Part 3

This is in response to a brother on YouTube who is downing the "local church" as taught and practiced by the groups started by Witness Lee as much as he can, it seems. However, he is mostly wrong when it comes to the matter of the ground of locality (I have not wasted my time on other matters in which he attacks them relentlessly because I am not going to waste my time) which was revealed in the 20th century, 1st to Watchman Nee, then Witness Lee taught it. (There are more who teach this today, of course, me included.) Anyway, those two are the main teachers of this teaching. I will not name this brother on this site because I disagree with him on many other of his negative false teachings to the point that I would not want to lead anyone into 'poison partaking' which is what his YouTube channel partially is. If you want to try to find him, you are on your own, however, it would probably not be that difficult. This, of course, is entirely up to you. Quite frankly, I do not recommend it.

According to Ephesians 5 Christ is coming for His glorious bride. Well, how does she become so? By building. What am I saying? If the topstone relates to His coming, it makes sense that if the house being built is not fitly framed, it is not going to receive the topstone. If we are not relating to our Lord as our foundation, Founder and Source, how can He be our top stone or Head? To be our true Head, He must be our source in ALL things.  Of course building a HER is not like building an it - there must be travail, birth, feeding and growing: life matters. Now this is a repeat of what I said before, but this brother says it is not Biblical, neither necessary that the members of Christ's Body meet as one in the towns, villages or cities they live in. This would mean, of course, believers can meet in 2 different "churches" within one city or three or 300!!! Really?? How far can you take that? How does THAT build up Christ's Body ESPECIALLY if certain members HE means to build and temper together are not in that real life experience? So he faults this doctrine of "one church per one city" as being "not found in the Bible", but even that is a false statement because if you read the writings of Watchman Nee closely, you will find that the REAL Biblical truth about the ground upon which assemblies are built is BOTH local AND universal! In other words the Catholic teaching (which word means universal) is partially correct by claiming all believers are part of the universal one Body of Christ. This is in the Bible. However, there is a practical side to this because of the limitations of our flesh that God separates (not divides, mind you) the universal reality into practical expressions for obvious practical reasons. And He has HIS reasons for doing that and prescribing that HIS way!

So he starts his main point for and purpose for making his videos by saying that saints in Witness Lee groups really have misgivings about certain things going on there or being taught or practised, etc. etc., but they feel not free at all to leave this group of believers because they feel trapped by having to obey this doctrine and do not want to be involved in a division or divisiveness of the Body of Christ. So he is trying to give people "permission", as I see it, to leave these groups based on the fact that the word "ground of unity " and the actual doctrine is not found in the Bible ... or so he says according to him. I am not only going to prove him wrong in this part 3 of this what has become now a series, but am going to put out the REAL reason why it is OK to leave these groups started by Witness Lee NOT because the doctrine about local unity is not really true, but because the folks supposedly standing on this ground, although for the most part they got most of that doctrine right, are ACTUALLY in divisive territory!!!! Why? So before I ask and answer that question, let me bring up another point. Is obeying other commands of God also make people feel "trapped"?? Do you feel trapped because you are not supposed to steal? Is God violating your rights and not making you "feel good" because you don't like it or you don't feel like following His commands today? Maybe the real problem is His laws have not been really written upon your heart, and so, you have not yet been brought into agreement with God. Not yet anyway. .... Soooo .... Why do I say that the groups Bro. Lee started do NOT have the proper standing on the proper ground? Because they have a caste system!!! "What!!!!?!?!?!!" .. you may say? That's right. They have a CASTE system. They have two classes of believers and although they do not subscribe to this two class system nearly as much as the vast majority of almost all Christians everywhere else do, nevertheless, it is still there among them. You, my dear reader are probably even more guilty of the same. So, to what am I referring? The clergy-laity system where believers have so-called authority over other beleivers. I have already written about this quite much in my book The Revelation of the Lost Keys. To get the most specific truth on this subject, please take a look at ADDENDUM 3 - PROPER PRACTICES; PROPER CONTAINERS. To put it bluntly in a nutshell, since the general belief system is that apostles and elders, etc. do have authority OVER other NON apostles and elders, they have a two caste system and according to Jesus words found in chapters 2 and 3 concerning the "works" or "teachings" of the "Nicolaitans", found in the book of Revelation, He HATES such both practices and teachings. And THAT, my freinds, is THE main cause of divisions anyhow amongst believers today. It is arguments over who is in charge and who has the best doctrine, etc. etc. etc. There is found authority and submission on an earthly level like children to parents, citizens to police, etc. etc., in your New Testament, but NEVER IS THAT WORD (that word is the Greek term: exousia) used between one believer to another or OVER another. NO ONE besides Jesus Christ has that power or authority. ONLY is He our HEAD. There is no other Head! Of course, Christians can be in parent-children or husband-wife roles, etc. So on that level there can be that kind of authority and submission but never between new creation members of the Body. Now the scripture does say to have a submissive attitude one toward the other, but then it quickly qualifies this with the statement as unto Christ or in the fear of Christ.

Now, the first objection this YouTube brother makes is that he asked someone amongst Lee's groups "Where do you find this teaching in the Bible?" Really?? But whoever he was asking did not get it either and told him "you need to read between the lines." Again really?? So I'm not sure by what this guy is seeing or blind to or what he is saying if he had ever even read the basic books on this subject by Nee or Lee, but it is made plain in those writings that THERE IS NO OTHER KIND OF ASSEMBLY mentioned in your New Testament except local assemblies and that is true and Biblical in the NT scriptures. No other way of what consitutes an assembly is found in scripture. It is a simple as that. This is PLAIN by the word ecclesia either being single or plural. This is not reading between the lines, this is agreeing with the ACTS of the apostles and how it should be done. Do we DARE do things differently than they did? Well, most Christians do unfortunatley. The plural form assemblies is ONLY found in scriptures in areas bigger than a locality. The singular form is ONLY found as concerning or addressed to or spoken of a group of believers assembling in a city, town or village, etc. This is plain in the scriptures found in your New Testament and mine. Why should we establish 300 "assemblies" in one city when there are so many cities that do not even have one assembly? Can you not see what is wrong with this? Or what is wrong with US?? Is establishing more than one assembly in a city allowed? OF COURSE NOT!!!! Who told YOU it was? And who are you to say if it is or isn't. I am sure not going to take that position.

So then he brings up the arguement of Jesus discussion with the woman at the well where He correctly tells her that the place of worship will change from a physical temple to the spirit of man. Of course He meant our spirit mingled with the Spirit of God which, of course, is a true reality at this point. God truly DID change His residence where His presence may be found and where He truly lives from the old Jerusalem to the New Jerusalem which is within believers and believers only. In fact He says wherever even 2 or 3 believers gather "Into His Name" THERE is He in their midst. But sorry, what does this have to do with the definition of an assembly? An assembly is different parts assembled together to become fitly framed as a whole practical local expression. I have said this before, but I'll say it again: if I take a list of names of all the believers who live in this world and another list of the localities they live in, then the number of the differing localities is the exact same numbers as the number of assemblies there should be and however many believers live in those localities are numbers of how many living stones make up each assembly. And so: each assembly is different; all are one Body.

So then, while bringing up the events in John ch 4, he says "there is nothing wrong with meeting as the church in Minneapolis" etc. Then he says there are examples of this in the Bible. However, I say IS there something wrong with meeting in 10 hundred different "churches" in the same city? Of course there is! THAT is NOT found in the Bible and, not only that, it is a shame to Christ before a lost dying world today. Then he makes a very foolish statement (IF you are going to say Watchman Nee EVER EVER taught this!!!!!), that if that group in Minneapolis is going to say they are the one true group in Minneapolis to the exclusion of other believers in that city, then there is a control thing to keep people meeting with them. But this previous sentence is NOT what Watchman Nee taught! By the way, I would like to ask this guy if he ever met Watchman Nee? Well I guess that is impossible. But, OK, hear me on this. Brother Nee NEVER taught such a thing! He ALWAYS believed and taught that ALL believers who lived in a particular town, city or village ARE members of one another whether they met together as one or not. So all are included, not excluded. Now they may be knowingly or unknowingly divisive, but they are members of that assembly and the universal Body of Christ as well by virtue of the life of God within them.

He then claims that the teaching taught that because Jerusalem was the ground of the temple means the city is the ground of the church has no such teaching in the NT. Well that is a point, however, the temple is now US. However to assemble practically the living stones of this temple, which we all are for visible expressions of this reality to the world, there are, or should be, many local expressions. I mean, to have real meetings don't our bodies have to come together to meet with one another? But he objects with the statement "Jesus did not say we must worship in the jurisdiction of the city or the locality", however, here he is changing the subject. The subject of the 'assembly' is NOT the subject of worship.

He quotes brother Lee then as saying "the church is a spiritual entity" and not a physical building, however, in a sense I would say this is wrong because it consists of human beings who are spirit, soul and body, and for an assembly to exist, bodies must come together. Again, here is a changing of the subject of which spirit | soul | body beings belong together meeting together and misapplying a passage to this subject that is about a different subject among other subjects and that is worship. I mean, c'mon! I could worship God at home in my own room. Of course corporate worship may be better, but that is only one activity of meeting together, and is not all that Christians do when meeting together.

So then he uses Matthew 13's parable of the sower sowing seed on different types of ground to say people are the ground. But neither is Matthew 13 talking about assembling living stones together as an "ecclesia" assembly so that passage is talking about whether the seed of Christ's word is germinating and fruit bearing or not, which is a different subject and a different ground for an entirely different matter which has to do with evangelistic activities, realities and procedures. Are people the ground of the assembly? Really? Peaple are above the foundation and the foundation is above the ground. So once again he is misapplying: NOT RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.

Then he does it again using I Timothy where Paul writes that the assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth. Truth is reality; in fact Jesus is truth. So once again he is changing the subject to the location of spiritual reality. The assembled believers ARE the ground of spiritual reality and ONLY believers have the absolute reality of God in them and upon them. And THAT reality is Jesus Christ. But this passage of scripture is NOT, once again, about the ground of a particular single word form "assembly of the called out ones" (for that is what the term ecclesia means in the original Greek).

Then quoting I Cor 1:2 "the church of God which is at Corinth", which mentions ecclesia in the singular form by the way, he says do we need to add the rule "of God" to the equation just cause Paul writes in this fashion? To that I would give the shocking answer: Of course we do! That is a definite rule. But it is NOT a rule about what you SAY, but what is real or should be real in our midst. If a people are of the devil instead of being of God, could they be an assembly? Nope. Obviously, he was talking about a name for a church, but that is not what this is about. There should be no name except the Name of our Husband to be called by, but that should not be an official name. The real issue is who belongs where. Plain and simple.

Also mentioned is the fact the nation of Israel was one but had "divisions" (the real Biblical word, yes) according to names of their tribes. And this was OK. I also say it is OK. I would also say the "church" or ecclesia is divided into "churches" plural or eccesias plural, however, this also is not a division of the Body of Christ, but is a practical separation due to our human limitations and totally authorized by God. However the term eccesia(s) plural form is NEVER found in one city or town in the holy scriptures. It is found in a province as quoted in the 1st few verses of Galatians as I have already pointed out on this site as Galatia was NOT a city, but a province with many cities. This is why Barnabas and Paul planted at least 4 assemblies in 4 cities in those parts. As per Acts 14, the assemblies had 4 names of 4 different localities. This guy uses the term "consistency" over and over, but what I just wrote is truly consistent and Biblical, not what he is saying.

Then he says "who gave them" (meaning bro's Nee & Lee) "that rule that they must call theirselves the "church in such and such city? The devil did!" So wow! But the devil is not accused by him of splintering Christians within the same locality into the hundreds of splinters as seen in your American telephone books, not to mention many other countries of the world! Yeah! Go ahead and keep laughing lost world! Never mind, most of them just are ignoring us cause they don't see ANYTHING. Oh! Excuse me. I am wrong. they see strife and division and it is a shame to the Name rather than a glory to our Lord Jesus Christ. Well, somebody better tell it like it is.

He says the Lord never brought up the subject in the gospels, then says the Holy Spirit never said this through the apostles. But the plurals and singulars of ecclesias vs ecclesia tells us plainly the apostles DID convey this to us by their practices and actions. Jesus did not need to do this prior to the "church" age. (which I call the age of Pentecost, which was already concluded in 1993, by the way, however, that is another story: see for that explanation and find Stephen Jones book "Secrets of Time") Then he says they teach that the one assembly/one locality principle was taught by Nee & Lee as the only consistent pattern shown in the NT (and it is; let's get real), then he goes ahead and says they use this teaching to trap people into being in their cult, then he makes a major mistake by saying they are forcing folks to do something "they don't like to do or want to do." WHAT?! Who says following Jesus is something you do cause "you feel like it, but don't have to do if you don't feel like it?" Again, that is obviously a wrong statement.

Now let's deal with age old false argument about Nymphas in Col 4: about the "church in his house" .. some folks have said in the past that this makes the concept of "house church" OK, but let me explain. Paul wrote to the ecclesia (single form) in Colossea .... has he suddenly switched who he is writing to? No. The assembly in that city just happened to gather together in that brother's house. This lone verse cannot be used to divide one assembly into several assemblies. I have already stated on this site that, as bad as the denominations are, dividing into any old house church here and house church there is even worse and could mean even more divisions within a locale.

Another scripture he brings up to say it doesn't matter what name you use is the misapplication of I Cor 1: 11 & 12. He says it is the strife between believers that is Paul's point. On this point he is correct. It is more about that than the differing names. However! Isn't it obvious Paul is against division of believers in Corinth? C'mon! You know the answer to that one.

Of course, he then talks about whether these believers or other believers are using their titles as a "name" or a "description" or a ??? He justifies other groups saying they are also only using a description by calling themselves "Methodist" etc. This does not matter much in reality EXCEPT: how does the world look at this??? Well, there is one more reason why it matters: cause God said to do it this way: one assembly per one city. Why do I say God says to do it this way? Because doing it this way is to follow "me as I follow Christ." Paul wrote those words so we should follow the original apostles because they truly did follow Christ. For the few occasions where certain apostles did not follow Christ, there is definite scriptural reference to those occasions and in EVERY one of those instances repentance followed and that was also noted.

My point is we SHOULD be one in each locality because that is the way it was done in the beginning. Should this be our focus? Of course not! ONLY if Christ is our focus will we find true oneness and the Body, Bride and Building of God be built up and God be truly glorified.


For the original article on this subject of the matter of the ground matters, please see For Part 2 see:

Here's an incentive to seek God! The holy of holies deep within God's Tabernacle!E-mailLet's talk!

Copyright © 2019 by Kevin “the NorthWest”. Non-commercial use permitted.

Kevin “the NorthWest”

Lost Keys Contents | Visit to Tabernacle | Intro & Conclusion: Bible | Crux of NT | Views of Unity | Traditions of Men | Vision of Christ

The Revelation of the Lost Keys