The Local Church (The Lord's Recovery Church)

[kurtmanteufel]

Mike,

Before I can ask my question I feel I must first give a personal testimony.

When I first came to college (UT Austin) I was in seek of a church group. I wanted to kick off my new life in the new city in the proper way. I ended up getting a flier advertising for weekly bible studies on campus. They had a welcoming event for new freshmen and all were invited. Since I wanted to meet new people (and since they offered free food) I found myself attending.

I found myself well recieved by a friendly, "righteous" group of people who were in persuit of truth, salvation, and Christ. I remember asking of what denomination the group laid claim to. The response I got was something like, "We do not really have a denomination. Everyone is from all different kinds of backgrounds." I considered this a "non-denominational" group and quickly became involved in regular bible studies, discussions, seminars, etc.

What I didn't know then is that The Local Church is a "New Age" form of Christianity that hadn't been received well by much of the Christian community. The movement was started in China by a fellow who calls himself Watchman Nee. The English translation of their version of the bible, the Recovery Version, was done by another chinese fellow named Witness Lee. The claim, of course, is that this translation is a close, literal translation from the hebrew of the old testiment, and the greek of the new testiment.

Now, there are a few easy-to-identify doctrinal falacies that I believe this group makes. First is their interpretation of Genesis 1:2, where the NIV translation states, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Lee's translation states, "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters." I was taught, though I never accepted it, that tucked into this tiny little verse was the fall of the angels, the millions of years of the reign of the dinosaurs, and the answer to the many contradictions between the traditional genesis chonology and the evolutionist world view.

Right away, the buzz word that pops into my head is "Gap Theory." The problem with Gap Theory, as I see it, is this; if you don't accept the literal interpretation of the bible as the way that the word is meant to be interpreted, then the entire belief structure falls apart. What merit does any statement in the bible have if you can always question whether it was meant to be literal, or allegorical, or metaphorical?

But now whats going on here?!?! Lee claims to be very true to the literal interpretation of the Hebrew. His translation seems to very clearly suggest that something happened on that first day to transform the world into waste, and God was brooding (sorrowful? contemplating?) over this waste and darkness.

Ok, question 1:
Mike, either Lee/Nee is blatently manipulating the text or the Hebrew in Genesis 1:2 is very difficult to interpret and so it must be a debate that you are aware of. Can you please give me some background on what the Hebrew actually says and some support for the interpretation that you believe to be correct?

Question 2:
On the literal interpretation of the Word- Are there any teachings of Jesus that you believe to be non-literal (i.e. metaphorical)- the Lord's Supper for example? How does the reader's deciding of which parts of the bible ARE meant to be accepted as literal and which are NOT to be accepted as literal affect the authority of the bible?

Now I suggest that you take some time and get a sandwich and some coffee because I am going to continue the rest of my story.

As I spent more time with them, the bible studies progressed into worship sessions and I was invited to share meals with them at homes of Alumni within the church. Now, studying the bible with them was one thing, but worshiping with them was another. They had two curious ways of worshiping Jesus that I still just don't understand. First, they enjoyed chanting the name of Jesus. Now, I can't think of how to describe this... I shall try. Without tone or harmony, out of sync, kind of creepy... oh wait, I know... cult-like, yes! that's the word... Also, they would do this thing called prayer-reading. While they read the bible, they pray-read the words out loud and acted as though they were having some kind of overwhelming surge of the spirit. I still don't understand it. They said that both of these things were restorations of THE church, the true church... yeah right...

Question 3:
What are they talking about? Have you ever heard of worshiping in this way? Why would people want to do this? Why does it make me so uncomfortable? Is there anything wrong with it? I really can't find anything wrong with it.

I went to their church just once. They honored Witness Lee (more honor than what I felt comfortable with by the way) for restoring the true church, the only church, and the sermen was about every person in the room needing to strive to be one of the 144,000. I wanted to pull the fire alarm... Now to be fair, they were not saying that only 144,000 go to heaven. They explained that 144,000 descend to heaven during the rapture and never die.

Question 4:
What is your position on the 144,000? Should it be every christian's goal to be one?

Ok, now here's the kicker. Before I had to stop returning their calls when they wouldn't accept me simply telling them that I wasn't going to meet with them, they made a huge effort to fortify their position with me on one particular topic. They have a very strong fixation on determining the relationship between man and the holy spirit. They describe man as an empty vessel, that needs to be filled by the holy spirit, AND when the man does, the man's spirit becomes part of the holy spirit... Wait... AND what?!?!

Question 5:
I forgot what verses they used to support this idea... Are there any verses that reference the joining of man's spirit and the holy spirit? I'm no bible scholar by any means, but for some reason I have a hard time stomaching this...

Question 6:
If a person can't read Hebrew/Greek, and he isn't a bible scholar, how can he know what the true doctrine is? How can he be so sure that the method of salvation as explained in the translation that he chose to study isn't a crude oversight of what the true message really is? And if he feels confident that he knows that he is saved because he knows Jesus died for his sins and he accepts him as Lord and he repents, then does it truely matter if he gets the doctrine right, as long as he correctly delivers the punch line? After all, very few people are ever going to learn the Hebrew and derive their own translations. Ultimately, nearly all people will choose some authority to translate the Word into their spoken language for them, whether it be King James or Witness Lee. So then, could you really call The Local Church a cult? Does arguing about doctrine actually serve any real purpose?

Ok, I'm all out of ammo. Please feel free to answer these questions in multiple posts over multiple days, I know you have a life, there's no rush.

Looking forward to reading your answers.
Kurt

[kurtmanteufel]

Also, I hope its not too much to ask. Could you please cite verses with your answers? One thing I learned from the local church is that it is never as easy as just accepting someone elses opinion. And there are lots of opinions, each from very smart people. And there are many authorities that believe they have found the truth and impose it on others.

Thanks again,
KM

[Mike Miller]

Kurt,

Thanks for making my day with a lot of really cool questions. And thanks for giving me some time. I'll answer each one in its own post.

To begin with, however, let me make a couple of comments about Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and The Local Churches (the Recovery Movement). Watchman Nee was a guy who taught a weird kind hybrid doctrine that emphasized emotions and mystical experiences over the Bible. Witness Lee was one of his disciples and the one who really gave strong leadership to the Local Church movement. He says that this movement is the only true expression of Christianity and that all other churches and denominations are apostates and daughters of the prostitute of Babylon, which he identified as the Roman Catholic Church. He also de-emphasized Bible Study, teaching that Christian growth is only accomplished by reading Scripture aloud, with emotion, interjecting Amen, Praise the Lord, and Hallelujah throughout (more on this when I get to question 3). He also denies the historically orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. As a rule, any movement that sets itself up as being "the only true church" is problematic. Because of this, their unorthodox doctrines, and their unhealthy allegiance to Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, they are identified pretty much universally as a cult.

Question 1: "Mike, either Lee/Nee is blatently manipulating the text or the Hebrew in Genesis 1:2 is very difficult to interpret and so it must be a debate that you are aware of. Can you please give me some background on what the Hebrew actually says and some support for the interpretation that you believe to be correct?"

Well, there has been considerable discussion about the interpretation of Genesis 1:2, but the Hebrew itself is pretty simple. The ESV is as good as any: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." As for what it means for the earth to be without form and void, however, we have difficulty in that we can't really picture it. Moses was inspired to describe something that he did not personally see. Nevertheless, the plain sense of the verse (and we should always go with the plain sense unless context demands otherwise--more on that in question 2) is simply that the earth was dark and lacked order and content. It was covered with water (the deep), and God's Spirit was hovering over it.

Really, the differences in interpretation were fueled by the gap theory, which holds that there was an undetermined length of time between verses 1 & 2, during which time the world was judged, and God basically started over in verse 3. This is an attempt to harmonize the Genesis account with Darwinian evolution. Some even try to harmonize the gap theory with the ancient Babylonian creation story known as Enuma Elish where Marduk (the creator god) had to get rid of Tiamat, the goddess of chaos. Those who hold to this view contend that the early chapters of Genesis are a myth where the Hebrew God actually conquered Tiamat and started over creating a new kind of earth. However, if we don't demand that Darwin be our primary interpretive tool (and I don't, and I find it interesting that more and more scientists are admitting that Darwinian evolution has been thoroughly debunked by modern science), then the plain sense works just fine, so that's the way I take it (and that's really what is known in biblical scholarship as the traditional view).

One other comment about God's Spirit "brooding." Really, hovering is a better translation, but the word can mean "brooding." However, it doesn't mean brooding in any kind of emotional sense, but rather like a bird would cover (or brood over) her eggs or chicks with her wings to protect them. See Deuteronomy 32:11 for the same word.

[Mike Miller]

Question 2: "On the literal interpretation of the Word- Are there any teachings of Jesus that you believe to be non-literal (i.e. metaphorical)- the Lord's Supper for example? How does the reader's deciding of which parts of the bible ARE meant to be accepted as literal and which are NOT to be accepted as literal affect the authority of the bible?"

Yes, Jesus and the human authors of Scripture used all kinds of rhetorical and literary devices, such as metaphor, simile, hyperbole, analogy, and idiom. Jesus frequently used parables, the prophets used vivid symbolism, and apocalyptic literature is also highly symbolic. The use of these devices, however, does not negate a literal interpretation. Literal interpretation does not mean interpreting words literally, but interpreting meaning literally. The task of interpretation, then, is to determine the meaning of the text in its context. Context determines whether something is metaphorical, hyperbolic, etc., or not. In case this seems complicated, it's really not. Let me illustrate:

This morning, I read an article on espn.com about Texas Rangers pitcher Cliff Lee (he's pretty amazing--13 strikeouts last night against the Yankees!). Anyway, the article called him an "equal opportunity assassin." Now, when I read that, I didn't think, "Oh my word! Cliff Lee is a hired killer? Why doesn't somebody do something?" No, I understood that the literal meaning was that he can get just about any batter out. It wasn't even difficult to understand, because the context was clear.

Therefore, in biblical interpretation, we really need to understand context, which means that we need to understand what's going on in a given situation. For the most part, this is not difficult, such as when Jesus says, "I am the door." We know Jesus isn't a piece of wood that hangs on hinges, though now we have to look at the context to see exactly what He meant by that. In other words, now we need to determine the literal meaning of His statement.

The question at hand, however, relates more to certain stories in the Bible, such as the creation account. Are we to take those at face value, or do we see them as parables? As I said in response to question 1, unless context demands otherwise, as with any other kind of speech or literature, we should go with the plain sense meaning. So, if my mind had not been tainted with a scientific theory that is now being debunked on a regular basis, how would I have read Genesis 1? I would see it as the account of God creating everything out of nothing in 6 days. That, then, is how it should be interpreted.

How does this affect the authority of the Bible? If anything, it only lends credibility. We can see that God communicated through human language in common sense ways that we could understand. The Bible isn't some bizarre document that doesn't make sense, nor is it written in some wooden fashion that doesn't reflect God's creative character. It is exactly as we would expect.

[kurtmanteufel]

Thanks Mike! These are really great answers so far. Could you please clarify a few things for me though?

..is simply that the earth was dark and lacked order and content.

Could you expand on the Hebrew word for "was"/"became". Is that same word used elsewhere in the Bible? How can the context be used to clarify which meaning is meant?

We can see that God communicated through human language in common sense ways that we could understand.

Isn't there a memory verse that says that the Word is understandable by anyone? I wish I could remember...

edit: grrr critical typo

[Mike Miller]

First, the Hebrew word can mean "was" or "became," however, the construction in Genesis 1:2 is disjunctive rather than consecutive. In other words, for it to mean "became," the sentence would have started with the conjunction attached to the verb and followed by the noun. However, the conjunction is attached to the noun and followed by the verb. Therefore, the most likely and natural reading is "was."

As for a particular verse stating that the Word is understandable by everyone, I don't know of one. However, my point was that God used normal human language to communicate, and there is no indication that He changed the rules of communication when He did so. As for understanding doctrine and application, we are told that these things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:4), but understanding the basic language is another matter.

[Mike Miller]

Ok, I'm back.

Question 3 [regarding prayer-reading]: What are they talking about? Have you ever heard of worshiping in this way? Why would people want to do this? Why does it make me so uncomfortable? Is there anything wrong with it? I really can't find anything wrong with it.

First, is there anything unbiblical about reading Scripture out loud? Nope. Second, is there anything unbiblical about using/quoting Scripture in our praying? Nope. but that's really not what they are doing.

I see several problems with this practice. To begin with, they claim this was a practice in the early church. False. I would ask them to document that. Further, Witess Lee claimed that this is the means to Christian growth. In 2 Timothy 2, Paul tells young Timothy to entrust sound doctrine to reliable men so they can pass it on. In chapter 4, he tells him to combat false teaching by preaching the Word. 1 Timothy 4:13 says there should be public reading of Scripture as well as exhortation and teaching. Not only that, but in the early church as seen in the book of Acts, we never see this practice, but instead we see the leaders in the church preaching and teaching. Simply, the practice of prayer-reading--as defined by Witness Lee--is an unbiblical concept.

[Mike Miller]

Question 4: What is your position on the 144,000? Should it be every christian's goal to be one?

My position is that there has been way too much emphasis on the 144,000, but an explanation is in order (bear with me). The book of Revelation belongs to the category/genre of "apocalyptic" literature. The word "apocalypse" comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which simply means "revelation." Apocalyptic literature, then, is (as defined by Mitchell Reddish) "revelatory literature; that is, it is literature that claims to reveal cosmic secrets to a human recipient." In other words, apocalyptic literature pulls back the curtain, so to speak, on the supernatural reality behind physical events. It was typically important in perilous times in order to give hope to seemingly hopeless situations. At the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, the believers were being severely persecuted by Rome, so God sent them a message--a peek into the spiritual world--in order to assure them that they are part of a larger cosmic battle which will ultimately result in victory by King Jesus as well as their vindication and eternal reward.

Now, since the apocalyptic is descriptive of the supernatural world, the language used is highly symbolic with vivid pictures and imagery. As I stated in my answer to question 2, however, this does not meant that it is not to be taken literally, but that figurative language is used to describe literal places, persons, and events. For example, in Revelation 17, we are introduced to a prostitute that is drunk with the blood of the saints. Is this a real woman who drinks blood and gets drunk? No. In fact, her name is "Babylon the great" (verse 5), and she is identified in verse 18 as "the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." What does all this mean? Wasn't Babylon conquered by that time and no longer a threat? Yes, but Babylon symbolized a geo-political empire that was hostile to God's people. At the time John penned Revelation, this was probably cryptic language for Rome, but it could also typify all political/religious systems that set themselves up against God's people throughout the church age.

Ok, so why did I say all that in answer to a question about the 144,000? I just wanted to explain how we interpret Revelation so you will understand how I view the 144,000, for I see that as a symbolic number as well. For one thing, if we take it literally, then according to Revelation 7:4-8, they are Jewish people, which automatically refutes the folks you encountered unless they are all Jewish. They probably see the Jewish references as figurative, however, but not the number, which is an inconsistency as I see it. But if we read all the context of Revelation 7 (and chapter 14), we see that in verse 3, the sealed are the servants of God, then in verse 4, there are 144,000, but then in verse 9, there is "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages." Really, it seems that this is all the same group--the followers of Christ who are sealed (unless someone wants to imply that only 144,000 will be sealed). The number 144,000, then, is probably just a figurative expression for a very large number, with 12 (12 tribes, 12 apostles) times 12 (tying the Old Testament believers with the New Testament believers) times 1,000 (a number of completeness).

So, in summary, I see the 144,000 as being a figurative reference to all believers. Therefore, in answer to the second part of your question, everyone should want to be a part of those who are sealed, and we who are Christians are already in this number. We also want everyone to come to Christ by faith and join the great company of the redeemed.

[Mike Miller]

Question 5: I forgot what verses they used to support this idea... Are there any verses that reference the joining of man's spirit and the holy spirit? I'm no bible scholar by any means, but for some reason I have a hard time stomaching this...

Man's spirit does not become part of the Holy Spirit.

What is the Holy Spirit's role and relationship to man? The Holy Spirit cleanses us and gives us new life (Titus 3:4-7), seals and preserves us until we come into glory (Ephesians 1:13-14), dwells within us (John 14:17; Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16), teaches us (John 14:26), gives us wisdom (John 16:13), and comforts us (Acts 9:31). And this is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, nothing in Scripture indicates that we in any way become part of the Holy Spirit.

[Mike Miller]

Question 6: If a person can't read Hebrew/Greek, and he isn't a bible scholar, how can he know what the true doctrine is? How can he be so sure that the method of salvation as explained in the translation that he chose to study isn't a crude oversight of what the true message really is? And if he feels confident that he knows that he is saved because he knows Jesus died for his sins and he accepts him as Lord and he repents, then does it truely matter if he gets the doctrine right, as long as he correctly delivers the punch line? After all, very few people are ever going to learn the Hebrew and derive their own translations. Ultimately, nearly all people will choose some authority to translate the Word into their spoken language for them, whether it be King James or Witness Lee. So then, could you really call The Local Church a cult? Does arguing about doctrine actually serve any real purpose?

First, not everyone is going to learn the biblical languages, and not everyone is going to be a biblical scholar. Not everyone is supposed to. All believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling within to teach them the truth about Scripture as they read it (John 14:25-26). At the same time, however, God calls and equips some people to be teachers and preachers for the purpose of helping the church grow (Ephesians 4:11-16). What this means on a practical level is that all believers can read the Bible with understanding. But when it comes to systematizing theological systems and dealing with complex historical and linguistic issues, certain people are given those responsibilities within the church. We all have roles in the church, and that just happens to be the role of some people. This is one reason why involvement in the local church is so important--to have preachers and teachers help us to know and understand Scripture. So even though we can all read the Bible, none of us is perfect (including preachers and teachers), so the church leadership and the community of faith serve as guides and correctors to keep us on track. And as for translations, some are better than others, but we preachers and teachers should help you find the ones that are more true to the original languages.

A good example of this in action is that Witness Lee's translation has not become an accepted standard within the church, and neither has his doctrine. Within the larger, global community of faith, we have determined and agreed with certainty what the Bible has to say about the core doctrines of the faith. When any movement comes along that falls outside the bounds of orthodoxy, that movement is identified and isolated. Of course, some will always follow the false teachers and their teachings, but when you have thousands of theologians across centuries of Christianity who agree, and then along comes one guy who says they're all wrong, we have pretty good footing to know what to believe.

So, does doctrine really matter all that much? Yes. Why? First, because truth matters. We either believe in truth or a lie. I believe that it we would have to lack compassion to say that we don't care if people believe things that are false. Now, having said that, there are some things that we Christians will disagree about--church polity and structure, mode of baptism, etc. But there are some things that are absolute essentials to the faith--the person and work of Christ, the nature and identity of God, the means of salvation, etc. What makes some things essentials and others not? For one thing, the essentials have to do with eternal life, and the others do not. For example, I believe that baptism should be practiced by immersion. I have some Presbyterian brothers who disagree. The real question, though, is whether that affects our salvation. Since we in both camps agree that baptism is symbolic and that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, we consider mode of baptism a minor issue. Also, essentials and non-essentials can be determined by how clear Scripture is on an issue. For example, the Bible is very clear that Jesus is both divine and human (essential), but it is less clear about whether we are to have bishops or elders or how decisions are made in a church (non-essential).

Moreover, issues about the person and work of Jesus and the nature and identity of God are essentials. If a person says, "I believe in Jesus," does that settle the issue? No. What Jesus? Is it the Jesus of Mormonism who is one of many gods and the brother of Lucifer, conceived when God had intercourse with Mary? Or is it the Jesus of the Bible, part of the Trinity, born of a virgin? I would say that if you're believing in the wrong Jesus, then that Jesus cannot save you.

Now, why wold we call The Local Church a cult? Typically whenever a group strays from orthodoxy and claims to be the only true church, it falls into the cult category. Also, when their focus (as you indicated) is on a person who is exalted to some sort of iconic status, that is a cultish tendency. But is it important to use such a label? I think it is, because we want to be clear that the group falls outside of Christian orthodoxy, and we want to caution people not to get involved in it. The leaders in the early church frequently called out those who were teaching false doctrines and warned others about them (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Timothy 3:6-9; 4:1-5; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 3-4).

Well! I think that answers all of this post. Now on to your next one.

[charliedale]

These are all great theological questions and answers, but I would also say that it's perfectly valid to reject a group that uses deception to recruit new members. Not to reject an entire faith or denomination for one group's deception but certainly to reject that particular group.