Claim of Watchman Nee Leadership Practice in China?

[Baruch]

I came across a book with some interesting claims about Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches in mainland China and Taiwan. The book is "Religion and Democracy in Taiwan" by Cheng-Tian Kuo, SUNY Press, May 8, 2008. Mr. Kuo is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Institute of Religious Studies at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan. Here is a paraphrase of some of the information presented on pages 50-52 of the book on The Local Church. The bracketed question mark in the paragraph below is by me indicating that the author must mean 70 million Christians in China (not 7 million) or he is way off on his facts.

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man". "The Local Churches constitute the majority of the seven million Christians in China [?] and include a membership of 91,000 Taiwanese associated with more than 170 churches in Taiwan. The Local Church is the second largest Christian denomination in Taiwan".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church. He appointed all elders in local churches. After Ni's death, Li succeeded him to supreme mastership. In addition to inheriting all the supreme powers Ni had, Li's writings, especially the Recovered Version of the Bible he edited, have replaced those by Ni in the church's Bible Study sessions."

The author later talks about the local churches in Taiwan:

"The Local Church headquarters makes important decisions about church activities and personnel. Local churches cannot but obey; otherwise, they would be excommunicated from the church, as occurred in the 1960s. Among the various charges against these saboteurs, Li mentioned that they challenged his leadership in general, including refusing to sing the eighty-five new hymns composed by Li for all member churches. These saboteurs were first suspended of their elder positions and left the Local Church one year later to establish independent churches. The Living Stone Church in Taipei is one of the remnants of this split".

If what this author states is true, then it appears that Witness Lee carried on Watchman Nee's original idea of spiritual authority. If that is the case, then the idea of following one set of teachings/ministry was all part of the original practice. I think the unhealthy level of control that followed had to be used to keep everyone following the same script (i.e. one teaching or ministry).

Has anyone else ever come across this author/book? The author does use references for many of his statements so it's probably worthwhile to follow the reference trail to see where it leads.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cheng-Tian Kuo

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man". "The Local Churches constitute the majority of the seven million Christians in China [?] and include a membership of 91,000 Taiwanese associated with more than 170 churches in Taiwan. The Local Church is the second largest Christian denomination in Taiwan".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church. He appointed all elders in local churches. After Ni's death, Li succeeded him to supreme mastership. In addition to inheriting all the supreme powers Ni had, Li's writings, especially the Recovered Version of the Bible he edited, have replaced those by Ni in the church's Bible Study sessions."

Interesting to see those concepts side by side: "supreme mastership" and "equality of all believers".

First of all, "equality of all believers" - Jesus taught that some had five talents, some had one, some had ten. Paul said that "star differed from star in glory" (1 Cor 15:41). But in the social(ist) engineering of Ni and Li, all are "small potatoes" except for the supreme master, who is deputy God. How normal is that? Ni set up his proposed "normal church" against the clergy-laity system, which argument made sense in Western-dominated China coming out of the 19th century, but it makes no sense in the 21st century where anyone can function in the community church. Those with more talents become evident by function. Nobody gets accused of being "ambitious" or "drawing others after them". People have differing gifts, and they function. Wow, what a concept!

Second, there's no actual equality of believers in the LSM/lc system, because it matters how you're positioned vis-a-vis the supreme master. Those who have him on speed-dial obviously can lord over the rest, and they do. "Don't you know we have lunch with WL" was the refrain of the FTT 'co-workers' to the rank-and-file who protested their overbearing ways.

One brother who posted here aka "Hope", said that when the Chinese brothers found out he was "tight" with WL suddenly they became very deferential. This kind of testimony is not anomalous but par for the LSM/lc system.

Next follows another pair of concepts: "centralized decision core" and "strong local autonomy". The juxtaposition simply makes no sense. "Strong local autonomy" only worked to bring the believers and their fellowships outside of Western control (in 1930s China) or denominational control (in 1960s USA). Otherwise it was strictly the "Jerusalem principle" where "oneness" meant absolute obedience to the central church of the supreme master. In actuality, the word "autonomy" meant nothing at all. It was just window dressing.

Anyone can see how absurd these concepts are next to each other. They're unbiblical and contradictory, unless you're bound and determined to be duped by them, and to wear the yoke, and be enslaved to the ministry of these men.

As one (current Blended) said, at the time of a particularly nasty 'rebellion', "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand." With that attitude, you probably can 'enjoy' the ministry. But anyone who actually tries to think about what it means practically (in truth, in actuality, in day-to-day living) can see the glaring flaws. It's really all about control. Absolute control equals social stability (until the cries of the rank-and-file small potatoes get too great - then the inevitable 'storm' or 'turmoil' comes).

[aron]

And what happens as the concept of supreme mastership plays itself out in the collective? Distortion, stumbling and ruin.

We were told that WN had a collection of spiritual classics, numbering some 3,000 works. Do we suppose that there were 50 sequential supreme masters, each with a 40-odd year ministry period, where each put out some 60 classics? Or do you suppose that some of the books - gasp! - were written in the same era by different people? No, or yes? If yes, then why could only one ministry publish in the Ni/Li era? I'll tell you why, because these supposedly supreme masters distorted the process. The kingdom of God became the kingdom of self.

WL stood on the shoulders of giants, so we heard. And he went further, as he saw more. But upon his passing, nobody can see still further? WL could, and did, critique his claimed predecessors. But those who've read him, and follow, can't likewise critique his ideas? How can we learn? How can we see? How can we grow?

I went the LSM/lc because of the the excitement: all the shouting, jumping up and down, arm-waving. Christianity had been boring and now it was fun! I liked having all the answers. WN & WL had done the heavy lifting & all we neded to do was 'enjoy'. Plus I liked being love-bombed - at the community church all I'd gotten was a handshake from the pastor as I went out the door.

But what happens if I actually begin to grow, and hear the Shepherd's voice in the scripture? What if I begin to see variance, and discrepancies in the LSM/lc? What then? The principle of supreme mastership obviates all of that. One person per age gets to be 'seer of the divine revelation', as WL said in title of the the biography of WN. The rest must acquiesce to the supposed 'vision of the age', i.e. the whims of the SM. Your only vision is that the supreme master has the vision & you have none.

And the last SM, the last MOTA, on his way out the door, apparently decreed that henceforth there were to be no more seers of the divine revelation! Wow, what a vision from God!

Do you see my point? What a distortion, what a stumbling placed on the flock. "Entangled again with the yoke of slavery", said Paul. Amen to that - it's a system of slavery.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting to see those concepts side by side: "supreme mastership" and "equality of all believers".

First of all, "equality of all believers" - Jesus taught that some had five talents, some had one, some had ten. Paul said that "star differed from star in glory" (1 Cor 15:41). But in the social(ist) engineering of Ni and Li, all are "small potatoes" except for the supreme master, who is deputy God. How normal is that? Ni set up his proposed "normal church" against the clergy-laity system, which argument made sense in Western-dominated China coming out of the 19th century, but it makes no sense in the 21st century where anyone can function in the community church. Those with more talents become evident by function. Nobody gets accused of being "ambitious" or "drawing others after them". People have differing gifts, and they function. Wow, what a concept!

Second, there's no actual equality of believers in the LSM/lc system, because it matters how you're positioned vis-a-vis the supreme master. Those who have him on speed-dial obviously can lord over the rest, and they do. "Don't you know we have lunch with WL" was the refrain of the FTT 'co-workers' to the rank-and-file who protested their overbearing ways.

The LCM goes to great lengths to convey the notion that their group is where all believers are equal. In attempt to contrast the LCM from other groups, Nee and Lee both pointed to ordinary groups and attacked their leadership structures, the visible 'positions', etc. Quite frankly, that kind of criticism must have resonated with a good number of people, because so many have joined the LC thinking that it offered something different and better than what traditional Christianity had to offer.

As far as I can tell, those in the LCM are absolutely convinced that they are part of a church that is "of the people, by the people and for the people." They are also absolutely convinced that their group doesn't have any underlying leadership structure or leadership-related problems, such as authoritarianism. Many times, I have considered as to why LCers are unable to admit the leadership issues within the LC, and I realize that for them to do so would involve making an admission that is completely contradictory to their perception of what kind of group they are a part of.

I personally feel that Nee and Lee had every intention of cultivating an environment that would allow for a supreme mastership. And what better way to do it than to get everyone thinking that they each had a special role and purpose within the group. Except what they forgot to mention is that you can only have 'purpose' within the confines of being a small potato. Somehow everyone in the LCM realizes in the back of their mind that they shouldn't overshadow, criticize or question the supreme master, yet they are convinced that the LCM doesn't have such a leadership structure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I personally feel that Nee and Lee had every intention of cultivating an environment that would allow for a supreme mastership. And what better way to do it than to get everyone thinking that they each had a special role and purpose within the group. Except what they forgot to mention is that you can only have 'purpose' within the confines of being a small potato..

Nee & Lee did intentionally establish a supreme and unquestioned authority because that fit their cultural pre-conceptions of what was "normal" for group practice. Notice that this model attracts the Chinese, who don't think it's strange. Without a strong center, they fear chaos. (but that is where faith comes in).

There are other "strong authoritarian" groups out there like the Geftakys Assembly, but look at the miniscule toe-hold they have in the general populace versus the LSM/lc with tens of thousands of the Chinese.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Somehow everyone in the LCM realizes in the back of their mind that they shouldn't overshadow, criticize or question the supreme master, yet they are convinced that the LCM doesn't have such a leadership structure.

Nee and Lee and their followers didn't see anything "wrong" with their church model, and often point out the admittedly horrible clergy - laity system it replaced. I liked Baruch's citation because it highlights how incompatible these replacement notions are: "strong autonomy" versus "strong centralized control" and "everyone equal" juxtaposed on one of the "equals" being a "supreme master". As soon as you look at it critically it's totally contradictory. Which is probably why they told us, "Don't think, you will only be confused". Only the supreme master, the guru, the deputy god, could think without becoming confused. The rest were to be "one" with the "Lord's speaking thru our brother".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee and Lee and their followers didn't see anything "wrong" with their church model, and often point out the admittedly horrible clergy - laity system it replaced. I liked Baruch's citation because it highlights how incompatible these replacement notions are: "strong autonomy" versus "strong centralized control" and "everyone equal" juxtaposed on one of the "equals" being a "supreme master". As soon as you look at it critically it's totally contradictory. Which is probably why they told us, "Don't think, you will only be confused". Only the supreme master, the guru, the deputy god, could think without becoming confused. The rest were to be "one" with the "Lord's speaking thru our brother".

Interestingly, what Nee and Lee promoted as a 'normal' church model is something that people were easily sold on, perhaps because they didn't notice the two contradictory extremes of what the LCM movement had to offer. Here was a group that thought to defy all the traditions. Anyone who wanted to had the opportunity to speak. Participation by all was the norm. People were made to feel like they were a part of something unique and special.

But what part of the equation went unnoticed? No one questioned the existence of a lone figure at the very top, the supreme master who provided the up-to-date speaking and direction of the movement. It was right before everyone's eyes, but it rarely triggered any alarm bells within the movement. The contradictory aspect to all the things that the LCM presumed to be is exactly what went largely unnoticed, except from time to time when it tended to rear its ugly head.

By example, throughout all the years growing up in the LCM, I would have never thought that there was any kind of headquarters or authoritarian control. I saw people writing songs, producing and distributing tapes - all kinds of things that would suggest that LC members were all free to contribute in their own unique ways. Everything felt autonomous. However, later on, I began to see certain 'situations' arise, such as the one publication edict. So then I started to realize that the notion of everyone in the LCM being equal was all just a guise. There was indeed a headquarters that has the power to issue edicts. Everyone in the LCM was on a leash. That leash might be shortened or lengthened, but it's a leash nonetheless.

[Ohio]

Great points.

And contrary to the steadfast opinions of our LC friends, the "proper" name does not absolve you from denominational status. That is determined by their controlling headquarters at LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Everything felt autonomous. However, later on, I began to see certain 'situations' arise, such as the one publication edict. So then I started to realize that the notion of everyone in the LCM being equal was all just a guise. There was indeed a headquarters that has the power to issue edicts. Everyone in the LCM was on a leash. That leash might be shortened or lengthened, but it's a leash nonetheless.

Initially, everything felt autonomous, local, egalitarian, participatory. But eventually we saw that there was a headquarters and a leash. There was indeed supreme mastership but it was couched in spiritual guise.

Here's how I understand the contradiction: Watchman Lee, like Witness Lee after him, understood things, and promoted them to others, based on: a) the situation on the ground - the perceived need; and b) his culturally-mediated understanding of the "normal" or proper response. But he was blinded to his bias, and ignored the inevitable reverses and contradictions.

To be shed of Western control, there was the idea of autonomy and locality. But then there was a need for consolidation and coordination so he "discovered" his so-called Jerusalem Principle.

And he chafed under senior co-worker Leland Wang. But it was only after Wang was gone that he "recovered" deputy authority. The gate to supreme mastership now was opened.

[JJ]

Wow, nice find Baruch! This cuts right to core problems with TLR that began with Nee and bore rotten fruit as it grew.

Good comments, Aron.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Baruch

I came across a book with some interesting claims about Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches in mainland China and Taiwan. The book is "Religion and Democracy in Taiwan" by Cheng-Tian Kuo, SUNY Press, May 8, 2008.

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church.

"The Local Church headquarters makes important decisions about church activities and personnel. Local churches cannot but obey; otherwise, they would be excommunicated from the church, as occurred in the 1960s. Among the various charges against these saboteurs, Li (Lee) mentioned that they challenged his leadership in general, including refusing to sing the eighty-five new hymns composed by Li for all member churches. These saboteurs were first suspended of their elder positions and left the Local Church one year later to establish independent churches. The Living Stone Church in Taipei is one of the remnants of this split".

I was floored by the part in quotations, because from 1978-2015 I never heard anything about that event..... except Witness Lee did talk about composing 85 new hymns (about 1962), and how they uplifted the Lord’s Table meetings after a while.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I was floored by the part in quotations, because from 1978-2015 I never heard anything about that event..... except Witness Lee did talk about composing 85 new hymns (about 1962), and how they uplifted the Lord’s Table meetings after a while.

While we were in the LC's, the flow of information was totally controlled by LSM. We never heard the whole story.

For example, we were told that the Lord sent Lee to the USA. It turns out that after Lee forced the church in Taipei to sell their property to pay off Lee's business debts, he was no longer welcome there.