The LCS Factor

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Matt

SC, let me ask you a question. Is the LC type congregation in your locality unique in anyway from other gatherings of believers in your locality? If so, what is it's uniqueness?

Matt,

You're tossing me softballs here. Is our group unique? What makes it so? Yeah, it's unique. It's unique because we don't have a name. Do you have any idea how much grief that has caused us over the years? That one fact is a huge separator from everyone else, trust me. Every single time I'm forced to identify "my church," I have to decide whether to go into paragraph mode or simply tell them, "The church in __" and hope it ends there.

All the churches who truly take no name have this "problem." So they're all unique, LSM churches, non-LSM, whatever.

My beef with the LSM on this point is that they in fact have made the "Church in __" their names. Case in point: Raleigh, NC where they became "The Local Church in Raleigh" or some such thing.

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.


SC

[Nell]

There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"?

This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal.

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Or how about the meeting hall being in one city and all the members living in the suburbs. Or a church in one city and a guy from that city being an elder in another church in another city.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SC if you don't have name for your church who to people write checks to for offerings? And which organization gives them a charitable donation receipt for their tax write off? And what name is used to buy real estate and to sue over real estate? Or are all those places left blank on the checks, receipts, contracts, court documents, etc?

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by djohnson

SC if you don't have name for your church who to people write checks to for offerings? And which organization gives them a charitable donation receipt for their tax write off? And what name is used to buy real estate and to sue over real estate? Or are all those places left blank on the checks, receipts, contracts, court documents, etc?

DJ, Nell,

The churches of the NT have no names ... and yet they do. This is the same thing. On the one hand, they're just the local churches of that city. On the other, they are "The church in ___." The world demands a name and sees through that lens. So to them, "The Church in ___" is a name. But to we who buy into this no-name thing, it isn't a name, plain and simple.

I'm not fighting for this issue. If you want to say we name ourselves, go for it. I do know that the stance we have taken is awkward among other Christians in so many ways. They aren't comfortable with it.

As with many doctrinal quibbles, you can point out a lot of hypocrisy, misapplication, etc. with this principle. What you can't do, however, is find anything in the Bible that supports denominating (naming) churches. So you lose this argument every time.


SC

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

...What you can't do, however, is find anything in the Bible that supports denominating (naming) churches. So you lose this argument every time. ... SC

Does the Bible forbid the naming of churches? Just curious. I don't know the answer.

Nell

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does the Bible forbid the naming of churches? Just curious. I don't know the answer.

Nell

Nell,

This is whole "name" vs. "no name" is a conundrum. The reason why the LC says, NO NAMES, is because they believe it indicates "Christ PLUS Something".

They are actually concerned about the fact that "denominating" is dividing the Body of Christ. It turns out that not "denominating" based on the "ground of locality" also divides the Body of Christ.

Not taking a name is still "Christ PLUS Something". There isn't a way for a group of people to take a stand for oneness without implicitly dividing themselves from even that one little true believer hiding in the back of the Baptist church down the street. You can only make the choice in your heart. God sees it and it is evidenced when you are with other believers by your receiving of them. No men can control this. Our God will be honored as Lord. He made it this way. Any man who tries to get between each one of us and His Lordship over us will fall.

When the Lord comes back I will get a NEW NAME. The gatherings I attended will just disappear... So, I think this whole issue of "name" vs. "no name" is wood, hay and stubble.

What is not wood, hay and stubble is that I receive all those who the Lord receives. When I have a problem doing that, I have to interact with the Lord until my heart is right with Him. I may also have to interact with my brother/sister in Christ to work out any offenses/problems.

Matt

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Nell

There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"?

This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal.

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

All these postings about THE church in a city and the “ground of locality” remind me of a testimony a brother gave in a meeting when we were in Dallas I believe. This was many years ago and he spoke of the Church in Dallas, saying he was on the telephone with someone from the telephone company and they said to him, “What do you mean, you are THE Church in Dallas—how can you be the only church in Dallas?” This brother responded with, “Well you are the only phone company in Dallas!” Again, this was many years ago when this was the real case. Since that time of course the telephone monopoly has been broken. We praise God that there is NO monopoly on worshipping and serving the Lord as the “Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.”

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

I was impressed with what Watchman Nee had to say on page 96 of The Normal Christian Church Life.

"We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church. This is something from which there is no escape. If I am dissatisfied with the local church, the only thing I can do is to change my locality; then automatically I can change my church. We can leave a denomination, but we can never leave a church. To leave a sect is justifiable, but to leave a church-whether on account of unspirituality, wrong doctrine, or bad organization-is utterly unjustifiable."

Is Watchman Nee's content in this book based on principle and not doctrine?

Terry

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

I was impressed with what Watchman Nee had to say on page 96 of The Normal Christian Church Life.

"We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church. This is something from which there is no escape. If I am dissatisfied with the local church, the only thing I can do is to change my locality; then automatically I can change my church. We can leave a denomination, but we can never leave a church. To leave a sect is justifiable, but to leave a church-whether on account of unspirituality, wrong doctrine, or bad organization-is utterly unjustifiable."

Is Watchman Nee's content in this book based on principle and not doctrine?

Terry

Terry,

It's just Watchman Nee's reasoning. It's not biblical.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.

SC

You don't have to prove this to me. On a personal level I can relate to it and I understand exactly what you are talking about. I won't go into the details here, but I do understand. I've been queried in a parallel sense for many years.

But, my question isn't about whether it is difficult for you to answer the question about the name of your gathering. My question was about the uniqueness of your group? What is it's uniqueness relative to other groups in your locality?

Is your uniqueness in the fact that you don't take a name? Or is it something else? Is it because, in your mind, you "stand" on the "proper" ground?

Matt

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Matt

But, my question isn't about whether it is difficult for you to answer the question about the name of your gathering. My question was about the uniqueness of your group? What is it's uniqueness relative to other groups in your locality?

Matt,

Oh, yeah, we're unique in many ways. Trust me. Our meetings don't have a pastor, don't have a song leader, don't have many participants, don't pass the plate, don't involve self-improvement talks, don't have much adornment of any kind. Some of our uniqueness is a bad thing: we're uniquely unattractive in many ways, sad to say. Some is a good thing. But anyone and everyone who visits us is left with the sensation, this group is different.


SC

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SC I frankly don't care about the name thing. No awkwardness felt over here. Sorry. Fact is: you have to have a name and it has to be registered. That's just a legal fact of life. So why live in pretense about it?

Do you think someone in your church writing out a check doesn't know there's a name of an organization that has to go on the payee line? How concrete is that for you? Do you think when the IRS wants to see your church's filing for non-profit status that you can leave the name of the filing entity blank cause ya know: we don't have a name! Go ahead and do that and see what happens.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SC just because something is not in the bible doesn't make it intrinsically evil. Youth conferences are not in the bible. Bible conferences are not in the bible. There was one council in Jerusalem over an issue. Once resolved the council ended. Meeting halls are not in the bible. Non-profit organizations are not in the bible. Even the whole bible was not completed during the early church.

So....if you really want to get back to the NT early church age. End all conferences. Shut down all meeting halls. Use cash only transactions and give no tax receipts. Cut out about 1/3 of the NT. Resurrect the apostles. Then maybe you might begin to get an approximation of the situation. Just pretending you don't have a name is not gonna cut it. It's kindergartenesque at best.

[SpeakersCorner]

DJ,

Of course. I agree whole-heartedly. The only reason I mentioned it is in response to those who try to say the ground of locality teaching isn't in the Bible. You know, that it's a heresy and all that.

You see, I fight fire with fire, unlike you, who fights fire with cries of "Make the fire go away! Make it go away!" or some other diversionary tactic. (I'd put a smiley here to show you I'm just messin' with ya, but I really don't like them.)

SC

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

The ground of locality isn't taught in the bible. Do you think God would be that stupid?

[Matt Anderson]

At the end of my last post, I mentioned that there were other complaints regarding the authority of Lee that were also mentioned from the Taiwan church split.

I am going to share some of them now. These anecdotal examples will go to further solidify the fact that Lee's behavior was not appropriate back in Taiwan. Currently, I am specifically bringing forward information to shine light on one important issue:

Many have indicated that they felt that everything was good in the "glory days" of the US version of the LC. They believe that over time it became corrupted. Much of the credit for the "goodness" of the early days of the LC were the great teachings and depth of knowledge of Witness Lee.

Before Lee was solidified in writing by the LSM as the "Minister of the Age" and "God's Oracle" he was spoken about by many members as "Moses" and "a modern or current day Paul". These statements and others like them were not necessarily codified, but they were shared around by many individual participants. I've heard these references to Lee from multiple corners of the US.

Now, let's compare these lift a man up comments which go all the way back into the 60's against Lee's behavior before he entered into the US. Why is this so important. It goes to the fact that many were willing participants in lifting a man up on high. Why did they do it? Because he had so much lofty (aka high-peak) knowledge? Because his ministry was so rich?

In response it's quite easy to say, "everyone has problems", but the real question is why does anyone feel any need to defend Witness Lee's bad behavior? What is it that we appreciate that causes us to defend him?

I am not denying the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the past. I continue to point to the fact that the mixture was present from the beginning. This is important.

From Morris Fred Paper: The exact text has been preserved, but the Example titles have been added by me.

Example #1: Medical Clinic (aka church involved in business venture)

In the early 1950s, a clinic was established by the church, headed by a Chinese within the church with the assistance of two Western doctors who belonged to the Local Church in Taipei. Disagreement arose regarding the participation of one of the latter. The ultimate result was that the clinic was closed and the structure built for its use became a living quarters for young brethren attending university in Taipei.

Example #2: Unauthorized Marriage

Another case metnioned was that of a marriage between two church co-workers. Without seeking Lee's approval these two individuals were married. This apparently angered Lee. Whether he opposed the marriage or was merely angry because they did not first consult him is unclear. The result was that although the two initially remained within the church, their stipend as co-workers was cut in half and this caused them great difficulty. The brother who had introduced the couple was sent to Hwalien (on the east coast of Taiwan) as punishment; later, after helping Lee with a manuscript, he was recalled to Taipei. Here it was noted that one of the methods used by Lee in maintaining the loyalty of his co-workers was his control over their residence and other rewards. His closest followers were given the more prestigious positions in Taipei. Moreover, in the training meetings led by Lee, everyone had a set place according to how well they had performed the previous year. It was noted Lee would sometimes move someone from the first to last row in one year, causing the individual to lose face in the eyes of his fellow workers. If an individual had done exceedingly well, he would be moved to the editorial room and placed in charge of church publications.

Example #3: Distribution of Money to Co-workers

Moreover, while the church claimed that stipends to co-workers were distributed according to anonymous contributions by the membership, these often were not enough to maintain the co-workers' livelihood. Therefore, unspecified funds were distributed among the workers. One informant noted that Lee himself would decide the amount, place it in an envelope to be given to the elder at the First Assembly Hall who serves as the church's accountant. The result is that Lee used his economic stranglehold over the co-workers to assure their loyalty.

Example #4: Decision Making

One of the prime targets of those who disagreed with Lee was the reality of decision-making within the church. It was repeatedly pointed out that the ideal picture painted was one in which the elders of a local church met to discuss problems, prayed together, and reached a consensus on action. However, it was maintained by these individuals that in actuality Lee and several elders and co-workers closest to him made the decisions and presented them to a group of elders who were expected to offer their "Amens." The effect was that one could not clearly perceive Lee's direct role in the process of decision-making for the announcements and innovations were made only by his representatives among the elders.

Example #5: The BIG MAMA

In 1960, Lee had gone to the United States where he began establishing churches with the main headquarters in Los Angeles. It was during this period of 1960-1966 that much of the rebellion against his authority was taking place in Taiwan. His means of maintaining control over the development of the church in Taiwan was through close correspondence with top lieutenants who as elders could control the meetings (Shr, 1970, 8). These men also informed Lee regarding activities deemed rebellious.

Bibliographic Reference: Shr, Bai Cheng, et al. - 1970 - A Public Letter for God's Children Regarding the Basic Mistakes of Li Chang Shou (aka Witness Lee) - A Leaflet

Example #6a & #6b Preface:

The final aspect of church organization discussed by those who left the church was the ideal of independence of each local church under the authority of its elders. While the co-workers are considered to be under the authority of the apostle, the elders are in charge of the management of local church finances and activities. The spheres of responsibility were confused, however, by the fact that several individuals held positions both as co-workers and elders in various local churches. Two cases relate the nature of this contradiction.

Example #6a: Local Autonomy

Once the dispute began among members in the Taipei Church, the church in Tainan was confused and desired to maintain independence. In letters sent to church headquarters, they requested that no one be sent from Taipei. Nevertheless, one of Lee's lieutenants was sent to Tainan which led to dissension among the brethren there. This also tended to point out to the elders in Tainan that their independence from control by Lee was merely nominal.

Example #6b:

A further example involved a brother who before the split was considered by many to be second in command to Witness Lee. He described the situation in Taiwan and noted that he was bothered by the fact that he no longer felt he could follow Lee. I heard a tape made by this brother in 1970. In it he said that he had a premonition that Lee might kick them out of the church:

In 1965 therre was to be a special meeting in Taipei as Lee had returned again from the United States. (We) discussed what we would do if he kicked us out; what about our work and livelihood? Lee returned and pulled us to Taipei. I sat on the second row and felt all right, but Lee attacked me for doing bad things. I felt Lee misunderstood and wanted to talk to him about the problem, feeling that in personal matters we could compromise but not in spiritual matters. When I went to see Lee, he was very cold and didn't let me talk. Lee said I must leave but I didn't understand and thought perhaps he meant for me to leave the room. He can tell me not to be a co-worker but has no authority outside of my sinning for refusing to let me be an elder. But the Lord did not want me to argue. Lee siad that as a friend, he thought it would be better for me to go to another church for I did not follow him. For example, he said that I didn't sing the songs he wrote. (I didn't realize that these hymns were doctrine.) I asked Lee to state publicly that I would be leaving and that since the house in back of the church was my own to wait until I found another before forcing me to leave. Then I thanked Lee for past help and said good-bye. The second night of the meetings, he didn't allow me to attend. Later went south and told everyone so that I felt I could not return there although the brethren there wanted me to remain. At the time other brethren were also kicked out.

(To be continued)

Do you hear these stories echoing into the US through the last 4-5 decades? I do.

Matt

[Shawn]

Here we go again,

From heresy to unsound doctrine and the perennial question: "What church would Paul use if he wrote a check 2000 years ago!

To address the latter, sorry but the Bible trumps the current financial system, so it cannot be said, you cannot do that because how could we write a check? It would actually be a wonderful thing for me, as I write a check addressed to the church in (city) .... and it gets cashed! Too bad, it would nice to get credit for the effort but to not have it drawn against my account.

(For some reason I think I'm having a flashback and I'm using someone elses example from a previous forum; sorry if there are any similarites.)

From heresy to unsound doctrine is not just hair splitting, as heresy is a pretty serious charge and that is what I reacted to; but I will meet you somewhere in between, not on the ground of unsound doctrine, but on the basis its just not right to declare a church in a city, unless all in that city are in agreement; its not unsound doctrine, its just not true.

Thats as much as I want to say about this, as I do not want to appear to be a defender of the local church ground, I only want to clarify deceptive statments that do not hold water.

Shawn

[Cal]

Shawn,

I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your post. Can you be more clear as to what you are getting at?

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Here we go again,

From heresy to unsound doctrine and the perennial question: "What church would Paul use if he wrote a check 2000 years ago!...

Hi Shawn,

At first I didn't understand your post either, but after reading it several times I think I understand what your saying. You didn't want to appear to be a defender of the LSM style definition of the local ground, but you didn't agree that the teaching was "heresy" so you wanted to speak up about that without being misunderstood.

Words are difficult things. In the sense that you and I typically think of the word heresy (which causes us to think of some horrible thing akin to saying Jesus didn't resurrect or worse...). I agree with you on this. That said, the meaning of the Greek word heresy is "a choice, a party, or a disunion." Wouldn't you say that definition fits with the ground of locality teaching (LSM style)?

I am not advocating using the word "heresy," mainly because we don't think of it in the way the Greek defines it. I'm just explaining why I think the word was mentioned in the context of this discussion. Gal. 5:20 defines "heresies" as one of the works of the flesh. Most of the time this Greek word is translated "sects" in the N. T. One thing is pretty clear and that is that those that adhere to the ground of locality teaching as a fundamental for Christian oneness, are sectarian. Maybe we should use the word "sect" instead of heresy.

Oh yes, good morning!

Thankful Jane

[blessD]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Matt,

Oh, yeah, we're unique in many ways. Trust me. Our meetings don't have a pastor, don't have a song leader, don't have many participants, don't pass the plate, don't involve self-improvement talks, don't have much adornment of any kind...
SC

May I add a note of caution, in all kindness. This may not be your case, but just a warning. I, and many others, were proud to say these very things at one time. Boy, what lessons in humility I have learned! What really ugly, destructive things were going on in MY "Church" that didn't take a name!

I am so much happier now in a church with a name, though not denominated. A place where I find life and am constantly encouraged to stay humble in Christ. If you have the "IT" factor in your gathering, you can very easily lose "IT". Then if you lose "IT", but boasted how you have "IT", you may find yourself pretending you still have "IT". This is actually taken from a message from church last week.

Note: "IT", also known as life, peace, spirit, truth, and many other names

so, just sayin' - be careful of pride.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by blessD

If you have the "IT" factor in your gathering, you can very easily lose "IT". Then if you lose "IT", but boasted how you have "IT", you may find yourself pretending you still have "IT" ...

So well said BlessD!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

"We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church. This is something from which there is no escape. If I am dissatisfied with the local church, the only thing I can do is to change my locality; then automatically I can change my church. We can leave a denomination, but we can never leave a church. To leave a sect is justifiable, but to leave a church-whether on account of unspirituality, wrong doctrine, or bad organization-is utterly unjustifiable."

The big mistake of this view is that it presumes that everyone knows which group is the church and which one is the sect. As if the church has a big sign out front (oops, can't have those) which identifies it for all, and likewise the sect.

But the very existence of the disagreement between LSM and non-LSM churches shows that this presumption is baseless. LSMers think non-LSMers are a sect, and vice versa--a stalemate. So, ironically, the criteria for deciding which is which reverts back the one Christianity has always more or less used--doctrinal purity and spiritual condition.

Christianity, however, has always left it up to individuals to decide this. But, if there is indeed supposed to be one church per city, then practicality manifestly dictates that someone must arbitrate for all on which group is the church. But who is qualified to make such a judgment for everyone else? Baseball has arbitration, the Body of Christ does not, unless you want to raise up another Vatican. So we are left with deciding by personal conviction, the very thing Nee says is an invalid criteria. More irony.

So, in the end, the local ground teaching proves to be superfluous. It does nothing to resolve division, but rather guarantees it will occur. Why? Because if and when the doctrine ever catches on, we can pretty much bank on multiple groups claiming to be the genuine church in every city. And, because only one can get the prize, those groups will have animosity toward each other. So this would actually be a reversion back to the bad old days of inter-denominational rivalry.

The "good news" is no one will have a name. The bad news is everyone will be divided worse than ever.