Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee

[Ohio]

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

This is the healthy take away which the Recovery in the US never received from Witness Lee. "Early-Nee" was such a blessing to so many of the God's children. Unfortunately, instead of giving glory "unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever," "Later-Nee" was excessively lifted up in China. Christ, and only Christ, is incorruptible and thus worthy to be uplifted in the church of God.

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.

[Cal]

Amen, amen, amen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Amen, amen, amen.

Igzy, I really like your latest signature line: "If you revere some people, you will inevitably abuse others." Looking back at the Recovery, this was so true. In order for Nee and then Lee and now Chu to maintain their elevated status in the LC's, others must be abused. It was inevitable! The only way to stop the abuse, is to "dethrone" the leaders.

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.

This also means that what we were told about Nee's marriage (that some relative took out an ad against him) was false.

[Ohio]

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.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This also means that what we were told about Nee's marriage (that some relative took out an ad against him) was false.

In his biography of Nee, Seer..., Witness Lee writes on page 97,

"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.

[Ohio]

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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

These two phrases are very fitting to the recovery.
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.

[Cal]

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity had a brief biography of Watchman Nee (Ni) by G. Wright Doyle.

Here are a few excerpts pertinent ...

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..

Why was this movement essentially co-founded by women, and 85 years later no woman can give a message to the gathering on Sunday morning? I've never heard the official house organ try to explain this disparity. One thing or the other can't be 'biblical'. Yet they try to have both.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When he married Zhang Pinhui in 1934,

Is Zhang Pinhui the same as Charity Chang? No wonder I can't ever get these stories straight.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Why was this movement essentially co-founded by women, and 85 years later no woman can give a message to the gathering on Sunday morning? I've never heard the official house organ try to explain this disparity. One thing or the other can't be 'biblical'. Yet they try to have both.

I do see another possible explanation for this. China was a male dominated society, was it not? So maybe it was that by surrounding himself with female co-workers, Nee felt like there wouldn't be anyone threatening his status as the supreme leader.

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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I do see another possible explanation for this. China was a male dominated society, was it not? So maybe it was that by surrounding himself with female co-workers, Nee felt like there wouldn't be anyone threatening his status as the supreme leader.

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?

Good observation. Look at the last quoted sentence: "Apostolic co-workers... Peace Wang, Ruth Lee... with Nee himself as supreme." The fact that the two named "Co-apostles" were both female and in clearly subordinate roles may be related, since this is within the context of a male-dominated society, as you note.

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

The Spirit's way (Acts 13) to reach the Gentiles was via Antioch, the way of fallen man was to model the Judaizers, who directed all the faithful back to Jerusalem.

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?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Concerning the anti-Western movement, the object of Nee's ire was of course, denominations and denominationalism. Perhaps Nee's concerns about denominations weren't entirely unwarranted, I will give him that much. The trap that Nee fell into, however, was thinking that he had the fix for everything.

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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. 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.

The Spirit of God used the tremendous social unrest of the late 60's (primarily Viet Nam protests on college campuses and racial tensions in the ghettos in reaction to MLK's murder) to breathe new life into His church. The old wineskins of the denominations we grew up in were rejected for something new from God. All sorts of experimental and transitional church settings were initiated, some of which survived and many did not.

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Concerning the anti-Western movement, the object of Nee's ire was of course, denominations and denominationalism.

The question worth asking is whether it was really denominations per se, but rather any group in any form that looked outside of China for its leadership.

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.