Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[Indiana]

booklet by Watchman Nee

What discrepancy between this word and what we have seen in the Local Churches at least since 1986.


Let us note at the outset that there is little apparent difference between ministry to the House of the Lord and ministry to the Lord Himself. Many of you are doing your utmost to help your brethren, and you are laboring to save sinners and administer the affairs of the church. But let me ask you: Have you been seeking to meet the need around you, or have you been seeking to serve the Lord? Is it your fellow men you have in view, or is it Him?

Let us be quite frank. Work for the Lord undoubtedly has its attractions for the flesh. You may be thrilled when crowds gather to hear you preach, and when numbers of souls are saved. If you have to stay at home, occupied from morning to night with mundane matters, then you think: How meaningless life as! How grand at would be if I could go out and serve the Lord! If only I were free to go around ministering! But that is not spirituality. That is merely a matter of natural preference. Oh, if only we could see that much of the work done for God is not really ministry at all! He, Himself, has told us that there was a class of Levites who busily served in the Temple, and yet they were not serving Him; they were merely serving the House. However, service to the Lord and service to the House appear so much alike that it is often difficult to differentiate between the two.

If an Israelite came along to the Temple and wanted to worship God, those Levites would come to his aid and help him offer his peace offering and his burnt offering. They would help him drag the sacrifice to the altar, and they would slay it. Surely that was a grand work to be engaged in, reclaiming sinners and leading believers closer to the Lord! And God took account of the service of those Levites who helped men bring their peace offerings and their burnt offerings to the altar. Yet He said it was not ministry to Himself.

Brothers and sisters, there is a heavy burden on my heart that you might realize what God is after. He wants ministers who will minister to Him. "They shall come near to me to minister unto me; and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood. They shall minister unto me" (Ezekiel 44:15).

The thing I fear most is that many of you will go out and win sinners to the Lord and build up believers, without ministering to the Lord Himself. Much so-called service for Him is simply following our natural inclinations. We have such active dispositions that we cannot bear to stay at home, so we run around for our own relief. We may appear to be serving sinners, or serving believers, but all the while we are serving our own flesh.

I have a dear friend who is now with the Lord. One day, after we had a time of prayer together, we read this passage in Ezekiel (44:9-26, 28, 31 ). She was very much older than I, and she addressed me like this: "My young brother, it was twenty years ago that I first studied this passage of Scripture."

"How did you react to it?" I asked.

She replied: "As soon as I had finished reading it, I closed my Bible, and kneeling down before the Lord, I prayed: `Lord, make me to be one who shall minister to You, not to the Temple."' Can we also pray that prayer?

But what do we really mean when we talk of serving God or serving the Temple? Here is what the Word says:

“But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me; and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the LORD God” (Ezekiel 44:15).

The conditions basic to all ministry that can truly be called ministry to the Lord are drawing near to Him and standing before Him. But how hard we often find it to drag ourselves into His presence! We shrink from the solitude, and even when we do detach ourselves physically, our thoughts still keep wandering outside. Many of us can enjoy working among people, but how many of us can draw near to God in the Holy of Holies? Yet it is only as we draw near to Him that we can minister to Him.

To come into the presence of God and kneel before Him for an hour demands all the strength we possess. We have to be violent to hold that ground. But everyone who serves the Lord knows the preciousness of such times, the sweetness of waking at midnight and spending an hour in prayer, or waking very early in the morning and getting up for an hour of prayer before the final sleep of the night.

Unless we really know what it is to draw near to God, we cannot know what it is to serve Him. It is impossible to stand afar off and still minister to Him. We cannot serve Him from a distance. There is only one place where ministry to Him is possible and that is in the Holy Place. In the outer court you approach the people; in the Holy Place you approach the Lord.

The passage we have quoted emphasizes not only our need to draw near to God; it also speaks of standing before Him to minister. Today we always want to be moving on; we cannot stand still. There are, so many things claiming our attention that we are perpetually on the go. We cannot stop for a moment.

But a spiritual person knows how to stand still. He can stand before God till God makes His will known. He can stand and await orders. I wish to address myself to my fellow-workers. May I ask you: Is not your work definitely organized and carried out to schedule? And has it not got to be done in great haste? Can you be persuaded to call a halt and not move for a little while? That is what is referred to here: "stand and minister unto me."

There are only two types of sin before God. One is the sin of refusing to obey when He issues orders. The other is the sin of going ahead when the Lord has not issued orders. The one is rebellion; the other is presumption. The one is not doing what the Lord has required; the other is doing what the Lord has not required. Learning to stand before the Lord deals with the sin of doing what the Lord has not commanded. Brothers and sisters, how much of the work you have done has been based on the clear command of the Lord? How much have you done because of His direct instructions? And how much have you done simply on the ground that the thing you did was a good thing to do? Let me tell you that nothing so damages the Lord's interests as a "good thing." "Good things" are the greatest hindrance to the accomplishment of His will. The moment we are faced with anything wicked or unclean, we immediately recognize it as something a Christian ought to avoid, and for that reason, things which are positively evil are nearly not such a menace to the Lord's purpose as good things.

You think: This thing would not be wrong, or That thing is the very best that could be done so you go ahead and take action without stopping to inquire if it is the will of God. We who are His children all know that we ought not to do anything evil, but we think that if only our conscience does not forbid a thing, or if a thing commends itself to us as positively good, that is reason enough to go ahead and do it.

'That thing you contemplate doing may be very good, but are you standing before the Lord awaiting His command regarding it? "They shall stand before me" involves halting in His presence and refusing to move till He issues His orders. That is what ministry to the Lord means.

In the outer court it is human need that governs. Just let someone come along to sacrifice an ox or a sheep, and there is work for you to do. But in the Holiest Place there is utter solitude. Not a soul comes in. No brother or sister governs us here, nor does any committee determine our affairs. In the Holiest Place there is one authority only - the authority of the Lord. If He appoints me a task I, do it; if He appoints me no task, I do none.

But something is required of us as we stand before the Lord and minister to Him. We are required to offer Him "the fat and the blood." The blood answers the demands of His holiness and righteousness; the fat meets the requirements of His glory. The blood deals with the question of our sin; the fat deals with the question of His satisfaction. The blood removes all that belongs to the old creation; the fat brings in the new.

But such ministry is confined to a certain place: "They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge" (Ezekiel 44:16). Ministry that is "unto me" is in the inner sanctuary, in the hidden place, not in the outer court, exposed to public view. People may think we are doing nothing, but service to God in the Holy Place far transcends service to the people in the outer court.

Ministry Without Sweat

The same passage tells us how they must be clothed who would minister to the Lord:

“They shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, while they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins.” (Ezekiel 44:18).

Those who minister to the Lord may not wear wool. Why not? The reason is given:

"They shall not clothe themselves with anything that causes sweat" (verse 18 ). No work chat produces sweat is acceptable to the Lord. But what does "sweat" signify?

We all know that the first occasion when sweat is mentioned was when Adam was driven from the Garden of Eden. After Adam sinned, God pronounced this sentence upon him: "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life...in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (Genesis 3:19-19). It is clear that sweat is a condition of the curse. Because the curse rested on the ground, it ceased to yield its fruit without man's effort, and such effort produced sweat.

When the blessing of God is withheld, fleshly effort becomes necessary, and that causes sweat. All work that produces sweat is positively prohibited to those who minister to the Lord. Yet today what an expenditure of energy there is in work for Him! Few Christians can do any work today without sweating over it. Their work involves planning and scheming, exhorting and urging, and very much running around. It cannot be done without a great deal of fleshly zeal.

Nowadays, if there is no sweat there is no work. Before work for God can be undertaken, there is a great deal of rushing to and fro, making numerous contacts, having consultations and discussions, and finally getting the approval of various people before going ahead. As for waiting quietly in the presence of God and seeking His instructions, that is out of the question.

Yet in spiritual work, the one factor to be taken into account is God. He is the one

Person to make contact with. That is the preciousness of spiritual work that is truly spiritual-it is related to the Lord Himself In relation to Him there is work to do, but it is work that produces no sweat.

If we have to advertise our ministry and use great effort to promote it, then it is obvious that it does not spring from prayer in the presence of God. If you really work in God's presence, men will respond when you come into their presence. You will not have to use endless means in order to help them. Spiritual work is God's work, and when God works, man does not need to expend so much effort that he sweats over it.

Let us in utter honesty examine ourselves before God today. Let us ask Him: "Am I serving You, or am I merely serving the work? Is my ministry truly unto you Lord, or is it only ministry to your House?" If you are pouring with sweat all the time, it is safe to conclude that it is the House you are serving, not the Lord. If all your busyness is related to human need, you may know that you are serving men, not God. I am not despising the work of slaying sacrifices at the altar. It is work for God and someone has to do it-but God wants something beyond that.

God cannot secure everyone for service to Himself, for many of His own are reluctant to leave the thrill and excitement of the outer court. They are bent on serving the people. But what about us? Oh that today we might say to the Lord: "I am willing to forsake things, I am willing to forsake the work, I am willing to forsake the outer court and serve You in the inner sanctuary."

When God could find no way to bring all the Levites to the place of ministry to Himself, He chose the sons of Zadok from among them for this special service. Why did He select the sons of Zadok? Because when the children of Israel went astray, they recognised that the outer court had been irreparably corrupted, so they did not seek to preserve it. Instead, they made it their business to preserve the sanctity of the Holy Place.

Brothers and sisters, can you bear to let the external structure go, or must you persist in putting up a scaffolding to preserve it? It is the Holy Place that God is out to preserve-a place utterly set apart for Him. I beseech you before God to hear His call to for sake the outer court and devote yourself to His service in the Holy Place.

I love to read about the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch: "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said: Separate me Barnabas and Sau1 for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2). We see there that the Holy Spirit commissions men to the work as they are ministering to the Lord. Unless ministry to the Lord is the thing that governs us, the work will be in confusion.

God does not want volunteers for His work; He wants conscripts. He will not have you preaching the gospel just because you want to. The work of the Lord is suffering serious damage today at the hand of volunteers; it lacks those who can say as He did: "He that sent me..."

Brothers and sisters, the work of God is God's own work, and not work that you can take up ac your pleasure. Neither churches, nor missionary societies, nor evangelistic bands can send men to work for God. The authority to commission men is not in the hands of men, but solely, in the hands of the Spirit of God.

Serving the Lord does not mean chat we do not serve people, but it does mean that all service to people has service to the Lord as its basis. It is service Godward that urges us out manward. Luke 17:7-10 tells us clearly what the Lord is after. These are two kinds of work referred to here: ploughing the field and tending the flock. Both are very important occupations, yet the Lord says that when a servant returns from such work, he is expected to provide for his master's satisfaction before sitting down to enjoy his own food.

When we have returned from our toil in the field, we are apt to muse complacently on the much work we have accomplished. But the Lord will say, "Gird yourself and give me to eat." He requires ministry to Himself. We may have laboured in a wide field and cared for many sheep, but all our toil in the field and among the flock does not exempt us from ministry to the Lord's own personal satisfaction. That is our supreme task.

What are you really after? Is it only work in the field, preaching the gospel to the unsaved? Is it just tending the flock, caring for the needs of the saved? Or are we seeing to it that the Lord can eat to His full satisfaction and drink till His thirst is quenched? True, it is necessary for us also to eat and drink, but that cannot be till after the Lord is satisfied. We, too, must have our enjoyment, but that can never be until His joy is first made full.

Let us ask ourselves: Does our work minister to our satisfaction or to the Lord's? I fear that when we have worked for the Lord, we are often thoroughly satisfied before He is satisfied. We are often quite happy with our work when He has found no joy in it. Blessed are they who can differentiate between ministry to sinners or saints, and ministry to Him. Such discernment is not easily acquired. Often it is only by much drastic dealing that we learn the difference between ministry to the Lord Himself and ministry to the House.

Let us seek the grace of God that He may reveal to us what it really means to minister to Him!

[OBW]

One of the most convoluted bits of nonsense I have read in some time. Parsing over small pieces of passages and determining what each fragment means like it is written using a cipher key. We need to first consider that we should work for the Lord, not for others. Then we need to be sure what kind of clothes we are wearing (figuratively) so that we don't "sweat" (have outward evidence of performing physical work). And so on.

What stands out to me is that what appears to be something written by Nee (or at least partly so) is almost entirely pointed at our "service" being "spiritual" and not practical. Concerned with things like "come(ing) into the Lord's presence and kneeling for an hour." So much concern about some isolated thing he calls "ministering to the Lord" that is divorced from any kind of practical service.

I note that he talks about two main kinds of sin. One is not doing what we are commanded and the other is doing what we are not commanded. On the first, I think that there is a tremendous amount of "commanded" action that requires much sweat, at least figuratively. In fact, so many of the commandments are tied to activity. They are not about "serving God" in isolation of serving others.

The other seems almost contrived. To argue that doing what is not commanded is a sin is to hamstring virtually all activity because an audible voice was not heard demanding the particular action at this time. It means that I can go along and simply ignore my neighbor rather than love him because I did not get a clear command to do what is required. Now I don't presume that just because I see something or know about it that it is mine to act upon. But to consider that God would count as sin the righteous actions of his followers just because they did not get a specific word from him to take on that particular task is not an idea found in scripture. It is a flight of fancy created in a vacuum of a kind of "gospel" that is only about what goes on inside and is oblivious to what goes on outside. A gospel that is preached only when the spirit moves. A gospel that does not accept that living righteously and in a constant state of loving neighbor as well as God is what God demands.

I can read and the scripture very clearly commands much action on my part. This claim of no command is a fallacy. And it is cheating those who think it is such a high teaching. This kind of teaching is in opposition to the scripture and its writer, God.

And Jesus was quite clear when he was busy telling his followers what it meant to do things for him. He said that if we see someone in need and take care of them we have taken care of Christ. If we neglect them we have neglected Christ. So all of the work that produces sweat actually results in service to Christ. What does Nee have to say about that? Anything? Crickets chirping. The basic premise of Nee's and Lee's inner-life teachings is far from what the scripture teaches.

. . . .

I read a piece recently where Walden was superimposed upon the discussion about the meaning of scripture. Rather than understanding what the author wrote in the words provided, everyone is busy parsing fragments. It says that he managed to go for some long period of time without speaking to anyone. That is grasped upon as the answer to how to deal with quarrels at home. The result is that every individual making their own meaning out of the book is considered more valuable than scholars spending time considering what the author actually wrote.

And when we return to scripture, there may be some cause to tolerate private readings for our own benefit. But when it becomes what is taught in the mainstream (or some significant subset of it), or replaces sound understanding, it qualifies as systematic override of scripture in favor of unsubstantiated opinion. In other words, nonsense.

And one more thing. Is this entire thing from one pamphlet by Nee? If so, what is its title? If not, it is impossible to distinguish your comments from Nee's. If the title is "Ministry to the House or to the Lord" then you should have made that more clear.

And yet another question. What was this 3,000+ word epistle supposed to respond to? Or is it just one more nearly random drop of stuff on the forum?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

To argue that doing what is not commanded is a sin is to hamstring virtually all activity because an audible voice was not heard demanding the particular action at this time. It means that I can go along and simply ignore my neighbor rather than love him because I did not get a clear command to do what is required. Now I don't presume that just because I see something or know about it that it is mine to act upon. But to consider that God would count as sin the righteous actions of his followers just because they did not get a specific word from him to take on that particular task is not an idea found in scripture. It is a flight of fancy created in a vacuum of a kind of "gospel" that is only about what goes on inside and is oblivious to what goes on outside.

Gotta agree with this. Nee's teaching here was another example of how he invented "principles" from his imagination. He would get on a roll and before he knew it would write a whole new chapter on Christian behavior. Not trying to take away from the many good things he taught, but he did have a tendency to come up with things that sounded good, but which could easily lead astray those who didn't know how to parse him. And given his status, few did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gotta agree with this. Nee's teaching here was another example of how he invented "principles" from his imagination. He would get on a roll and before he knew it would write a whole new chapter on Christian behavior. Not trying to take away from the many good things he taught, but he did have a tendency to come up with things that sounded good, but which could easily lead astray those who didn't know how to parse him. And given his status, few did.

In the application this teaching was used as a justification to not do many things (ministry to feed the poor, etc) yet the very things they had not received the Lord's speaking on were the same things commanded in the book of James: Pure religion is to care for the fatherless and widows and to keep yourself unspotted from the world. Which of course they then condemn as a book without a clear vision of God's NT economy. It seems they have constructed a set of teachings to give them the excuse to do nothing. Which again is a contradiction of James command: be doers of the word and not hearers only. Why would they do this? To "build up their ministry". Focus the church's resources on buying books and listening to messages.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the application this teaching was used as a justification to not do many things (ministry to feed the poor, etc) yet the very things they had not received the Lord's speaking on were the same things commanded in the book of James: Pure religion is to care for the fatherless and widows and to keep yourself unspotted from the world. Which of course they then condemn as a book without a clear vision of God's NT economy. It seems they have constructed a set of teachings to give them the excuse to do nothing. Which again is a contradiction of James command: be doers of the word and not hearers only. Why would they do this? To "build up their ministry". Focus the church's resources on buying books and listening to messages.

Absolutely. This extreme teaching is self-serving. It takes all those energetic young people and convinces them that all activity is evil except for church sponsored events. For me it was not just books and messages, but endless church service -- building and maintaining meeting halls, along with a host of other duties.

One thing that always burnt me up -- at least in the GLA and my LC -- was the pitiful attitude of expectation, and lack of appreciation displayed towards all their volunteer service -- "you want me to thank them? isn't their reward is in the heavens?"

We definitely could have used a massive dose of the book of James.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gotta agree with this. Nee's teaching here was another example of how he invented "principles" from his imagination. He would get on a roll and before he knew it would write a whole new chapter on Christian behavior. Not trying to take away from the many good things he taught, but he did have a tendency to come up with things that sounded good, but which could easily lead astray those who didn't know how to parse him. And given his status, few did.

This booklet by Watchman Nee, Ministry to the House or to the Lord, was commonly found in Local Church bookrooms in the 70s and might still be present in them. The copy I used is taken directly from the booklet. I read through someone’s internet copy and corrected it according to the booklet, I have which was published by Stream Publishers (later becoming Living Stream Ministry).

I saw something valuable in this fellowship by Watchman Nee, and OBW did not. He saw what looked like mud to him and talked about it, rather vehemently, referring to its “nonsense”. However, he did not mention finding a pearl in that mud that he was handling. And it is that pearl that has my attention; and, it was why the booklet was published.

I have often wondered what suffering might have brought Nee or Lee to extreme speaking at times to make their point clear, and set themselves up to be misunderstood, as Igzy well-pointed out could be the case with this booklet.

It is not that OBW or Igzy didn’t raise some good questions, but as a major leader over many churches, and responsible before the Lord, it might have been the Lord’s speaking in Nee, his speaking being balanced by his overall ministry. Read Church Affairs, for example, if there is any doubt of his care for the members and presenting each one full-grown, even as Paul desired in the House of God. Indeed, Nee's ministry was to the House, as well as to the Lord.

I wanted to see this controversial content of the booklet get addressed that some of the brothers have brought to our attention. I was taken aback by some of Nee's statements myself. But my major interest is on the pearl - on our learning to minister first to the Lord, then to the House. My attention is at least upon the principle of what Nee has shared, since I lack full understanding and experience of all that he has uttered.

Nee and Lee showed much heart for ministry to individuals, as the members of God's House.

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/s-i/t...-17568309.html

http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...ishingBook.pdf

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

It is not that OBW or Igzy didn’t raise some good questions, but a major leader over many churches, and responsible before the Lord, it might have been the Lord’s speaking in Nee, his speaking being balanced by his overall ministry.

I don't doubt Nee's heart. I doubt his approach. A person doesn't balance himself. He is balanced by others. Nee had no peers. So he could say what he wanted. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. But an unchecked ministry can be a loose cannon.

I have often wondered what suffering might have brought Nee or Lee to extreme speaking to make their point clear, and set themselves up to be misunderstood, as Igzy well-pointed out could be the case with this booklet.

I think it was the whole severe, abusive approach to discipleship. It probably didn't start with M.E. Barber, but she certainly inspired it in Nee. It's an Asian thing. too. You see it in their athletic coaching. Severe and spartan. Bordering on sadistic and masochistic. Though they temper it on the international stage, it's probably still common behind closed doors.

[OBW]

Where do we arrive at a directive to first minister to the Lord and then to the House? Or, as the woman (M.E. Barber?) suggested, to get to be ones who minster to the Lord and not to the Temple?

The passage (Ezekiel 44) was a directive as to the dealing with Levites who themselves, or their ancestry, had been involved in bringing idols into the Temple. One clan within the Levites was considered cleared and therefore able to serve before God. The others had to stay out in the sanctuary or outer courts and serve the people with their sacrifices.

This was a penalty on certain clans of Levites due to prior sin. It was not a prescription for an order of service. Yes, there is a directive concerning clothing worn by the preferred clan when they serve "before Me" rather than just serving in the sanctuary.

The problem I find in Nee's assessment of its meaning is that its meaning to us in the NT age is simply stated as some fact. But how is it that this is the "correct" determination? Because Nee, as he has said in other places, sees things that no one else can see?

By 1900, seeing something new that has never been seen before should be suggesting "danger! Will Robinson!" It is one thing to point to things that have been found before (by more than one or two writers at the margins) but that have fallen in disfavor for various reasons. At some level, the very way that so many of us "do church" in evangelical/fundamental and (even LRC circles) is "new" and we tend to disparage things about the way church was "done" for centuries past, virtually all the way to the first century. And for the most part, even the LRC's version of "back to the beginning" is mostly just a free-form version of modern evangelicalism. Nothing old or "from the beginning," but rather fairly new.

I can appreciate that there was something specific being mentioned about "ministering before Me" not being human work. And I find that the most clear parallel is with our corporate worship. But I really don't see how it is "first." It is different.

And even though the penalty to the "deficient" Levite clans was to only be able to serve out in the Temple and the sanctuary, that did not make their service unimportant or the content of that service "second." It was clearly important service. It would appear to require many more people engaged in that service because it dealt with the people. In other words, they still served the people.

So, while I recognize the difference between service to God and service to the people (the Temple/sanctuary), the significance within Ezekiel is not (that I can see) a direction to an order of importance, but a penalty to some of the Levites. Seems that most of the issues when "pictured" forward to the NT age does not translate into an order of service. Rather it differentiates the focus of the service.

When we come together to "worship," it should not be full of our efforts, but our repentance, prayer, and praise. And when it comes to an order, the only thing I see as clearly "first" would be our repentance unto salvation. After that, it is all important to the ongoing life of the Christian. We are to both come before God and to go out "for" God.

I will admit that it is possible that Nee has written something true in this little booklet. But it is not simply obvious. It is not true because the verses say it. Rather, it would more likely be like a lot of the unstated things that many of us differ about. It is unstated because that is not the purpose of the passage. And when the passage doesn't actually say it, no amount of "it's like" or insistence upon the meaning of externally supplied metaphors or stories will make it clearly true.

And given the number of places that Nee has said X is really Y, I am not ready to give him the benefit of the doubt and just take his word for it. I need for the text to confirm it. Not an overlay on top of the text. The text.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

And one more thing. Is this entire thing from one pamphlet by Nee? If so, what is its title? If not, it is impossible to distinguish your comments from Nee's. If the title is "Ministry to the House or to the Lord" then you should have made that more clear.

And yet another question. What was this 3,000+ word epistle supposed to respond to? Or is it just one more nearly random drop of stuff on the forum?

Steve I felt the same way after reviewing this post. What is the title of the piece and have you posted it in it's entirety? If it is available online could you please point us to where it is posted?

Most importantly, I really don't think it's very profitable for you to post such a large amount of material with little or no comment from yourself. Your comment

What discrepancy between this word and what we have seen in the Local Churches at least since 1986.

is extremely vague and doesn't really tell us what "discrepancy" you are talking about. When you get a chance could you fill in some of the blanks for us? Thanks

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Steve I felt the same way after reviewing this post. What is the title of the piece and have you posted it in it's entirety? If it is available online could you please point us to where it is posted?

Most importantly, I really don't think it's very profitable for you to post such a large amount of material with little or no comment from yourself. Your comment is extremely vague and doesn't really tell us what "discrepancy" you are talking about. When you get a chance could you fill in some of the blanks for us? Thanks

UntoHim, I think Steve may had wanted the rest of us forum participants to say something before he made his point on the revelvance of this Watchman Nee booklet to the forum's discussion?

"We all know that the first occasion when sweat is mentioned was when Adam was driven from the Garden of Eden. After Adam sinned, God pronounced this sentence upon him: "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life...in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (Genesis 3:19-19). It is clear that sweat is a condition of the curse. Because the curse rested on the ground, it ceased to yield its fruit without man's effort, and such effort produced sweat.

When the blessing of God is withheld, fleshly effort becomes necessary, and that causes sweat. All work that produces sweat is positively prohibited to those who minister to the Lord. Yet today what an expenditure of energy there is in work for Him! Few Christians can do any work today without sweating over it. Their work involves planning and scheming, exhorting and urging, and very much running around. It cannot be done without a great deal of fleshly zeal.

Nowadays, if there is no sweat there is no work. Before work for God can be undertaken, there is a great deal of rushing to and fro, making numerous contacts, having consultations and discussions, and finally getting the approval of various people before going ahead. As for waiting quietly in the presence of God and seeking His instructions, that is out of the question."

What does the preceeding quote remind you of? Reminds me how the New Way, PSRP, etc was characterized as.... work of the flesh. What blessing had previously existed from the Jesus movement was gone. "A New Cart" had to be implented to try to manufacture what had previously brought many Christians to the local churches. History is available. The New Way through all the effort and all the labor of the brothers and sisters who participated was for naught.

Also reminds me of a message the late Art Katz gave. (By the way many of his messages I found at sermonindex.net). Basically saying Christian culture has become too fast-paced. Always in a hurry. There's no waiting. I think some of us can say the same thing in our experiences in the local churches. There's no waiting for the Lord. If there's a gap between testimonies/prophesying, the gap must be filled. In prophesying time, gaps are often likened to deadness. Now I look forward to the pastor/leading brother at my church calling for a moment of silence. If not for anything, to take care of our heart before proceeding with the Lord's Table.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

NEE: Let us ask ourselves: Does our work minister to our satisfaction or to the Lord's? I fear that when we have worked for the Lord, we are often thoroughly satisfied before He is satisfied. We are often quite happy with our work when He has found no joy in it. Blessed are they who can differentiate between ministry to sinners or saints, and ministry to Him. Such discernment is not easily acquired. Often it is only by much drastic dealing that we learn the difference between ministry to the Lord Himself and ministry to the House.
Let us seek the grace of God that He may reveal to us what it really means to minister to Him!

The only true way to know for sure what satisfies God is to measure, compare and contrast our efforts and experience with what is plainly written for us in God's word. Nee seems to ignore this fact - that we actually can know what satisfies God from His Word. "Who can differentiate", "Such discernment is not easily required" and then the kicker..."only by much drastic dealing". It seems to always come down to this with Watchman Nee. Most of the time it seems that Nee favors the subjective over the objective, experience over knowledge and even discernment over the written Word of God. This wouldn't be so bad if he was including the subjectivity, experience and discernment of many other men and women of God, but it is only Nee himself at the top of this pyramid.

Of course this kind of pyramid dynamic was implemented to the fullest by Witness Lee. The end result is a bunch of naïve followers of a man running around saying things like "even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and "we're Witness Lee's company!" and that Lee is "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". These kind of silly and absurd notions are the fruit a system of error that springs from the kind of teachings we find in this booklet. Again, I don't think it can be shown that the main thrust of what Nee has written here can be found in the Word of God. There are spiritual and even scriptural elements to be found within his writings, but the conclusions he comes to indicate that the Word of God and genuine inspiration of the Holy Spirit are not at the foundation of his understanding.