Antioch Principle vs. Jerusalem Principle of Church Administration

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee inferred that these designations were “boundaries” to jurisdiction. They taught that each locality was autonomous. But Witness Lee also disparaged the autonomy, teaching that the differences in the seven golden lamp stands in the New Jerusalem were negative.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And herein is what I found to be the hypocrisy in both Nee's and Lee's teachings.

In their early ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized city boundaries under autonomous "city" jurisdictions administrated by the elders. Both were firm on this matter, even teaching that the elders were the "highest court" in all matters. Some have referred to this as the "Antioch Principle" established under Paul's ministry.

In their later ministries (Nee in China, Lee in Taiwan and the USA), both emphasized the "oneness" of the body of Christ, with all the churches identically the same, with workers sent out from headquarters overseeing the elders, and a Minister of the Age overseeing these workers. Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.

During the quarantines of the Midwest churches, this ecclesiastical change was a source of great conflict and confusion. The Midwest leaders all considered the early paradigm by Nee and Lee to be still in operation, while the Blendeds were all convinced, as the legitimate successors to WL, that the second paradigm was in operation. Midwest leaders compiled reams of old Nee and Lee quotations to support their positions, and Anaheim produced their 28 "attack pack" booklets of more recent quotations to support their positions.

Thus the Midwest battles (divisions, lawsuits, infighting, etc.) during the quarantine were very much similar to the battles Paul et.al. faced with the Judaizers sent out from Jerusalem. Though the Biblical conflict apparently was centered on salvation by circumcision, and supposedly solved in the Acts 15 council, the heart of the matter was the bigger issues of power and control. Had not Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, the latter model would most certainly have won out, and altered the entire course of church history.

Dear brother Drake has just been tormented by my post above, so I brought it forward on a new thread for further discussion. My only regret is that I no longer have any of my old highlighted LSM books to refer to, since most were sovereignly damaged in a flooded basement and the rest given away.

[Ohio]

Personally I think nearly every LC "storm" can be traced to Lee's transition from the "Antioch Principle" of church administration and ministry to the "Jerusalem Principle" of church administration and ministry. Sometimes I simply state these as "early-Lee" and "later-Lee." When LC leaders from around the globe during the so-called "New Way" clamored that the "nature of the Recovery had changed," this is what they were referring to.

Particularly troublesome to Drake was this comment I made from the above post, "Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James." I'll try to expand on this statement, and hopefully others can wade into the discussion.

Apostle Paul fought his entire ministry with Judaizer "dogs" who stirred up the Gentiles to attack his ministry in every place. I will leave it to the readers to find all of these stories on their own; just open any of his epistles. While Paul was in Antioch, some came "from James." (Galatians 2.10-14) They came from the perceived spiritual and administrative center of the church in Jerusalem, headed up by James, the younger brother of Jesus. They brought with them great "authority," so that even Peter and Barnabas got carried away by their hypocrisy.

Apostle Paul established churches with elders as overseers, and no centralized authority. For a time he worked out of Antioch, later out of Ephesus, and still later out of Rome, but he never made any of these a headquarters for other churches. This was the Antioch Principle.

If we read Acts 15 carefully concerning the council deciding the ever antagonizing matter of circumcision, the reason it was held in Jerusalem, was not because it was some spiritual and administrative center of the church, but because it was the source of the problem. The problem came "from James," so Paul and Barnabas went to James in Jerusalem to resolve this problem.

Unfortunately for the entire church of God, the established decree (cf. Acts 16.4) by the apostles and elders had little effect. The churches in Galatia were apparently lost to Judaism. The persecutions from the Judaizers never stopped. God's solution was to destroy Jerusalem, which Jesus Himself had prophesied some 40 years earlier. Unfortunately still, the early church then made Rome and Constantinople their new headquarters.

[Indiana]

http://leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/...orityisnot.pdf

Link to a view of Witness Lee's transition from the "Antioch Principle" to the "Jerusalem Principle". That is, from administration local, each answering to the Lord", to "a Jerusalem headquarters," and answering to it. This movement required "movement men" to implement monumental changes and cement "the local churches" under one man and his ministry office.

The blending brothers deserve both credit and blame for what has been "accomplished" all around the globe in "the local churches" under their ministry/leadership, being carried out in the same spirit and steps of Witness Lee.

EXCERPT
"Andrew Yu was wrong in his assessments. The men he judged had not rebelled against God’s authority. Rather, they had stood firm to represent it amid an aggressive movement by LSM to usurp it. Bill Mallon, John So, and John Ingalls each experienced the usurpation of their eldership by LSM operatives prior to their quarantines in 1990."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Indiana

http://leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/...orityisnot.pdf....

I appreciate what was written concerning the 5 signs that someone is not a deputy authority. I think this same approach can be taken with the church. Witness Lee dismisses the idea that a meeting in the name of Jesus that has the presence of the Lord can be a church because anyone can make that claim. However, in the same context Jesus gives the signs that this is true.

Consider the hypocrisy -- anyone can claim to be a "deputy authority" and you provided quotes from Watchman Nee expressing his disgust with that, yet the Blendeds continue to do this despite the signs that the so called "deputy authorities" were not. On the other hand they dismiss the claim that that the basis for a church is that they are meeting in the name of Jesus and the Lord's presence is there (after all why was Laodicea in the process of losing their lamp stand -- the Lord's presence was no longer there).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

What Deputy Authority is Not

Signs of Not Having Spiritual Authority:
1. Asserting One’s Own Authority
2. Practicing Self-Vindication
3. Bearing False Witness
4. Misrepresenting God
5. Mishandling Financial Matters

The apostle Paul served the churches amidst incredible suffering and hardship. We have absolutely no history of any damage to churches due to his ministry. Contrary to his service, we have the work of the Judaizers in the 1st century and the work of operatives from LSM today -- endless stories of damages inflicted upon churches and members alike.

Both of these evil workers used their false authority from some supposed headquarters to lay waste the churches and any who would stand up to them. Except for the extreme measures they took during the dark ages, the same destructive work can be attributed to papal operatives.

Another characteristic of false spiritual authority is to always build up one's own ministry at the expense of churches. The question we must always ask is simple, "who is serving who?"

[TLFisher]

Regarding Watchman Nee's ministry, it's been documented he changed from the Antioch principle to the Jerusalem principle in 1948.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear brother Drake has just been tormented by my post above, so I brought it forward on a new thread for further discussion. My only regret is that I no longer have any of my old highlighted LSM books to refer to, since most were sovereignly damaged in a flooded basement and the rest given away.

Almost everything you need may be found at lam.org online for free.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Almost everything you need may be found at lam.org online for free.

They won't let me download / print articles.

I'm an old-fashioned highlighter and marker kind of guy.