r/localchurches

What exactly is Witness Lee’s “high gospel”?
I’m trying to better understand what Witness Lee meant by the “high gospel.”

What exactly is this gospel? When did Lee begin teaching it, and why did he consider it “high” in comparison with the gospel ordinarily preached by Christians?

This is where I struggle with the terminology.
The gospel proclaimed by Paul and the other apostles seems to be clearly laid out in the New Testament. Paul summarizes the gospel he received and preached:

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” - 1 Corinthians 15:3–4

Paul also says:
“I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” - Romans 1:16

Peter preached Christ’s death and resurrection and called people to repentance and faith.
—Acts 2:22–38; Acts 10:39–43

Paul preached forgiveness of sins and justification through faith in Christ. - Acts 13:38–39

Jesus Himself commanded that repentance for the forgiveness of sins be proclaimed to all nations. - Luke 24:46–47

So my question is:
Why do Christians need something called a “high gospel” if the gospel was already delivered through Christ and His apostles?

I understand that the New Testament contains deeper teachings concerning Christian growth, sanctification, transformation, the church, the Body of Christ, resurrection, glorification, and God’s eternal purpose.

But are those things supposed to be called a higher gospel, or are they simply further apostolic teachings given to those who have already believed the gospel?

This question becomes especially important to me because Paul gives a very serious warning:

“Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” - Galatians 1:8

And Jude speaks of:
“the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” - Jude 3

So I’m genuinely interested in understanding:

What did Witness Lee mean by the “high gospel”?

When did he begin using this terminology?
What makes it “high”?

And like always most importantly:

Can the concept of a “high gospel” actually be demonstrated from the teaching and preaching of the apostles themselves?

I’m not being negative or opposing Witness Lee ok.

I’m not arguing that Christians should remain spiritually immature. Scripture clearly teaches growth and maturity.

My question is whether spiritual maturity means going deeper into the apostolic gospel and teaching, or whether Christians should accept a category of gospel that is described as “higher” or “the highest” than the gospel originally preached by the apostles.

I would especially appreciate direct quotations from Witness Lee’s writings along with Scripture.

From Revelation 2:2-4, it is obvious that to the Lord, the "first love" far outweighs all the commendable works mentioned in 2:2. If so much time and effort are spent building and maintaining those external practices in 2:2, there is no reason we don’t talk more about the “first love” in 2:4. But what is it? How to get it?

I know the New Testament had two Greek words, agape and phileo, both were translated to “love” in English, so in English we lost the distinctions there, but clearly the Bible is very specific when using them. For example, it says that God “agape” the world, but only a handful people does the Bible recorded that God “phileo”. Also the Lord asked Peter two times using “agape”, but “phileo” the third time (John 22:15-17). Those two kinds of love must be very different, but in which ways?

I know the Bible always says we should “agape”, and implies how important “agape” is, but what is it? Like is it being nice to people? Don’t blame when being offended/robbed/stolen, etc., or else? I know Paul said “love (agape) your enemy”, but how? Like give them water and food, don’t whip them, bite your tongue when your enemy says mean things to you, etc.? How do you know you’re actually “agape”-ing but not “phileo”-ing among all the possible feelings that can be confused with loving?

Revelation 19:7: “His bride has made herself ready.”

The Greek verb here is active voice, with a reflexive pronoun — she is the one doing the preparing, not a passive recipient of it.

If that's the case, here's the question: can someone genuinely go through the active process described in this verse — their own doing, not someone else's — and come out the other side with zero awareness that anything happened?

Some people say they're not supposed to know — it's God who judges. But I would say: if the verb is active, and it's the bride doing the readying, there's no way she has zero awareness of where her doing is leading to.

Hello saints,
I am not here to debate against the Lord’s day meetings but I’m here to ask for guidance. For different reasons I left the church life and I’m slowly coming back in. I am okay with reading and praying with a saint over the phone and recently began meeting in a home meeting, however I dread/fear/panic over the idea of the Lord’s day meetings. I’d like to hear from other people and their experiences.

I'm attending a conference of elders in France, and something that was shared really impacted me deeply:

"Our principle is not efficiency, it's inclusion."

Efficiency is such a prominent part of human nature. Everything about modern society- everything \*negative\* in particular- is driven by an insatiable need for efficiency. Debt, centralization of power, taking without giving back, war, corporations sacking workers to save pennies... It's also what drives spiritual deadness in churches. It's always more efficient to have one guy in charge, with nobody else doing anything. But a living church is one where everyone has a part to play.

Why? Because this is \*God's\* way. From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, you cannot find one single thing God has done without inclusion. Leaving Egypt? He used Moses. Building the temple? He used His people. Spreading the gospel? Be used the apostles. Converting Paul? He used Ananias. Even creating man, there was inclusion within the Godhead, in the trinity. "Let us make man."

So many objections and questions people have toward Christianity stem from a desire for efficiency, too. "Why not judge all evil now?" "Why bother creating Satan?" "Why even give us free will instead of just getting what He wants?" "Why give Adam a choice?" Even "Why is God invisible?"

The answer to all of these is the same: God wants to include us in the way He does things. God doesn't care about efficiency. God would rather wait 2,000 years for mankind to do things right, than snap His fingers and just get it over with.

Our way, God's way, is inclusion, not efficiency. Next time you find yourself thinking "I'll do it myself", think about it, and instead see how you could invite another brother or sister to participate instead. Even if they mess up. It's better for two members of the Body to do a poor job than for one to do a perfect one.