An Intro and a Few Questions

VolkHenry · 01-09-2021, 12:57 PM

Hello,

I've been following the ministries of brother Nee and Lee for well over 13 years or so now. However, I've never been associated with the LC, as there's never been any assemblies near where I've lived. I was raised in the Pentecostal movement and, while I'm no longer Pentecostal per say, I'm still a Wesleyan-Arminian evangelical. Brother Nee's writings were/are very popular in the circles I grew up in, and he's still popular among revivalist Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicals.

I've observed and followed the tensions within the LC now for roughly 8-9 years now. At one time, I would've loved to have been part of an WL-LC assembly. However, now my feelings are changed. I don't doubt that there are healthy churches in the LC, but it seems like (institutional) problems abound—of course, every Christian group has its own problems. No church is perfect. It seems to me that the issues in the LC stem from a cult of personality around Lee, and contradictions in the in the LC's ecclesiology as it's understood vs how it's lived out.

Concerning this latter point, it's make a lot of sense to me why Brother Nee developed his ecclesiology in manner he did, given his historical context. In that period of China's history, the mission field was ripe for God's work. Brothers and sisters from every denomination and missionary society were in the country to evangelize the Chinese people. Innevitably, this led to conflicts between ministries within differing denominations and their converts. It seems to me that Brother Nee's doctrine of "locality" circumvented these organizational differences and allowed believers to unite around what he saw was the biblical principle. Likewise, his promotion of lay eldership vs an ordained pastorate, seems to have been influenced by this same context. Lee further elaborated on Nee's ideas, and created a denominational model based on these two ideas. Nee's model seemed to have more of an organic character, whereas Lee's is highly institutional. At least, this is what I see as an outsider.

I bring up these points, because as an outsider, I have some questions about LC ecclesiology. 1.) It seems as though the LC has become merely another institutionalized denomination among others. The primary dividing ground for denominational fellowship is the doctrine of locality. As I understand the model, each local church is (supposedly) autonomous and they are solely united by maintaining fellowship with one another (as in Baptist ecclesiology). However, it appears the leadership of the "Blended Brothers" and LSM have become a centralized authority for the LC, replacing the autonomous nature of the assemblies. (As I understand it, LSM's involvement is more direct than let's say the Southern Baptist Convention, where the leaders only have authority over mission boards and denominational organizations, not over the churches themselves). 2.) Elders in the LC are actually pastors (in function, not in name), ironically despite WN and WL's opposition to pastoral model. 3.) Aside the doctrine of "locality," the LC essentially holds to a Baptist ecclesiology with it's insistence on the autonomy of the local church and plural eldership.

Would you agree with this assessment? Where am I correct, where am I incorrect? Having not actually been in the LC, I would love to get an insider's opinion on my take.

Also, after realizing some of the more problematic aspects of Lee's teaching (more so, his practice), I have really come to really appreciate the work and ministry of Brother Stephen Kaung. His doctrine and spirit seem to be much more in line with Brother Nee. Are there assemblies associated with Brother Kaung? If so, how to they differ from WL's local churches?

I am prayerfully considering planting a small assembly where I live (once the pandemic subsides), where believers can come together in a simple way. While I support LMS by buying the occasional book—I would not want to be in this kind of fellowship with them—based on what I've read. Just from listening to messages over the years, I have a feeling that any assemblies in fellowship with Brother Kaung would be much healthier.

01-09-2021, 12:57 PM	#1
VolkHenry Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Posts: 6	An Intro and a Few Questions Hello, I've been following the ministries of brother Nee and Lee for well over 13 years or so now. However, I've never been associated with the LC, as there's never been any assemblies near where I've lived. I was raised in the Pentecostal movement and, while I'm no longer Pentecostal per say, I'm still a Wesleyan-Arminian evangelical. Brother Nee's writings were/are very popular in the circles I grew up in, and he's still popular among revivalist Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicals. I've observed and followed the tensions within the LC now for roughly 8-9 years now. At one time, I would've loved to have been part of an WL-LC assembly. However, now my feelings are changed. I don't doubt that there are healthy churches in the LC, but it seems like (institutional) problems abound—of course, every Christian group has its own problems. No church is perfect. It seems to me that the issues in the LC stem from a cult of personality around Lee, and contradictions in the in the LC's ecclesiology as it's understood vs how it's lived out. Concerning this latter point, it's make a lot of sense to me why Brother Nee developed his ecclesiology in manner he did, given his historical context. In that period of China's history, the mission field was ripe for God's work. Brothers and sisters from every denomination and missionary society were in the country to evangelize the Chinese people. Innevitably, this led to conflicts between ministries within differing denominations and their converts. It seems to me that Brother Nee's doctrine of "locality" circumvented these organizational differences and allowed believers to unite around what he saw was the biblical principle. Likewise, his promotion of lay eldership vs an ordained pastorate, seems to have been influenced by this same context. Lee further elaborated on Nee's ideas, and created a denominational model based on these two ideas. Nee's model seemed to have more of an organic character, whereas Lee's is highly institutional. At least, this is what I see as an outsider. I bring up these points, because as an outsider, I have some questions about LC ecclesiology. 1.) It seems as though the LC has become merely another institutionalized denomination among others. The primary dividing ground for denominational fellowship is the doctrine of locality. As I understand the model, each local church is (supposedly) autonomous and they are solely united by maintaining fellowship with one another (as in Baptist ecclesiology). However, it appears the leadership of the "Blended Brothers" and LSM have become a centralized authority for the LC, replacing the autonomous nature of the assemblies. (As I understand it, LSM's involvement is more direct than let's say the Southern Baptist Convention, where the leaders only have authority over mission boards and denominational organizations, not over the churches themselves). 2.) Elders in the LC are actually pastors (in function, not in name), ironically despite WN and WL's opposition to pastoral model. 3.) Aside the doctrine of "locality," the LC essentially holds to a Baptist ecclesiology with it's insistence on the autonomy of the local church and plural eldership. Would you agree with this assessment? Where am I correct, where am I incorrect? Having not actually been in the LC, I would love to get an insider's opinion on my take. Also, after realizing some of the more problematic aspects of Lee's teaching (more so, his practice), I have really come to really appreciate the work and ministry of Brother Stephen Kaung. His doctrine and spirit seem to be much more in line with Brother Nee. Are there assemblies associated with Brother Kaung? If so, how to they differ from WL's local churches? I am prayerfully considering planting a small assembly where I live (once the pandemic subsides), where believers can come together in a simple way. While I support LMS by buying the occasional book—I would not want to be in this kind of fellowship with them—based on what I've read. Just from listening to messages over the years, I have a feeling that any assemblies in fellowship with Brother Kaung would be much healthier.