Claim of Watchman Nee Leadership Practice in China?

[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!

[JJ]

“The Local Church of Witness Lee is a splinter sect of the Closed Brethren, modified by Asian culture and peculiarly developed because of its isolation from the rest of the Body of Christ.” - John Myer

It seems that this thought is shared by many on this site.

So do we have anyone here who has spent a significant amount of time in an “Open Brethren” assembly and TLR that would care to share their experience?

I found two different Open Brethren assemblies in cities not far from where I live, and am thinking about attending a meeting, but don’t want to end up in a cult again!

[JJ]

Wow! Check out this old article about “Needed Truth” “Open Brethren” assemblies. Maybe Watchman Nee (and thence Lee) got “the ground of the Church” doctrine and other local church practices from them, not “Exclusive Brethren”.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbrfj/04_21.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Wow! Check out this old article about “Needed Truth” “Open Brethren” assemblies. Maybe Watchman Nee (and thence Lee) got “the ground of the Church” doctrine and other local church practices from them, not “Exclusive Brethren”.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbrfj/04_21.pdf

Needed Truth Brethren left the Open Brethren becoming extremely conservative and went back to many of the Exclusive practices.

Wikipedia: The Churches of God (Needed Truth Brethren) seceded from the Open Brethren around 1892 ("The Separation"), as a result of the ideas propagated in the Needed Truth magazine finding acceptance in some Open Brethren circles, but not all.

Wikipedia: Needed Truth is a Christian, Plymouth Brethren magazine that first appeared in 1888 in Scotland. The magazine discussed whether reception was to the Lord's Table, or if reception was to the assembly itself. This distinction had implications whether a believer from other evangelical churches could occasionally meet with the saints in a New Testament assembly. The publication of the magazine crystallised the two sides of the argument to such an extent that within five years they ceased to be in intercommunion.

(Translate: they became Closed Brethren)

The Recovery followed a similar pattern after the "Max" episode in the late '70s. As they say in politics, "never let a good crisis go to waste." WL convinced all the LC's that we were short of "The Truth," and that's why Max could cause such chaos in the LC's. (Truth was, WL sent Max out to "shakeup" the LC's, and that's why the LC's received him.) In the aftermath of that nasty "storm," Lee changed his teachings from Spirit and life for Christ and church, to one with the ministry for the building of the body. Sounds good, but subtle changes were happening behind the scenes. LSM tightened their grip.