Nee's Local Church

[Evangelical]

Nee in "normal christian church life" defines a local church as:

A local church is a church which comprises all the children of God in a given locality.

Therefore a local church must constitute all believers (including those in denominations) within that locality.

Nee in no way gives the sense of a Local Church (capital L,C), as in a building with a sign which reads "Local Church".

Nee appears to rule out the practice of establishing Local Churches (capital L and C) in a place where believers already exist. If there is a place where there are only denominational Christians, the goal would be to make converts and help to establish them to meet apart from the denominations, without forming a Local Church.

A practice to establish any Local Church whether under Nee's or Lee's ministry, is wrong according to Nee.

Nee also implies that a worker should seek out any children of God within a locality that are not in a denomination, and minister to them, without affiliating himself or his ministry with them, or attempting to bring them under his ministry as a 'branch church'.

I believe to build any sort of church based upon any ministry, including Nee's or Lee's, is sectarian and divisive.

If Nee or Lee comes to a particular city, rather than establish a "Local Church" under their ministry, they should seek out groups of believers not meeting in any denomination, and minister to them, without attempting to bring them under their control or sphere.

[Freedom]

It seems to me that Nee was much more 'mild' in his approach to the teaching of locality than Lee was. In fact, certain groups who spawned from Nee (but didn't work much with Lee) have never proceeded to practice locality as taught by Lee. One such group is those who have worked with Stephen Kaung.

Below, I have re-posted a quick transcription of an audio recording of Stephen Kaung that I did on another thread. Those who were associated with Kaung were also those who were meeting apart from any denominations. Even early on, those associated with WL tried to infiltrate and take over, using the matter of the ground of locality as a sort of 'wedge' to divide to the two groups. Kaung had also been under Nee's ministry in China. Therefore, there was really no reason the two men couldn't have worked together. But it seems WL was intent on being a one man show. These considerations regarding practice are also a big reason why I call into question the legitimacy of the ground of locality.

Even if we throw all consideration of the doctrinal validity of this teaching out the window, there is still the question of how it could actually be practiced and work out without any problems. How would such a teaching to be played out? What if two groups both claim to be the church in X? It's actually a valid concern. Back in the old days especially, LC meeting halls didn't have any identification on them. So unless someone was previously associated with Lee's ministry, they would have no idea that there was a group in their city practicing the "ground of locality." Another group could form without knowing the first existed. As far as I am concerned, such things are important considerations concerning a practice application of what Nee/Lee taught. Below is what Kaung said along with the corresponding links:

While we were there meeting together [in New York], we invited Brother Lee to come visit us once a year, because we had been working together for many years. I knew him in 1933 when he first came and joined Watchman Nee. I was in college then, and he helped me a lot. After I joined with Brother Nee in 1935, we worked together in China. Afterwards, I was in the Philippines, he was in Taiwan. After I came to this country, he came. As a matter of fact, it was New York that helped to get him his permanent residency. We had been working for so many years.

Unfortunately there was some misunderstanding. There were rumors around, but the main point was, we began to have different ideas about the church.

When he [Lee] came to New York, he told me, “You have to call yourselves the church in New York”. I said “No. We cannot do that, because we are only about 200 people, and there are so many of God's people in New York. How can we claim that we are the church in New York? We have to testify for the local church, but we cannot claim ourselves as being the local church.” He said “If you don’t claim you are the church, then there is no church.”

So he tried to take over. I knew what he was doing, but we still invited him to come. I remember the last time we invited him.

I told the brothers who were with me: “If we send a letter to invite him to come, we cannot limit him as to what he can talk about. We want to respect him as a servant of the Lord.”

Even though I knew what he would be speaking, if we invited him we would invite him with an open heart. We sent a letter to him. What I know is that Brother Lee had a meeting with the brothers and sisters in Los Angeles. I was told that he showed the letter to them and asked whether or not he should come. They told him if he was invited, he should go.

He came, and he not only came himself, but he brought a number of people with him. I know he intended to take over that meeting. Thank God that at that time, the brothers were really one with me. When he came with a group of people, they started a meeting before every meeting. We allowed them to do that until the time we were scheduled to meet. Then we started our meeting. No matter what he spoke, the brothers were still in agreement with me. So that was the situation at that time.

By the way, I had a long talk with Brother Lee. I told him that there are rumors around. I told him "If you think I have something against you, tell me. If you have something against me, tell me too. We shouldn't let anything come in between us."

Well, he told me two things. I won't tell you the details. It was really a misunderstanding, so I explained to him. He finally said "Alright, there is nothing between you and me, but on the point of the church, we cannot agree." So that is the way that we departed.

In 1972, I moved to Washington D.C. During that period, he tried to work upon the brothers in New York, so he finally took over. That was the meeting in Jamaica [Queens, NY]. When this happened, I was in Washington DC. A few brothers and sisters felt uneasy about it, so they left, and we began to come together for prayer.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/CTM/audio/tape3133.mp3
Post: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...7&postcount=27

Thread: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5346

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems to me that Nee was much more 'mild' in his approach to the teaching of locality than Lee was. In fact, certain groups who spawned from Nee (but didn't work much with Lee) have never proceeded to practice locality as taught by Lee. One such group is those who have worked with Stephen Kaung.

Below, I have re-posted a quick transcription of an audio recording of Stephen Kaung that I did on another thread. Those who were associated with Kaung were also those who were meeting apart from any denominations. Even early on, those associated with WL tried to infiltrate and take over, using the matter of the ground of locality as a sort of 'wedge' to divide to the two groups. Kaung had also been under Nee's ministry in China. Therefore, there was really no reason the two men couldn't have worked together. But it seems WL was intent on being a one man show. These considerations regarding practice are also a big reason why I call into question the legitimacy of the ground of locality.

Even if we throw all consideration of the doctrinal validity of this teaching out the window, there is still the question of how it could actually be practiced and work out without any problems. How would such a teaching to be played out? What if two groups both claim to be the church in X? It's actually a valid concern. Back in the old days especially, LC meeting halls didn't have any identification on them. So unless someone was previously associated with Lee's ministry, they would have no idea that there was a group in their city practicing the "ground of locality." Another group could form without knowing the first existed. As far as I am concerned, such things are important considerations concerning a practice application of what Nee/Lee taught. Below is what Kaung said along with the corresponding links:

That may have happened, who knows. This ties in with Lee's claim to be the successor to Nee, and him being an apostle and all. If two groups both claim to be the church in X, and if both are a) genuine believers in the Lord, and b) meeting on the basis of their locality and not a denomination,

Then they are both equally the "church in X", in fact, they are not two churches, but one. If they both consider themselves to be two churches, then they are being sectarian and divisive.

[testallthings]

1972

Stephen Kaung was just following what Watchman Nee had taught him and Lee in China. It was Lee that didn't follow Nee. And let me say something that I had in my heart for too long: when W. Nee died in 1972, W. Lee was finally free to do whatever he wanted to do!! Remember this year 1972. After this year no breaks for W. Lee ministry and publications, footnotes, LS of the bible and so on. W. Nee is barely read in the LR. He is more respected and read in the various denominations. As a matter of fact a coworker said, “We use W. Nee's ministry as an opener to later introduce W. Lee's ministry. His books are much higher”.



Question: Among us, we may have men who resemble the elders, but they do not have the official title of an elder. This is like having no official title of apostles at the present time. Is this right?

Answer: This is right. If someone asks you what we are and whether or not we are the church in Shanghai, how should you answer? You should say that we are not the church in Shanghai. If someone asks if we are the church on Hardoon Road, you should say no. We should not admit that we are the church in Shanghai, because besides us there are the Shou-jin Chapel, the Mu-re Chapel, the Chin-lin Chapel, etc. There are many saved ones who are not meeting with us. We do not admit that we are the church on Hardoon Road either, because there may be many people who live on Hardoon Road who are not meeting with us. If we call ourselves the church in Shanghai, we have to include all believers in Shanghai. Otherwise, we cannot be considered the church in Shanghai.
They may then ask you what you are if you are not the church. We admit that we are not the church; we are merely those who meet on the ground of the church. I can illustrate the point by an example. The temple in the Old Testament was built in a splendid way. Later, it was burned, and not one stone was left on top of another. Suppose a man in Jerusalem at that time decided to erect a tent on the foundation of the burnt temple. If others were to ask him what this was, he would say that it was not the temple: rather, it was only a tent on the ground of the temple. The same is true with our meeting today. If others ask us what we are, we have to answer that we are not the church; we are not the church in Shanghai. We are a group of brothers and sisters in Shanghai meeting on the ground of the church. We are those who meet according to the principle of the church as revealed in the Bible. We are those who intend to stand on the ground of the church to maintain the ground of the church. The temple is now in ruins and burned, and we are only a tent. All those who have eyes can see the degradation of the church today; outwardly, everything is in ruins. We cannot and dare not call ourselves the church in Shanghai. We only desire to meet on the ground of the church based on the light we have received concerning the church. we are not the church in Shanghai, but we are meeting in a way that maintains and upholds the church in Shanghai. We are standing on the same ground that the church stands on, yet we are not the very church itself. Therefore, even though we are not the temple, we are a miniature of the temple, and we are here to express the life of the temple. This is why the elders and deacons among us are non-official. The reason we have elders and deacons is that, even though we admit that we are a small tent, we are, nevertheless, erected on the ground of the temple. Therefore, we have to do everything according to the pattern of the temple.
(The Assembly Life, Chapter 1, Section 7 from the website www.lsm.org)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1972

Stephen Kaung was just following what Watchman Nee had taught him and Lee in China. It was Lee that didn't follow Nee. And let me say something that I had in my heart for too long: when W. Nee died in 1972, W. Lee was finally free to do whatever he wanted to do!! Remember this year 1972. After this year no breaks for W. Lee ministry and publications, footnotes, LS of the bible and so on. W. Nee is barely read in the LR. He is more respected and read in the various denominations. As a matter of fact a coworker said, “We use W. Nee's ministry as an opener to later introduce W. Lee's ministry. His books are much higher”.



Question: Among us, we may have men who resemble the elders, but they do not have the official title of an elder. This is like having no official title of apostles at the present time. Is this right?

Answer: This is right. If someone asks you what we are and whether or not we are the church in Shanghai, how should you answer? You should say that we are not the church in Shanghai. If someone asks if we are the church on Hardoon Road, you should say no. We should not admit that we are the church in Shanghai, because besides us there are the Shou-jin Chapel, the Mu-re Chapel, the Chin-lin Chapel, etc. There are many saved ones who are not meeting with us. We do not admit that we are the church on Hardoon Road either, because there may be many people who live on Hardoon Road who are not meeting with us. If we call ourselves the church in Shanghai, we have to include all believers in Shanghai. Otherwise, we cannot be considered the church in Shanghai.
They may then ask you what you are if you are not the church. We admit that we are not the church; we are merely those who meet on the ground of the church. I can illustrate the point by an example. The temple in the Old Testament was built in a splendid way. Later, it was burned, and not one stone was left on top of another. Suppose a man in Jerusalem at that time decided to erect a tent on the foundation of the burnt temple. If others were to ask him what this was, he would say that it was not the temple: rather, it was only a tent on the ground of the temple. The same is true with our meeting today. If others ask us what we are, we have to answer that we are not the church; we are not the church in Shanghai. We are a group of brothers and sisters in Shanghai meeting on the ground of the church. We are those who meet according to the principle of the church as revealed in the Bible. We are those who intend to stand on the ground of the church to maintain the ground of the church. The temple is now in ruins and burned, and we are only a tent. All those who have eyes can see the degradation of the church today; outwardly, everything is in ruins. We cannot and dare not call ourselves the church in Shanghai. We only desire to meet on the ground of the church based on the light we have received concerning the church. we are not the church in Shanghai, but we are meeting in a way that maintains and upholds the church in Shanghai. We are standing on the same ground that the church stands on, yet we are not the very church itself. Therefore, even though we are not the temple, we are a miniature of the temple, and we are here to express the life of the temple. This is why the elders and deacons among us are non-official. The reason we have elders and deacons is that, even though we admit that we are a small tent, we are, nevertheless, erected on the ground of the temple. Therefore, we have to do everything according to the pattern of the temple.
(The Assembly Life, Chapter 1, Section 7 from the website www.lsm.org)

Nee appears to contradicts himself (emphasis mine, in bold) (The Normal Christian Church Life, Chapter 5, by Watchman Nee):

Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, “To what church do you belong?” The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted—in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, “I belong to the church in Ephesus,” or “I belong to the church in Shanghai,” or “I belong to the church in Los Angeles.” It is our being in Christ that separates us from the world, and it is our being in a given locality that separates us from other believers. It is only because we reside in a different place from them that we belong to a different church. The only reason I do not belong to the same church as other believers is that I do not live in the same place as they do. If I wish to be in the same church, then I must change my residence to the same place. If, on the other hand, I wish to be in a different church from others in my locality, then the only solution to my problem is to move to a different locality. Difference of locality is the only justification for division among believers.

Right here, Nee says there is a (genuine) division in the church, and it is based upon locality. He also seems to sanction the use of locality to define and name a local church, and suggest that we should use locality when we define what church we belong to. Thus, Lee's church model of taking names according to the locality, appears to be in keeping with Nee's view about this. Perhaps Kaung and Lee were following two contradictory positions held by the same man, Nee? Who knows.

I note that Nee writes "or perhaps the name that particular group bears". Perhaps the quotation you provided, is concerning division along the lines of a name. Yet, in the quotation I provided, it seems correct, even scriptural (according to Nee) to identify ones church by its locality name.

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.


My personal opinion about acceptance of Nee vs Lee:
Denominations reading your books is not a test of orthodoxy. Denominations read a range of things from New Age to Buddhism, self help books, positive thinking,prosperity teaching etc. I read Nee's books about spirituality when I was in denominations. I did not know he wrote books about the church until I found the LC. Denominations have a vested interest in not promoting anyone who speaks against them. Denominations do not regard his teachings about the church, only focusing on Nee's book about spirituality. Nee may be more respected and read because he does not challenge them. I will admit that Nee's writing style is much more pleasant to read than Lee's, but the communication style of a man is not a good judge as to the value of the book's content, for even of Paul, Peter wrote "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand" 2 Peter 3:16. Yet, Paul "wrote with the wisdom God gave him" (vs 15).

[testallthings]

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).

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
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