practical when we greet one another in Christ.

But when we look over each other's shoulder, searching for the "universal" church, we arguably miss the point of the exercise.

I am greatly encouraged by the fellowship. Thanks, Mike for your post. I feel validated, somewhat, and that means a lot to me.

[OBW]

I will make one adjustment to my comments on the "Universal Church."

When we acknowledge any Christian brother or sister; when we pray for all Christian groups meeting and acting both close by and afar without "praying" our agenda onto them; when these and other non-sectarian actions and attitudes concerning the whole of existing believers are in play, we do "touch" the church universal. But while this should always be our attitude concerning all believers, it remains that your real, live connections through an assembly of local believers is the only truly practical application of the church which is the body of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all.

Those who want to hold onto some ethereal notion of "universal unity and oneness" lash out at those who would seek for practical harmony with those right where they are.

...it seems that the ones who are causing the divisions locally are those who are trying to create some kind of universal oneness.

Question: when Nee first began to meet with others outside the sphere of denominational christianity, did they have a view of the universal church, or did that come later? I remember reading in Lee's bio of Nee ("the seer" book) that when they began to gather privately, and broke the bread in remembrance of the Lord, the presence of God was strong. This greatly encouraged them to continue this practice.

Eventually, when this practice of gathering in the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and not under any denominational aegis began to spread to other geographic regions, there was the perceived need to "coordinate", and to "fellowship", among the various gatherings.

So now we come to the two words I underlined above: organize, and direct. At what point did mutual fellowship among different groups of independent believers metastize into an aspiration to create the universal church, complete with an earthly "deputy God"?

I suspect this aspiration to create the universal church wasn't there when Nee et al began to meet together, but gradually evolved over time (However, I don't have anything to base my supposition upon but my dim memory).

So we perhaps have "early Nee" and "later Nee", "early Lee" and "later Lee", and finally the BBs. We gradually go from an independent local assembly in Nee's original experience to what we might now regard as local franchises of the universal church, presided over by the president of the LSM corporation.

So the BBs are not so much a continuation of Lee as they are a continuation of the process of centralization, control, bureacratization, and ossification, which likely began while Nee was still ministering.

And the cure is still the same. Don't aspire to the place of God. Don't try to direct the Spirit; rather let the Spirit direct you. Just be one with the believers God has soveriegnly placed beside you. Encourage, console, edify. And this will be a great testimony to the ones who are still in darkness, apart from God and Christ. Be local, with the person(s) God has placed near you in space and time, and God is quite capable of being universal.

If we are obedient to fill our "local spot" with the Spirit so graciously poured out, God can surely be the one who fills all in all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So we perhaps have "early Nee" and "later Nee", "early Lee" and "later Lee", and finally the BBs. We gradually go from an independent local assembly in Nee's original experience to what we might now regard as local franchises of the universal church, presided over by the president of the LSM corporation.

So the BBs are not so much a continuation of Lee as they are a continuation of the process of centralization, control, bureaucratization, and ossification ...

Aron ... I have long been convinced that this "process" which you describe is part of man's fallen nature received directly from God's enemy. No matter how much the Lord on earth addressed this tendency (read all He said to the Pharisees and scribes,) the church has fallen into this "process" throughout its history. This process began in Jerusalem, continued at Rome, and Darby and the exclusives, and Lee and the BB's just have become "closer to home" for us here on the forum.

Apostle Paul addressed this in Corinth, asking "are you not fleshly," referring to envy, strife, and being "of men." He also spoke to the Galatians about the bondage of legalism "bewitching them." We believers can be decent, moral, upright and righteous, yet still be fleshly. We are fleshly when we walk "as men," longing to either rule or be ruled by men. Yes, we must be under man's laws, otherwise we become lawless, and fleshly in an ugly way, yet we must always "stand fast in the liberty." In this liberty, only Christ Himself really rules us.

Sorry to say, but fallen mankind is filled with those who love to rule over others, and those who love to be told what to do. These power mongers use such vehicles as "centralization and bureaucratization" to rule over others. The genuine liberty of the Spirit is a dangerous thing to those who long to control. We believers also can become lazy in that we like to be told what to do, replacing the voice of the True Shepherd with formalized human manipulations. It is just amazing how we became slowly "ossified" while endeavoring to know "high peak" theology and the like. We in the LC's lost much as we were transitioned from "knowing only Christ" to "knowing the full knowledge of the truth."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Question: when Nee first began to meet with others outside the sphere of denominational christianity, did they have a view of the universal church, or did that come later?

Short answer: yes.

Go back and look.

You can't make statements about how to meet without implications about your view on the "Universal Church".

It might seem benign at the inception but it's got the same seeds at the root.

I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused.

In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

Or rather, if there IS, it's just a denominational foundational principle looking for someone to flesh out the idea with another organization.

[awareness]

YP:
>> I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

Oh there's been lots of Lee's throughout history, and in the present too. Christians seem to attract bamboozlers. I think because they're very gullible, which makes them an easy mark. A broad look at Christians, from afar off, reveals they'll believe just about anything, and anyone, even when they know they're wrong ; like William Miller, the false prophet of 2 exact days of Jesus' return in the 19th century ; both wrong of course.

That's why brothers and sisters need to be careful about following men. Men are fallen, and I don't care about burying the old man, and becoming the new. The old man doesn't die, not in that way anyway. Sorry if you thought otherwise. Just believe your eyes and it's plain to see. Make no mistake about it, following men will always disappoint. If you don't beleive me, then learn this universal truth on your own.

YP:
>> It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused. <<

Like I pointed out, believers are itching for such leaders. It's like their drug of choice. Without leaders that bamboozle them they are lost. I speak from experience. I was one of 'em. I've been bamboozled.

YP:
In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

A "vision" of the universal church is the only way to see the universal church ; cuz it spans 20 centuries.

The local church runs on visions. Or actually on euphemisms, that provides the vision. The vision is a euphemism. It captures your attention while something else is going on ; something by men, and not the Spirit. Again, sorry if you thought otherwise. You'll learn...hopefully....

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused.

In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

Or rather, if there IS, it's just a denominational foundational principle looking for someone to flesh out the idea with another organization.

My thoughts as well. This is why the discussion of Nee & Lee must be in a larger context, I'd argue; otherwise we go round in circles like dogs chasing their tails, and in 200 years they're going to be arguing about whether someone else is a prophet or a charlatan.

I believe God has allowed all this to transpire over the centuries. God has allowed the 'bamboozling visions' -- thanks awareness -- to cloud and distract the believers from the simple call to love God, to believe in Jesus Christ, and to receive the person next to you (your neighbor) as if you were receiving Christ Himself. God has permitted the "vision of the universal church" to be espoused, with all of its consequences. But His call remains.

People like Bahkt Singh and Watchman Nee were trying to "go back to the beginning", and as such, to some degree we are their heirs. But to follow them, we have to leave them, and continue the journey, back to the beginning.

The Jews hearkened back to Moses as their sure foundation, but Jesus revealed Moses as a contingency of God's providential hand, and not the source of present reality. In Matthew chapter 19 Jesus referred them twice to "the beginning", before Moses (vv. 4,8). I believe we can free ourselves form the grip of the "vision of the universal church" only by going back to the beginning, to the call of Jesus in the gospels. The clarity and simplicity of that call is can be a salvation from the many grand "visions" that inevitably followed.