|
|
|||||||
| If you really Nee to know Who was Watchman Nee? Discussions regarding the life and times of Watchman Nee, the Little Flock and the beginnings of the Local Church Movement in Mainland China |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| 01-06-2017 07:23 AM | |||||
| UntoHim |
G Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee - Updated October 28 2016 Nee Watchman (Ni Tuosheng) 1903 ~ 1972 By: G Wright Doyle Newly revised on October 28, 2016 Born November 4, 1903, in Shantou, Guangdong, of churchgoing parents, Ni was called Shucu ("declare your ancestors' merits"). His parents moved to Fuzhou when he was six. (Later, he took the name Tuosheng, which is the sound produced when a time-watcher hits the bamboo gong at night.) Shortly after his birth, his parents returned to Fuzhou, where Ni received his early education in Chinese classical studies, with a private tutor for calligraphy and the Four Confucian Classics. Ni’s father, the son of a Christian preacher, was active in his church, though his mother’s faith was nominal during his youth. He attended the Church Missionary society (CMS) Chinese vernacular school, St. Mark’s English High School, and starting in 1916 the junior high school at the Anglican Trinity College, which was run by the Church Missionary Society. At first, he was not interested in the required biblical instruction. In April, 1920, however, both he and his mother were converted through the ministry of Dora Yu (Yu Cidu), a Methodist evangelist. Yu also introduced Ni to Margaret E. Barber (1869-1930), an independent English missionary who became the most important personal influence on his theological development. Barber had renounced her ties to the Anglican church and embraced a “life of faith,” depending on no one for financial support. Ni and his mother, having rejected as unbiblical their baptism as infants in the Methodist church, were re-baptized by Barber in 1921. From the time of his conversion, Ni became a diligent student of the Scriptures and a constant witness to Christ. He joined with several other students of Trinity College, including Wang Zai (Leland Wang), to form a home fellowship. They split, however, when Ni insisted upon a total dissociation from Western denominations, which he had come to consider anti-Christian. Disenchanted with Anglican doctrine and liturgy, Ni spent a year at Yu's Bible school in Shanghai, where he received basic training in Christian living. He was deeply influenced by the books in Barber’s library, consisting mostly of the Holiness literature of writers such as T. Austin-Sparks, Jessie Penn-Lewis, D. M. Panton, Andrew Murray, and F. B. Meyer. Jesse Penn-Lewis played by far the most prominent role in his own thinking, however. Like these writers, Ni would emphasize both a “rest of faith” and premillennialism. He became familiar with the Brethren Movement through the writings of J. N. Darby, George Muller, William Kelly, and C. A. Coates. He read about major Christian leaders, also, such as Martin Luther, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, David Brainerd, John Henry Newman, D. L. Moody, Charles Finney, and C. H. Spurgeon. Throughout his career, Ni engaged in extensive literature ministry. He began in 1923 by editing Revival, a devotional magazine for free distribution, followed in 1926 by The Christian, which dealt with “truths about church and matters of prophecy” and gained wide circulation in only a few years. In 1926, when he was suffering from tuberculosis, Ni began his first major book, The Spiritual Man, which sought to explain spiritual formation in terms of biblical psychology, especially the radical distinction between “soul” (self-consciousness) and “spirit” (God-consciousness). Published in 1928, the three-volume work has been called basically a translation of Penn-Lewis’s Soul and Spirit, published ten years earlier, though Ni did not make that clear. These early efforts laid the theological foundation for his future teaching ministry. For a variety of reasons, including the anti-Western movement of the 1920s, many Chinese Christian leaders were seeking ways to form indigenous churches that would be free from Western missionary control. Having moved to the International Settlement in Shanghai in 1926, Ni constituted in 1932 a group of “apostolic” co-workers that would lead what became the Little Flock Movement: Wang Peizhen (Peace Wang) and Li Yuanru (Ruth Lee), with Ni himself as supreme. They soon grew from a small household gathering to a network of local churches. Rather than becoming an itinerant evangelist, Ni decided to build a solid base in Shanghai, whence churches could be planted all over China. Ni had a team of fellow workers, including Witness Lee, Simon Meek, and Faithful Luke, who helped to start local churches in many cities in Southeast Asia. In his rejection of all denominationalism, Ni stressed the principle of locality, i.e., there is only one true church in each city. “Despite his weak constitution, Ni’s magnetic personality and his remarkable ability to speak . . . mesmerized the group, and he soon emerged as their indisputable leader” (Xi, 167). In the chaotic years of the Republic, Ni’s emphasis upon a deep spiritual life and on the certainty of the return of Christ evoked a strong response from spiritually hungry people, including many students and intellectuals. Ni's theological outlook was influenced by the Brethren tradition. In 1933, he visited the Brethren communities in England and the United States, though he later severed this relationship because he considered their principle of Christian fellowship too restrictive and their emphasis on perfection in Christ too excessive. In 1938, he attended the Keswick Convention, and during his European tour he gave a series of talks on Romans 5-8, which were published as his popular book, The Normal Christian Life. He was briefly exposed to the Pentecostal movement through a missionary of the China Inland Mission in the 1930s, but he did not speak in tongues and later rejected what he considered the emotional excesses of the charismatic meetings. When Ni was nineteen, he fell in love with an eighteen-year-old girl, Zhang Pinhui, whose English name was Charity. She was not a believer, however, so he wrestled with God in prayer. Finally, he submitted his desire to wed Charity to God in complete surrender. Charity later studied at Yanjing University in Beijing, earning a Master’s degree in English. Upon graduation, she moved to Shanghai and was baptized, opening the way for Ni to marry her. When he married “Charity” in 1934, an aunt of Charity’s who opposed the match published an “expose” in the media about his alleged romantic involvement with other women, which damaged his reputation, so he stepped down as leader of the movement, handing it over to elders whom he had previously appointed. He resumed his position the next year. After the work had grown to more than two hundred local assemblies around China, Ni set forth the basic organizational principles in Rethinking Our Mission. Each assembly would be autonomous and led by its elders, who were appointed by the “apostles.” The whole movement of Local Churches would be led by the “workers,” or apostles, considered to be chosen by God as his “overseers.” 1942, Ni was expelled from leadership for several reasons: His increasing, and finally full-time, work with his brother’s pharmaceutical company; multiple instances of shady business practices; and the exposure of ongoing sexual immorality with female co-workers and other women, including prostitutes. After the war, Ni published several books on ecclesiology, including The Orthodoxy of the Church, Authority and Obedience, and On Church Affairs, which stated the “Jerusalem Principle,” according to which the authority of elders in local assemblies was restricted and the entire movement came under direct central control. These works represented a major change in emphasis, from the spiritual life of the individual and the local church to the authority of “apostles,” of whom Ni was pre-eminent, to direct the entire organization and its work. With a great deal of help from Li Changshou (Witness Lee), he was restored to his previous leadership position in 1948, and announced a program of evangelism by dispatching teams of unreached areas of China. By 1949, there were over 700 local churches with a combined membership of 70,000. A campaign of “handing over” possessions to the local church was promoted in 1947, ostensibly to fund evangelistic migration of believers. At the same time, Ni was preaching absolute, even unthinking, submission to church leaders, especially himself. Only those who had been trained by Ni and Li could become leaders in the local churches. Believers were fired with zeal to give all they had to the work of the Lord, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were contributed. Some of the money went toward the construction of a very large meeting place for the Shanghai assembly, whose numbers had reached 1,700. Ni had an opportunity to escape from Communist persecution when he visited Hong Kong in 1950. His friends urged him not to return, but he insisted that it was his duty to share whatever sufferings his fellow Christians would have to undergo. After the Communist victory, the government began to take control of Christian churches. A “Christian Manifesto” called upon believers to sever all ties with “imperialist” foreign churches and organizations. Ni used signatures which had been gathered for another purpose to add to the number of those who had subscribed to the Manifesto. When the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) was established in 1951, Ni supported the new organization, publicly “repenting” of his previous inadequate grasp of indigenous principles, and advocating submission to the government. Ni was arrested in Manchuria in April, 1952 on charges of tax evasion and corrupt business practices. Four years later, in a public trial in Shanghai, he was found guilty on political grounds and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His followers were devastated by revelations of his dishonesty both in business and in church dealings, and even more by his sexual transgressions, which started in the 1920s and continued into the 1950s. Disbelief turned into grief as the evidence (including photographs, Ni’s signed confession, and admission of guilt by at least one female co-worker) became conclusive. At the same time, Ni’s ten-year absence from the Lord’s Table was explained by his admission that he had had a guilty conscience. Charity was arrested during the same period, but was later released from prison because of deteriorating health. She was thus able to visit her husband while he was in prison. Ni was confined to a tiny cell and treated so badly that he soon weighed only 100 pounds. For a while he suffered from coronary ischaemia. Charity was arrested again at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (19966-1976). She and two of her sisters were put into a small room, interrogated by Red Guards, and brutally tortured. Later, they were paraded through the streets wearing dunce caps and heavy boards around their necks. Still, the three women refused to deny their faith in Jesus Christ. Ni expected to be released when his fifteen-year sentence was completed in 1967, but officials demanded that he renounce his faith in order to gain freedom, which he would not do. Two thugs were placed into the cell with him with orders to torment Ni, but he remained firm in his faith despite suffering indescribable pain from his cellmates. He was transferred to Qing Dong Reform-through-labor Farm in Qingpu County outside of Shanghai, where Charity was allowed to visit him once. Later he was sent to the dreaded Baimaoling Reform-through-Labor Farm in the mountains of Anhui province. Though conditions were rough and primitive, he wrote his sister, “Here the mountains are beautiful and the water clear.” When Charity died after suffering for months of high blood pressure and heart disease, her family delayed passing the news to Ni. They knew that his one great wish was to be re-united with her. While in prison, he had realized “with much regret, that his wife had suffered loneliness when he was travelling around China and overseas. . . They had only been together for relatively short periods during their married life. He resolved that he would make it up to her if he had this opportunity. He would serve her, wait on her and do all he could to give her a restful retirement in their closing years together.” When he finally heard the news of her passing, he was devastated and spent many days in prayer. On May 22, 1972, Ni wrote a coded letter to his sister-in-law, saying that “my joy is full,” clearly referring to John 15:11. A week later, he was in critical heart condition, so the prison authorities put him on a tractor to take him to the prison hospital, twelve miles away. His weakened body could not stand the rough mountain road, and he died on the way. After his death, a written note was found under his pillow. It read: Christ is the Son of God. He died as the Redeemer for the sins of mankind, and was raised up from the dead after three days. This is the most important fact in the world. I shall die believing in Christ. His ashes were buried next to Charity’s in a cemetery near Shanghai.Some of his churches joined the Three-Self Patriotic Movement; others went underground. Ni left the Chinese church with a body of teaching on based on a trichotomy of the human constitution---body, soul, and spirit, with primacy in the Christian life to be given to the spirit. The goal was to be restoration of communication between God's Spirit and the human spirit. He regarded sanctification as the lifelong process of the spirit's controlling the soul and the soul's directing the body. Through his powerful spoken teaching and prolific writing, Ni greatly influenced the conservative wing of the Chinese church. Publications by Ni include many volumes translated into English from notes of his oral instruction taken down at the time. Some of the most influential are The Normal Christian Life; Sit, Walk, Stand (an exposition of Ephesians); Changed into His Likeness; and a series of booklets issued by Living Streams Ministry, the publishing arm of Witness Lee’s Local Church movement in America. The theological vocabulary he formulated has become an important ingredient in today's popular Chinese theology. Several commendatory biographies of Watchman Ni have added to the enormous influence of his writings. He is remembered mostly for his early emphases: life centered upon God; devotion to Christ; reliance on the Holy Spirit; the centrality of the church; memorization of, and meditation upon, Scripture; and the indigenous nature of the Local Church. Among those who knew of Ni’s serious faults and failings, there is an awareness that no mere man should be looked to as a teacher of truth or a paragon of virtue. Others see the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a single person or small group of elite leaders. In China, churches connected with the Little Flock constitute a major segment of both the unregistered and, in some areas, TSPM congregations. Under the leadership of Witness Lee and others, the Local Church movement which he founded spread overseas, especially in Taiwan and the United States. Sources: Hsu, Lily, M.D., Unforgettable Memoirs: The Shanghai Local Church, Watchman Nee and My life, with Dana Roberts, 2012 (unpublished manuscript). Kinnear, Angus, Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee. Christian Literature Crusade, 1974. Lam, Wing-hung, “Watchman Nee,” in A Dictionary of Asian Christianity. Scott W. Sunquist, editor. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. Roberts, Dana. Secrets of Watchman Nee. Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2005. Xi, Lian. Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. - |
||||
| 02-27-2016 06:37 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-27-2016 05:12 AM | |||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee John was and is a man that loves the cross and lives by it. If anyone "is" always in his spirit, then John is such a person. Our brother Lee did not seem to like the cross very much. This statement was made by others who were co-workers of his for a number of years. Today the fruit of the Sprit and especially "Holding the Truth in Love" is not practiced or even correctly acknowledged in the current LSM leadership. More like "Holding the Lie in Unrighteousness". One prominent example is: Reversing the excommunication of Phillip Lee knowing fully well that he willingly and continually committed the gross sins mentioned in Corinthians. The current leadership subsequently apologizied to Phillip and later appended their signatures to the letter of apology because Phillip Lee was insulted. This action itself is a serious sin and a gross violation to the Sanctity of the Body of Christ. Witness Lee also took part in this. If that was not enough they began an aggressive smear campaign against innocent brothers and sisters whom the Lord loves, simply because they told the truth. This castigating campaign continues in full force today, compounding the effects of the original sin. How can these people expect the Lord's blessing? |
||||
| 02-25-2016 10:16 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Please excuse the bad analogy, but it’s kind of like at a job when suddenly a certain person is excluded from meetings, discussions, etc., and not long afterwards, they are terminated. When WL started the “new way”, his most senior coworkers besides Benson were completely excluded. They had only failed to promote WL and his ministry office like Benson had been doing. Bill Mallon and John Ingalls had reason to be concerned about this, but any mention of the fact that they were being excluded would have brought about accusations of 'ambition' (and this is exactly what happened eventually). Bill Mallon and John Ingalls had every right to be concerned, since they were some of WL’s closest coworkers. There is no evidence to indicate that they were ever a threat to WL. They were brought up under a different era of Leeism, an era which WL wanted to completely do away with to bring in a new era of unprecedented Leeism. I think by most indications, they had supported WL to a 'T' up until the late 80’s. That is noteworthy considering all the questionable things that WL did. What more could WL had asked for? Nonetheless, even such adamant supporters were considered to be expendable. Not long after, WL brought in new, younger coworkers to ridicule the older coworkers who had been WL’s strongest supporters. It really was all part of WL’s quest for power. I don’t know that anyone really posed a threat to WL’s stardom, but that was irrelevant to WL. He was paranoid, plain and simple. His treatment of his closest coworkers attest to that. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 07:56 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-25-2016 07:55 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-25-2016 07:52 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Such was deputy authority in the LC's. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 07:20 PM | |||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-25-2016 06:23 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-25-2016 06:23 PM | |||||
| HERn |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-25-2016 04:57 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Lee was similarly paranoid, as was TC. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 03:17 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Regarding the various biographies of Nee, it would seem like Lily Hsu's book is one that LSM might view as a threat. This begs the question of why a positive book like Against the Tide would have provoked a strong reaction so many years ago. I haven't read that book, but I can assume that it doesn't elevate Nee to the status of a MOTA or a Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. That is probably the issue right there. The supposed 'inaccuracies' are just an excuse. It doesn't present the LSM sanctioned history, therefore it is viewed as borderline poisonous even though it likely paints Nee in a positive light. LCers could manage nothing less than to view Nee as the MOTA. They have gone to great lengths to get him mentioned in congress. In the LC people are told that Nee influenced millions of Christians in China and beyond. If such claims are true, that is a better legacy than anyone could ask for (and we know LCers care about legacy). It really makes one wonder why they still feel the need to sensationalize Nee. It's not like Nee is unknown outside the LC. At any rate, it is very telling how much the LC is concerned with promoting legacy. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 03:00 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
 The fact of the matter is, the LC is a system where the constant rewriting of history has become necessary for the survival of the movement. The blendeds know this more than anyone. If there was a way for LCers to become aware of on a broad scale of the truth of all the events that have been covered up, the very existence of the movement could be at stake. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 12:18 PM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore. It does not deserve any more mentioning." Ohio, based on the quoted text I believe it's the vice versa. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 10:04 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
He assured me that the book had "more than 200 major errors," which shocked me at the time, and so I promptly discarded the paperback. I never did hear who had determined all those errors, but I'm sure it was Lee. Since the only available history on Nee that I knew of at the time was Kinnear's, I, like every other LC adherent, was left with Lee's oral traditions of Nee. Like everything else related to Lee, we are always confronted with the stark choice: either only Witness Lee is faithfully accurate and truthful and all others pernicious liars, or vice versa. |
||||
| 02-25-2016 08:41 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
I googled "Watchman Nee - Leland Wang - Dana Roberts" and the fourth hit was a 2000 PhD thesis on Chinese Christian missiology, and the subsequent emergence of the indigenous Chinese church, circa 1900-1949, which (lo and behold) wasn't limited to Watchman Nee. The author was a participant and witness of many events and personalities covered in the thesis. Quote:
Regarding Watchman Nee's copying extensive sections of others' materials without attribution, Yu quotes the editor's preface to the 1932 edition of The Spiritual Man: Quote:
Yu also notes that in "The Normal Christian Church Life", written 10 years later, Nee refers to original source materials and references. (p.117) So Nee eventually learned the necessary rudiments of scholarship. I think that Nigel Tomes' article on Lee's plagiarism shows a similar trajectory: don't use quotation marks or attribution unless you think that circumstances force your hand. Also, in the first pages, Yu gives extensive coverage to the deep and widespread anti-Western sentiment which led to various localized or nativist Chinese Christian expressions. "The denominations" neatly coincided with foreign cultural hegemony. How convenient. |
||||
| 02-24-2016 03:01 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
I don't doubt that some of Nee's work was beneficial, but I notice an agenda starting with Nee which carried over to Lee. They were out to give themselves more credit than anyone else and to discredit anyone who could be considered a rival. Sadly, all the good works that were being done in places like China by missionaries during that time were deemed to be meaningless by Nee. Had he not been so quick to dismiss such things, maybe he could have appreciated them for what they were. |
||||
| 02-24-2016 11:51 AM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee I was curious to see what was Wright Doyle's sources. They are as follows:
|
||||
| 02-23-2016 05:11 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: More on Leland Wang Quote:
The same thing happened in Rome. Why is it that, as Caesar's hold on power and exaltation as a demigod waned, the papal bishop of Rome rose in prominence and power to replace him as the Vicar of Christ, the Holy See, etc. |
||||
| 02-23-2016 04:29 PM | |||||
| aron |
More on Leland Wang Quote:
And you know what? It looks like he "dropped his culture", just like Lee and Nee were supposed to do. He accepted and received Billy Graham, and was received by Billy Graham, if the article from 1965 is to be believed. He was okay with "churches, schools, and missions ... in the name of Jesus." He didn't sneer at it, then turn around and build some exclusive "training center". He didn't deride (from what I can see) "Campus Chrusade for Christ" or "Intervarsity", then push some "Christians on Campus" as if it were newer and truer. So who dropped their concepts and their native culture here - Witness, or Watchman, or Leland? Did Leland ever insist that all churches everywhere have to be "absolutely identical"? That there can only be one apostle per age? Who had trouble letting go, here? Seems to me that he was free, and Nee and Lee never escaped their culture. |
||||
| 02-23-2016 07:16 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-23-2016 07:14 AM | |||||
| aron |
More on Leland Wang The below quote is from another thread, on Lee. But it seemed appropriate to consider here, as well. Quote:
Evidently Wang couldn't see that Nee was the most spiritual one in the room, so Nee had to let him go, eventually. According to Wang, it was he who rented the hall that became the Shanghai Assembly; he was joined by Nee, and others. But ultimately it was Nee running the place. And yet, Wang clearly didn't fall away from his initial calling, becoming an influential preacher. Why didn't Nee receive him as a peer? Even a superior? Why did Nee tell T.A. Sparks that he had no peers, no confidantes? Something seems wrong with the picture, here. |
||||
| 02-23-2016 07:05 AM | |||||
| aron |
Leland Wang Testimony Quote:
In Nee's testimony, the same thing. A few at the beginning, then a faceless and de-humanized "church". I wonder what happened. Here is a testimony of one who started with Nee, learning under Barber. But the two could not work together for long, and parted. Quote:
|
||||
| 02-22-2016 06:52 PM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee In the Doyle biography, I only see one other co-worker besides women like Peace Wang and Ruth Lee. A brother named Leland Wang, and it says is that they split early, over doctrine. And in Nee's autobiographical writings, a brief mention of a Faithful Luke and a Simon Meek. Then there is Lee. None others to be seen. Where are the male co-workers? There was a striking passage where Nee lamented to Sparks that he had no peers. Even 20 years later, the anonymous "Shanghai elders" deposed Nee; they weren't important enough for names, I guess. The whole history of the Lord's Recovery/Little Flock seems fishy, to me. Why no male co-apostles? By design or happenstance? None who could stand shoulder to shoulder? Or none allowed? Asian culture, here? |
||||
| 02-22-2016 03:29 PM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
"Oh, but she was exceedingly strict!! She rebuked and rebuked, and rebuked!!" Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| 02-22-2016 11:38 AM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
In respect to LSM, there's no consideration for character, righteousness, integrity, etc. |
||||
| 02-22-2016 10:33 AM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
In her relationship with Nee, M.E. Barber was the master and he was the apprentice. I think that Nee eventually came to see this relationship as his 'credentials' in his own quest for power, and his followers like Lee obviously picked up on what kind of meaning Nee wanted to assign to this relationship. There are two factors I see in why LCers see it beneficial to reference this relationship. Firstly the relationship is used by LCers to show that Nee himself once submitted to someone, and it was very tough kind of submission at that. Having been under Barber, Nee could tell everyone that he too had submitted to someone in a way that would have been humiliating for most young men in a male-dominated society. I would think that he probably outdid most in being able to submit to someone. As the ultimate 'submitter', Nee could then discuss deputy authority and no one seemed to think twice about it. Since no one could match the standard that Nee had set, it was all too easy for him to set himself up as the shepherd of dump sheep who needed a lesson or two in submission. Apparently he had already paid his dues. I think this made it easy for everyone to let their guards down. The second purpose that the Barber/Nee relationship has served is that it is viewed as the archetypal master/apprentice relationship in the LC. To go along with the deputy authority teaching and the idea of an unquestioned leader, it was extremely convenient to imply that submission to a leader who was known for humiliation and abuse was just fine. It is even seen as a necessary step to be 'perfected'. What could have been more convenient for Nee than to make reference to this relationship? |
||||
| 02-22-2016 09:32 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Reminds me of the opening line of my family's Catholic Bible which always sat on the living room corner table. The opening page addressed the Assumption of Mary with the caption beneath, "Scriptures are silent, but legends abound ... " And so much of the history in TLR could also be summarized ... Scriptures are silent, but legends abound. Apparently none of Barber's admirers have learned anything from her great learning. Take the author of this little blurb, James Reetzke Sr. of Chicago. For years he stood with Titus Chu and GLA Company against LSM's One Publication Edict. That was because "he knew life." Brother James even made the famous comment (in GLA circles anyways) that, "Christians have died for the right to publish!" What a great man of God, who knows life, and stands for the truth, ready to die if need be! Then overnight Brother James Reetzke flip-flops his stance, siding with LSM against Titus Chu for publishing his own books thus violating LSM's greatest commandment. The repercussions were global. Does anybody know life anymore? Oh, and btw, as a concession for his loyalty, LSM now allows Brother James to continue to publish his own books through LSM's printing presses. |
||||
| 02-22-2016 09:11 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
As per belief (in, say, "autonomous churches answering only to the Lord"), I doubt Nee, for all his intelligence, was able to visualize the endgame. Likewise, I don't think women were chosen for early "chief apostolic co-worker" status deliberately, to soon be discarded (again, deliberately) once Nee was supreme. But that's how it worked out. Similarly, I doubt "localism" was merely a cynical ploy. But as the lure of power distorts vision and corrupts the heart, so does absolute power, which Nee and Lee both eventually insisted upon, corrupts worst of all. Therefore, although I don't see evidence that the endgame was consciously sought, from the distance of time it looks inevitable. And it probably was. |
||||
| 02-22-2016 08:50 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
Freedom has suggested something interesting: females were essentially disposable. In a male-dominated, post-feudal Chinese society, they were convenient for the rise, then could be dispensed with. Doyle's biography put it well. "He set himself up with closest "apostolic" coworkers Female A and Female B, with himself supreme." Female A and Female B won't challenge the Alpha Male (Male A) in this cultural setting; they're a firewall against apostolic co-workers Male B and Male C, who might begin to vie with the Alpha Male for supremacy. |
||||
| 02-22-2016 08:38 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Popular ministers "stir people up, but don't deliver 'life'". Witness Lee certainly stirred people up. He openly declared this was his ambition - we sang songs based on this. When we got excited, we thought that was 'life'. Turns out it was popularity and shipwreck. |
||||
| 02-22-2016 07:23 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-21-2016 08:11 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
 .
|
||||
| 02-21-2016 07:14 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-21-2016 06:00 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
 – okay bad analogy). I see her a bit of a “lone wolf” type and we already know her to be highly esoteric. So why is this so significant? It all points to probability that she was more than likely trying to “prove herself” in China apart from any past affiliations.According to what WL said, upon severing ties with her affiliations, it sounds like her work in China didn’t involve much of anything besides some inner-life stuff in her home (red flag #1). Upon meeting Nee, she put all her eggs in that basket (red flag #2). It is also significant that Lee mentioned that no one besides Nee could handle her rebuking (red flag #3). So Nee’s ‘foundation’ consisted of an independent missionary who by all indications was not someone who most would think wise to follow. I hope that no one gets me wrong, I’m not trying to criticize or ‘attack’ M.E. Barber. I respect her for what it’s worth, but I think OBW provides a good characterization of her, she was a ‘rebel’. That understanding is important when discussing Nee’s background. I think that because of being mentored in a highly isolated environment, Nee easily took up to the idea of being part of, or heading a group that would be “God’s remnant”. I’m sure that Nee greatly appreciated his mentoring, but there is a tremendous amount of irony here. The idea of there being a remnant by its very definition is a distinction, even a distinction of all distinctions. So while others are unfortunately dividing over sometimes minor issues, those in the LC have divided themselves over both minor issues and also by the notion that all others are in apostasy, the latter being the defining distinction of the LC. |
||||
| 02-21-2016 04:15 PM | |||||
| OBW |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
One of the faults of Protestantism — and one that even Martin Luther did not originally want — was that prior to that split, there was debate over issues or practice, theology, etc. That did not mean that errors would not arise. Or that change would be quick. Rather it sometimes took decades or even longer for movement on issues. But after the protestant split, everyone felt free to just break away if someone didn't just go along with them after one or two brief discussions (being a little simplistic here, but we see it all the time). Now, despite what I refer to as a reasonable base of alternatives in various irrelevant issues on doctrine and in practice (which I do not necessarily see as negative), there is also a tendency to just take our marbles and go elsewhere if something is not perfectly to our liking. Whether the style of music or the stance on women preaching in the church, or whatever. And the LRC is just another very over-the-top version of that long parade of splits over pet teachings, practices, or personalities. And in the case of both the Little Flock and then the LRC in the U.S., personality has been very important. |
||||
| 02-21-2016 03:14 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
By the same token, WN was also influenced by westerners and western writings that made mention of the supposed evils of denominationalism. WN was mentored by M.E. Barber from a young age. She thus had a great amount of influence on him. According to Lee, she was against denominations. I'm guessing that she probably worked to convince Nee of such views. What made M.E Barber hate denominations? Well, part of the reason appears to be that she didn't get along with her mission board. She then resolved to move to China and hardly thought to contact anyone besides Nee. A bit odd, no? It seems that her 'individualistic' personality might have been a influencing factor that shaped Nee. She had no affiliations after a certain point in time, and this was the role-model that Nee had. I think that it's fair to say that Nee was following a very peculiar example to begin with. |
||||
| 02-20-2016 04:51 AM | |||||
| OBW |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
So Nee created a group that looked no further than a supreme leader in China. And Lee exported it to the U.S. and other countries where the look for leadership would be to somewhere other than the U.S. There is a big question whether either ever really believed in truly autonomous churches answering only to the Lord, but rather to a group of churches that answered to them rather than Rome, Springfield, MO, London, or wherever various denominations are headquartered. They made a lot of noise about there being an earthly headquarters, but they really didn't believe what they were saying because the endgame was simply to move the earthly headquarters somewhere else. Since the source of our anti-denominationalism thinking springs from teachers who never really disbelieved in their place, then maybe we should look harder at the "evidence" that they are so contrary to the teachings in the Bible. Maybe there has been some sleight of hand and cunning craftiness bringing winds of doctrines as our reason to be open to everyone except those that do not follow us to the letter. |
||||
| 02-19-2016 10:06 PM | |||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee I believe that it is far more serious than this. When you subvert people's minds and infiltrate their thinking it becomes a cult. For example; castigating innocent believers by calling them "Death" and other derogatory terms, implants a bias in people's minds that influence and eventually erode their rational thinking. Many, if not all of us had to deal with these subliminal, implanted thoughts for years. Even the Holy Spirit is quenched under these circumstances as the victim believes that this nefarious speaking is the Spirit's speaking. But the truth is that the person making the accusation is the real man of death - one who lives in deception and darkness. Not the accused! Other indicators are: Extreme emphasis on authority using exaggerated types, shadows and figures; Unconscionable lies and blatant slander against innocent brothers and sisters to coverup their own sinful behavior; Unbridled arrogance and pride; Covert operations to take over other assemblies - even those not started by them. Sad to say they learned this from their mentor who practiced this for decades; A rigid, fleshly legalism that robs members of their unique supply and function in and to the Body of Christ, replacing it with LSM dogma. The list can go on and on. For all their lawsuits, they really should sue themselves for making themselves a cult. May the Lord have mercy. I believe that He cares |
||||
| 02-19-2016 09:44 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Unfortunately, LCers are stuck in a mentality of criticizing and bashing a non-existent boogeyman. That's not to say they have the right to condemn God's people in the first place, but if nice if they at least knew what they were criticizing. In an age of diminishing denominationalism, WL's call for Christians to come out of denominations is laughable at best. 
|
||||
| 02-19-2016 07:12 PM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 02-19-2016 06:24 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
When Witness Lee came to this country in the early 60's, the transition and unrest had just begun. At that time, there were basically only the denominations. In Ohio, we had Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists. The European immigrants had come to find work in the cities, and they brought their denominations with them. These old Gothic architectural wonders called "churches" had become almost synonymous with the dying rust-belt culture. During this time of social upheaval, it was either change or die, and many could not. I was raised Catholic, and they tried to adjust by changing the Mass from Latin to English. After Witness Lee was in this country, he added "free groups" to his hatred for denominations. Genesis Life Study Message (approx. #56) on Lot and his daughters was used to condemn these free groups in every way possible. That message is perhaps the most pathetic one Lee ever gave. Since then, however, many of these "free groups" have grown up to be non-denominational community churches. Lee had to condemn everything Christian to prove that he alone was the MOTA, and the LC's alone were His testimony. |
||||
| 02-19-2016 02:55 PM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Just by comparison, Nee wasn't the only one who spoke out against denominations. Charles Spurgeon, a Baptist, can be quoted saying the following: "A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we should be denominated by the name of Christ, as the wife is named by her husbands name." What was the difference between Nee and Spurgeon? Nee reacted to denominations by prescribing the ground of locality. What did Spurgeon do? I don't know too much about him, but I do know that he didn't invent a new teaching as the solution to a problem that he saw. Why is this significant? Well, fast forward 100 years later, and guess what, denominationalism is less and less of a predominant force in Christianity. If it was ever a problem to begin with, then it appears that it has been fixing itself. It seems to me that it is increasingly rare to see churches identified as Baptist, Methodist, etc. I wouldn't think that too many people care about denominational ties these days. Of course such ties still exist, but the difference is that it's not about party lines like it may have been in the past (though I'm not sure the problem was ever as bad as Nee/Lee made it out to be). I am not out to determine whether or not Nee had valid criticism in the first place. I'm also not here to say whether denominationalism is a problem or not. What I want to say is that Christianity has changed over the last 100 years. This is a dynamic process that is happening right before our eyes. In the 60's and 70's non-denominational groups like Calvary Chapel came about. Such groups were essentially trying to distance themselves from the denominationalism of yesteryear, just like the LC. The existence of such groups didn't fit the LC paradigm, and even to this day I have heard some LCers insist on saying that such non-denominational groups are denominations. Tell me how that makes any sense. Anyways, the true problem at hand is that Nee tried to prescribe a fix to a problem he saw. Today, those in the LC still want to prescribe that same 'fix' to a non-existent problem. This is not to say the problem was ever there in the first place, but if the problem did exist then, it certainly doesn't exist in the same form as now. I would really have a hard time believing that most people these days would care about what denomination a church is associated with. |
||||
| 02-19-2016 10:03 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
After fallen men took hold of all the Asian and European churches, and Jerusalem was destroyed, they directed all the faithful back to Rome, to the Pope, the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ. Autonomous Brethren congregations sprouted up all over Great Britain, led by the Spirit to return to the scriptures, until the lust for power gripped them, and in the bloody aftermath of strife and division, Darby, Wigram, Trotter, etc. directed all the faithful back to the London, Park Avenue "brothers fellowship" for safety and security. Nee began with indigenous local churches which spread through much of China. After his hiatus into business, he decided to direct all the faithful back to Shanghai apparently for further "training." Lee took hold of a segment of the more serious Jesus People Movement by stressing Nee's initial ideals, which were very appealing to Viet Nam-era-Americans raised in denominations, but wanting something more. That was quite prevailing until Lee reverted back to his old ways via orchestrated 10-year "storms," at which time he instructed all the faithful back to Anaheim for the recovered "interpreted" word which alone would build us up. Is there a pattern here somewhere?
|
||||
| 02-19-2016 09:30 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Also the author notes the obvious, that there was widespread sentiment on the ground, to be rid of Western control. Nee's church model fit desire this to a 't', and thus gained wide and fast acceptance. Not because it was intrinsically viable, or real, but because it met the needs on the ground, at the time. That it wasn't intrinsically real is also shown by how fast and drastically Nee modified it, opting for centralization versus autonomy. So -autonomy was a thing to be desired when the Westerners had control, but when Nee had control suddenly autonomy wasn't so good anymore, and centralization once again became the organizing principle. Okay; check. Got that. |
||||
| 02-18-2016 08:20 AM | |||||
| Freedom |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
In other words, I'm not sure how much we could really read into the fact that Nee had female coworkers and that they were allowed to play a significant role in his ministry. Was Nee really way ahead of his time in promoting gender equality, or was there a different explanation for this? |
||||
| 02-18-2016 07:48 AM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| 03-28-2014 01:17 PM | |||||
| amrkelly |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Original source gives rise to concern. Concern gives rise to doubt. Doubt gives rise to a proper need to know. Anyone can parrot what someone else has said! The more difficult thing is original source which gives rise to doubt. Do you know what original source is with regards to Nee. Then why are you covering up what others have to say? |
||||
| 11-06-2013 02:50 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 11-06-2013 12:01 PM | |||||
| Truth |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 11-06-2013 11:41 AM | |||||
| alwayslearning |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Quote:
Witness Lee had a certain historical narrative he wanted his followers to blindly accept: Watchman Nee was the MOTA who appointed Witness Lee as his sole successor to be the next MOTA. And this transfer took place when Lee left the Mainland and went to Taiwan. To perpetuate this kind of narrative he had to effectively do two things: 1. Cover up anything negative about himself and Nee. 2. Remove those along the way who would question the validity of such a narrative. Continuing this narrative the BB ousted Titus Chu because they consider themselves the sole successor of Witness Lee i.e. the MOTA by committee. Just as Witness Lee needed a sanitized version of Nee to lend himself credibility so the BB need such a version of Lee (and to a lessor extent Nee). But at least it can be said of Lee that he came up with some of his own content apart from Nee. The BB not only need Witness Lee for credibility they are mere tape recorders of his material. IMHO that's a sad commentary on Lee's ability to equip others for real ministry! |
||||
| 11-06-2013 08:19 AM | |||||
| Cal |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Nee's guilt or innocence in regard to the allegations by Hsu and others is unclear. However, LSM's categorical rejection of such allegations clearly indicates a lack of sobriety and willingness to objectively weight evidence and clues, and hence dismisses them as serious thinkers. They have stated plainly that anyone who questions the character of Nee has ill motives. But how would they know? None of them knew Nee. Everything they know about him is based largely on what Witness Lee said. But given the fact that Lee displayed a clear pattern of slanting history in his favor, as evidenced by his character assassination of anyone who stood in his way, doesn't it stand to reason that he might prop up the reputation of someone if doing so would lend him credibility? If he would throw T.A. Sparks, John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon and many others under the bus, wouldn't he also place Nee on a pedestal if it fit his goals? That doesn't mean he did that. But anyone who states categorically that Lee wouldn't do such a thing, or that those who question Lee or Nee have ill motives, does not possess a state of mind which can objectively assess reality. What they possess is a fanatical closed-mindedness. LSMers are free to weigh evidence and come to their own conclusions. The problem is they don't do this. They categorically reject any evidence which doesn't support the conclusions they like. They should not be considered serious participants in any discussion for which they refuse to adopt the objectivity and humility requisite to be taken seriously. Again, Nee may be guilty or innocent. Anyone who states flatly that guilt is not possible cannot be in possession of a sober mind. |
||||
| 11-06-2013 06:34 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
The more I read about Witness Lee and his ministry the more I see a plethora of perfect parallels with the Pharisees of old. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 04:46 PM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
1. Taking things out of context-when quoting one verse from the Bible they take out of context what the context of that passage is. 2. Repeating others lies- when referring to brothers who had left the LC/LSM. When confronted about the lies, one can expect to hear an out clause spoken: "honoring the feeling of the Body" |
||||
| 11-05-2013 03:27 PM | |||||
| aron |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
WL: "Christianity believes that... etc". Okay: who in Christianity? There are literally millions of Christians out there, saying and writing all kinds of things. But from WL all we got was "Christians teach that...". No quote; no representative sample. Just a generalization. No due diligence. No research. No quotes. No context. Just a blanket statement. A generalization that is supposed to contain all of "Christianity". And then they say that others are taking them out of context? |
||||
| 11-05-2013 12:45 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
LSM Standard Rebuttal #2: You are simply repeating others' lies. For a ministry so obsessed with training their young people to become "Witness Lee Tape Recorders," it's a little hypocritical to condemn others for what you alone are doing. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 12:15 PM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
If Doyle had other credible sources to substantiate what Hsu wrote about, Doyle is doing his due diligence. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 11:50 AM | |||||
| Cal |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee New name for the BBs. The Bombastic Brothers. 
|
||||
| 11-05-2013 11:38 AM | |||||
| Cal |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Lee and the BBs, on the other hand, have no credentials, and a history of lies, bombast and conspiracies to take down whomever got in their way, not to mention expecting everyone to "simply repeat" what they say! My question is why would you choose to believe and simply repeat them? |
||||
| 11-05-2013 09:21 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Since we have multiple eye-witness sources who have confirmed that Witness Lee was a false witness concerning Ingalls, Mallon, So, et. al., it is pretty hard to take his word on anything these days. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 08:59 AM | |||||
| Truth |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 11-05-2013 08:36 AM | |||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
- - |
||||
| 11-05-2013 08:07 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
|
||||
| 11-05-2013 07:46 AM | |||||
| OBW |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
I'm concerned that our talk still creates tiers of believers. Someone either is or is not a believer. If they are a believer, it is genuine. If it is not genuine, then they are not a believer. We spend so much of our verbiage quantifying the faith of others. But based on what? The ability to write spiritual-sounding words and phrases? As for all the "good" stuff that Nee wrote earlier (how much earlier? earlier than when he was charged with these sins in 1934?) is it really so sound? Or does it have a sound that is appealing? I keep reading the introduction to The Spiritual Man (written between 1925 and 1927) and see the incredible way that he sees himself as something special. Something that it would seem God could not do without. So how much further back do I have to go to find the pure Nee? By 1934 he already had a history of these sins. And a history of thinking very highly of himself. Maybe he hadn't yet been called-out. But there is evidence of his propensity for spiritual error and spiritual arrogance. There are too many solid writers of all kinds. If, as has been suggested, he mainly repackaged the writings of so many others, then read the others. Maybe they will not be tainted with error. Are we pining for the leeks and garlic of the LRC? At least the Early LRC. Or the Early Lee, or the Early Nee. I know that some here are tired of me harping on this. Always saying to just dump Nee and Lee altogether. With such a wealth of Christian writings from every aspect and angle, including inner-life writings, (and without considering Nee and Lee), why are some of us so hopelessly drawn to them? Are we caught in their error? Do we want their writings because no one else will say the things Nee and Lee did? That may be a good thing. It may be that those words are no more special than all those banners at the trainings. Overly adjectivized phrases that are so appealing but do nothing but make us feel better about our lexicon. I think that all that stuff is too often the LRC's version sacrifice — being offered in the place of obedience. And since they say "Christ" so often, how can it be wrong? Because some of it is just words. Words that they want to magically make everything right. To make the unrighteousness into righteousness without actually being righteous. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 06:47 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee This LSM website comments on the many biographies of Watchman Nee ... Quote:
|
||||
| 11-05-2013 05:57 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
Your post helps to explain the Blended Brother mindset at LSM. They must continue to promote their own mythology about Nee and Lee because their faith is based on these men and not on Christ alone, the only perfect man. |
||||
| 11-05-2013 05:49 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Living Stream has a website promoting Witness Lee's biography of Watchman Nee. Here is an excerpt from it ... "But to write a biography of a certain person is not an easy and simple matter. Could what is written about that person be a genuine picture of him? Is the motive for writing proper? Is the writing accurate? What will the influence be? What will the issue be? After much consideration, my solution to all these points is this: Since I have been under Brother Nee's teaching, edifying, and perfecting, and since he was a brother I respected, observed, and weighed for a quarter of a century, the accuracy of my writing about him should be guaranteed. As to the motive, the heart-searching God is the Judge! As to the influence and issue, the merciful Lord is the blessing. Much endeavor has been exercised to avoid flattery, exaggerations, and the exaltation of men, and the Holy Spirit has been the Guide and Controller of this writing. Thus, I desire to see this writing accomplished unto the good pleasure of the Triune God for His rich blessing."It's amazing how much spiritual rhetoric goes into LSM's publications in order for them to do just the opposite of their stated intentions. For example, one of Nee's definitive works was The Normal Christian Churchlife. History shows us that both Nee in the 1920-30's and later Lee in the 1960-70's espoused these principles and were fruitful. History also shows us that both men in their later lives abandoned these principles, and their ministries (aka "the work") usurped control of all the LC's. After the death of Witness Lee in 1997, the battle between Anaheim and Cleveland, which resulted in quarantines, divisions, and lawsuits, could be summarized by the question "who was the real Witness Lee?" Was it Anaheim's version of "later-Lee," or was it Cleveland's version of "early-Lee?" Reading the accounts of Watchman Nee and the extreme changes which he instituted during his "resumption," I could ask the same question about him. The stark discrepancies and contradictions which I have witnessed in Lee, were also there in China. Who was the real Watchman Nee? Witness Lee provides me with little "guarantee." |
||||
| 11-04-2013 11:17 PM | |||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 10:48 PM | |||||
| Truth |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Wow, Ohio. Where do you find these things? It is good to have more sources. It confirms our findings. I have finished the book by Dr Hsu. I am very saddened by the book, but not surprised. I believe Nee was a genuine believer and apostle. But one who fell into serious sins because he was unprotected. He should have surrounded himself by others and work with those who were his peers. Instead, he lived an isolated life and took all the matters of the church in his own hands. He became exceedingly uplifted and extremely fallen in his sins. His peers would have been his protection and help in his weakness. Though he preached this, he did not practice this. As a result, his ending was tragic. This a lessson for us all to learn. Another point I want to make is this: I don't think Watchman Nee's early publications on Christ and life are invalid just because he fell into sin (his later publications are questionable). We are all sinners. God uses all kinds of people to spread the truth, to spread His word, to spread encouragement and inspiration. Watchman Nee was definitely one of them. But Nee was far from perfect as portrayed by Lee. Even though many received the Lord because of Nee, many also left the Lord because they were stumbled by him. The Lord has been speaking to me lately. Is my faith based on a person other than Christ? That was the lesson Hsu had to learn. She fell apart because her faith (unknowingly) was based on Nee, rather than Christ alone. The Lord was merciful to her and brought her back to Himself. This memoir serves as a help to others who are going through similar experiences. My faith was tested too when I discovered the true history of Lee, and now Nee... |
||||
| 11-04-2013 07:46 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Wright Doyle's version of events: When [Watchman] married Zhang Pinhui in 1934, there was an expose in the media about his alleged romantic involvement with other women, which damaged his reputation, so he stepped down as leader of the movement, handing it over to elders whom he had previously appointed. He resumed his position the next year. Quote:
"Eventually the Lord brought [Charity] back to Watchman Nee. Charity's aunt, however, strongly opposed the marriage. She looked upon Watchman Nee as simply a poor preacher. On the one hand this caused Watchman to hesitate in going ahead with the wedding; but on the other hand, his mother was very much concerned for his marriage, since he was thirty years of age. In 1934, during his fourth overcomer conference held in Hangchow, all the co-workers were present. His mother grasped this opportunity to speed up the wedding. As a result, immediately after the conference, the wedding took place. Charity's aunt was extremely unhappy about her niece's marriage. She made a threat that if Watchman Nee would not pay her the customary courtesy call she would cause him trouble. He would have surely paid her such a visit if she had not made such a threat. However, her threats caused him not to do so. He felt he could not comply with her desire under such duress. People would think that he was playing politics to please her. For this reason he refused to do what she asked. Through this conflict, a great turmoil burst out in Shanghai caused by Charity's opposing aunt. This caused Watchman a great deal of suffering." Does anyone else have trouble with this account by Lee? It makes no sense to me. How in the world could Charity's crazy aunt cause so much trouble? Why didn't Nee just go and visit her? How much "duress" could that simple visit have caused him? What kind of church people would consider that he was playing politics? Would not Witness himself have silenced any criticism from the church, if there really was any surrounding this supposed "courtesy call?" Once again, in order to accept Lee's version of events, one must believe that Nee was super spiritual, void of normal humanity, and every other person around him was an immature imbecile out to make him suffer. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 06:38 PM | |||||
| Cal |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee http://www.globalchinacenter.org/abo...ight-doyle.php  Dr. G. Wright Doyle received a B.A. with Honors in Latin from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (1966); an M.Div. with Honors from the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria (1969); and a Ph.D. in Classics from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, with a dissertation on St. Augustine (1975). He studied Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute full-time for two years (1976-1978) and part-time for another two years (1980-82). From 1980 to 1988, Dr. Doyle served on the faculty of China Evangelical Seminary, Taipei, Taiwan, eventually as Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek. He is currently visiting faculty at several Chinese-language seminaries, teaching courses in New Testament and in Systematic Theology. Dr. Doyle is co-author of China: Ancient Culture, Modern Society; author of Carl Henry: Theologian for all Seasons; editor of the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity; co-editor of Studies in Chinese Christianity (Pickwick Publications); editor of the Greek-Chinese Lexicon of the New Testament and of the Chinese abridgment of Carl Henry's God, Revelation, & Authority. Several volumes composed in English have been published in Chinese, including New Testament Reference Works; Confucius and Christ; a commentary on Paul's letter to the Ephesians; The Way Home: A Faith for the 21st Century – the Luce Theological Lectures; The Lord’s Healing Words; and Hope Deferred: Studies in Christianity and American Society. Dr. Doyle has also authored numerous articles and reviews of books about Christianity and/or Chinese culture, most of which can be found on this site. Global China Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, was organized in 2004 to further the study of social change in modern China, and particularly the role of religion in Chinese society. Dr. Doyle and his wife Dori have a grown daughter, who is married. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 11:47 AM | |||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
1. In life and in death Witness Lee was looked to as a "teacher of truth" and a "paragon of virtue". 2. The "dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a single person or small group of elite leaders" has already been realized with the blended brothers. Being the recognized voices of information among the local churches, they are like the "CNN" of the recovery. Able to control what information is released and what information is withheld. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 11:10 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Igzy's signature line In Mark 10, after the Lord mentioned His pending passion, the two sons of thunder hatched a marvelous plan ... "James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” This sounded like a legitimate request, since Jesus had taught them, "ask anything in my name, and I will grant it." I'm sure the brothers had no malice in their hearts towards others, but who wouldn't want a few company perks, being the Boss's cousins, and all that. Now Jesus was being extra nice to them, since their time together was short, but He had to be a little perturbed about their ignoring his comments about what was about to happen "in Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” But let's look at the result of these two brothers becoming the first MOTA's: "Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John." Imagine that, the other disciples getting upset about their neat idea. Jesus then thought it wise to step in with some sober fellowship for the brothers, so "Calling them to Himself, said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Igzy's signature line caused me to remember this gospel story, and it's message for today. Once a minister desires special perks for his service, then the rest of the body feels slighted. That's the obvious part, but Jesus takes this one step further. Special accolades for any minister result in him lording it over the flock of God. He gets lifted up, and the others get put down. He becomes a bully, and they get abused. This is absolutely contrary to the heart of God. Jesus emphatically said to all, "But it is not this way among you!" Obviously brothers Nee, Lee, We, and Chu never got this memo from Jesus. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 10:45 AM | |||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee This also means that what we were told about Nee's marriage (that some relative took out an ad against him) was false. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 07:54 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
The Apostle Paul knew this all too well in Corinth, so he wrote, "But God has put the body [of Christ] together, giving greater honor to the members that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care one for another." The other inevitable side-effect of overly revering leaders, is that there will always be divisions in the body. This is guaranteed, because God will always have some faithful ones who will not bow-down to these leaders, and thus conflicts will arise because some fallen man is exalted in the church. As a former Catholic, with my namesake an ordained Franciscan OFM, growing up in parochial education, with such extracurriculars as choir and altar boy, I studied papal history after joining the Recovery. There is little redeeming value, for the most part, delving into their personal histories. It's so truly sad to learn that Recovery history so closely parallels papal history. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 06:33 AM | |||||
| Cal |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Amen, amen, amen. |
||||
| 11-04-2013 06:24 AM | |||||
| Ohio |
Re: Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee Quote:
What a danger this is to both the minister and the church. Exalted men are always endangered by the lusts of the flesh. Unlimited power vested in a single individual always corrupts. What human leader in history, either secular or spiritual, has ever escaped these temptations. It was only the serious failures, known to all, that preserved the early apostles, like Peter and Paul, as our patterns. Until the end of his life, Paul reminded us that he was the chief of sinners and worthy of nothing here on earth. By promoting an early Recovery mythology of Watchman Nee to the LC's, Witness Lee was likewise exalted by his own circle of minions. Those brothers over the years, who refused to "bow down" in adoration were branded conspiratorial rebels contaminated with leprosy and fit to be cast outside the camp, lest they poison others. Lee's own history of corruption at LSM is now well-documented. We can see how his grandiose plan of being the "Minister of the Age" has damaged him and others. Neither Nee nor Lee was ever content to be "a" minister of the gospel, rather they had to be "the" minister of the age, a title rightfully belonging only to Jesus, the Son of the living God. |
||||
| 11-03-2013 06:33 PM | |||||
| Ohio |
Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity had a brief biography of Watchman Nee (Ni) by G. Wright Doyle. Here are a few excerpts pertinent to the events being discussed on the forum ... For a variety of reasons, including the anti-Western movement of the 1920s, many Chinese Christian leaders were seeking ways to form indigenous churches that would be free from Western missionary control. Having moved to the International Settlement in Shanghai in 1926, Ni constituted in 1932 a group of “apostolic” co-workers that would lead what became the Little Flock Movement: Wang Peizhen (Peace Wang) and Li Yuanru (Ruth Lee), with Ni himself as supreme. They soon grew from a small household gathering to a network of local churches. When he married Zhang Pinhui in 1934, there was an expose in the media about his alleged romantic involvement with other women, which damaged his reputation, so he stepped down as leader of the movement, handing it over to elders whom he had previously appointed. He resumed his position the next year. 1942, Ni was expelled from leadership for several reasons: His increasing, and finally full-time, work with his brother’s pharmaceutical company; multiple instances of shady business practices; and the exposure of ongoing sexual immorality with female co-workers and other women, including prostitutes. After the war, Ni published several books on ecclesiology, including The Orthodoxy of the Church, Authority and Obedience, and On Church Affairs, which stated the “Jerusalem Principle,” according to which the authority of elders in local assemblies was restricted and the entire movement came under direct central control. These works represented a major change in emphasis, from the spiritual life of the individual and the local church to the authority of “apostles,” of whom Ni was pre-eminent, to direct the entire organization and its work. A campaign of “handing over” possessions to the local church was promoted in 1947, ostensibly to fund evangelistic migration of believers. At the same time, Ni was preaching absolute, even unthinking, submission to church leaders, especially himself. Only those who had been trained by Ni and Li could become leaders in the local churches. Believers were fired with zeal to give all they had to the work of the Lord, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were contributed. Some of the money went toward the construction of a very large meeting place for the Shanghai assembly, whose numbers had reached 1,700. Ni was arrested in Manchuria in April, 1952 on charges of tax evasion and corrupt business practices. Four years later, in a public trial in Shanghai, he was found guilty on political grounds and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His followers were devastated by revelations of his dishonesty both in business and in church dealings, and even more by his sexual transgressions, which started in the 1920s and continued into the 1950s. Disbelief turned into grief as the evidence (including photographs, Ni’s signed confession, and admission of guilt by at least one female co-worker) became conclusive. At the same time, Ni’s ten-year absence from the Lord’s Table was explained by his admission that he had had a guilty conscience. He died of natural causes in prison in 1972. Several commendatory biographies of Watchman Ni have added to the enormous influence of his writings. He is remembered mostly for his early emphases: life centered upon God; devotion to Christ; reliance on the Holy Spirit; the centrality of the church; memorization of, and meditation upon, Scripture; and the indigenous nature of the Local Church. Among those who knew of Ni’s serious faults and failings, there is an awareness that no mere man should be looked to as a teacher of truth or a paragon of virtue. Others see the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a single person or small group of elite leaders. |
||||
