LSM's Sacrament - the "Ground of the Local Church" NIGEL TOMES

[UntoHim]

LSM’s Sacrament—the “Ground of the Local Church”

In the New Testament the “local church ground”—“one church, one city”—is one church pattern (among several patterns).
LSM has made this descriptive example into a prescription, an essential truth, and elevated it to the status of a sacrament.

Roman Catholics teach that physical sacraments—for example, the water of infant baptism and the communion bread (the “host at the Eucharist”)—are “means of grace,” that is, they actually impart God’s grace to recipients. “Catholics believe the sacraments are…means by which divine life is dispensed to us… [that by] simply participating in the rite the faithful believer receives grace from God,” say Driscoll and Breshers.1 Thus, for Roman Catholics physical elements (e.g. bread, water) impart spiritual benefits; this is the crux of their sacramentalism. Evangelicals reject such doctrines as spurious.

In contrast to Catholics, “evangelicals avoid the use of the word, ‘sacrament’ because it tends to suggest the idea of a sign that is efficacious simply by virtue of the rite itself. This view of sacramental efficacy…strikes them as magical,” notes Thomas Rausch.2 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are called ‘ordinances’ by evangelicals, since they were ordained by the Lord. Evangelicals maintain that, rather than dispensing the divine life or grace (in and of themselves), such physical observances “express outwardly what is already inwardly true. They are… outward, visible signs of inward invisible grace,” Stanley Grenz explains.3 Thus, according to Baptist teacher, Jack Hoad,4 “ordinances are acts of obedience which set forth the central truths of the gospel, particularly the death and resurrection of Christ. The ordinances are therefore symbolic declarations of the Gospel and not in themselves channels of special grace to the obedient.' Another Baptist, Erroll Hulse explains,5 “For Baptists the ordinance of baptism is not a sacrament in which grace is infused into the believer in any way, but rather...a testimony of what God has done in regeneration…” Most evangelical Christians reject Catholic claims regarding the efficacy of the physical sacraments; they recognize only two ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

LSM’s Sacramentalism

LSM’s local churches concur with the major tenets of evangelical Christianity. They are harsh critics of Roman Catholicism. However, LSM’s distinctive doctrine about the “ground of locality” is sacramentist; they claim that the physical ground of locality affords them an advantageous status before God. The fact that a local church is “standing on the local ground,” calling itself “the church in [city X]” (defined by the city’s physical boundary) allegedly provides members with greater divine blessings, compared to other Christians not “standing on the local ground.” Hence Witness Lee states that,6 “If you want the fullest blessing…you must come to the local churches.” Conversely, on leaving the “local ground” a believer (allegedly) forfeits God’s blessings; “when a person is in the church, he is blessed,” says W. Lee, 7 “but when he leaves the church, he loses the blessing. When I speak of the church, I am particularly referring to a local church that is standing on the proper ground.”

God’s “approval…based on their ground & not…their personal condition”—W. Lee

Moreover, W. Lee alleges that the mere position of “standing on the local ground” merits God’s approval. This privilege, he asserts is independent of the believer’s condition. Arguing by analogy from the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon, W. Lee states,8 “among those [exiles] who returned, we find many who were not that spiritual…However, as far as their ground was concerned, they were approved by God…No matter how poor their situation was, their ground was still the right ground…no matter how poor and confused the returned captives were, they stood on the proper ground which God had ordained for them...Their approval was based on their ground and not on their personal condition.” Note the last statement asserts that God’s “approval was based on their ground and not on their personal condition.” W. Lee contends that this principle applies today;9 he argues that New Testament believers (regardless of condition) who “stand on the local ground” (defined by city boundaries) secure God’s approval, just as Jewish exiles’ who returned to Jerusalem merited God’s favor. He alleges that (independent of condition) if a believer “stands on the local ground,” this position earns God’s approval. This implies that, other believers, not in this position, are disapproved by God! Thus Witness Lee elevates a positional matter--“standing on the local ground”--into a sacrament which secures God’s approval.

To justify this, LSM contends that the Spirit connects the church ground to the Triune God (the physical with the spiritual). They first state that,10 “three elements—the oneness of the Spirit, the ground of locality, and the reality of the Spirit—keep the genuine oneness of the church.” Here the physical, “ground of locality” is grouped with the Spirit. Then W. Lee insists,11 “it is by this Spirit that the genuine ground of the church is linked with the Triune God.” This is sacramentalism; the physical (ground of locality) is “linked with the Triune God.”

What are the alleged benefits of this linkage? We’ve already mentioned “God’s approval.” W. Lee also links being “in the local church on the ground” with “the full experience of the triune God.” He proclaims,12 “We know where we must be today—in the local oneness, that is, in the local church on the ground of oneness. If we are not in the local oneness…we cannot have the full experience of the…Triune God…Only on this ground can we have the full experience of the processed Triune God.” Lack of this ground, W. Lee argues, is the13 “reason many Christians today are in spiritual poverty.” Thus a physical attribute—being “in the local church on the ground”—is deemed to provide spiritual benefits in terms of “the full experience of the Triune God.” Again, this is sacramentalism. In essence LSM claims that “standing on the local ground” (defined by city boundaries) is a means by which the divine life &/or grace are dispensed to believers. This matches Catholic assertions that, “the sacraments are…means by which divine life is dispensed to us.”14 This substantiates our claim that the “local ground” is LSM’s distinctive sacrament. Let’s examine LSM’s doctrine of the local ground in more detail.

1. The ground of locality—one city, one church, one eldership

LSM distinguishes the church’s foundation from its ground. They say,15 “the word ground…does not carry the denotation of a foundation; rather, it bears the denotation of a site, like the site on which the foundation of a building is laid.” LSM agrees that the church’s foundation is Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-11). Its “ground” is something else. Let’s note here that the New Testament never mentions the church’s “ground;” undeterred by that fact, LSM has developed their distinctive “local ground” doctrine; in LSM’s publications phrases like “local ground” or “ground of locality” occur over 1,000 times. According to them the church’s “ground” has several elements.

At its basic level the “ground of locality” emphasizes one church, one city, defined by city boundaries. W. Lee recalls,16 “In 1930 Brother Nee…resolved to re-study the New Testament concerning the boundary of a local assembly. Through this study he saw that the boundary of a local assembly must be the boundary of that locality in which that assembly is…the local border.” Since then, this definition has been maintained and elaborated. Take for e.g., LSM’s statement that,17 the “ground of locality of a local church…is, the very locality—a city, a town, or a village—as the boundary within which a local church is established and exists, with each one locality having only one church”—one church, one city. Hence local churches typically adopt names like, “the Church in Chicago (LA, NYC, etc).” Plus, LSM asserts that, regardless of the believers’ number, there should be only one church with only one eldership. W. Lee states,18 “in one city there should be only one church. The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city where that church is…One city should only have one church with one eldership.” He contends this is Scripture’s unique pattern,19 “One city should have only one church with one eldership. This practice is…the clear pattern in the New Testament.” LSM’s Recovery Version asserts dogmatically,20 “One city should have only one church with one presbytery [eldership]. This practice [one city, one church, one eldership] is illustrated, beyond any question or doubt, by the clear pattern in the New Testament …and is an absolute prerequisite for the maintaining of proper order in a local church.”

Clearly, the “ground of locality” has a physical aspect—the city boundary. LSM states,21 “a local church…exists in a locality, its jurisdiction for its administration being within the boundary of the locality in which it exists.” They assert a local church ought to have one eldership regardless of city-size or ethnic and linguistic diversity.

2. LSM’s Double-speak: Local Church Ground—Inclusive or Exclusive?

Examining these issues ought to be straight-forward. It is not, due to LSM’s contradictory claims. Take for e.g., the definition of a “local church.” On occasion the “local church” is defined as including all genuine believers in a city. Thus W. Lee says,22 “We need to see what a local church is. First, a local church is all the genuine believers in a locality…Many believers are not meeting on the proper ground of locality, but they are all still members of the local churches…We should never use the term local church…to separate ourselves from other believers. Whenever believers gather simply as believers, that is a gathering of the local church in that city. There is no organizational requirement for a group to be part of a local church.” This definition is inclusive and innocuous; all believers in a city are already members of the local church; regardless of where they meet—“when believers gather simply as believers, that’s a gathering of the local church,” says W. Lee. Plus, “no organizational requirement” suggests they needn’t leave existing fellowships to “join us on the local ground.”

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Efforts

An inclusive stance is espoused in Beliefs & Practices of the Local Churches (~1974). It declares,23 “We stand on the ground of the oneness of all believers in each locality; we recognize all the blood-redeemed and Spirit-regenerated believers in Christ as members of the one church in each city.” Yet words ought to be backed by actions. This declaration should be substantiated by significant efforts to express “oneness [with] all believers in the city” as recognized “members of the one church in the city.” Where are concrete manifestations of this? Typically local church members cannot be found at city-wide evangelistic efforts, gatherings to pray for the city, ‘Marches for Jesus,’ or major worship events. On such occasions, local church members are missing. LSM’s Ron Kangas gives the reason—‘they are Christianity; we are the local church.’ He says,24 “I respect [Billy Graham’s] preaching of the cross and his preaching of the gospel as he knows it…[But] We cannot labor in such a crusade when according to the Bible, according to Acts, those who were saved were added to the Church in that city (Acts 2:47). If there are any bridges…existing between a local church and Christianity, I hope we would go back, burn the bridges, and broaden the gap.” So, for LSM, separation from “Christianity” or “Babylon” trumps an inclusive definition of the local church. Only token efforts are made to apply that inclusive stance. Local church members testify, “I fellowship with some Christians at work (or school)” or “I talk to the pastor of the Chinese Church next door.” But, among Christians, such acts are common and unremarkable. Extra-ordinary efforts are required to justify the extraordinary claims of believers “standing on the local ground.” The inclusive view was trumped long ago by the exclusive version; it remains only as the “public face” of LSM.

“School fellowship groups…congregations on streets & alleys…not adequate”—W. Lee

More often, the local church is defined exclusively. Other believers in the city are not already members of the local church in the city; rather they are condemned for “standing on improper grounds”—“denominational or scattered grounds.” In LSM’s view, only “we” have returned to Jerusalem, “they” are in Babylon or the wilderness. Hence W. Lee states,25 “We must not remain on the ground of a denomination, the ground of organized Christianity. In typology, this is to come out of Babylon…we should not linger on small, scattered grounds…Some are family groups, others are fellowship groups in schools, and still others are congregations or chapels on certain streets and alleys. There are meetings that are so-called non-denominational, and…free groups. In type, these small, scattered grounds…between Babylon and Jerusalem…they have left Babylon but have not yet returned to Jerusalem. This is not adequate…We should…return to the proper ground of oneness.” “Believers gathering simply as believers” in family groups, schools, congregations, chapels, streets or alleys are now rejected outright LSM—“This is not adequate.” All other believers are condemned; LSM claims exclusive rights over the proper ground; they alone returned to Jerusalem and are acceptable to God! Isn’t this elitist?

3. “Standing on the ground of oneness”

LSM’s teaching adds the aspect of “oneness” to the church’s physical ground. Local churches claim they alone stand on the ground of26 “the unique oneness of the universal Body of Christ, i.e., the oneness of the one Spirit (Eph. 4:4-6).” Thus W. Lee derides other believers, saying,27 “You are meeting in division, but we are meeting in oneness as the church.” Yet the Apostle Paul exhorts believers to “keep the Spirit’s oneness,” (Eph. 4:3) not to claim proprietary rights over it! Paul aspired that all believers (not a select few) would “arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of God’s Son.” (Eph. 4:13.) He never charges believers to “stand on the ground of oneness,” as if it were a position to be occupied, a site that could be claimed to the exclusion of others. Nevertheless W. Lee argues,28 “All of the grounds of denominations, being divisive, are not according to the Bible; therefore, we should leave them. These divisive grounds, like Babylon, bring the children of God into captivity. Just as the people of Israel needed to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem, we also need to leave the divisive grounds and return to the ground of oneness.” Ironically the ground of oneness divides believers!

LSM’s Pretentious Claims

W. Lee’s “ground of oneness” doctrine is based on an Old Testament type; it is not a NT teaching. The New Testament never uses the phrase, “ground of oneness.” In contrast, it occurs 300+ times in LSM’s publications. The claim, “we stand on the ground of the unique oneness of the universal Body of Christ” has been repeated so often, it is accepted without question. But to serious Christians it’s a pretentious claim. LSM states,29 “the constitution of the church ground is the unique oneness of the universal Body of Christ, which is called the oneness of the Spirit…This oneness is…the oneness of the Triune God.” This saying, viewed in context, suggests they alone have exclusive rights over the “oneness of Christ’s Body, the oneness of the Spirit and the oneness of the Triune God”! We ask: which of the Triune God’s divine attributes has He ever made available for a particular Christian group to assert exclusive propriety rights over? Consider other attributes of the Trinity; can a Christian group assert “we alone have God’s mercy or love or God’s righteousness”? Which congregation can claim “we have exclusive rights over the fellowship of the Spirit”? Then, who can claim “we alone have exclusive rights over the oneness of the Spirit”? Who can demand all other Christians leave wherever they are and join ‘us,’ in order to participate in the Triune God’s oneness? Yet W. Lee and LSM make such audacious claims! Local church members have heard such assertions for so long they’re unperturbed; they ought to be perturbed!

“The Recovery Church of Witness Lee”

LSM denigrates denominations as “degraded Christianity,” saying,30 “To…denominate the church with any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication…Other names are an abomination in the eyes of God…The recovered church has no denominations (names), but the unique name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The… exaltation of so many names other than that of Christ are the most striking signs of degraded Christianity…We do not need the names Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or any other names.” This critique has some merit based on church history. However, LSM gives itself a “free pass” in this evaluation. What do you call a network of churches which teach the theology of one man, who use a study Bible with every footnote written by one man, who attend conferences reviewing that one man’s teaching and then review that review in their local congregations, exulting in the fact that they are “all on the same page” of his materials? Plus, they venerate that man with accolades such as, “the Minister of the Age,” the “wise master builder” and the “acting God.” Why do observers call it “the Recovery Church of Witness Lee”? When the name “Witness Lee” is mentioned more frequently than the Lord Jesus’ name, isn’t that a Witness Lee denomination?31

“They don’t fellowship with all the saints on the earth.”

LSM disqualifies all other Christian congregations due to32 their “having special names, special beliefs, and special fellowships, or having an “isolated local fellowship “as opposed to “a universal fellowship.” Moreover, congregations lacking special names, special beliefs, and special fellowships, (so-called) “free groups,” are still condemned by LSM because33 “They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect.” Let’s pause here to ask—which Christian group has “fellowship with all the saints on the earth”? There are over two billion Christians on the globe—who fellowships with them all? Certainly LSM’s local churches do not! Their vaunted claim of “universal fellowship” leads them to define Christ’s Body in a sectarian way--“the Body equals the recovery,” says LSM’s M. Chen,34 adding, “We know that the mystical Body of Christ includes all the believers, all of the redeemed ones in time and in space, but practically for us today, the recovery is the Body.” For LSM “the Body equals the Recovery,” so they equate their intra-group fellowship of LSM-aligned churches with the “universal fellowship of Christ’s Body.” In fact it’s a sectarian fellowship! This is confirmed by the fact that it’s rare for LSM-adherents to partake the Lord’s Table with believers outside their own tight-knit circle. LSM fails to satisfy their own criteria for standing on the “proper ground of oneness”!

“To hear the Spirit's speaking we must be…in the local church on the ground”—W. Lee

W. Lee says the “ground of oneness” is no longer tied to one city (Israel’s Jerusalem); today it’s tied to the NT pattern of “one church, one city, meeting in oneness on the local ground.” LSM’s local churches claim exclusive rights over the “local ground”--that unique position (allegedly) qualifying them for God’s abundant blessing.

In contrast to other Christians, Local Church members claim they have returned to “Jerusalem,” the God-appointed place of worship. Against this backdrop, W. Lee declares,35 “When God's people in the Old Testament lost the ground of oneness, they spontaneously lost so many spiritual and holy things. However, when they returned to Jerusalem, to the ground of oneness, all these holy and spiritual things spontaneously returned. The principle is the same in the Lord's recovery today. Today our God, the Triune God, is…realized as the all-inclusive Spirit. Today this Spirit is speaking to the churches [Rev. 2:7]. Hence, in order to hear the Spirit's speaking, we must be in one of the churches…We know where we must be today—in the local oneness, i.e., in the local church on the ground of oneness.” Note that W. Lee asserts “to hear the Spirit's speaking, we must be…in the local church on the ground.” Here is yet another exclusive claim about “the ground”! If you’re not in “the local church, standing on the local ground,” you won’t hear the Holy Spirit’s speaking!

These claims rely on equating LSM’s local churches with the 7 churches in Revelation. However, Revelation’s seven churches included all the Christians in those cities. In contrast LSM’s local churches are small groups of believers “standing on the ground of oneness,” while excluding most Christians in their cities. LSM’s churches pay lip-service to the principle of receiving all believers; they claim “we receive all genuine believers.” Yet (in practice) their reception is conditional. LSM-President Benson Philips declares,36 “We should not bring anything of Christianity into the Lord’s recovery. We only take the faith. If some in Christianity are in the faith, then we accept them, but we accept nothing of Christianity.” The declaration, “we accept [Christians], but we accept nothing of Christianity” means “we don’t accept any of your teachings, practices, etc. Drop everything; then we’ll accept you! Meanwhile, we expect you to receive all our teachings and practices!” That’s the way LSM applies “receiving all believers.” The barriers to entry into LSM’s local churches are substantial.

4. W. Lee made “one church, one city” an essential item of “the Faith”

For Witness Lee the local church ground—one church, one city—was not merely a New Testament example, nor even the New Testament pattern. It is an essential item of the New Testament faith—the faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). It belongs alongside God, Christ’s person & work, and justification by faith! W. Lee enumerates these items, and then says,37 “These are the…main items of the proper Christian faith…Some [Christians] may disagree with [including] the point, one city, one church, but as a proper Christian we have to believe that the church is both universally one and locally one...A local church is locally one. This doesn't mean…that a real believer in Christ who does not agree with one city, one church is not saved. Still he or she is saved, but there is something lacking.” Due to their not “standing on the local ground,” other Christians are denigrated as “lacking something,” they are “second class Christians,” compared to local church members.

More seriously, “one church, one city” is included among the non-negotiable, essential items of “the faith.” W. Lee places his “one church, one city” doctrine on par with the Bible’s verbal, plenary inspiration. Any Local Church member who dissents from either teaching, he says, ought to be shunned.38 “One church, one city,” LSM’s “local ground” dogma, has been added to the essentials of the Christian faith; it is non-negotiable, part of the local churches’ creed. Yet the New Testament has no such teaching! For centuries Christians have proclaimed “in essentials—unity; in non-essentials—liberty; in all things—love.” It’s obvious that any Christian group, which claims to be inclusive by “standing for the oneness of the universal Body,” cannot insist on adding their distinctive doctrines to the essentials of the faith. To do so contradicts their “inclusive” claim. Why should this group’s favorite doctrine be included as “essential,” while others’ special doctrines are excluded? Yet, LSM’s local church insists that their distinctive “local ground” doctrine is an essential item of the faith!

5. “Ground of locality”—a descriptive e.g., not a prescriptive NT teaching

W. Lee’s view of the local ground differs dramatically from the New Testament. The NT has no prescriptive teaching regarding the ground of locality. It is merely a description. It is not a truth taught in Scripture, nor is it an “implied truth,” nor an “essential practice.” The NT has only two ‘essential practices’—baptism & Lord’s Table--both were ordained by Christ (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19). The “church in the city” occurs only in NT descriptions—e.g. the church in Philippi, in Corinth. The distinction between description and prescription is important; if the “ground of locality” were as important as W. Lee and LSM claim, it ought to be a definite New Testament teaching. It is not. Churches produced by the Apostle Paul’s labor tended to be city-churches; but other churches don’t fit LSM’s “one church, one city” maxim, e.g., Jerusalem and Rome don’t fit that mold.39

The New Testament record regarding the “local church ground” exhibits diversity. The city-church is a major pattern; but, it is not the only pattern. There are also scriptural precedents for sub-local, house churches (e.g. Rome, Rom. 16:5, 14-15), and supra-local, regional churches (e.g. the Church in Judea, Acts 9:31). Moreover, all these are merely descriptive examples; none is a prescriptive teaching. LSM elevates “one church, one city, one eldership” from being one pattern among several patterns, to be the definitive pattern and further insists upon this as a prescriptive dogma, an essential item of the faith and even a sacrament! This goes beyond Scripture.

6. In John 4 Jesus abolished all “Grounds,” including LSM’s “Local Ground”

A major rationale for LSM’s “local ground” dictum is the Old Testament type of Jerusalem as the physical center for Israel’s worship. LSM argues from the OT ground of Jerusalem to the NT ground of locality. For e.g. W. Lee alleges that,40 “When God's people in the Old Testament lost the ground of oneness, they spontaneously lost so many spiritual and holy things. However, when they returned to Jerusalem, to the ground of oneness, all these holy and spiritual things spontaneously returned. The principle is the same in the Lord's recovery today. Today our God, the Triune God, is…realized as the all-inclusive Spirit. Today this Spirit is speaking to the churches. Hence, in order to hear the Spirit's speaking, we must be in one of the churches…[So] we know where we must be today—in the local oneness, that is, in the local church on the ground of oneness.”

This argument starts from Jerusalem as the “ground,” the physical center, of Israel’s worship. It ends with the “church’s local ground,” with its physical aspect. Often W. Lee emphasizes the “ground of oneness,” rather than the physical place. But that emphasis doesn’t negate the fact that the church’s local ground has a physical aspect; the positional aspect remains even when it’s cloaked in the garb of “oneness.” W. Lee concludes that “we must be today…in the local church on the ground of oneness” which includes the physical ground of locality as the place for God’s New Testament peoples’ worship. Hence in W. Lee’s analogy the local church, standing on the local ground (one church, one city defined by its physical boundary) is the New Testament fulfillment of the OT type of Jerusalem, Israel’s physical worship center. To many local church members this logic is convincing. However it directly contradicts Jesus’ declaration in John 4 about New Testament worship.

Jesus’ Dispensation-Changing Declaration

Jesus’ words in John 4 are crucial; He told the Samaritan “Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is of the Jews. But an hour is coming, and it is now [here], when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truthfulness, for the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness.” [John 4:20-24, RcV.] This was a dispensation-changing declaration. As Trinity College (Melbourne, Australia) NT Professor, Dorothy Lee says,41 “Jesus’ response is to point to a new dispensation in which worship of the Father is dependent, not on a specific geographical location but on the ‘Spirit of truth’).” University of Gloucestershire, NT Professor Andrew T. Lincoln states,42 “Jesus…announces …the…change, affecting both the previous erroneous Samaritan view and the previous correct Jewish view, is already in the process of being realized…(Jn. 4:23). The authentic worship, that is no longer tied to particular places, entails worship in Spirit and truth.” The ESV study Bible says, “Jesus is inaugurating a new age in which people will not have to travel to a physical temple in one city to worship, but will be able to worship God in every place, because the Holy Spirit will dwell in them, and therefore God’s people everywhere will become the new temple where God dwells.” Bible expositors state emphatically that Jesus’ pronouncement relativizes all locations in terms of New Testament worship; neither Jerusalem, nor the Samaritans’ mountain, nor any other physical location confers an advantage or greater acceptability before God. NT Professor Andrew T. Lincoln asserts that Jesus’ declaration43 “frees people from particular holy spaces [places], while at the same time allowing them to see all space [every place] as holy because of Christ.” This means God is not a respecter of places or “grounds,” when it comes to NT worship.

By this one pronouncement recorded in John 4, Jesus changed the parameters of God’s chosen place of worship from physical to spiritual. This means the parameters of physical location are irrelevant for acceptable NT worship. A direct implication of Jesus’ words is that “standing on the local ground,” as the “church in the city” (defined by city boundaries) does not provide preferred access to God nor more acceptable worship to God. Via Jesus’ words, the “local church ground” was abolished together with the “ground” of Jerusalem’s Temple and the “ground” of the Samaritans’ mountain. LSM’s vaunted claims for the “church’s local ground” were abolished along with “Jerusalem’s Old Testament chosen status.” Moreover the “church’s local ground” cannot be rehabilitated merely by cloaking it in the garb of “oneness;” that is an illegitimate attempt to reintroduce “through the backdoor,” what has been explicitly excluded “at the front door”—it attempts to circumvent the obvious implications of Scripture recorded in John 4. The “bottom line” of John 4 is that acceptable New Testament worship is rendered to God the Father, “in Spirit/spirit and truth/truthfulness,” based on Christ’s salvation, and it can be offered anywhere and everywhere, independent of the “local ground.”

“The proper ground…today is in our spirit”—W. Lee

When W. Lee directly addresses Jesus’ words in John 4, he is obliged to admit,44 “This indicates clearly that the proper ground for the worship of God today is in our spirit. God's habitation, His dwelling place, is in our spirit. As long as we are in our spirit, we are in the right place for the worship of God.” Significantly there is no mention of the church’s “local ground” here. Instead W. Lee concedes that “As long as we are in our spirit, we are in the right place” to worship God. So, in the New Testament era, the “right place” is not the “local ground,” it is “our spirit.” Again W. Lee says,45 “In the type in Deuteronomy 12, the children of Israel were required to come to a particular geographical location. This means that in the Old Testament the chosen ground was an actual physical place…[But] the fulfillment of the type in Deut. 12 is not a matter of a geographical place—it is a matter of our spirit. This is proved by putting Eph. 2:22 together with John 4:21-23.…This indicates clearly that the proper ground for the worship of God today is in our spirit.” Here W. Lee affirms that “the proper ground for the worship of God today is in our spirit.” This rare statement, unqualified by caveats about the “local ground,” rightly unfolds God’s Word. Surely this direct implication of Jesus’ own words recorded in Scripture ought to trump questionable interpretations based on the (so-called) fulfillment of OT types!

How does W. Lee address the “local ground” in the context of John 4? He says,46 “Some may wonder why we emphasize the local church since the place for the worship of God is our spirit. For convenience & practicality, we meet in the different cities where we live. Apparently we are divided by geography, for we meet in separate cities...Actually we remain in the oneness and are not divided, for wherever we may be, we meet in the Lord's name, in the spirit, and with the cross. Therefore, no matter where we may be, we all meet in the same place.” Note that no spectacular claims are made here about the ground; allegedly, it is merely “for convenience and practicality, we meet in the different cities…” Isn’t this another example of double-speak? These muted claims confirm that W. Lee’s inflated assertions about the efficacy of the “local church ground” cannot be sustained in the light of Jesus’ words in John 4. If it is merely “for convenience and practicality, we meet” according to city, then why shouldn’t Christians gather by district, neighborhood or community, instead? The house-church, community-church and neighborhood-church are all equally valid, if (as W. Lee asserts here) when “we meet in the Lord's name, in the spirit, and with the cross…no matter where we may be, we all meet in the same place [in Spirit/spirit].” Moreover we note that (regardless of their assertions) LSM’s local churches do not have a monopoly on the Lord's name, the Spirit, or the cross; these are the common possession of all believers.

7. ‘Local Ground’ prevents division & brings God’s blessing—the Recovery’s track record

Great claims have been made regarding the ground of locality. It was supposed to prevent division and usher in God’s abundant blessing. W. Lee maintains47 that “the local ground has a great advantage of guarding against small divisions.” The Lord’s Recovery, standing on the ground of locality is not a recent phenomenon in North America. Witness Lee “brought the recovery” to North America 50 years ago. Half a century is a sufficient time period to generate observable data. We ask: Have the promised benefits been realized? Has the Local Church movement in North America been preserved from division? Is there evidence of the Lord’s manifold blessings?

a. Has the “local ground” prevented division?

Anyone familiar with the history of the Recovery in North America has to admit there has been frequent turmoil, chaos and divisions. Mention the names—Max Rappaport, Sal Benoit, Bill Freeman, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, John So, Joseph Fung, Titus Chu, and Dong Yu-Lan, and there’s a story of “turmoil.” Plus these are just brothers with a “national profile.” W. Lee conceded48 “I observed that the chaos came in cycles. Every 8 or 10 years was a cycle.” He was obliged to admit that49 “In the 30 years that the Lord's recovery has been in the US, we have seen turmoil after turmoil, chaos after chaos. When there is turmoil in the church life, we may be bothered and ask, ‘Is this the church life? Is this the recovery? What is the difference between this and the denominations?’” These words were spoken in 1992; the 20 years since exhibit the same pattern. These data are sufficient to demonstrate, contrary to its claimed benefits, the “local ground” has not prevented divisions and factions. In fact, many feel that divisions within the Local Church movement have been more acrimonious than Christian congregations usually experience. In other Christian groups do factions routinely resort to lawsuits over church property, as LSM-adherents have done? The “local ground” has not prevented divisions.

Turmoil, Chaos, Division?—It’s all Satan’s fault—W. Lee

W. Lee’s response was to blame Satan! His explanation of “turmoil after turmoil, chaos after chaos,” was to say,50 “In order that we all may be comforted, I am burdened to point out the record in the Bible of the satanic chaos in the old creation and the divine economy for the new creation.” The underlying logic is “it’s all Satan’s fault; Satan is behind every turmoil.” No responsibility was ascribed to the Recovery’s leadership. Instead W. Lee perceived Satan’s activity—“the Satanic chaos”—behind those who “rebelled;” he said,52 “The Satanic chaos is still going on…Even within the Lord's recovery, we have experienced this chaos. Beginning in 1987 some among us rebelled against the recovery. Because of this rebellion, there are some divisions existing in the US.”

b. Has the “local ground” brought God’s abundant blessing?

“If you want the fullest blessing …you must come to the local churches,” proclaims W. Lee.53 He argues,54 negatively that “every person who has left the ground…of the church has lost the Lord's blessing,” and, positively, that, “the Lord's blessing has been a vindication to us.” W. Lee promised if the local churches55 practiced his “high peak of the divine revelation,” this would usher in “a new revival—the highest revival, and probably the last revival before the Lord's coming back.” But what is the evidence of God’s blessing, or of revival? Most LSM-adherents don’t need evidence; their evaluation is based entirely on their subjective feelings. Objective observers, however, expect proof in terms of verifiable data. Let’s look at data from the Lord’s Recovery’s 50+ years in the US. Around 2005 LSM reported that,56 “Today there are nearly 300 local churches across the United States, with a combined membership of almost 25,000.” This implies the average local church has under 100 members—hardly something to boast about. Moreover those 300 US LSM churches represent a mere 0.06% of all US congregations. In 2009 Christianity Today reported,57 “The local churches claim more than 30,000 U.S. adherents.” There are 150 Million US Christians, so LSM-adherents represent a mere 0.02% or one-in-5,000 US Christians. That’s a “drop in the bucket;” it’s very little to show for the Recovery’s 50+ years in the US. In summary there’s little objective evidence to back up LSM’s claims of God’s abundant blessing. LSM-adherents are left with the “fall-back position,” consoling themselves that they’re the “faithful remnant fulfilling God’s eternal purpose,” while maintaining that “numbers don’t really matter.”

8. Non-LSM Local Churches in the Great Lakes Area

Another category of local churches emerged after LSM’s latest turmoil in 2006/7--non-LSM churches in the Great Lakes Area (GLA) of North America. How are they faring? On one hand they’ve severed ties with LSM’s “blended brothers;” they don’t attend LSM’s “seven annual feasts” or use LSM’s HWMR and they no longer “prophesy” (recite) W. Lee’s messages in their gatherings. But, for many scattered GLA churches, little has changed. Witness Lee’s name may not be mentioned; LSM’s Recovery Version footnotes are seldom read as defining statements. Nevertheless, the “default setting” for Bible teaching and interpretation remains Witness Lee’s teachings. In most places, local church practices remain largely unchanged, except regional activities have replaced LSM’s global gatherings. Most GLA non-LSM local churches can be characterized as “LSM lite.”

A burst of GLA creative activity following the 2006/7 “turmoil,” called for a thorough re-examination of Local Church teachings and practices, in the light of Scripture.58 But it soon withered under the weight of benign neglect. As a result, 6-years after parting ways with LSM, the GLA churches have yet to provide a statement of their theological differences with LSM. Was it just a personality contest--“we refer Titus Chu to LSM’s ‘blended brothers’”? Or a drive for regional autonomy—“we reject LSM’s leadership; we’ll do it ourselves”? Recently there’s a move in the GLA to restore traditional “local church values” in the name of “preserving our distinct identity,” “not losing our vision & commitment,” and “honoring our unique heritage.” Extra-biblical teachings could be endorsed under such labels, even though they fail to match the “gold standard” of Scripture. Phrases like “our distinct identity” and “our heritage & commitment” can mask mere local church tradition. Yet, the local churches have long proclaimed59 “we don’t follow human tradition; we follow the Bible.” One candidate for this category is LSM’s “local ground” doctrine; already we’ve heard claims “it’s not an essential truth, but it’s an ‘essential practice’.” Yet, evangelical believers acknowledge only two ‘essential practices’ (ordinances)—baptism and Lord’s Table--both were ordained by the Lord (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19). Neither the Lord Jesus, nor the New Testament prescribes the “local ground.” Putting the local ground on par with baptism and the Lord’s Table elevates it beyond Scripture; it repeats LSM’s error of making the local ground into a sacrament.

A forthcoming US Midwest conference60 promises to address this topic. It remains to be seen, however, if the doctrine will merely be “tweaked,” with minor “cosmetic surgery”—e.g. “let’s not say all other Christians are not on the local ground (even though we still believe it).” To seriously grapple with this topic the major points enumerated here ought to be addressed, employing Watchman Nee’s (oft-quoted, seldom applied) dictum, “the Bible is our only standard.” Plus long-standing attitudes of sectarianism and elitism should be addressed. Minor “cosmetic surgery” won’t accomplish much; more radical measures, akin to a major operation, are required. Moreover, LSM’s “local ground” doctrine is a “tangled web of interwoven elements,” so individual aspects can’t simply be accepted or rejected independently.

In conclusion we inquire: Is the mission to preserve “our unique identity” misguided? It assumes the local church ought to differ significantly from other Christian congregations. We ask: what’s wrong with being a “normal Christian church” among other “normal Christian churches” in our city or community? Doesn’t history show that the drive for a “distinct identity” is a road littered with “cults,” sects or other aberrant expressions of the Christian faith. Haven’t we ventured down that road before? By seeking to re-create our former local church-life--in the name of “preserving our distinct identity” or “maintaining our particular vision and commitment”--don’t we risk repeating our sad history? Haven’t we “been there, done that” before?

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
April, 2013

NOTES:

As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts.

1. Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears, Vintage Church, p. 112. Roman Catholics recognize 7 sacraments—Infant Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion (“eucharist”), Confession, Marriage, Holy Orders, & the Anointing of the Sick ("extreme unction").

2. Thomas P. Rausch, Catholics & Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future? p. 111

3. Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, p. 48

4. ANTHONY R. CROSS, DISPELLING THE MYTH OF ENGLISH BAPTIST BAPTISMAL SACRAMENTALISM, Baptist Quarterly, pp. 367-391, emphasis added

5. ANTHONY R. CROSS, DISPELLING THE MYTH OF ENGLISH BAPTIST BAPTISMAL SACRAMENTALISM, Baptist Quarterly, pp. 367-391, emphasis added

6. W. Lee, Christ & the Church Revealed & Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 14, Section 4

7. W. Lee, Taking Christ as Our Person for the Church Life, Chapter 14, Section 1. LSM-President, Benson Philips asserts that, “Outside of the recovery it is almost impossible…to become...fully constituted with Christ.” The quote, in context, reads: “‘Today no other group of people on this earth have joined themselves together purposely to give the Lord a way to realize His goal. Of course merely being in the recovery is not a guarantee, but outside of the recovery it is almost impossible for you to become a person who is fully constituted with Christ.” [BP, The Ministry, Vol. 8, No. 7, (July/Aug. 2004) p. 245, emphasis added] He also alleges that “away from the Lord’s recovery…[there’s] no way for…sanctification to go forward.” Again, the quote in context reads: “In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery.” (BP. The Ministry, vol. 8, No. 1, 2004, p. 189, emphasis added.) These quotes assert that spiritual benefits accrue to being in the “recovery,” on the local ground.

8. W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision & Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way, Chapter 3, Section 5 Also: Vision of the Age, Chapter 3, Section 6, emphasis added. Along the same lines W. Lee states: “Do you think that when the temple was rebuilt on the proper ground and the glory of God manifested that it was due to the spiritual situation? Had the people's condition changed? No, it had not changed. It was still the same. But because a building was erected on the proper ground, even though it was under the standard, the Shekinah glory of God was manifested. This was not because the spirituality of the people had been greatly improved. That did not bring in God's glory. It was simply due to the fact that they came back and rebuilt the temple on the proper ground. Though their situation and condition were poor, yet their standing and their ground were right. God honored the ground they took and upon which they built.” [W. Lee, Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 1] Note again W. Lee emphasizes God’s peoples’ position, not their condition as a determinant of God’s blessing. He then extrapolates this principle to the NT “church’s local ground.” He says, “Whether a church is proper does not depend on its condition but on its ground. Hence, our basis for determining whether a church is proper must be the ground. We should inquire only concerning the ground, not the condition. When determining whether a certain place is Jerusalem, we should not consider the condition of the temple. There may be temples being built in Babylon, but we must reject them because their ground is wrong. Even though the temple in Jerusalem has been completely destroyed, we still go to Jerusalem because this is where God's people should be, and this is the proper ground.” [W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chap. 17, Sect. 3, emphasis added]

9. For e.g. W. Lee states, “In both the Old Testament and New Testament, God never allowed His people to have two grounds of service, two grounds of worship. He ordained that the children of Israel worship Him in the place where He chose to put His name, His habitation (Deut. 12:5-14; 14:22-26; 16:2, 11, 15-16). They were told not to worship God “in every place that you see” (12:13).” Note he asserts that the same principle regarding the “ground” applies in both OT and NT. W. Lee continues: “If we apply this example today, God may tolerate another work for a period of time, but He will never tolerate setting up another ground for worship …A person's preaching of the gospel in school ….his laboring in the hospital also originates from the church. …God seemingly is willing to bear and permit this. But He condemns and cannot tolerate someone setting up another center of worship, another ground of service.” [W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 18, Section 1, emphasis added.]

10. “6 Brothers” 1993 Blending Conf. Messages concerning the Lord's Recovery & Our Present Need, Chapter 1, Section 15

11. W. Lee, Brief Presentation of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 19

12. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 7, emphasis added

13. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 7

14. Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears, Vintage Church, p. 112

15. LSM, Crystallization-Study Outlines—Building of God, Chapter 1, Section 7

16. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 10

17. LSM, Crucial Contents of God's NT Ministry, Training Outlines, Chapter 1, Section 11

18. LSM, Lesson Book, Level 5: The Church—Vision & Building Up of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 5

19. W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus & Philemon, Chapter 21, Section 3, emphasis added

20. Titus 1:5, RcV, note 1, emphasis added. The footnote in its entirety read: “ These words, [Titus 1:5] compared with every church in Acts 14:23, indicate not only that the jurisdiction of a local church is the city in which it is located but also that in one city there should be only one church. The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city in which that church is located. Such a unique presbytery in a city preserves the unique oneness of the Body of Christ from damage. One city should have only one church with one presbytery. This practice is illustrated, beyond any question or doubt, by the clear pattern in the New Testament (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11) and is an absolute prerequisite for the maintaining of proper order in a local church. Because of this, the first thing the apostle charged Titus to do in setting things in order was to appoint elders in every city.” It asserts 3 propositions: [1] “the jurisdiction of a local church is the city”—the physical boundary of the church [2] In “one city there should be only one church”—one city, one church & [3] The “eldership of a local church should cover the entire city.”

21. LSM, Crucial Contents of God's NT Ministry, Training Outlines, Chapter 1, Section 11

22. W. Lee, Importance of Living Christ by Walking According to the Spirit, Chapter 5, Section 2, emphasis added

23. The Beliefs & Practices of the Local Churches, “Standing,” Point #4.

24. RK, The Ministry, vol. 8, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 12-13

25. W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 18, Section 1, emphasis added

26. LSM, Crucial Contents of God's NT Ministry, Training Outlines, Chapter 1, Section 11

27. W. Lee, The Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation and the Divine Economy for the New Creation, chap. 5

28. W. Lee, Testimony & Ground of the Church, Chapter 15, Section 9

29. “6 Brothers” 1993 Blending Conf. Messages concerning the Lord's Recovery & Our Present Need, Chap., 1, Section 15

30. W. Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 15, Section 3

31. The assertion, “the name “Witness Lee” is mentioned more frequently than the Lord Jesus’ name,” applies to some messages given by LSM’s (so-called) “blended brothers”

32. W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4

33. W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4

34. MC, The Ministry, v. 7, no. 6, Aug. 2003, p. 196, emphasis added. Along the same lines W. Lee said, “In the recovery today there are over 1200 churches around the globe, yet we all are one Body. If we consider ourselves as individual churches or as individual believers, we are through. We should consider ourselves as one Body.” (W. Lee, The Issue of the Dispensing of the Processed Trinity and the Transmitting of the Transcending Christ, chap. 6) W. Lee’s statement “there are over 1200 churches around the globe, yet we all are one Body,” equates the 1200 local churches with Christ’s Body.

35. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 7

36. BP, The Ministry, Vol. 9, No. 3, March. 2005, p. 121, emphasis added

37. W. Lee, Speciality, Generality, & Practicality of the Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3

38. W. Lee says, “Suppose a local church stresses the oneness, the unity. It stresses one city, one church all the time. one city, one church even becomes the church's slogan. As a result, some of the saints become dissenting, even undermining the church by going from member to member and saying, ‘This is really too much. The church here is a one city, one church sect. It is a local church sect.’ If this were the case, Romans 16:17 [“watch out for those who cause divisions…contrary to the doctrine that you’ve been taught; avoid (shun) them.”] has to be applied to the dissenting saints. This is the same in principle as with our Christian faith when we say that the Bible is God's Word, divinely inspired word by word. Regardless of how much we say this, it does not mean that we over-emphasize it. Day by day we may say this; yet, still we are not over-emphasizing it because this is something specific in our Christian faith. But if someone says, ‘Only say the word of the Bible is inspired by God. Do not emphasize word by word. Just take the Bible in a general way. The Bible is good, but probably some of the verses, at least some of the words, are not inspired by God. Some are only spoken by the writers themselves.’ In such a case we must apply Romans 16:17.” (W. Lee, Speciality, Generality, & Practicality of the Church Life, Chapter 4, Section 2)

39. This paragraph and the next summarize material I’ve presented in a previous piece: “JERUSALEM & ROME—CHURCHES ON THE LOCAL GROUND?” It’s available on the Internet.

40. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 7, emphasis added. For e.g. W. Lee states” “In both the OT and NT, God never allowed His people to have two grounds of service, two grounds of worship. He ordained that the children of Israel worship Him in the place where He chose to put His name, His habitation (Deut. 12:5-14; 14:22-26; 16:2, 11, 15-16). They were told not to worship God “in every place that you see” (12:13).” Note he asserts that the same principle regarding the “ground” applies in both the OT and the NT. W. Lee continues: “If we apply this example today, God may tolerate another work for a period of time, but He will never tolerate setting up another ground for worship …A person's preaching of the gospel in school ….his laboring in the hospital also originates from the church. …God seemingly is willing to bear and permit this. But He condemns and cannot tolerate someone setting up another center of worship, another ground of service.” [W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 18, Section 1, emphasis added.]

41. Dorothy Lee, WORSHIP IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH…
42. Andrew T. Lincoln, Gospel according to St. John, pp. 177-78
43. Andrew T. Lincoln, Gospel according to St. John, p. 144
44. W. Lee Life-Study of Deuteronomy, Chapter 11, Section 2
45. W. Lee, Life-Study of Deuteronomy, Chapter 11, Section 2, emphasis added
46. W. Lee, Life-Study of Deuteronomy, Chapter 11, Section 2
47. W. Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 16, Section 4
48. W. Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation and the Divine Economy for the New Creation, Chapter 2, Section 3
49. W. Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation and the Divine Economy for the New Creation, chap. 2, Irving, Texas on May 23-25, 1992, emphasis added
50. Witness Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation and the Divine Economy for the New Creation, chap. 2, Irving, Texas on May 23-25, 1992
51. [blank]
52. W. Lee, Satanic Chaos in the Old Creation and the Divine Economy for the New Creation, Chapter 3, Section 7
53. W. Lee, Christ & the Church Revealed & Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 14, Section 4
54. W. Lee, Taking Christ as Our Person for the Church Life, Chapter 14, Section 1

55. W. Lee, Living a Life According to the High Peak of God's Revelation, Chapter 5, Section 3. In the same message he also says, “If we practice what we have heard, spontaneously a model will be built up. This model will be the greatest revival in the history of the church. I believe that this revival will bring the Lord back.” [W. Lee, Living…]

56. LSM & The Local Church: Background Information, Description of The Local Church & LSM on contendingforthefaith.com

57. Collin Hansen “Cult Watchers Reconsider: Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse 'local churches’.” Christianity Today, Jan. (Web-only), 2009, vol. 53, posted 1/26/2009

58. Reflected in the “Concerned Brothers’” website concernedbrothers.com. At a certain date content was inexplicably frozen.

59. Take, for example, W. Lee’s statement that “One principle we should follow is that of testing everything with the Bible. We should care only for God's direct revelation in the holy Word, not for anything that is according to the tradition of men. We need not accept anything inherited from men as a tradition if it does not correspond to the divine revelation in the Bible. Today's Roman Catholics are bound by their traditions…Although [certain] practices of this kind are not according to the Bible, Catholics follow them because of tradition.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Colossians, Chapter 21, Section 2, emphasis add] Protestants (unlike Catholics) don’t place “tradition” on par with Scripture. We ask: Are the local churches going to place “local church tradition” on par with Scripture?

60. A “mini-conference” in Cleveland Ohio, was announced for the weekend of April 6-7, 2013. The announcement says, “All gatherings and meetings for the conference will be at 3170 Warren Rd, Cleveland Ohio 44111. This time will include fellowship and ministry by various serving brothers from the area concerning the scriptural revelation of a church in a city, meeting on the ground of oneness. We feel burdened concerning this matter which is related to our vision and commitment.” [Emphasis added] We note the topic relates to “the church in a city, meeting on the ground of oneness,” plus the assertion “this matter…is related to our vision & commitment.”