BREAKING Watchman Nee and Witness Lee aren't in the Bible

[Zezima]

This post will discuss the most recent article on Shepherding Words, a website deployed by Living Stream ministry to address "rumors that have arisen over the years regarding the local churches"

In this article, the Lord's Recovery points out that the doctrine of “One City One Church is a basic principle by which the Lord's recovery is based”. Something that the "Lord's Recovery has practiced since it began in China" (I thought the Recovery has been going on for hundreds of years, that's a different topic though).

To justify this doctrine and expand on what the boundary of a “city” is, the article turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails. In fact, they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine.

From the article:

- "Brother Nee studied this matter thoroughly and gave a series of messages on “The Assembly Life.” There he said:"
- "Brother Lee expressed particular concern"
- "Using the church in Taipei as an example, he (Lee) said
- "Elsewhere he (Lee) told us:"
- "Ignatius’s error is evident from Brother Lee’s careful exposition of Acts 20:
- "Brother Lee commented"
- "The Elders’ Management of the Church, Brother Lee clearly stated"
- "He (Lee) continued:"
- "Lee said in A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery:"

Why does this matter?

Well, the One City One Church doctrine states that every city should only have one church. The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city. Anyone other than churches outside their local church is degraded, and divisive.

“All the divisions and denominations will consummate in the great Babylon.- Life-study of Genesis, msg. 34: Life in Resurrection (3)”

It's a bold claim, Christians who don't attend your congregation are in fallen degraded Babylon. However, the fact that this is a bold claim doesn’t make this doctrine incorrect, I mean, Christian’s believe a man resurrected from the dead. Now this post isn't even meant to debate the legitimacy of the One City One Church Doctrine..

The interesting thing about this bold claim (One city One church), is that the Lord’s Recovery justifies it not by the Bible but by what Watchman Nee and Witness lee said. The entire article argues the nuance of the doctrine, using these two men's word as its authoritative voice.

So what?

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are not in the Bible, and did not write a single word in the Bible. Why are their words being used as authority to justify a doctrine that identifies other Christians as degraded? Why are the words of these two men being used as justification to a doctrine that claims a Lord’s Recovery church is the only true church in a city?

The Lords Recovery claims they don’t follow a man, and yet here they are using two men's words as the authoritative foundation to a doctrine.

The Bible is the only authoritative text for Christians, not the text of Living Stream Ministry.

To quote Jesus (who’s in the Bible)
“This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

In this article, the Lord's Recovery points out that the doctrine of “One City One Church is a basic principle by which the Lord's recovery is based”. Something that the "Lord's Recovery has practiced since it began in China" (I thought the Recovery has been going on for hundreds of years, that's a different topic though).

To justify this doctrine and expand on what the boundary of a “city” is, the article turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails. In fact, they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine.

Well, the One City One Church doctrine states that every city should only have one church. The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city. Anyone other than churches outside their local church is degraded, and divisive.

If Nee and Lee really believed this teaching, they would have shut down all their churches and joined the Exclusive Brethren churches since they were the first to build on this principle.

To say that Nee or Lee "recovered" this teaching on the "ground of the church" also known as "one church one city," rejects the events of church history. Darby and the Exclusive Brethren developed these onerous teachings in the late 19th century.

If you examine the facts of history hidden behind this false teaching, you will find exactly what it was used for. Both the Darby Exclusives and the Recovery leaders have always used this false teaching to legitimatize their own member churches while de-legitimatizing all others. It's a power grab, plain and simple.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To say that Nee or Lee "recovered" this teaching on the "ground of the church" also known as "one church one city," rejects the events of church history. Darby and the Exclusive Brethren developed these onerous teachings in the late 19th century.

If you examine the facts of history hidden behind this false teaching, you will find exactly what it was used for. Both the Darby Exclusives and the Recovery leaders have always used this false teaching to legitimatize their own member churches while de-legitimatizing all others. It's a power grab, plain and simple.

Yes, while the doctrine itself is worth debating, I want this thread to highlight the fact they used Nee & Lee’s words as the authority. They didn’t, and often don’t use the Bible.

[Trapped]

Zezima,

Excellent points in your OP. They truly follow the doctrines of men. It's all "brother Lee said", "brother Lee said," and even, ironically, "brother Lee said not to say brother Lee said", hahaha....

They don't even realize their own words give them away. They say things like, "This has been our practice since brother Lee started it X years ago...." Ah, so you have your own "traditions of men" that you hold to with an iron fist, just like Jesus pinned the Pharisees about, got it!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Yes, while the doctrine itself is worth debating, I want this thread to highlight the fact they used Nee & Lee’s words as the authority. They didn’t, and often don’t use the Bible.

When the Blendeds came into the Midwest to divide all the LC’s, they had absolutely no justification based on the scriptures. The basis for their destructive work was the teachings of WL and the numerous comments WL had made about TC behind closed doors. This has been discussed at length.

[SpeakersCorner]

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

I agree here. It's not that the Bible shows that "there should be one church in each city", rather, it shows that "there IS one church in each city".

Where the Lord's Recovery goes awry is that they claim "and we are it"!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

Greetings Apollo. Perhaps I was there. We heard so much crazy over the years, the gape was mostly gone.

Then Mr. Corner, would you agree with the Orthodox Church teaching of one church per country? It’s also a reality. From the heavens, God only sees one church per country, eh?

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Greetings Apollo … Then Mr. Corner, would you agree with the Orthodox Church teaching of one church per country? It’s also a reality. From the heavens, God only sees one church per country, eh?

Apollo?

Anyway, no, I don’t see that at all in the scripture nor could I identify a country at night from an airplane. Nations are artificial constructs, cities organic. Cities begin in Genesis and culminate in the New Jerusalem. Nations will be there but they are not the center.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Anyway, no, I don’t see that at all in the scripture nor could I identify a country at night from an airplane. Nations are artificial constructs, cities organic. Cities begin in Genesis and culminate in the New Jerusalem. Nations will be there but they are not the center.

Interesting defenses of the "ground of locality:"

• I can see cities from an airplane (but I saw all sorts of stuff when the sun was shining)
• A city's "glory and definition at night" are her lights (due to 20th century phenomenon of electricity)
• Cities are organic (no "organization" to see here folks)
• Babel under Nimrod was the first city in Genesis (remember WL's "first mention" in the Bible?)

Sorry SC just having a little fun here.

But it's really quite nice to see you again. Hope all is well.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

You’re welcome to start a thread to debate the legitimacy of this doctrine. The point of this thread is to highlight a reality of the Lord’s Recovery, bearing its ugly head in the most recent article put out by The Lord’s Recovery.

To define and justify a doctrine, the Lords Recovery turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails.

They don’t do this just once, but they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine

From the article:
Quote:
- "Brother Nee studied this matter thoroughly and gave a series of messages on “The Assembly Life.” There he said:"
- "Brother Lee expressed particular concern"
- "Using the church in Taipei as an example, he (Lee) said
- "Elsewhere he (Lee) told us:"
- "Ignatius’s error is evident from Brother Lee’s careful exposition of Acts 20:
- "Brother Lee commented"
- "The Elders’ Management of the Church, Brother Lee clearly stated"
- "He (Lee) continued:"
- "Lee said in A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery:"

This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.


Don’t you see? It doesn’t matter if the doctrine is legitimate. Their whole justification for its legitimacy is based on what men say, not the word of God. Nee & Lee are not in the Bible, They are not authors of the Bible. It’s blasphemy to point to their words as authority for doctrinal matters.

The corner stone of the church is Jesus Christ, not Witness Lee, Not Watchman Nee.

Some of you will say the Lord’s Recovery doesn’t follow a man, but it does: it’s a reality. The most recent article published by the co-workers show this reality.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Interesting defenses of the "ground of locality:"

• I can see cities from an airplane (but I saw all sorts of stuff when the sun was shining)
• A city's "glory and definition at night" are her lights (due to 20th century phenomenon of electricity)
• Cities are organic (no "organization" to see here folks)
• Babel under Nimrod was the first city in Genesis (remember WL's "first mention" in the Bible?)

Okay, I put my toes in the water. Might as well wade in to my waist.

1 & 2. The city from airplane at night analogy is strong and you know it. At night the lights come out and even in ancient times a city could be seen by its torchlights at night. The point, again, is that from the heavenly perspective the man-made boundaries are invisible. God just sees the saints in any given city.
3. Cities develop organically. I know there have been a few planned cities but the history of humanity is one of cities that just happened. The fact that men more in to "organize" them is of no import here.
4. Babel is curious. It may be that Babel, the counterpart to the New Jerusalem, a special kind of city that is in fact constructed rather than a natural development. It's a thought I'll chew on. So I'm giving you a half-point here.

The judges are telling me I won this round. You can't argue with the judges.

SC

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Zezima

You’re welcome to start a thread to debate the legitimacy of this doctrine. The point of this thread is to highlight a reality of the Lord’s Recovery, bearing its ugly head in the most recent article put out by The Lord’s Recovery.

To define and justify a doctrine, the Lords Recovery turns to what Watchman Nee & Witness lee said as the authority that dictates what this doctrine entails.

They don’t do this just once, but they do this 9 times to justify this doctrine




This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.


Don’t you see? It doesn’t matter if the doctrine is legitimate. Their whole justification for its legitimacy is based on what men say, not the word of God. Nee & Lee are not in the Bible, They are not authors of the Bible. It’s blasphemy to point to their words as authority for doctrinal matters.

The corner stone of the church is Jesus Christ, not Witness Lee, Not Watchman Nee.

Some of you will say the Lord’s Recovery doesn’t follow a man, but it does: it’s a reality. The most recent article published by the co-workers show this reality.

^^^^^^^^^^

[Ohio]

Judges Peter and Paul in their writings have yet to endorse any geographical boundaries for the oneness of the body of Christ. John’s endorsement is very weak, descriptive at best, and nothing prescriptive.

But you and I lived thru the Age of Quarantines. Look at the damage they wrought in the “cause of oneness.” Every church was divided, families too. Oneness teachings by Née and Lee were supposed to bring God all the glory. Instead they brought only shame, pain, discouragement … division. Apostle Paul says we should “mark them” who teach and do these things.

What say you?

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Judges Peter and Paul in their writings have yet to endorse any geographical boundaries for the oneness of the body of Christ. John’s endorsement is very weak, descriptive at best, and nothing prescriptive.

But you and I lived thru the Age of Quarantines. Look at the damage they wrought in the “cause of oneness.” Every church was divided, families too. Oneness teachings by Née and Lee were supposed to bring God all the glory. Instead they brought only shame, pain, discouragement … division. Apostle Paul says we should “mark them” who teach and do these things.

What say you?

Agree, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. Paul though certainly doesn’t hide the city/church connection. “Appoint elders in every city.”

I also agree about quarantines and pseudo-oneness. Me personally, I hate “oneness” (quotes necessary). Tbh, I don’t think the LSM crowd really buys it anymore.

But the value in seeing this description is we see that Christians are one even if we don’t behave like it. Just realizing this is a salvation. I’m one with the same ones who drew a line and placed me on the other side. I’m one with the Catholics who think I’m a heretic. I’m one with the Orthodox who don’t really think of me at all. We’re all children of God, we’re in one family.

But it’s a dysfunctional family. Tee hee.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Zezima,

Excellent points in your OP. They truly follow the doctrines of men. It's all "brother Lee said", "brother Lee said," and even, ironically, "brother Lee said not to say brother Lee said", hahaha....

They don't even realize their own words give them away. They say things like, "This has been our practice since brother Lee started it X years ago...." Ah, so you have your own "traditions of men" that you hold to with an iron fist, just like Jesus pinned the Pharisees about, got it!

Trapped

Exactly, it’s clear as day.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One church per city is not a prescription in the NT. It is a description of a reality. Even today, wherever there is a city, there is a single church there no matter how many different buildings with different names on the signs exist within.

Years ago when flying over the great Midwest at night I looked down and pointed out to my dear wife the city of St. Louis. Its glory and its definition at night were the lights. It was at this moment I had an epiphany/clarification on this matter of one church per city. From the heavens God only sees one.

Many, maybe most, local churchers simply saw their assemblies as that one church per city but they were wrong. Their meeting hall signs were simply were a testimony to this fact.

Once when I was visiting Pittsburgh (maybe Ohio was there that day) I spoke in the meeting introducing myself as one from "the church in ___." I said, "We have, oh, I don't know, 20,000 or so members." People gaped at me. I added, "And about 20 meeting in our building."

Some of you are calling this teaching of one church per city a false teaching but it isn't: it's reality.

Agree with SC and would add this clarification to also address Zezima's base post:

Zezima> "The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city."

Actually "no", this is a misunderstanding. Rather, they believe that they are standing on the unique ground of oneness --- that is all believers in a city make up the church in that city as all share the same life of Christ their Head." They "see" the same reality that SC describes without the aid of a flyover. If that is what they are being accused of then guilty as charged.

Zezima, concerning your primary objection about co-workers or the saints quoting senior co-workers (Bro Lee and Bro Nee) I believe that is normal and biblical. You may consider 9 references excessive but I don't consider 9. 90, or 900 references as excessive as long as those quotes and references are based on revelation and light received from the Bible.

Ephesians 4:11-12 confirms that the Lord uses men for the building of Body of Christ.

"And He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and some as teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry unto the building up of he Body of Christ"

Ephesians 4:16 shows that some men are channels of rich supply from the Head that cause each member of the Body to function according to its measure.

"Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love"

Of course, under the divine arrangement we would reference others. Not all revelation and light we receive is direct from the Lord as the above scripture shows. In the context of the scripture above both Brother Lee and Brother Nee are in the Bible - gifts to the Body and joints of rich supply.

Thanks,
Drake

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Drake

Agree with SC Zezima> "The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city."

Actually "no", this is a misunderstanding. Rather, they believe that they are standing on the unique ground of oneness --- that is all believers in a city make up the church in that city as all share the same life of Christ their Head." They "see" the same reality that SC describes without the aide of a flyover. If that is what they are being accused of then guilty as charged.

What do they believe about churches who don’t stand on the “unique ground of oneness”?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zezima, concerning your primary objection about co-workers or the saints quoting senior co-workers (Bro Lee and Bro Nee) I believe that is normal and biblical. You may consider 9 references excessive but I don't consider 9. 90, or 900 references as excessive as long as those quotes and references are based on revelation and light received from the Bible.

There’s a difference between quoting someone’s statement, and using someone’s statement as the authority to justify doctrine.

“Regarding this doctrine, witness Lee says XYZ” is not the same as “This doctrine is okay because witness said XYZ”

Doctrine comes from the Bible and should be authoritatively justified by the Bible.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by Drake

Agree with SC and would add this clarification to also address Zezima's base post:

Zezima> "The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city."

Actually "no", this is a misunderstanding. Rather, they believe that they are standing on the unique ground of oneness --- that is all believers in a city make up the church in that city as all share the same life of Christ their Head." They "see" the same reality that SC describes without the aid of a flyover. If that is what they are being accused of then guilty as charged.

The use of the term "the church in <place>" is not unique to TLR; I have heard various pastors speak about "the church in such-and-so city" to refer collectively to all the believers in all the congregations in that city. They might also refer to the Church in Texas, or the Church in America, or the American Church to similarly refer collectively to the universal Body of Christ in a particular geographic or culturally delineated area. During my time in TLR, I spent a fair bit of energy to try to explain this view of "the church is the believers in a city" to friends who asked about my church and to reinforce this view among the saints who would agree in principle but held a different view in practice. But among the saints in the LCs with a few exceptions it felt like sweeping back the tide with a broom.

Originally Posted by Zezima

What do they believe about churches who don’t stand on the “unique ground of oneness”?

The distinctive belief of the Local Churches (as I heard it articulated by an elder while we were making our exit) is that the "ground of oneness" is the unique "ground" upon which God can pour out His blessing. That is, unless a church meets with that particular stance/posture/ground/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, the Lord has no way to provide His blessing, see Psalm 133 for "proof". The key here is to understand that blessing proceeds from oneness. Oneness is the source or cause of the blessing.

So churches that don't stand on the ground of oneness are doomed to suffer all the consequences of division: lack of growth, deadness, sectarian strife, degradation, . Remember, division is the source of all the sin, idolatry, etc. You can see all of this laid out in "The Genuine Ground of Oneness". (Incidentally, reading that book and seeing all of its faulty logic and inverted causalities, is what finally released me from the death-grip of the idea of the ground of locality.)

When pressed on what the actual basis of oneness in and among the churches is (and I know there are very specific definitions of "ground", "basis", "factor", and so on regarding oneness, but I'm using the commonly understood meaning), pretty much anyone in the LCs who is being honest will admit that it's actually the use of LSM materials and the ministry of Nee and especially of Lee the provides the actual oneness. Ignoring or rejecting "The Ministry" will prevent an individual from experiencing "oneness" in a Local Church and will prevent a church from experiencing "oneness" with the other churches, as has been well-documented in this forum.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Zezima

What do they believe about churches who don’t stand on the “unique ground of oneness”?

We believe all believers are members of the universal Body of Christ and members of the church in the city in which they live because those are accomplishments of Christ the Head.

We also believe that if believers are meeting in division/denominations that they are not standing on the ground of oneness but on a different ground.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Zezima

There’s a difference between quoting someone’s statement, and using someone’s statement as the authority to justify doctrine.

“Regarding this doctrine, witness Lee says XYZ” is not the same as “This doctrine is okay because witness said XYZ”

Doctrine comes from the Bible and should be authoritatively justified by the Bible.

Absolutely. The Bible is the sole source and basis for revelation, teaching, doctrine, practices, etc.

The Bible (Ephesians 4 verses quoted below) shows that each member of the Body is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ (v7). Brother's Lee and Nee had a measure, you and I have a measure, and every believer has a measure of the gift of Christ. Not all are the seeing or the hearing so not all have the same function, yet, 1 Corinthians 12 shows us that every member and their function is essential to the functioning of the Body (Paul uses a human body by way of analogy). We recognize that God has placed gifts in the church (v28) and Brother's Lee and Nee were such gifts. In that context and in that sense they had authority as relates to their measure. Your eyes have a certain authority, your ears another, your nose another (v17). As a member that God has placed in the body as He willed each one has a certain authority according to their function.

However Zezima, I agree wholeheartedly that no one should simply say "Brother Lee or Brother Nee said zyx so it must be okay". In the local churches we have a lot of confidence in what Brother's Lee and Nee said but also need to we prove out all things according to the Bible and according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks
Drake

[Zezima]

Rather, they believe that they are standing on the unique ground of oneness

Originally Posted by Drake

We also believe that if believers are meeting in division/denominations that they are not standing on the ground of oneness but on a different ground.
Drake

Thanks for clarifying. To cement the point further, here is what Witness Lee says:

All the divisions and denominations will consummate in the great Babylon.
WITNESS LEE, LIFE-STUDY OF GENESIS,*CHAPTER 34, SECTION 6

To form a denominational church is not an insignificant matter, for this is to commit spiritual fornication.
CWWL, 1971, vol. 2, "Enjoying Christ as the Spirit and Caring for the Oneness and Increase of the Body of Christ," ch. 4: Knowing the Four Main Figures in the Bible: God, Christ, the Church, and the Local Churches

Denominational, interdenominational, and*non-denominational churches are not built on the genuine ground of oneness. The genuine ground of oneness is in the Triune God, accepting all believers, and having one church in one city, yet fellowshipping with the apostles and the other local churches. Without such a genuine ground of oneness, it is impossible to build up the church.
WITNESS LEE, LESSON BOOK, LEVEL 5: THE CHURCH—THE VISION AND BUILDING UP OF THE CHURCH,*CHAPTER 15, SECTION 5

To summarize, the Lords Recovery holds a belief called “The Unique Ground Of Oneness”. The Lords Recovery believes that they are standing on this ground, which makes them the genuine church. Any other group outside of them, is meeting on a different ground. These groups are, according to Witness Lee, committing spiritual fornication, unable to build up the church, and the great Babylon.

A simpler semantic, The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Drake

Absolutely. The Bible is the sole source and basis for Zezima, I agree wholeheartedly that no one should simply say "Brother Lee or Brother Nee said zyx so it must be okay". In the local churches we have a lot of confidence in what Brother's Lee and Nee said but also need to we prove out all things according to the Bible and according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks
Drake

Exactly, but the leaders of the Recovery think differently and this blog post by them highlights this.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Recovering

The use of the term "the church in <place>" is not unique to TLR

A lot of things in the Lords Recovery that are positioned as unique, are really not that unique to the The Lords Recovery. Read up about restorationism. I’ll make a post later about that topic, but the Recovery’s goal is nothing new despite the claims it makes.

The distinctive belief of the Local Churches (as I heard it articulated by an elder while we were making our exit) is that the "ground of oneness" is the unique "ground" upon which God can pour out His blessing. That is, unless a church meets with that particular stance/posture/ground/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, the Lord has no way to provide His blessing, see Psalm 133 for "proof". The key here is to understand that blessing proceeds from oneness. Oneness is the source or cause of the blessing.

So churches that don't stand on the ground of oneness are doomed to suffer all the consequences of division: lack of growth, deadness, sectarian strife, degradation, . Remember, division is the source of all the sin, idolatry, etc. You can see all of this laid out in "The Genuine Ground of Oneness". (Incidentally, reading that book and seeing all of its faulty logic and inverted causalities, is what finally released me from the death-grip of the idea of the ground of locality.)

When pressed on what the actual basis of oneness in and among the churches is (and I know there are very specific definitions of "ground", "basis", "factor", and so on regarding oneness, but I'm using the commonly understood meaning), pretty much anyone in the LCs who is being honest will admit that it's actually the use of LSM materials and the ministry of Nee and especially of Lee the provides the actual oneness. Ignoring or rejecting "The Ministry" will prevent an individual from experiencing "oneness" in a Local Church and will prevent a church from experiencing "oneness" with the other churches, as has been well-documented in this forum.

Thanks for this. So in short the lords recovery stands on the ground of oneness, that oneness is achieved by only subscribing to LSM material. Anyone outside of the ground of oneness is doomed to fail, and the only way to stand on the ground is to subscribe to LSM material. Round and round we go on the roller coaster of circular reasoning.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Thanks for clarifying. To cement the point further, here is what Witness Lee says:







To summarize, the Lords Recovery holds a belief called “The Unique Ground Of Oneness”. The Lords Recovery believes that they are standing on this ground, which makes them the genuine church. Any other group outside of them, is meeting on a different ground. These groups are, according to Witness Lee, committing spiritual fornication, unable to build up the church, and the great Babylon.

A simpler semantic, The Lord’s Recovery believes that their church in the city, is the only real church in that city.

Zezima,

I was with you until that last simpler semantic because that contradicts the last quote of Witness Lee's you referenced:

"The genuine ground of oneness is in the Triune God, accepting all believers, and having one church in one city, yet fellowshipping with the apostles and the other local churches."

Its not a belief that "their church in the city, is the only real church in that city".... rather, it is the fundamental belief that there is only ONE Church in a city. That is why "all believers" are part of it. There can be no "their church" if you believe there is only one church. It's a belief in the singular not a choice among the plural.

I see it this way Zezima: All denominations define themselves as a church based on something other then the oneness of the Body of Christ. We don't believe nor recognize that dividing yourselves that way is the biblical standing of the oneness of the Body of Christ in that city. All believers are in Christ so the reality is there are not many "called out assemblies" in a city. There is only one and all are in Christ.

Therefore, what is scriptural basis for denominating a group of believers since all are one in Christ? I understand that not all believers know about or even embrace the ground of oneness. Yet, I've yet to see a scriptural justification and validation for denominations. Even if one rejects the teaching of the ground of oneness on what basis do they meet in division? Where is the scriptural basis for denominations? I do not find it anywhere in the Bible.

Anyway Zezima, thanks for dialogue.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Exactly, but the leaders of the Recovery think differently and this blog post by them highlights this.

I disagree. To my observation, with an occasional exception, a basic and most fundamental exhortation by the leading brothers is for every believer to read, study, pray, contact the Lord everyday, call on His name, ask for His shining, and follow Him.

I don't say that no one ever followed in the way you describe, but its not the teaching of the leading brothers . Even if someone said to follow what Brother Lee said I never heard anyone say not to confirm the teaching in the Bible and through the shining of the Holy Spirit.

Drake

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Drake

I disagree. To my observation, with an occasional exception, a basic and most fundamental exhortation by the leading brothers is for every believer to read, study, pray, contact the Lord everyday, call on His name, ask for His shining, and follow Him.

I don't say that no one ever followed in the way you describe, but its not the teaching of the leading brothers . Even if someone said to follow what Brother Lee said I never heard anyone say not to confirm the teaching in the Bible and through the shining of the Holy Spirit.

Drake

Been a long time since I was in the LR, but I recall anyone who taught anything other than what WL preached was immediately called a "dissenter", and that we were warned to "not associate with them".

There are many doctrines that are derived from "the teaching of the Bible" that differ from each other. For example, if I were to say that I did not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of overcomers, how would that be accepted?

Just curious: have there been any new teachings that have been accepted in the 25 years since WL's passing? If not, then the LR is lukewarm, and will not survive.

So just give me one example: where in the 21st century archives of the LR, is it stated that WL got it wrong?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

We believe all believers are members of the universal Body of Christ and members of the church in the city in which they live because those are accomplishments of Christ the Head.

We also believe that if believers are meeting in division/denominations that they are not standing on the ground of oneness but on a different ground.

Drake

The member churches of LSM are all “meeting in division/denominations and not standing on the ground of oneness but on a different ground.” The evidence is overwhelming. You cannot undo these facts by claiming to have the “right name.”

When LSM came into the Midwest to divide all the LC’s, they became dividers of the one body of Christ. All the member LC’s who supported those evil actions are also standing in division. By allowing the ministry of WL and his doctrines to divide churches, they became a denomination, a divisive sect in the body of Christ.

The ground that the Recovery stands on is NOT the ONENESS of the BODY of CHRIST, but the doctrines and practices laid down by WL. The Blendeds’ behavior, actions, and teachings prove this. WL is their ground of oneness. The Recovery is built on WL. They are all “OF LEE.” They are without doubt LEE-ties.

[SpeakersCorner]

It is true that this linchpin teaching -- the ground of the church -- was confused in the minds of many saints. Very few that I know, even among the leaders (or leading ones, as they say), really could articulate the essence of this doctrine. I myself grappled with it and grappled with it. But today I see it with different eyes.

The post-NT church in church history pretty much was defined by cities. The Church in Carthage, the Church in Alexandria, the Church in Rome, the church in Constantinople each carried a unique flavor and a developing school of thought/theology. And this is as it should be. We as a species are deeply bound in our geography. It's just in the nature of man.

Protestantism, with its institution-busting divisiveness fragmented these churches, blurring their essential unity ... but the unity is still there underlying all the teachings. I'm a Midwesterner through and through and a Protestant as well. The assembly I meet in -- which has a sign out front, "A meeting place of the church in ___" -- is considerably different than the Catholic church one block from my house and the Mennonite church a block the other way but all three of us are constituted of small-town, Midwestern people who root for the same sports teams, don't turn our noses up at Chili's restaurants, and have a similar accent when we speak. We really are, those Catholics, Mennonites, and my group, in the same church. When we travel to Boston, say, and sit in on one of the meetings of a local assembly there, we all feel our Midwesterness.

So for me there really is just one church per city, fragmented, balkanized, ununified in many ways but still, one church.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zezima,

I was with you until that last simpler semantic because that contradicts the last quote of Witness Lee's you referenced:

"The genuine ground of oneness is in the Triune God, accepting all believers, and having one church in one city, yet fellowshipping with the apostles and the other local churches."

Its not a belief that "their church in the city, is the only real church in that city".... rather, it is the fundamental belief that there is only ONE Church in a city. That is why "all believers" are part of it. There can be no "their church" if you believe there is only one church. It's a belief in the singular not a choice among the plural.

I see it this way Zezima: All denominations define themselves as a church based on something other then the oneness of the Body of Christ. We don't believe nor recognize that dividing yourselves that way is the biblical standing of the oneness of the Body of Christ in that city. All believers are in Christ so the reality is there are not many "called out assemblies" in a city. There is only one and all are in Christ.

Therefore, what is scriptural basis for denominating a group of believers since all are one in Christ? I understand that not all believers know about or even embrace the ground of oneness. Yet, I've yet to see a scriptural justification and validation for denominations. Even if one rejects the teaching of the ground of oneness on what basis do they meet in division? Where is the scriptural basis for denominations? I do not find it anywhere in the Bible.

Anyway Zezima, thanks for dialogue.

Drake

Drake,
Many things are imputed to denominationalism by teachers in the Recovery that are based in generalizations, extrapolations, second-hand information and received wisdom that are simply not true or maybe even hypocritical. Take the notion that to meet in a denomination is to "meet in division", for example. In this regard, I'd assert what you do matters much more than what you say. When you loan out your building for another congregation (not in your denomination or affiliation) to use because theirs burnt down or flooded, or when you join side-by-side with other congregations to serve the homeless in your city, or when you invite pastors not in your tradition to speak at your church, when you refer to the other churches in your city with dignity and respect, when you regularly find members of other congregations in your small groups / home meetings, when you host Bible studies that are genuinely open to other Christians and their portions, when you greet other believers with joy and don't immediately start praying for them to feel discontented in their home church so they'll come join yours -- these are ways of practicing the oneness of the Body of Christ; these are exercises and displays of genuine oneness. I saw none of them in the local church meeting on the ground of oneness, and I saw all of them in a denomination that was supposedly "meeting in division."

But when you claim to have a vision of oneness and practice none of the above; when you confidently declare that it is not your way to build any "bridges to Christianity"; when you gleefully sing "Overcome degraded Christianity" believing that it doesn't include you; when a meeting goes silent and awkward because someone dared to share, say, a quote from CS Lewis instead of sticking to Witness Lee or Watchman Nee; when someone lets you know how bothered they are that you recommended a Bible Study Fellowship group to someone because that's not the "Bride-producing ministry"; when you hear the young brothers laughing "Burn Babylon Burn!" as Notre Dame Cathedral burns in the news; when leaders from 200+ congregations throughout your city gather to pray during the opening days of the pandemic but your elders don't join them because they aren't "on the proper ground" and that's "just shaking hands over the fence and everyone just goes back to their division unchanged"; when you won't take communion with other believers because you're scared to death of violating the ground of locality or somehow dividing the Body of Christ by taking communion with them; if a brother stands up during a gospel trip and confidently declares, without irony, "The thing that sets us apart from all the other Christian groups laboring here is that we have the one accord!"; if that describes your congregation, then you might just be meeting in division in practice, regardless what your claim of oneness is. And I witnessed or experienced all of these things in the Recovery.

I'm not claiming that there is no sectarian strife in the denominations; there is. But I am asserting that sectarianism is not confined to denominations, and sectarian division is not a necessary result of being in a denomination. It's not the name that causes division or produces oneness, it's the heart, the attitude, and especially the actions of a group and its leaders. Sometimes denominations have defended important Scriptural truths when others wouldn't. Denominational organization provide accountability and oversight not present in other church structures that limit abuses of power and departures from. I'm not here to promote denominations. But I have found that much of what I was told about them was wrong, and that many people repeated ideas about them without any firsthand or only limited experience.

Great many points Recovering.
The Local “church” blows a lot of smoke, but got nothing to stand on. They practice the age old methods, which is to project all of the horrible things they are doing themselves onto the people you are claiming to be better then, so when those people speak up against them they just say, “see, we told you so”.

Darkness and the evil workers of it, want absolutely nothing to do with anyone that has even a speck of light in them, because their evil will be exposed, noted and brought to light. Their teachings will be exposed, their practices will be exposed, their methods will be exposed, their god will be exposed, and it will be all over! They can’t even pray with normal Christians, because they won’t practice and do their exercises, so why would they even pray with someone that prays “soulish” prayers and has no spirit as the locals preach? I have made some observations and tests, by bringing locals to a normal Christian gathering, and when someone prayed, they have a hard time even saying Amen at the end of the prayer. Tried that many times, and it’s the same result every time. I was even told that their spirit doesn’t feel comfortable being around other Christians. That should be a big red flag to them, but they won’t even consider praying about it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Recovering

Drake,
Many things are imputed to denominationalism by teachers in the Recovery that are based in generalizations, extrapolations, second-hand information and received wisdom that are simply not true or maybe even hypocritical....[post truncated for space]

Recovering, I affirm everything you wrote here. Spot on. Accurate. Fair. I have seen it all myself too - the situation in "Christianity" as you describe, and the situation in the LC as you describe.

Trapped