Two Ways Among the Workers and the Churches by Robert Shaw

[TLFisher]

I came across these articles by Robert Shaw and saw the relevance in discussions regarding the present and the past.

[TLFisher]

The two ways in these articles is the way of Antioch and the way of Jerusalem. In Watchman Nee's active ministry among the local churches in mainland China, the way of Antioch existed until 1948. After Watchman Nee's quarantine was lifted in 1948, the way of Jerusalem was taken.
In Witness Lee's active ministry in North America, you could say the way of Antioch was taken until 1974. Beginning in 1974 the way of Jerusalem as taken. Although it was not as obvious until the New Way was implemeted.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

The two ways in these articles is the way of Antioch and the way of Jerusalem. In Watchman Nee's active ministry among the local churches in mainland China, the way of Antioch existed until 1948. After Watchman Nee's quarantine was lifted in 1948, the way of Jerusalem was taken.
In Witness Lee's active ministry in North America, you could say the way of Antioch was taken until 1974. Beginning in 1974 the way of Jerusalem as taken. Although it was not as obvious until the New Way was implemented.

The "way of Jerusalem" will always rise up to undermine the "way of Antioch" because men lust after power, and love to lord it over others. It is worth noting that those who take the "way of Jerusalem" will use the ideals of church "purity" to overtake the Lord's simple commands to "love" one another and trust him. Similar to Israel's cry for a king to rule over them, few are content with the "Son of man walking in the midst" of the many local assemblies.

Like the liberal politicians of today, those who love their centralized power and control will always use small local problems to promote their agenda and the need for ever bigger government. Witness Lee and company used every "storm" and "snow squall" to convince the LC's that a larger and more controlling ministry was in our best interests.

[UntoHim]

Terry and others,

These articles were produced in 2007, which is almost like an eternity ago, considering all that we have learned regarding Witness Lee over the past number of years, and more recently what we have learned about Watchman Nee.

There is a lot of "Local Church speak" in this article, and they do not begin to even scratch the surface when it come to addressing the major problems in the person and work of Nee and Lee, and if fact they seem to show a huge blind spot, still considering both of them genuine apostles and ministers of the one ministry of the age (albeit not using this exact terminology).

In any event, my main question/concern would be: What is Robert Shaw's understanding/view/appreciation of Nee, and especially Lee, right now? Would he endorse, much less write, such an article today? Was he not associated with Nigel Tomes at one time?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[TLFisher]

I do not know how to answer you UntoHim, in light of what has been revealed one can no tie why Nee took the Jerusalem way as did Lee. Absolute control.
When everyone must submit to your authority, there is no brothers to balance you. There is no one question you. At least not without them being deemed disobedient. This also explains the LC reliance on submission to authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I do not know how to answer you UntoHim, in light of what has been revealed one can no tie why Nee took the Jerusalem way as did Lee. Absolute control.
When everyone must submit to your authority, there is no brothers to balance you. There is no one question you. At least not without them being deemed disobedient. This also explains the LC reliance on submission to authority.

I tend to look for the simplest way to explain why both Nee and Lee made a radical change in their leadership. As you have noted, both began with the Apostle Paul's "Antioch way," which stresses autonomous local churches governed by an approved body of elders. In their latter days, both dismissed this pattern in favor of the "Jerusalem way," which maintains a strong headquarters led by a leading apostle, bishop, or elder.

As a sidebar, Ignatius, the so-called church father, was a strong supporter of the bishopric. I remember reading some of his statements, and I was shocked at how much they sounded like Nee and Lee in their final days. His views seemed to place the bishop as a deputy authority or mediator between the Head and the church of God.

My simple explanation of these radical changes is unrighteousness and its subsequent coverup. For me it explains everything.

[OBW]

I have only scanned these documents, but note that they are little more than surface observations of the manner in which Jerusalem worked where it was as a church and the way Paul went out to preach as a missionary. Other than that, on what basis do we determine that there is some "way" in these?

I note that one of them almost entirely tells stories about the way the churches started up in China. That is fine. But is not evidence of a superiority of either. Rather studying the scripture would show that there was a lot told about the life of the church in the early chapters of Acts, and the spreading of the church in the latter chapters. Since Paul went out of Antioch and the spread undertaken by Paul is what it recorded there, it gets a label "the way of Antioch." But there is evidence that other apostles went out many places in much the same way. It almost sounds like James is getting close to being alone in Jerusalem by the end of Acts.

So where does Nee/Lee go with these two ways? Do they ultimately prefer one over the other? Or do they recognize that the assembly is the assembly and has needs while the spread is the spread and has other needs, with both being needed when needed?

If so, then what is the point of labeling these two divergent activities as "ways"? Seems to infer that there is something exclusive in them and there must be one superior to the other.