Claim of Watchman Nee Leadership Practice in China?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I personally feel that Nee and Lee had every intention of cultivating an environment that would allow for a supreme mastership. And what better way to do it than to get everyone thinking that they each had a special role and purpose within the group. Except what they forgot to mention is that you can only have 'purpose' within the confines of being a small potato..

Nee & Lee did intentionally establish a supreme and unquestioned authority because that fit their cultural pre-conceptions of what was "normal" for group practice. Notice that this model attracts the Chinese, who don't think it's strange. Without a strong center, they fear chaos. (but that is where faith comes in).

There are other "strong authoritarian" groups out there like the Geftakys Assembly, but look at the miniscule toe-hold they have in the general populace versus the LSM/lc with tens of thousands of the Chinese.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Somehow everyone in the LCM realizes in the back of their mind that they shouldn't overshadow, criticize or question the supreme master, yet they are convinced that the LCM doesn't have such a leadership structure.

Nee and Lee and their followers didn't see anything "wrong" with their church model, and often point out the admittedly horrible clergy - laity system it replaced. I liked Baruch's citation because it highlights how incompatible these replacement notions are: "strong autonomy" versus "strong centralized control" and "everyone equal" juxtaposed on one of the "equals" being a "supreme master". As soon as you look at it critically it's totally contradictory. Which is probably why they told us, "Don't think, you will only be confused". Only the supreme master, the guru, the deputy god, could think without becoming confused. The rest were to be "one" with the "Lord's speaking thru our brother".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee and Lee and their followers didn't see anything "wrong" with their church model, and often point out the admittedly horrible clergy - laity system it replaced. I liked Baruch's citation because it highlights how incompatible these replacement notions are: "strong autonomy" versus "strong centralized control" and "everyone equal" juxtaposed on one of the "equals" being a "supreme master". As soon as you look at it critically it's totally contradictory. Which is probably why they told us, "Don't think, you will only be confused". Only the supreme master, the guru, the deputy god, could think without becoming confused. The rest were to be "one" with the "Lord's speaking thru our brother".

Interestingly, what Nee and Lee promoted as a 'normal' church model is something that people were easily sold on, perhaps because they didn't notice the two contradictory extremes of what the LCM movement had to offer. Here was a group that thought to defy all the traditions. Anyone who wanted to had the opportunity to speak. Participation by all was the norm. People were made to feel like they were a part of something unique and special.

But what part of the equation went unnoticed? No one questioned the existence of a lone figure at the very top, the supreme master who provided the up-to-date speaking and direction of the movement. It was right before everyone's eyes, but it rarely triggered any alarm bells within the movement. The contradictory aspect to all the things that the LCM presumed to be is exactly what went largely unnoticed, except from time to time when it tended to rear its ugly head.

By example, throughout all the years growing up in the LCM, I would have never thought that there was any kind of headquarters or authoritarian control. I saw people writing songs, producing and distributing tapes - all kinds of things that would suggest that LC members were all free to contribute in their own unique ways. Everything felt autonomous. However, later on, I began to see certain 'situations' arise, such as the one publication edict. So then I started to realize that the notion of everyone in the LCM being equal was all just a guise. There was indeed a headquarters that has the power to issue edicts. Everyone in the LCM was on a leash. That leash might be shortened or lengthened, but it's a leash nonetheless.

[Ohio]

Great points.

And contrary to the steadfast opinions of our LC friends, the "proper" name does not absolve you from denominational status. That is determined by their controlling headquarters at LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Everything felt autonomous. However, later on, I began to see certain 'situations' arise, such as the one publication edict. So then I started to realize that the notion of everyone in the LCM being equal was all just a guise. There was indeed a headquarters that has the power to issue edicts. Everyone in the LCM was on a leash. That leash might be shortened or lengthened, but it's a leash nonetheless.

Initially, everything felt autonomous, local, egalitarian, participatory. But eventually we saw that there was a headquarters and a leash. There was indeed supreme mastership but it was couched in spiritual guise.

Here's how I understand the contradiction: Watchman Lee, like Witness Lee after him, understood things, and promoted them to others, based on: a) the situation on the ground - the perceived need; and b) his culturally-mediated understanding of the "normal" or proper response. But he was blinded to his bias, and ignored the inevitable reverses and contradictions.

To be shed of Western control, there was the idea of autonomy and locality. But then there was a need for consolidation and coordination so he "discovered" his so-called Jerusalem Principle.

And he chafed under senior co-worker Leland Wang. But it was only after Wang was gone that he "recovered" deputy authority. The gate to supreme mastership now was opened.

[Freedom]

Nee had the personality and mindset that allowed him to start a group of his own. However, he didn’t necessarily have the maturity or foresight to go about doing it the right way. Nee’s desire to start a homegrown movement is something that he was perfectly entitled to do. It wouldn’t have been a problem except that he mischaracterized what he was doing.

Nee didn’t want anyone to see the LCM as just “another group.” So he introduced and promoted a teaching (ground of locality) that called into question the legitimacy of other groups. Standing on the platform of a supposed legitimacy, it gave Nee and Lee a level of credibility that they wouldn't have been able to obtain otherwise. A sly way to gain traction for a movement that would have otherwise been just one of many groups.

The other issue is that the 'positive' side of the ground of locality teaching suggested that there would be no control, headquarters, etc. In other words, in order for Nee to start something that would be perceived as unique, he had to introduce principles that he very well knew he would later reverse his position on.

So because Nee and Lee put so much effort into contrasting the LCM from other groups, it seems that having teachings like autonomy or locality were initially desirable. The reality is that these teachings never meant anything in practice, the only served to maintain an illusion. As LCM history indicates, eventually it because desirable and even necessary to pull in the leash to maintain control over the churches associated with the movement. This happened with Nee at the helm, then again once Lee was the one in charge.

[Ohio]

W. Lee frequently told us that W. Nee read exhaustively from all available Christian literature. We also learned that Nee was in personal contact with the British leadership (James Taylor Sr.) of the Exclusive Brethren. Yet, we were also told that Nee's "vision" of the ground of the church, the so-called "one-church-one-city" paradigm, a grand milestone in the "Recovery" history of long-lost truths of scripture, was altogether new to Nee in China.

Actually it was not.

It was already actively practiced for many decades by the Exclusive Brethren. Nee was able to read extensively of all the doctrinal nuances of this doctrine, and more importantly, learn of the endless failures and divisions it caused. Nee himself was even excommunicated by the Brethren for breaking one of their trivial rules, yet he knew he would be, because for sure he had read the tragic stories of George Muller and Dr. Edward Cronin.

So I agree with Freedom's assertion that both Nee and Lee mischaracterized their original intentions by claiming to originate strictly "local" churches, the so-called Antioch model, without centralized controls, completely autonomous, without headquarters, ruled by local elders, etc. Later they would introduce stringent controls to takeover these churches, according to the Jerusalem model, with local elders reporting to workers from headquarters, and with centralized ministry and structure. Those who resisted would be expelled. These were their many "storms."

The Brethren began this way. Mainland China began this way. Taiwan began this way. The USA began this way. All started out local, and all soon became highly structured, and btw, not much different from Rome's model.

[JJ]

I've been thinking that perhaps the biggest problem of TLR from the beginning was not understanding that Jesus is the king in the kingdom of God, not the super-apostle. And, that Jesus' leadership style is to take the form of a slave, and serve others. So, having "The apostle" working like a human king, who lords it over his subjects, is exactly the opposite of how Jesus told his disciples to lead.

We should have gotten the clue from the way Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Meek and mild, and seated on a donkey's colt. But, no. We still have the image of a king dressed in elegant clothing, riding in on a stallion, with an army around him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been thinking that perhaps the biggest problem of TLR from the beginning was not understanding that Jesus is the king in the kingdom of God, not the super-apostle. And, that Jesus' leadership style is to take the form of a slave, and serve others. So, having "The apostle" working like a human king, who lords it over his subjects, is exactly the opposite of how Jesus told his disciples to lead.

We should have gotten the clue from the way Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Meek and mild, and seated on a donkey's colt. But, no. We still have the image of a king dressed in elegant clothing, riding in on a stallion, with an army around him.

That sure was on full display when we compare the funeral "celebration" of Jesus with that of Lee twenty years ago. Lee was treated like some head of state. Thank the Lord I never went to his funeral, and subjected to his eulogy. Just the other day I found the book of his funeral celebration on my shelf, and trashed it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was already actively practiced for many decades by the Exclusive Brethren. Nee was able to read extensively of all the doctrinal nuances of this doctrine, and more importantly, learn of the endless failures and divisions it caused. Nee himself was even excommunicated by the Brethren for breaking one of their trivial rules, yet he knew he would be, because for sure he had read the tragic stories of George Muller and Dr. Edward Cronin.

So I agree with Freedom's assertion that both Nee and Lee mischaracterized their original intentions by claiming to originate strictly "local" churches, the so-called Antioch model, without centralized controls, completely autonomous, without headquarters, ruled by local elders, etc. Later they would introduce stringent controls to takeover these churches, according to the Jerusalem model, with local elders reporting to workers from headquarters, and with centralized ministry and structure. Those who resisted would be expelled. These were their many "storms."

The Brethren began this way. Mainland China began this way. Taiwan began this way. The USA began this way. All started out local, and all soon became highly structured, and btw, not much different from Rome's model.

Sectarianism is the fruit (practice) that originated from what the Brethren taught. Nee himself even became a victim of it. It seems, however, that he never made the correlation between their teaching and practice.

I think that over the course of time, the Brethren ran into a lot of issues over the question of what type of relationship should exist between the local assemblies. Ironically though, had they ever existed solely as local assemblies, that would have never been an issue to begin with. It was only an issue because they existed as an informal (or formal) network of churches. The LCM likewise ran into the same issue. There was the teaching of localism, but the practice was something contradictory.

I don’t see any issue if an individual church wants to declare itself to be non-denominational and free of outside control. The notion of localism, however, becomes suspect when it is taught or practiced on a larger scale, such as within a network of churches, because there is an inherent conflict of interest at play. If a network of churches declares itself to practice localism then I would expect them to be readily willing to accept all kinds of differences between the churches. More than likely though, the assertion of practicing localism would be false and the network of churches would be a group where each church had rescinded some amount of autonomy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think that over the course of time, the Brethren ran into a lot of issues over the question of what type of relationship should exist between the local assemblies. Ironically though, had they ever existed solely as local assemblies, that would have never been an issue to begin with. It was only an issue because they existed as an informal (or formal) network of churches. The LCM likewise ran into the same issue. There was the teaching of localism, but the practice was something contradictory.

Right, and couple this with Darby's obsession for absolute control.

Muller, Craik, Chapman, and other Brethren leaders had a Baptist background and saw the Brethren fellowship as a connection of assemblies, mutually edifying one another. Darby, Wigram, and others, on the other hand, were Anglican priests or raised in the Anglican church, which had a strong central administration similar to that in Rome. Two conflicting viewpoints. Muller was a strong proponent of the local eldership, and Darby saw the needed oversight of all those elders -- an unnamed bishopric of sorts. Both early-Lee and early-Nee were the former (Antioch Principle), and both later-Nee and later-Lee were the latter (Jerusalem Principle), and both in the likeness of Darby.

Initially, Darby espoused so-called "autonomous" assemblies, and saw the Spirit blessing their ministry abundantly. Whole churches in Great Britain would join their movement, and cut their former fellowship ties. Eventually Darby was convinced that he alone was the guardian/leader of the Brethren faith, and other renowned and influential leaders, such as Groves, Muller, and Newton, were considered dangerous rivals and a threat to the movement requiring his “battle for the soul of Brethrenism.” Darby basically felt compelled to beat them into submission, or expel them as threats. The charges he brought against Newton and Muller were completely bogus -- No different than the charges brought against Ingalls, So, Mallon and later on Titus Chu, Tomes, et.al.

Darby's system of control was willing to throw any brother under the bus. His version of "blended brothers" were in London, at the Park Ave meeting hall. The brilliant Wm. Kelly was his chief editor, very much like today's Ron Kangas. While Darby was on his deathbed, Kelly disagreed with the farcical excommunication of old Dr. Cronin over the breaking of bread. (The exact same scenario as what later excommunicated W. Nee.) Park Ave. "Blendeds" expelled Kelly on a rules technicality! Then Darby conceded it was "God's will."

Sure it was God's will. But not as Darby thought. It was the same as when Jesus was on earth and His followers were put out of the Synagogue -- Freedom!