Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I started this thread with the upcoming conference in mind on the “ground of the church”, which is a term first used by Watchman Nee.

Many of us used to think that here Nee had uncovered the "Holy Grail," the missing link, the long lost truth, the underlying reason why the body of Christ had become a "dismal failure, hopelessly divided, totally unable to fulfill God's eternal purpose," or other equally serious sounding spiritual terminology. But here Steve Isitt points to the obvious -- the "ground of the church," the foundational basis for all Recovery exclusivism and vision, was a term first used by Watchman Nee.

With such all-encompassing Biblical importance, this phrase just begs the question -- why did the Bible never use this term? Why in the world is it absent from scripture? How could the "ground of the church" be so important that the New Testament completely missed out on it? No wonder the rest of the body of Christ is so "hopelessly degraded," as WN and WL ingrained into us. How could they possibly be expected to "see" something that was not even there?

The Bible tells us plainly that Christ is the foundation of the church (I Cor 3.11) and no one can lay another. The song reinforces this, "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord." Watchman Nee, however, felt that this was inadequate and decided to add something to the Biblical record. He surmised that this foundation needed a "proper site," aka the "ground of the church." For over 1900 years the church had never had this "site," and it sorely needed to be "recovered." This was to become the long lost secret ingredient needed to accomplish God's plan, His economy.

70 years after Nee's original invention, we now have the benefit of hindsight to ascertain the fruit of this new teaching. Instead of bringing oneness, the Recovery is hopelessly divided, quarantining whole regions and countries full of loyal members. Instead of bringing blessing, their numbers are dwindling, marginally replenished by subsequent generations. Instead of impacting the entire body of Christ with high peak truths, the Recovery is known for little more than being the most litigious group of Christians in history.

[OBW]

I just scanned through the whole of Nee's booklet that is the subject of this thread.

If there was ever a writing that had so little to support it, this was among them. In the online ministry books it takes 9 "sections" to get through the whole thing. Not too much. Until you arrive at the very last section, there is virtually no scripture other than Ezekiel 44, and there only really two or three verses. And even those are hardly truly mentioned. Even when he does mention them, he treats them as if they are talking about something that is not there. Mostly that the most important thing is ministering to the Lord. He begins the book by saying this. He says that it is so over and over.

Then quite some way into the thing, finally comes this story of reading through it with the older woman (Barber?). Somehow this little mention in Ezekiel is driving some revelation of the primacy of "ministering to the Lord" over anything else. It is so central to Nee that any kind of even good Christian work is not hardly relevant. We should be all about ministering to the Lord, then eventually a little bit to people (the house).

There is never a basis given for this insistence on its primacy. He just says it is so. Over and over for many paragraphs.

And when I say there are no other verses, it is essentially true. He mentions one verse in Isaiah in about the middle, but it does not have any bearing on his assertion that "ministering to the Lord" is the central and primary thing to do, exclusive of other ministering.

In the last couple of sections, he does finally mention a little more. And even that is mostly in the last section. The first part is in Hebrews, related to "outside the court." I really don't see the point of that portion relative to what he is trying to say.

Then he comes Luke 17:7-10 which he insists is about God having his servants (us) serve him his dinner before we get to eat ours. In context, this is a difficult position to support. It is immediately following an assertion that our faith can tell a tree to be replanted in the sea. Reading these next verses as relating, without reference to God insisting on us doing our work, then coming in and preparing his meal and serving him before we eat is based upon something not actually found in the passage. And since he makes no effort to explain how he came up with it, I find that it is virtually without support and can therefore be rejected.

On the whole, the ink (and now electrons) used for this booklet are proof that men can say a lot of nothing and people will buy it because of their opinion of who said it. If the opinion is missing, then there needs to be a foundation for what is said. So far, I find no such foundation. It is a lot of opinion based on nothing but that opinion. The claimed scripture references are of no benefit in figuring it out — unless you accept anything that Nee says because he says it.

Then who needs scripture?

[OBW]

Now I know that someone is going to say "there goes that OBW again, dissing Lee and Nee."

And it really is getting that way. But it is not because I don't like them. It is because when I read their works without first assuming that they are correct because I already believe they are, it doesn't stack up.

Read the whole booklet in the Online Ministry Books. Note that Nee says what he says over and over. He just starts in with the assertion that his conclusion is simply true. He never really supports it other than with vague reference to this passage in Ezekiel many paragraphs into the booklet. By then you are either fully on board and need no encouragement or you have quit reading.

But if you start from the premise that everything that sounds lofty or spiritual is not necessarily so, but needs sound reason and support in scripture, then no matter how lofty the writing, it is nothing until it is given a foundation in scripture.

What I find in this little booklet is an effort to assert that God is first seeking sacrifice, then obedience. That despite the scripture's assertions to the contrary.

Now that Steve wants to turn our attention to the "ground of the church," we should be ready to show how that little bit of fantasy is not based on scripture, but on opinion from a few scriptures at the expense of simply ignoring others. Why did we let them get away with it before? Because we were convinced that if Nee and Lee said it, it was right even if it was wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then he comes Luke 17:7-10 which he insists is about God having his servants (us) serve him his dinner before we get to eat ours. In context, this is a difficult position to support. It is immediately following an assertion that our faith can tell a tree to be replanted in the sea. Reading these next verses as relating, without reference to God insisting on us doing our work, then coming in and preparing his meal and serving him before we eat is based upon something not actually found in the passage. And since he makes no effort to explain how he came up with it, I find that it is virtually without support and can therefore be rejected.

Hmmm. I have to say if Luke 17:7-10 isn't about us serving the Lord "dinner" first, then what is it about? You might say that it is more generally about the attitude of a servant, that his master's wishes come first and that the master is not obligated to thank his servant. Yes, but that's precisely what "feeding" the Lord before ourselves means. It's metaphorical. But Nee means it metaphorically, too. It means our attitude should be one of a servant not expecting courtesies from his master.

The fact that 7-10 follows verses about faith in no way require that that 7-10 be about the same subject. Passages containing the Lord Jesus' teachings often make abrupt changes of direction.

I think your rejection of 7-10 as instructions about serving the Lord before ourselves is more arbitrary than Nee's usage of it might be. It's another illustration of your hyper-skepticism.

Still love you though, bro'.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm. I have to say if Luke 17:7-10 isn't about us serving the Lord "dinner" first, then what is it about? You might say that it is more generally about the attitude of a servant, that his master's wishes come first and that the master is not obligated to thank his servant. Yes, but that's precisely what "feeding" the Lord before ourselves means. It's metaphorical. But Nee means it metaphorically, too. It means our attitude should be one of a servant not expecting courtesies from his master.

The fact that 7-10 follows verses about faith in no way require that that 7-10 be about the same subject. Passages containing the Lord Jesus' teachings often make abrupt changes of direction.

I think your rejection of 7-10 as instructions about serving the Lord before ourselves is more arbitrary than Nee's usage of it might be. It's another illustration of your hyper-skepticism.

Still love you though, bro'.

Even if you say it does mean that it is literally concerning God demanding us to remain in our position as servants, it does not also suggest that there is something that is service to the Lord and something else that is not. If that is the analysis, it would be evident that our entire life is service to the Lord. Therefore no basis for differentiating service in the field planting, plowing and reaping v cooking and serving dinner.

The main thing is that this passage does not support some unique ministry "to the Lord" that is separate from the "service to the house" as Nee has phrased it. Instead, it defines the whole of our service as one continuous thing. In Ezekiel, the service in the outer court was not for the benefit of the priests/Levites. It was part of a God-ordained necessity for the covering of the sins of the people. Surely there was a difference in serving out with the people and within the inner courts. But it was all service.

And if Luke 17 is to shed some light on it, I find that the call to come in and serve dinner came after everything else, not before it.

So the insistence upon coming first is contradicted by the very scripture that Nee used. The day was in service to the master. The end of the service outside was followed by service inside. Then the servant got some time to himself (and was probably still on call).

Reminds me of Downton Abby. Everyone was busy doing all kinds of things. A few got to actually serve in the owners' chambers. But without the activities still continuing "downstairs," there would be no meal upstairs in the dining hall.

And having read where Nee is said to have laid out his outline of what his ministry was about, it is clear that he considered his ministry very special. He basically left things like the gospel to others. He was all about "high things" to borrow more recent terminology of his successor. He had no heart to serve in the outer court with sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. He was all about the lofty things of a separated life.

And I got this from what appears to be gleaned from Lee's own biography of Nee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Even if you say it does mean that it is literally concerning God demanding us to remain in our position as servants, it does not also suggest that there is something that is service to the Lord and something else that is not.

Fair enough. But that's not what you said. You said that the idea that Luke 17:7-10 is about us serving the Master dinner before we have dinner is a "difficult postion to support," when in fact that's exactly what it's about.

Then he comes Luke 17:7-10 which he insists is about God having his servants (us) serve him his dinner before we get to eat ours. In context, this is a difficult position to support. It is immediately following an assertion that our faith can tell a tree to be replanted in the sea. Reading these next verses as relating, without reference to God insisting on us doing our work, then coming in and preparing his meal and serving him before we eat is based upon something not actually found in the passage. And since he makes no effort to explain how he came up with it, I find that it is virtually without support and can therefore be rejected.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Fair enough. But that's not what you said. You said that the idea that Luke 17:7-10 is about us serving the Master dinner before we have dinner is a "difficult position to support," when in fact that's exactly what it's about.

You are correct. It is what I said.

But whether I was right before (probably not) or you are right now (possibly) it really doesn't change the nature of the lack of support for Nee's assertions about it.

And while the example is about serving the master dinner before we eat our own, I don't think that the meaning is that we have to serve the master dinner before we get our own. It is that the master has the right to order it to be that way. And it is the servant's duty to obey.

It is actually phrased as "suppose any one of you has a servant . . . " It is probably reasonable to assume that the intent is to refer back to God as the one with the servant. But it doesn't necessarily have to be so to make the point it seems to actually make.

The point I see in it is that a servant is a servant full time. Just because they plowed for the day, service is not over when the sun gets too low. It continues on (and on and on). The master determines when the servant can take time for himself. Of course a righteous master does not demand all of the time and no provision to eat or sleep. But he does set the schedule for it.

And no matter who is the master in these verses, there is nothing about them that makes the cooking of the dinner special or primary. It is all part of the tasks assigned.

And in the same way, we are servants full-time. And if not, it is due to disobedience. Our only true choice in the matter is whether to obey or to disobey. Plow or sleep. Cook the master's dinner or eat our own. Do the tasks assigned or go into town for a drink at the local pub to complain about our task-master.

I'm sure that there was something going on inside me that saw there was no true support for Nee, but wanted to make it more severe than it actually was. I didn't go about that willfully, but nevertheless I did it.

[OBW]

Further to my last post, if it is true that the point is about a master having a servant and therefore having authority over him/her, then the portion actually does link back somewhat to the verse before talking about ordering the tree to be uprooted and replanted in the sea. If we have been given authority, then we have the authority to make it so. As much with the tree as with a servant.

Now someone will assert that it must not be so because they haven't seen any trees uprooted and replanted in the sea recently.

Or they will go out determined to see it happen.