"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Oregon

But If we all will be honest in looking into the Word and the practice of the early church as recorded there...do we not see all the believers in each of those cities spoken of referred to as to "the" church and not churches.

Oregon,

Actually to be honest we must see in the NT believers in a house referred to as the church in that house.

I know, Nee taught that the church in the house is really the church in the city, but this is really just his assumption based on his bias.

If you really study it you must admit that saying the NT house church equals the city church is really an argument employing the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

In other words, if a person hadn't already decided that city churches are the only valid ones, he never would claim based on the evidence of the NT text that the house church equals the city church.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Amen, dear ones. The recent posts on this thread contain some excellent discussion and cover a very important point.

The reality of our oneness with all believers and the need to be open to receive all genuine believers are key points in the NT. These things, of course, have their practical application first and foremost in the place where we live. The NT record should serve to remind us that God’s testimony on this earth requires an actual expression of oneness amongst God’s people.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oregon,

Actually to be honest we must see in the NT believers in a house referred to as the church in that house.

I know, Nee taught that the church in the house is really the church in the city, but this is really just his assumption based on his bias.

If you really study it you must admit that saying the NT house church equals the city church is really an argument employing the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

In other words, if a person hadn't already decided that city churches are the only valid ones, he never would claim based on the evidence of the NT text that the house church equals the city church.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Be careful about striking the teaching regarding keeping the oneness by practicing “one church, one city.” It may prove to be a real tar baby.
First the NT never implies that we should endeavor to keep the oneness of locality. Rather we are urged to endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit and to arrive at the oneness of the Faith. On the other hand, if you just take a peek at the oneness of the Body of Christ, then the denominations and just about every free group would be guilty, at least to some degree, of dividing the Body of Christ. LORD HELP US!!!

A big source of the problem is the mixing of oneness with headship or authority. The headship of Christ, the authority of the Holy Spirit, is realized not universally but locally. There is no genuine headship exercised in the so called universal church. If so, then that authority is a human, institutional authority and has nothing to do with the headship of Christ. The LSM has many sins but one cardinal sin is the usurpation of the headship of Christ from the local assemblies. In God’s administration, God has chosen to exercise Christ’s Headship locally.

The oneness of the Body of Christ is mainly, but not exclusively, local and practical. But the oneness of the Body of Christ is not prescribed and is not the result of a teaching or formula. The oneness of the Body of Christ is intrinsic. It was created at the cross and given life in the Lord’s resurrection. We have it as soon as we are born again. BUT WE MUST THEN BE DELIGENT TO GUARD AND KEEP IT.

When the Lord walked the earth 2,000 years ago, if you were not there and at the right time in the right place you would have missed Him. BUT TODAY, one new man is walking the earth. Christ the head with His believers, the Body, is walking the earth in many places in many settings at many times. Today, locally and practically we can see Christ and experience His love, care, and shepherding, speaking, light, and life and be in on the very fellowship with the Son and the Father. Hallelujah!!!

The New Testament refers to the church in the city over and over but not as a rule to keep the oneness. The believers in Corinth were very divided but Paul referred to them as, 1 Cor 1:2a, “to the church of God which is at Corinth.” Merely having a teaching to protect the oneness such as one church, one city does not work as we have sadly seen. On the other hand, to seek a universal oneness, annuls the headship of Christ as we have sadly seen.

In my life, and as a result of my research in church history, I have found very little of the manifestation of the headship of Christ. If believers practice division they will forfeit His headship. This is too critical. We cannot be casual about it. During the last few years, I have had much more experience of Christ’s headship than I did from 1973-1989 in the local churches. It was there in some degree before 1973. If brethren would be led to meet along the lines of the church in their city, it is mainly a matter of desiring to be under the direct headship of Christ. But to have His Headship you must maintain the oneness of the Spirit and have no oneness goal other than arriving at the oneness of the Faith.

Big subject. But we have made a good start. May we continue with this line. We all have much more to learn and see.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer who is seeking to become a true disciple.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

The oneness of the Body of Christ is mainly, but not exclusively, local and practical. But the oneness of the Body of Christ is not prescribed and is not the result of a teaching or formula. The oneness of the Body of Christ is intrinsic. It was created at the cross and given life in the Lord’s resurrection. ... The New Testament refers to the church in the city over and over but not as a rule to keep the oneness. The believers in Corinth were very divided but Paul referred to them "the church of God.” Merely having a teaching to protect the oneness such as one church, one city does not work as we have sadly seen. On the other hand, to seek a universal oneness, annuls the headship of Christ as we have sadly seen.

Having spent most of my Christian life (and my adult life) receiving from the ministry of LSM, I can say the topic of ONENESS was huge, and stressed regularly. But now, looking back, having left that ministry for several years, I can honestly say that most of the emphasis on oneness, especially in the last quarter century, was self-serving and manipulative. Though the matter of oneness in the Bible is important indeed, the emphases I received became mostly distorted. The biblical principle is to know by the fruit, and it is that same bad "oneness" fruit, in the form of quarantines and lawsuits, which instigated my own re-evaluation of LSM.

Biblical oneness is mostly local. Paul said, "many members, but one body." That sounds very local to me. But from LSM I basically received, "many churches, but one body." Sounds real close, but this slight modification (coupled with deputy authority) became instrumental in wielding huge amounts of power at LSM. All authority on a local level was ultimately undermined. Eventually, even I had to admit that there was absolutely nothing "local" about the phrase "local church."

At a conference "feast" in Florida several years ago, LSM's chief theologian, RK, commented to all the assembled, and I paraphrase, "that we must forsake our little local church in order to care for the body." Loaded language. What does he really mean? This was not just anyone speaking here. He has, by his own admission, referred to himself as one of the "deputized authorities" of the body of Christ. So what does he mean "care for the body?" He was not referring to the saint at your side, or the saints back home. Without directly stating this, he was implying to the audience that LSM, and LSM alone, is the body of Christ.

Of course, neither RK nor LSM would ever teach this exactly, nor put this in their books, but this is the impression, reinforced by many similar comments, forged in our hearts. LSM is the body of Christ. Are they not the move of the Lord here on earth? Do they not oversee all the Lord's work on earth? Are they not His present oracle on earth? Don't you have to join them to participate in the Lord's heart in this age? If LSM is not the "body of Christ" on earth, headquartered on LaPalma Ave, then who is? Isn't the rest of Christianity merely Christless, pitiful, void of God's speaking, barren, degraded, and let us not forget -- divided!

LSM loves to talk about the "oneness of the body." This phrase was stressed so often, it must be in the Bible! Imagine my chagrin a number of years ago when someone pointed out to me there was no verse! What?! Then we better add one! The Bible does speak of the "oneness of the Spirit." The Bible also says there is "one body and one Spirit." This phrase -- "the oneness of the body" -- while sounding good and almost scriptural is not God's word nor His desire. It is strictly of human manufacture. The reason it was invented and propagated is fleshly -- centralized power.

In all church history, perhaps the single most corrupting heresy is the "oneness of the body." Distorted oneness has been used by the "Holy Oneness Church" of Rome for centuries. But since history seems to ever repeat itself, we see this repeated in our "predecessors" the Darby Brethren and, of course, LSM today. It is a failed human experiment. Yes, at times it produces huge numbers, but the "price" is too high. We are robbed of the Headship of Christ. He likes to walk as the Son of Man in the midst of congregations. He likes to shepherd the flock thru the elders and shepherds. Oh it's nice to be a part of something "bigger" than "your little local church," and we are -- the body of Christ, "the Christ," composed of all the members, all those birthed by the resurrected Head.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At a conference "feast" in Florida several years ago, LSM's chief theologian, RK, commented to all the assembled, and I paraphrase, "that we must forsake our little local church in order to care for the body." Loaded language. What does he really mean? This was not just anyone speaking here. He has, by his own admission, referred to himself as one of the "deputized authorities" of the body of Christ. So what does he mean "care for the body?" He was not referring to the saint at your side, or the saints back home. Without directly stating this, he was implying to the audience that LSM, and LSM alone, is the body of Christ.

Of course, neither RK nor LSM would ever teach this exactly, nor put this in their books, but this is the impression, reinforced by many similar comments, forged in our hearts.

Having been removed from these conferences for almost eight years, what RK says doesn't phase me. I can meet with virtually any Christian assembly and have inner peace. I admit it is a struggle when I'm around my family that stills meets with LSM churches. There is the attitude that's pervasive in Ohio's quote. Basically local churches that receive LSM is where the Lord is moving today. To meet apart from these LSM local churches is to meet illegitimately. Not only would you be meeting illegitimate, you would no longer be in the flow.

Terry

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oregon,

Actually to be honest we must see in the NT believers in a house referred to as the church in that house.

I know, Nee taught that the church in the house is really the church in the city, but this is really just his assumption based on his bias.

If you really study it you must admit that saying the NT house church equals the city church is really an argument employing the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

In other words, if a person hadn't already decided that city churches are the only valid ones, he never would claim based on the evidence of the NT text that the house church equals the city church.

I’m well aware of the “house” churches in the NT Igzy. In Jerusalem “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
Thousands were being saved and added to the church…not churches….even though they were meeting from house to house. These thousands of believers were referred to as “ the church in Jerusalem”….not “the churches in Jerusalem.”

Acts 8:1 “the church that was at Jerusalem”

Acts 11:2 “ the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem”

Acts 15:4 “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and the apostles and elders…”

[Gubei]

Hope,

1. My background

I know this is very stupid thing to say in this point in time discussing God's word, but I had a lot of experience in business. About ten years ago, the amount of sales revenue I handled was about U$ 1 billiion a year. And I do not know much about Chee Foo and Tronto, but I have had my church life in a local church for about 20 years, scrutinizing the teachings based on the Bible and other teachers' teachings. So, in a sense, I have somthing to say.
I just want to stop here. More speaking about myself doesn't seem to be so proper. By the way, I'm not a English native speaker. Hopefully, you use plain English when talking with me. Some colloquial expressions are hard to understand.

2. Your book

I'm interested in your book. Please let me know where I can get it. If possible, please send me, if it is in softcopy, whether by attaching it in this thead or by personal message.

3. 2 cents on Watchman Nee's understanding of the matter of ground of locality

WN presented his analysis of the truth of the ground of locality mostly based on the example on the early church. But there is a big difference between when the early church was set up and now. Simply speaking, the churches in Asia in the Bible was the literally the first churches in that regions. So there was no problem about appointing and accepting "one set of elders." WN draw the principle of one set of elders from this context and background.

But as time goes on, there came a lot of other preachers, other saints, and maybe with other elders than those set up by Paul. I think Paul did not condenm them, judging from below verses in Philipians.

[14] Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. [15] It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. [16] The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. [17] The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. [18] But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, (Philipians 1, NIV)

It seems to me that "one unitary eldership in a city" was not so important to Paul at that time. But WN emphacized one unitary eldership when he published his analysis.

I know my analysis is not so profound, so I think it's worth only 2 cents for now, but I'm planning to delve into it in more detail later.

By the way, I am planning to discuss the matter of apostleship soon with Igzy. Hopefully, you can be with us.

Gubei

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Church history shows us only one model that is blessed, believers seeking the Lord, obedient to the word, preaching the gospel, caring for others, etc. What that looks like is up to the Spirit of God. God in His ingenuity has used an untold diversity of ways. All of them were fruitful for a season. None of them should be considered the "God ordained way."

"What that looks like is up to the Spirit of God". So simple, yet so very, very profound. When all the dust settles, this is a matter of faith and this is a matter of trusting God and trusting the Holy Spirit to "guide us into all truth" as was promised. The Lord Jesus prayed to the Father: "I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me" (John 17:23) Again, so simple, yet so very profound. This oneness is beyond the carnal mind - the carnal mind cannot begin to fathom the depths and profoundness of this oneness.

If our Local Church experience has taught us anything, it is that the only oneness the carnal mind can comprehend is a man-made, forced oneness. If we are outside of the oneness that the Lord Jesus prayed about in John 17 it does not matter what "boundary" is set for us. Outside of this oneness I can't even be one with my own flesh brother, much less with every Christian in my city. Outside of this oneness I can't even be one with my wife much less every Christian in my city.

As far as we know, "early Nee" had a good start. Unfortunately Nee's mind was just as carnal as mine or yours. His mind was sharp - from many accounts he had a photographic memory. He also had good intentions. He also was a man of great faith. He also was a man of action. It seems Watchman Nee possessed all the ingredients to lead a great movement of God and bring true revival to the church - and to some extent, this is exactly what he did. Yet, for some reason he felt to set some boundaries - some boundaries that God did not set in his holy Word, nor were they set by the Holy Spirit.

Fast forward to the present. What has become of the Local Church movement that was begun by Watchman Nee so many years ago? Is it a movement that trusts God, or has it set boundaries left and right. It seems that these people do nothing but set boundaries. They have boxed themselves in by the boundaries they have set. They are one of the most isolated groups on earth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Oregon

At what point in time did division of the body become acceptable? It was condemned in Paul's day but now it is OK because to practice the oneness of the body is unworkable and therefore not necessary. So it is no longer important to God,. A simple hand shaking while we all stay in our practical divisions is the current move of God on earth.

Brother Oregon, from one "O" state to another -- I understand how your views are defined, having held them myself since the mid 70's. Then, a few years ago, I watched our leaders use these same definitions to quarantine, divide, and bring brothers to court. How I wished there could be a "simple hand shaking" with the many saints I love and once met with. So I had to "rethink" the definition of division which I loved so dearly.

The N.T. firstly convicts us for division by being "of men." For years I refused to admit that we were "of Lee." Without the vicious battles of the past few years, I probably would never have "rethought" my views on this subject. But I have. I now consider LSM to be more divisive than any of the Christians they for so long have condemned. They have delivered to us definitions which exonerate them, and judge all others. The definitions themselves are wrong, and must be examined against scripture.

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Oregon, from one "O" state to another -- I understand how your views are defined, having held them myself since the mid 70's. Then, a few years ago, I watched our leaders use these same definitions to quarantine, divide, and bring brothers to court. How I wished there could be a "simple hand shaking" with the many saints I love and once met with. So I had to "rethink" the definition of division which I loved so dearly.

The N.T. firstly convicts us for division by being "of men." For years I refused to admit that we were "of Lee." Without the vicious battles of the past few years, I probably would never have "rethought" my views on this subject. But I have. I now consider LSM to be more divisive than any of the Christians they for so long have condemned. They have delivered to us definitions which exonerate them, and judge all others. The definitions themselves are wrong, and must be examined against scripture.

Hi Ohio,

I understand your statement and where you are in your thoughts somewhat. Firstly....I'm not an LSMer. I would never support the actions and views of what the "Local Church" has become. Nor am I of Lee. But to go as far as some of the posters have on this site is simply too much. The word gives us more than just a picture of the "early" church. There may not be literal commandments in the NT regarding one church in every city but to just say that such a situation didn't exist in Paul's day is almost purposeful denial.

I have gone to many meetings of dear saints not meeting as "local churches" and have been ministered to by God many times. I would never judge our fellow believers meeting in various denominations and independant fellowships. But to say certain things are not in the Word as some promote here is just going way to far. It's almost like making a statement such as....."the bible doesn't say anything against smoking marijuana therefore it's OK."

Do you think that if the apostolic church woud have divided itself in those early years and put names up saying...."The Church of This" or "The Church of That" that it would have been just fine. There's no way I'm going to believe that.

[Ohio]

Oregon, I definitely understand your protests of all extremes, I have often found myself doing the same, so we are mostly in agreement here except for your comment, "the bible doesn't say anything against smoking marijuana, therefore it's OK." I heard that many times myself, is that wrong?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

1. The Lord never taught the local ground.
2. The apostles never taught the local ground.
3. The early church fathers never taught the local ground.

Why should we teach it?

Ah, now we're gettin somewhere.

Look, Nee had some good intentions, but he was reading something into the Bible that just is not there. Another thing is that for some reason he felt he was qualified to skip past hundreds and hundreds of years of church history. He looked around and saw all the artificial boundaries of faith and practice that had been set up...so what did he do...he proclaimed them all wrong and simply made up another boundary! Aye Chihuahua! What made such a smart man every think that two wrongs add up to a right?

Then comes along this fellow Witness Lee...and what did he do? He took Nee's mistake of creating another boundary and compounded it 10 fold. Lee was the master of boundaries. The one minister for the age boundary. The one ministry for the age boundary. The one publication boundary.... and on and on and on.

[Oregon]

UntoHim I'll agree with you on your statement concerning the minister of the age and one publication,

Your statement concerning Nee reading something into the bible that is not there is a clear example of some of the extreem statements made on this site. Waaaaaaaaaaaaay out in left field.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Oregon

Your statement concerning Nee reading something into the bible that is not there is a clear example of some of the extreem statements made on this site. Waaaaaaaaaaaaay out in left field.

Ok, are you implying that Nee was incapable of error? In this case I think he was in error.

Igzy posted this sober observation and I quoted it because it really hits home as far as shedding some light on why Nee was in error here.

Originally Posted by Igzy

1. The Lord never taught the local ground.
2. The apostles never taught the local ground.
3. The early church fathers never taught the local ground.

Why should we teach it?

Could you just address what Igzy has posted here?

[Cal]

Here's a little question for everyone.

Why is it that people who want to dictate where to meet always believe the right place is where they happen to meet?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's a little question for everyone.

Why is it that people who want to dictate where to meet always believe the right place is where they happen to meet?

Igzy, I don't believe one can dictate nor state there's a particular congregation that's the right place to meet. There are factors to consider.
Does it meet your expectation as a Christian?
Does it meet your need as a person?
In my case does it have a ministry to serve the children?

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Basically, I am trying to say that WN or WL's teachings should be considered one of diverse teachings in fundamentalists' camp. I know there are some questionable teachings or practices in them, but I do not think they have really gone far as to be called "heresy."

I do not think they are as far as heresy, either, but I do think they are unbalanced and a cause of injury to the larger body of believers when they are mandated.

Originally Posted by Gubei

How many crucial truths in the Bible are supported by "prescriptive" verses? The Bible is not a well-written systematic theology textbook or US Constitution-type mandate. They are histories, epistles, and so on an so forth, but not least so prescriptive as Wesminster Confession.

Okay, Gubei, here goes:
1. Believe in God. Believe in His Son Jesus Christ.
2. Receive the believer next to you. Love your neighbor.
3. As much as you can, keep from sin. When you fail, repent. When others fail, forgive.

Those are crucial, prescriptive truths in the Bible. The other stuff, how many elders in each city, how many apostles in each region, etc. are optional.

Originally Posted by Gubei

One error of some Christians is that they do not distingush between having different interpretations which are still in the boundary of fundamentalists' camp and calling other fundamentalists' interpretations "unbiblical, heretic etc." Of course, WL himself repeated this error. As I alrerady several times made it clear, "the ground of locality" is not an essential element in our Christians life. Any Christian who even belongs to Catholic can be a overcomer for God who will expedite the second coming of our Lord Jesus.

I agree.

[UntoHim]

Can anybody give us one, just one concrete example where a group of Local Churchers (those associated with Nee/Lee) moved to a place that already had a group of Christians meeting in oneness (as the church in...) and joined with them, submitting to their established elders and taking the one ministry of their one apostle? Just one?...is there just one example?.... Watchman Nee clearly taught that when a group of Christians moves to a city they should join with "the church in so-and-so" that is already there. Did Lee and his followers EVER do this...even ONE TIME?

Silence...or sounds of crickets....

I rest my case.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Can anybody give us one, just one concrete example where a group of Local Churchers (those associated with Nee/Lee) moved to a place that already had a group of Christians meeting in oneness (as the church in...) and joined with them, submitting to their established elders and taking the one ministry of their one apostle? Just one?...is there just one example?.... Watchman Nee clearly taught that when a group of Christians moves to a city they should join with "the church in so-and-so" that is already there. Did Lee and his followers EVER do this...even ONE TIME?

Silence...or sounds of crickets....

I rest my case.

Better than that, can anyone show where a group of LCers moved to another city and decided to just be one with whoever they found there rather than setting up a new paradigm of restrictions on what constitutes oneness?

By agreeing to only consider joining with certain types of groups, they have already excluded some. Where is the oneness in that?

Don't turn my question back on me. Under the Lee/LSM/LC view of oneness is there not a theoretical problem with moving to a new place and ignoring some Christians as worthy of consideration?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Can anybody give us one, just one concrete example where a group of Local Churchers (those associated with Nee/Lee) moved to a place that already had a group of Christians meeting in oneness (as the church in...) and joined with them, submitting to their established elders and taking the one ministry of their one apostle?

Unto, although not quite as you prescribe. I have heard of a locality that did fit the description of meeting in "oneness" long before the ground of locality became a teaching and prior to "the Recovery". Once part of "the recovery" with Witness Lee as the primary minister, their pre-existing elders remained. This locality disassociated from LSM when Witness Lee made the self proclamation of commander in chief. This locality was no longer considered to be a local church by LSM. Although in function this locality is still a local church.
Oregon and Indiana, if I'm off please provide adjustment.

Terry

[Hope]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Can anybody give us one, just one concrete example where a group of Local Churchers (those associated with Nee/Lee) moved to a place that already had a group of Christians meeting in oneness (as the church in...) and joined with them, submitting to their established elders and taking the one ministry of their one apostle? Just one?...is there just one example?.... Watchman Nee clearly taught that when a group of Christians moves to a city they should join with "the church in so-and-so" that is already there. Did Lee and his followers EVER do this...even ONE TIME?

Silence...or sounds of crickets....

I rest my case.

There are examples. Denton Texas, Yorba Linda Ca, Albuquerque N. M. Pittsburg Pa., Phoenix Ari.,Odessa Tx., and St. John Kansas are a few that come to mind. In the early days, most migrations were to places where saints were discovered who had some understanding of the oneness of the Body of Christ and desired to practice a practical church life on the lines of the church in a city. When I initially began to move to Dallas, the thought was that we would join with a handful of saints already there. We had visited them and they had visited us in Houston. Originally, we thought we would come together. I spoke of this at another time in another place.

When we in Dallas in 1975, began to have fellowship with some saints in O K City the thought was that they would continue on and be the church in O K City. Some of us began to visit them regularly and they to visit us in Dallas. On one occassion we had a special week-end in Dallas to come together with those from O K City. A substantial group showed up of around 25-30. We had a great time together. They then invited the church in Dallas to visit them in O K City for a similar time. They planned to rent a hotel meeting room in order to accomodate a good number from Dallas.

There was no thought that some from Dallas would move there and take them over or push them aside. We in Dallas exercised great care not to impose and whenever any went there to visit we admonished them to have no agenda but to honor what the Lord was doing and to submit to the brothers and sisters there. Their history was not strongly established as they had only recently begun to consider the church and to meet in the Lord's name only and open to all the believers.

Suddenly a few days before the special time, I received a phone call from Max Rapoport. He told me that he had heard of what was happening and that he and WL had fellowshiped about it. They were concerned that we in Dallas were too inexperienced and would "mess things up." Therefore they felt that Max and some from Anaheim should take care of the trip and there was not a need for any of the leading ones from Dallas to go or coordinate with those from O K City as he and others from Anaheim would take care of it. He had already spoken to Benson, who was in Anaheim working on the hall, WL's home etc. and Benson would go with him.

Within a short time people were moving there and the church in OK City as it is known today was established. Elders were moved in. I cannot ever recall being in a meeting there. I did visit Norman for a time before James Barber moved to Ok City. By then OK City and Norman were official Local Churches in fellowship with Anaheim.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple

[UntoHim]

Sorry brother Hope, but the examples you have given here do not pass muster...not even close (unless there are more details - mind you, I am only asking for one example) Conspicuously missing from your examples are the parts about "submitting to their established elders" and "taking the one ministry of their one apostle".

Most Local Churchers know exactly what I was getting at with the proviso of "submitting to their established elders" and "taking the one ministry of their one apostle". Sorry to be a stickler about the details, but there is a method to my madness here. (I think) As I have noted in recent posts, if one firmly believes in "one church - one city", then it is not too much to ask them to act upon their convictions.

I don't know about early or late Watchman Nee (and nobody else here does either), but I have oodles and oodles of info on this fellow Witness Lee, and he did not give a flying fiddle about "one church - one city", not in the least. What he cared about was having ONE particular church in any one particular city that was willing to go along with the program...HIS PROGRAM. Sorry to put this all in such concrete terms. But dem R de facts.

So, not to put too, too fine of a point on all of this...can somebody provide us all with an example of some Local Churchers coming to a city (locality) and submitting to the previously established leaders/elders and willing to take the ministry of their previously established apostle?

[Hope]

Hello Brother Unto,
The idea of established elders having the one ministry of their one apostle did not develop until some time in the early-mid eighties. The idea of some sort of central ministry began to be carried out during the time of Max Rapoport. Sometimes I will mention something which the reader must pick up as a pivotal event. My story of O K city and Max R. intervening to bring whatever was going on in O K City under Anaheim’s hegemony is an example of a pivotal event.

This idea of established elders under the one ministry of their one apostle was one of the main factors that jettisoned me and so many out of that circle. If you frame you question as strictly as you have, then you have your answer. If you ask, if there was ever ever any thought that some from a local church which knew WL could integrate with another group which desired to practice the one city, one church idea, then yes there was such a common thought at one time and some did seek to practice it. The problem comes from the concept of “the Work” (singular) with its own co-workers who appoint their own elders who oversee a church which is in the circle of that worker. The problem does not come from seeking to practice the church in the city. I have too much experience with the “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” etc. “The Work” combined with “Deputy Authority” has lead to incredible leaps into the realm of illogic. “One Church, one City” as practiced by the LSM is as my good friend Igzy seems to maintain, illogical. Flush the notion of a set of elders being appointed by a recognized apostle and the descriptive practice in the New Testament begins to enter into the realm of possibility. Please note Acts 14:23, And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. The Greek word is cheirotoneo and is translated here as appoint. It means to literally stretch out your hand and to point someone out, to recognize someone. Paul and Barnabas were simply recognizing the brothers who had been manifested as more mature with a measure of leadership. Now please note Titus 1:5, For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint (kathistemi) elders in every city as I directed you. Kathistemi literally means to set something on a solid base or to firmly establish. On another thread, I have read the charge being laid at the feet of the elders or leaders in the local churches that they were untrained and not qualified. Paul’s charge to Titus was more on the line of establishing, making solid etc the elders in the various places.

If you take away this whole phony notion of the elders being some kind of bosses or middle managers to carry out the work of an apostle then many problems are suddenly gone and it is very possible for two or more groups of believers to come together in oneness to glorify the Lord and allow Him to be the head over all things to the church.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Hope

...If you take away this whole phony notion of the elders being some kind of bosses or middle managers to carry out the work of an apostle then many problems are suddenly gone and it is very possible for two or more groups of believers to come together in oneness to glorify the Lord and allow Him to be the head over all things to the church.

Ah, but this is EXACTLY what Witness Lee and his followers have practiced since setting foot in America (and in Taiwan I suspect). As far as I am aware, Lee propagated "this whole phony notion" since day one...all I was asking for is some tangible evidence to the contrary. You did not provide any such evidence. I was looking for an example of an EXISTING Christian group, with an EXISTING group of leaders/elders who were already following and practicing the teachings of an EXISTING apostle, that some Local Churchers joined themselves to, and then were in turn recognized as a true Local Church by Witness Lee and his followers.

What I am asking is not that complicated. I am not trying to be coy here in any way shape or form. Either this happened (which would show that Lee practiced what he preached) or it did not happen. There is not a lot of gray area here.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

There are examples. Denton Texas, Yorba Linda Ca, Albuquerque N. M. Pittsburg Pa., Phoenix Ari.,Odessa Tx., and St. John Kansas are a few that come to mind. In the early days, most migrations were to places where saints were discovered who had some understanding of the oneness of the Body of Christ and desired to practice a practical church life on the lines of the church in a city.

Hope, you've mentioned two cities where my parents moved my siblings and I to: Phoenix and Albuquerque. What I do remember were families that had moved there were LA. I would not know if there were families already living there meeting in "oneness" prior to the migrations. For example in Alburquerque, the late Bob Danek was the elder. Was his family and others already meeting in Alburquerque prior to the migrations for establishing a "church in Alburquerque"? To my recollection there were two households besides my parents that previously lived in LA. There was another that migrated via Seattle. If you might know, how did the Church in Alburquerque originate?
Hope, based on your last sentence that is what happened in Las Vegas. Brothers and sisters that desired a practical church life according to their vision led them to move to Los Angeles during the mid to late 1960's.

Terry

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Terry

Hope, you've mentioned two cities where my parents moved my siblings and I to: Phoenix and Albuquerque. What I do remember were families that had moved there were LA. I would not know if there were families already living there meeting in "oneness" prior to the migrations. For example in Alburquerque, the late Bob Danek was the elder. Was his family and others already meeting in Alburquerque prior to the migrations for establishing a "church in Alburquerque"? To my recollection there were two households besides my parents that previously lived in LA. There was another that migrated via Seattle. If you might know, how did the Church in Alburquerque originate?
Hope, based on your last sentence that is what happened in Las Vegas. Brothers and sisters that desired a practical church life according to their vision led them to move to Los Angeles during the mid to late 1960's.

Terry

Terry,

Brother Danek was an original. He was considered by all in Texas as the original elder and the current elder. I visited there several times. We always tried to fit into whatever the very small group was doing. I remember very distinctly that Benson wanted them to be more closely aligned with So. California and W L.

Eventually most of those in Phonex/Mesa moved to meet with various churches such as Atlanta. The original elder and his wife never could get into the one ministry program. Some who joined these pre-existing local churches/fellowships/free groups had an agenda of bringing the group into a closer relationship with So. California etc. They would blend but were waiting for the group's elders to come around. I have seen the same thing here in NC. We have had LSMers, Gene Edwards advocates and some from the Stephen Kaung school of church life join and submit for a while hoping we would come around to something or other that would align us with their apostle and his ministry.

Don't you just love Eph 4:1-3, I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

When a dear one or ones come among you who desire that you conform to their special fellowship and apostle, you, not them are on the spot. We must practice the above verses. I have been scolded so many times for not joining the special circle. We are happy to receive the believers and whatever help or gift they have but we cannot impose anyone's ministry and leading on the church. In God's administration the church is "local." It is ekklesia. It is the assembly of the citizens to carry out the business of the government. Today the church, ekklesia, is directly under the headship of Christ to carry out His kingdom where the church is located. I had rather have the direct administration of the head than the indirect administration from some apostle or would be apostle.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.