A Sister's Testimony

I'm starting a new thread on this topic, as separate from the issues related to Nee's excommunication, and the issue of sexual abuse in the church. Here's a quote from the other thread, to get the conversation started.

Originally Posted by formermember

"You know a tree by its fruit." In some ways Nee has borne bad fruit. For example, it's not just Witness Lee who misused Nee's teachings in regard to complete submission to spiritual authority. I know people who were involved in the "shepherding/discipleship" movement in the 70's, and Nee was a large part of that. I've also met other people who were in spiritually abusive environments, where Nee's writings had been used to justify the authoritarian approach by the church leaders.

I personally got a lot out of Nee when I first read him, and there are many things to appreciate about him. Clearly the Lord used him in a great way in China. But over the years being immersed in both Nee and Lee was damaging. And while Lee was definitely more extreme, certainly many aspects of what defined the Local Church began with Nee.

Here are examples of what I consider negative aspects of Nee's ministry, that Lee then took to another level. Some of this has been commented upon by others already.

1) hyper-spirituality and asceticism
2) extreme separatism from the world (Brethren style)
3) overemphasis on authority and submission
4) pride and exclusivity (the one true church, the consummation of the Lord's move)
5) contempt for other Christian groups, including charities
6) uplifting of the "church life" over normal human life and family life
7) introspection and subjectivity (especially trying to discern the spirit from the soul)
8) a warped view of humanity (rejecting anything "soulish," "natural" or "worldly")
9) using trainings to correct people's spirituality
10) a harsh and rebuking style of shepherding (M.E. Barber as the model)

I think all of this deserves to be reconsidered, in view of how this laid the foundation for Lee's own teachings and practices.

I listened to the tape that Ohio and Terry referred to in the other thread, where Stephen Kuang discusses the history of the LC in China.

A phrase was used that I think was one of the most damaging concepts in the LC: when Nee was excommunicated, he "bore the cross." The implication is that Nee didn't respond to false accusations, and didn't try to vindicate himself. He suffered in silence, so that his "flesh could be dealt with."

I realize that "bearing the cross" is a Biblical concept. Jesus Himself said that we must bear the cross in order to follow him. But what does that really mean?

I know how I applied it in my own life, based on Nee's and Lee's perspective: If you are abused, if you are bullied, if you are falsely accused, if you are stressed out from too many demands being imposed on you, then don't react, don't be honest, don't try to change the situation. Instead, suffer the circumstances and "bear the cross." If you react to the authorities over you, or if you try to change the environment, that is the flesh, or the self. It can't possibly be the spirit.

Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse. If an older brother rebukes you improperly, then just bear the cross. If the elders make a decision that is unfair to the rest of the saints, they should just bear the cross. People's consciences became sensitized to repress any reaction, any opinion, any conflicting emotion, in the name of bearing the cross, dealing with the flesh, and just becoming more "spiritual."

Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by formermember

Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?

formermember,

The problem, I think, is perspective. Bearing the cross means being willing to suffer and die for the Lord. It means having an attitude of sacrifice for the Lord's sake. The common term these days is "dying to self." It means being willing to put oneself and one's comfort and safety aside for the sake of the Kingdom.

But it is not an end in itself. It is to a purpose. In other words, it is relative to the situation. The LC, tending to be about spirituality, made it both an end in itself and an absolute. To them, dying to self was a state to be achieved because, well, that's what spiritual people did. But dying to self is actually for the sake of others. It's relative to the situation.

I can take my wife out on a fun date, enjoy good food and drink and some entertainment and still be a good Christian. Why? Because enjoying happy times with your wife is part of a healthy relationship. People who have no fun are not healthy and are to be pitied.

However, if there are needs in the community and church and I spend all my time partying, then I'm not dying to self, I'm indulging myself needlessly.

So how we apply "bearing the cross" is relative to everything else. It's not an end in itself. If you make it an end in itself then you just end up thinking you need to be beat up all the time. That's not healthy nor is it life abundant.

[Cal]

I recall Witness Lee in a training saying "give up anything that makes you happy." This is the absolute, end-in-itself, losing the soul, crushing the self, perspective on bearing the cross.

It's wrong. It's unhealthy. It's not biblical. It's actually an insult to God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I recall Witness Lee in a training saying "give up anything that makes you happy."

Too bad Witness Lee never taught his boys that lesson. Apparently he gave them anything they wanted to keep them happy.

[TLFisher]

As I am reading this thread it seems to be one of what is the Cross and what the Cross is not?
What the cross is not:
Practicing Ascetisim
Keeping silent to protect another's reputation
Keeping silent in order to "remain one with the brothers"

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I recall Witness Lee in a training saying "give up anything that makes you happy." This is the absolute, end-in-itself, losing the soul, crushing the self, perspective on bearing the cross.

It's wrong. It's unhealthy. It's not biblical. It's actually an insult to God.

Yeah, bearing the cross to be crucified with Christ has nothing to do with "giving up anything that makes you happy". In Roman 6:6 which talks about crucifying our old man or self with Christ, the context of this verse is associated with the way to deal with our sin. Next in Galatians 2:20, our self is terminated and its context is about how to terminate our self for being liberated from the law or Judaism such as circumcision etc. But Lee distorts them at the uttermost and Lee never talks about the context of these verses.

You know that the concept of giving up anything that makes you happy or crushing your soul etc comes from Buddhism called Anatta or non-self, one of three marks of existence doctrine founded by Gotama Buddha. Learn more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta


Lee's teaching concerning this is extremely heresy because he mixed the truth of Gospel with Buddhism. How sinful and apostate this teaching is. I hope my comment is helpful to all of you here.

[Nell]

Another thing we learned was to “exercise your spirit” and “release your spirit.”

I’ve told this one before, but long ago and far away 2 single sisters and 1 single brother were riding with me in my car to visit another locality. The brother started the trip by repeating OLJ loud and long...exercising his spirit. When there was finally a break, I said to the brother something like “now that you’re in your spirit, could you please turn the volume down?”...

He was “exercising his spirit” at the expense of others. If you said anything, like I did, you risked a rebuke and/or another round of OLJ’s. But sometimes, enough is enough...and where is the spirit/Spirit? (I felt safe in speaking as I did because 1) it was my car, and 2) this brother was clearly more obnoxious than “spiritual”, determined to exert dominance over the women in the car.)

And, which spirit are we envoking the Holy Spirit, or the other one?

As much as we toe’d the line on Lee’s teachings, and Nee’s, if these teachings and practices were full of truth, and as life changing as we were led to believe, I think we would be in better shape than we are/were, don’t you?

Nell

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by formermember

Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse. If an older brother rebukes you improperly, then just bear the cross. If the elders make a decision that is unfair to the rest of the saints, they should just bear the cross. People's consciences became sensitized to repress any reaction, any opinion, any conflicting emotion, in the name of bearing the cross, dealing with the flesh, and just becoming more "spiritual."

Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?

"Just bear the cross" was used to give license to LC coworkers and elders to do whatever they wanted without recourse. "Get out of your mind" was another such term. "Drop your opinion" was yet a third term. These and other such terms were used to shut the mouths of anyone with legitimate concerns or questions that normal adults would typically have about situations. And such license is a field day for those with bullying and abusive personalities.

The problem is it ignores the reality of what it is to be a person who wants to operate intelligently and make wise choices in a social setting e.g. a church and to be respected and valued as a member. If the elders want to build a new meeting hall what's wrong with having an opinion about it? Why shouldn't you use your mind to ask intelligent questions about the proposal? And if for valid reason you disagree with it why not openly express that disagreement? That's just being normal.

If someone rebukes you unjustly or even with cause but inappropriately in language, setting or whatever why not set him or her straight on it? You are not a doormat. You are a human being made in God's image.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

"Just bear the cross" was used to give license to LC coworkers and elders to do whatever they wanted without recourse.

Stephen Kaung's message on Nee mentioned how Chinese parents never apologized to their children regardless of how badly the parent misbehaved. Nothing could change that stronghold of Chinese custom. Watchman Nee only got saved because the mighty power of the resurrected Christ as the indwelling Spirit moved his mother to apologize to him for how she wrongly accused and disciplined him. Otherwise Nee would have been a successful Gentile, and we would not be here on this forum.

I don't think we can stress enough the dangers of authority in the hands of fallen man. Nee's model of deputy authority and his writings on spiritual authority were written from the background of the Old Testament in the context of an authoritative culture. 5,000 years of Chinese dynasties seems to have jaded his views on Biblical authority. He himself might have treated the brothers and sisters with the love of Christ, but his teachings on submission became dangerous weapons to many of those who practiced them.

Submission means different things in different cultures, especially among young believers. To one person it may mean, "give this guy the final say," but in a different culture it may mean, "this elder watches over my soul, he is like God to me." The Recovery definitely leans toward the latter understanding, and that is why so many have been hurt. Just think about how few saints have walked away from the Recovery without a shred of damage. And all LC leaders, at least the ones we have discussed on this forum, are like those old Chinese parents who would never apologize to their children no matter how badly they were treated.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Stephen Kaung's message on Nee mentioned how Chinese parents never apologized to their children regardless of how badly the parent misbehaved. Nothing could change that stronghold of Chinese custom.

I didn't know this but it explains a lot!

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think we can stress enough the dangers of authority in the hands of fallen man. Nee's model of deputy authority and his writings on spiritual authority were written from the background of the Old Testament in the context of an authoritative culture. 5,000 years of Chinese dynasties seems to have jaded his views on Biblical authority.

I agree with this and in Western terms consider his views and those practiced in the LC system to be akin to medieval Europe when the divine rights of kings was the prevailing philosophy and way of life.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And all LC leaders, at least the ones we have discussed on this forum, are like those old Chinese parents who would never apologize to their children no matter how badly they were treated.

If you stitch several pieces of Witness Lee's teachings and practices together it certainly matches this parental idea from the culture he was immersed in. He was the authority and even if he did something wrong that was none of your business because it's his ministry so he can do whatever he wants. This was his attitude when confronted with the behavior of his son who was the General Manager of LSM and to whom elders were eventually expected to submit because he was his "top coworker". Even in a legal sense this was not true IF the LSM board members would band together and vote against having the son run the place but of course they didn't. In John Ingall's words Witness Lee made all the decisions and the board members just rubber stamped it (sad commentary at so many levels). But socially and morally in the context of an American company and especially a ministry for Witness Lee to have this kind of attitude and to knowingly keep someone so abusive in charge and exposing women to him on a daily basis is unconscionable. Innocent lambs being put in the lions den with the den owner's full knowledge of the risk.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This was his attitude when confronted with the behavior of his son who was the General Manager of LSM and to whom elders were eventually expected to submit because he was his "top coworker". Even in a legal sense this was not true IF the LSM board members would band together and vote against having the son run the place but of course they didn't.

John Ingalls wrote about his final board meeting at LSM. IIRC Lee, his wife, and Ingalls were the board. Did you expect Lee's wife to side with Ingalls?

[OBW]

Nee fell in my estimation three or so years ago. It was when I realized that he was as bad about just saying Red was Grey as Lee was. And he just went on as if it would be accepted as the gospel truth. There is much reference lately to his book Authority and Submission (or Spiritual Authority, depending on the publisher). I recall discovering that he began by re-translating "power" into "authority" in several verses. Once you bought into it, the rest was easy. He made the switch so effortlessly. He just said it was so (and there was much rejoicing — Monty Python) and moved on.

He said of himself in one of his prefaces to The Spiritual Man that no one else had ever seen the things he was seeing. There is usually a reason for that. Usually that it is not really there.

I think that Nee's appeal in the US is that his more "inner life" books fit in with a trend among seekers in Christianity. And the number of early LRC converts that had heard of Nee was fairly sizable. So linking Lee to Nee was a plus.

We got in the kettle and Lee turned on the heat. Many stayed in long enough to be the flavoring for the LSM stew. Some got out with only minor cuts and burns.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by formermember

I know how I applied it in my own life, based on Nee's and Lee's perspective: If you are abused, if you are bullied, if you are falsely accused, if you are stressed out from too many demands being imposed on you, then don't react, don't be honest, don't try to change the situation. Instead, suffer the circumstances and "bear the cross." If you react to the authorities over you, or if you try to change the environment, that is the flesh, or the self. It can't possibly be the spirit.

Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse.

If this were true, then why would the Lord Himself provide necessary instruction as in Matt 18.15-20? These are specific instructions about brothers who wrong us. The problem I saw was so much abuse occurred in the context of trainings by "the work," and somehow that did not involve "the church." How does one go to the elders in Cleveland about being publicly shamed by Titus Chu, the senior apostle who appointed all of those elders years ago?

As I said before, "any truth taken to an extreme can become a falsehood." What makes this LC teaching so insidious to discern is when taking the proper course of action counters the teaching of bearing the cross. How manipulative is that? Is that not a self-serving vehicle to justify unrighteous behavior and thus lord it over the elect? In this way abusive leaders can abolish scores of New testament teachings with one distorted one.

[UntoHim]

Hey formermember (the one who started the thread)
When you get a chance please shoot us an email at LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.com and we'll set you up as a member. This will make posting and following your posts much easier.
Thanks!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey formermember (the one who started the thread)
When you get a chance please shoot us an email at LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.com and we'll set you up as a member. This will make posting and following your posts much easier.
Thanks!

Thanks, UntoHim. I'll think about it. I'd rather not send an email because my address contains my name, and I prefer to be anonymous for now (even from moderators). I could create a new email, but I'd rather not go to the trouble, at least not yet.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by formermember

Thanks, UntoHim. I'll think about it. I'd rather not send an email because my address contains my name, and I prefer to be anonymous for now (even from moderators). I could create a new email, but I'd rather not go to the trouble, at least not yet.

Ok, very well then....for now.

What I would ask then is if you could us a little less of a generic name than "formermember". There have been a lot of guests post under that moniker, and it can get confusing. Could you please think of another moniker so we can follow and respond to your posts a little better?

Thanks

[Cal]

Originally Posted by formermember

Thanks, UntoHim. I'll think about it. I'd rather not send an email because my address contains my name, and I prefer to be anonymous for now (even from moderators). I could create a new email, but I'd rather not go to the trouble, at least not yet.

It takes about two minutes to set up a completely free, totally anonymous Gmail account. www.gmail.com.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by formermember

I know how I applied it in my own life, based on Nee's and Lee's perspective: If you are abused, if you are bullied, if you are falsely accused, if you are stressed out from too many demands being imposed on you, then don't react, don't be honest, don't try to change the situation. Instead, suffer the circumstances and "bear the cross." If you react to the authorities over you, or if you try to change the environment, that is the flesh, or the self. It can't possibly be the spirit.

Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse. If an older brother rebukes you improperly, then just bear the cross. If the elders make a decision that is unfair to the rest of the saints, they should just bear the cross. People's consciences became sensitized to repress any reaction, any opinion, any conflicting emotion, in the name of bearing the cross, dealing with the flesh, and just becoming more "spiritual."

As I've seen some of the LC practices of what it is to bear the cross borders on asceticism.
Let's take false accusations or bearing false witness. It's expected in the local churches that you remain silent and bear the cross. To tell it to the church is likened to spreading leprosy. I'm sure there are some in the LC who secretly read Speaking the Truth in Love. They may think John Ingalls should have taken the cross instead of writing the book? As the book may be viewed as self-vindication.

In my own experience I witnessed at a Young People's conference in Yucaipa, CA peers being subjected to an overreacting serving brother. Even when a brother overreacts it's expected the younger brothers and sisters to take the cross as victims of the overreaction.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by formermember

Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?

Not being selfish. Our continual struggle, for as long as we are here on this earth.

Not permitting our eyes to go where they shouldn't. Not putting our "spirituality" above the needs of other people. Like maybe when we get up in the morning sometimes and see there are dishes in the sink, we should do them for our wife instead of going to pray and have our "me time" with God, so our wife doesn't have to worry about it when she gets up (got this one from an older brother recently, if you want to hear your wife say "I love you", I suggest you try it also).

Learning to love other people and give our money/possessions away if we have too much or more than we need and see somebody else who needs those things more. This one is tough. The "narrow way" is tough... especially in America, where we love our money and houses and consumerism.

Maybe someday it will mean dying or being abused for our faith if we get called to that but that's up to God and we may need to work our way up to it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by formermember

I listened to the tape that Ohio and Terry referred to in the other thread, where Stephen Kuang discusses the history of the LC in China.

A phrase was used that I think was one of the most damaging concepts in the LC: when Nee was excommunicated, he "bore the cross." The implication is that Nee didn't respond to false accusations, and didn't try to vindicate himself. He suffered in silence, so that his "flesh could be dealt with."

I realize that "bearing the cross" is a Biblical concept. Jesus Himself said that we must bear the cross in order to follow him. But what does that really mean?

I know how I applied it in my own life, based on Nee's and Lee's perspective: If you are abused, if you are bullied, if you are falsely accused, if you are stressed out from too many demands being imposed on you, then don't react, don't be honest, don't try to change the situation. Instead, suffer the circumstances and "bear the cross." If you react to the authorities over you, or if you try to change the environment, that is the flesh, or the self. It can't possibly be the spirit.

Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse. If an older brother rebukes you improperly, then just bear the cross. If the elders make a decision that is unfair to the rest of the saints, they should just bear the cross. People's consciences became sensitized to repress any reaction, any opinion, any conflicting emotion, in the name of bearing the cross, dealing with the flesh, and just becoming more "spiritual."

Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?

There are a number of problems with the "Watchman Nee bore the cross" idea. First, did Paul silently bear the cross before the Sanhedrin, Felix and Festus? Or did he speak up? Why did Nee "bear the cross" when his own hand-picked elders accused him of irregular business dealings and licentiousness? It makes him look unrighteous and guilty, not righteously innocent.

And, when Witness Lee argued with (ahem!) co-worker Ruth Lee at his side, that Watchman Nee should be restored, what was his argument to the Shanghai elders? That they were in error, that WN hadn't actually sinned? No, they were apparently right, but "how did they feel" at deposing their long-time leader? Their sorrow was evidently due to God's displeasure in them, not in Watchman Nee! What a turn of events! Now they had to "bear the cross" for Nee's sins. They were apparently "dead right" and had to be restored to "life" by allowing WN back into Deputy God status. Unbelievable.

And lastly, to what formermember said above, if the Acting God or his family member or one of his loyal deputies sins, well just "bear the cross" and get on with things.

I think to bear the cross in NT context is what Paul repeatedly counseled. If you are a woman (he was writing when females had essentially no rights) deal with it. If you were called as a slave, be a slave. If you are a barbarian, scythian, Greek, whatever. It is not important. Bear it.

If you got saved and your husband is an unbeliever, that is God's arrangement. If your dad is an alcoholic or drug addict, if your teacher is unprofessional, just do your best. What you can't change, is God's arrangement.

Now, what you can change, you should change. If you see a crime, don't "bear the cross". Speak up. The NT and OT both make this point. Don't let unrighteousness go by, but call it out.

[aron]

Originally Posted by formermember

A phrase was used that I think was one of the most damaging concepts in the LC: when Nee was excommunicated, he "bore the cross." The implication is that Nee didn't respond to false accusations, and didn't try to vindicate himself. He suffered in silence, so that his "flesh could be dealt with."

To add to my comments in the previous post (#43), Watchman Nee was apparently quite capable of defending himself, or his work, when he felt that he could do so safely:

Originally Posted by JTH Lee, p. 87

The most serious challenge facing the Little Flock was the continuous organization of mass campaigns by the government. The large scale campaigns against reactionaries and class enemies purged Chinese church leaders who had worked with foreign missionaries. In particular, the Three-Anti campaign in 1951 to combat corruption waste, and bureaucratism, and the Five-Anti campaign in 1952 again bribery, tax evasion, fraud, theft of government property, and leakage of state economic secrets gave rise to a nationwide attack against a the churches. In September 1951, four Little Flock members in t Nanjing Assembly denounced Watchman Nee as a reactionary. In response, Nee launched a counter-denunciation campaign and disciplined those pro-government Little Flock members. But one year later, he was arrested.

Here it says that Nee started his own public denunciation campaigns... not so "spiritual" after all, it seems. Will we ever know the truth about this guy?

Lee, J. T. H. (2005). Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China1. Church History, 74(1), 68-96.