Soul-Life, Kundalini, and Watchman Nee

[Jo S]

In another thread here, a forum member used a term in one of his posts that perplexed me. Curiosity set me off to find out what that term meant. The word that he used was "soul-life".

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

If you haven't read this book it's basic premise, from my understanding, is that man has a hidden or dormant "force" within their souls (he also says within the flesh). And this force can be reawakened and used by an individual for malevolent purposes. Nee equates "soul life" to "soul force" which essentially is psychic power exercised through thought, will, and emotion.

Now from my own reading of scriptures I have to say the idea of a hidden power lying within all men is something that was never even remotely conveyed to me through the text. What I do read is that all powers exist in the heavenly realms; which is the power of God and also the power of the prince of the air (Satan). Man doesn't have power, per se, but has the free will or choice in which power to put their faith and trust in. Essentially, all power is outside of us but can potentially be carried on through us...to a certain extent.

Basically Nee's biblical argument for this soul force is that because Adam was given the seemingly enormous task of naming all the animals and the duty to tend to all of the Garden of Eden that he must have had some super-human powers. He says:

"There is in Adam an almost unlimited power, a near miraculous ability. This we call soul power."

This power he goes on to say was ultimately suppressed after the fall and is able to be awakened through specific intentionality.

Having been personally influenced earlier on in my walk with Christ through friends that were into new age occultism, the belief here that Nee is trying to convey is eerily similar to what you find in eastern mystic belief systems. It's the belief that a "coiled serpent spirit" lies dormant at the base of every person's spine called Kundalini. And it's a force that can be awakened sometimes randomly, by the laying on of hands, or through certain practices such as chanting, meditation, and asceticism which ultimately leads to spiritual liberation or enlightenment.

Now I do agree with Nee in that there is both a false spiritual experience of enlightenment that can be obtained by man through works, called in eastern mysticism "Nirvana" or "Kundalini awakening". Then there is revelation which comes from God by faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Where I disagree strongly is that the power that leads to the false spiritual liberation is inherently within man and tied to our very souls.

In my view, what this belief can do on the psyche of a person is dangerous.

First, it plants the false belief that there actually is a psychic power or force within man. This in itself can lead to a false identity. Not to mention it also can entice an individual when the person is led to believe there are hidden powers available at their disposal. This opens a door to the enemy and can inflate a person's sense of self.

Second, by Nee associating this latent power to man's soul, Nee's setting up our soul as something that is fallen and evil and should be suppressed at all costs. He says of the soul;

"Let me reiterate the difference between soul and spirit: Adam’s fallen soul belongs to the old creation; but the regenerated spirit is the new creation. "

also,

"We may say that while the Holy Spirit is the power of God, man’s soul appears to be the power of Satan. "

and,

"This is why I state with such emphasis that we must lay down our soul power. All that is of the soul is of no avail. "

Finally,

"It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus often declares how we need to lose our soul life."


Nee further goes on to say that emotions, which are of the soul, are useless. He says of emotions:

"Once I was working in Shantung. A professor there said to his colleague “that these preachers work with emotions.” It so happened that when I preached to the believers that afternoon I told them how undependable and useless was emotion. "

My issue with all this creates a schism in the mind and can cause great confusion and doubt in an individual about who they are and what the purpose of their souls is.

What I read in scripture is that we bless the Lord with our souls (Psalm 103). And I also read that the Lord himself commands us to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

The Lord Jesus often displayed a great deal of emotion. He cried, had compassion, he was brought to anger (flipped over tables) ect. The difference was that his thoughts, emotions, and very soul were all aligned with God. This does not mean we should suppress all of these things but it does mean we should align them and subject them through faith to the Holy Spirit.

From what I gather Nee teaches in this book exactly what gnosticism teaches, that is, everything of man is wicked. This includes man's thoughts, emotions, and his very soul. All is fallen and only the spirit is good (hyper-spirituality).

It's true, we are all inherently fallen but we are also all made in the image of God. Is this a contradiction or do we need to rightly divide truth?

Moving on, gnostics also teach that only when death to self is accomplished can the individual gain life. This is also influenced by eastern mysticism and the opposite of Christianity where dying to one's self, first off, isn't the annihilation of personal identity or sense of self (also called "ego") as Nee states:

"What is the highest attainment in Christianity? That of complete union with God and total loss of self. "

but 'dying to self' as a Christian is a continual submission or humbling one's self to God and is a process that happens only after being born of the Holy Spirit as a part of the individual's sanctification.

My fear is, if someone lets go of their individuality before coming to true knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ that unoccupied space that is created through practices of mysticism will definitely be filled with something but I'm most certain it won't be the Holy Spirit of God. (Matt 12:43) .

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If we let go of our individuality before coming to true knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ, that unoccupied space that is created through practices of mysticism will definitely be filled with something but I'm most certain it won't be the Holy Spirit of God. (Matt 12:43) .

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the things of self. But God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things. Jesus continually pointed us to the things which were above.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on cheeks, coats, shirts, miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father). My immediate context was Matthew 16

23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get out of my way, Satan! You are tempting me to sin. You aren't thinking the way God thinks but the way humans think."

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Those who want to come with me must say no to the things they want, pick up their crosses, and follow me. 25 Those who want to save their lives will lose them. But those who lose their lives for me will find them. 26 What good will it do for people to win the whole world and lose their lives? Or what will a person give in exchange for life? 27 The Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory. Then he will pay back each person based on what that person has done.

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

In the LC, people are taught to trust their "supernaturally-enhanced intuition", as I'd put it. I had a feeling, they say. I had a leading for such-and-such. This means that the Holy Spirit in their human spirit was telling them to take a left at Miller and Vine streets, and they didn't know the bridge was out. So they use this as proof that they are "in the flow". But they can't even say anything when the Church Leader sins, or when the Bible is suborned. So their conscience is burned as with a hot iron. It is calloused. So where is this intuition from? Not anything that I want.

All of which is to say that I think you are onto something.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the self. God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on coats or shirts or miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father).

Didn't mean to put you on the spot, Aron, but I took the opportunity to let some thoughts fly on the topic of eastern mysticism within the LC's.

Did you know where this term came from? Your definition doesn't really line up with Watchman Nee's. Maybe Lee had a different spin on it or it's just your personal view..

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get for it I guess, j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get I guess, lol j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

I was using LC terminology 'soul-life' without really checking if it were accurate or not. Someday such things might mean a lot to me but today I was focused on the principle of the re-oreintation away from the selfish things, me, me, and me, and looking to the things of God. Witness Lee seems like he never made that re-orientation, by his letting his admittedly unspiritual sons run roughshod over the church members.

But now that you focus on the term, "soul" or "soul-life", I think that you are onto something. The LC rank-and-file are sold something extra, something special, but those who sell them these goods fail at the basic level of righteousness. So what are they selling them?

Not something I want to buy.

Watchman Nee reminds me of a musician who wrote a smash hit pop song using some borrowed trope. Then he spends the rest of his/her days feeding off that hit, and trying vainly to put out something of substance, and covering for the fact that he/she is unable. Think Britney Spears or Madonna. There never was anything there, ever. It is just layers of schmalz covering up that simple fact that there's nothing there.

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

I agree that Nee had a misconstrued idea of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord with all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul. Perhaps the LC doesn't want you to know that but the Lord definitely does. He even said just before his crucifixion, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.". He knew that the part of him which was sorrowful was his soul. But I get what you're saying. When you get caught in the semantics of it all is where most of the confusion comes from.

Originally Posted by aron

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Jesus Christ is obviously male. Wouldn't then making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes cleverly promulgate the idea of androgyny? Androgyny was of course something not only practiced by pagan cultures outwardly but was also built into their spiritual belief systems.

This all comes from the gnostic "Sophian" doctrines (latter adopted by Roman Catholicism) that teach that the bride of Christ ("bride" inferring femininity) is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine (head) and feminine (body) creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature because it's the same duality taught in all forms of false religion. I touched on this is another thread here but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree that Nee had a false concept of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord will all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul.

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that ... refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Correct me if I'm wrong but Jesus Christ is male, right? Wouldn't making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes promulgate androgyny? Of course this all comes from the gnostic Roman Catholic "Sophian" doctrines that teach that the bride of Christ is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine and feminine creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature. I touched on this is another thread but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

Let me give another example. A brother on this forum, awareness, has said that his regional elder MP told him, "You will take my personality as your own". Whose personality was he fronting? Witness Lee's. Who was Lee fronting?

Another example: while Witness Lee was telling the reporter in Seattle, "Here we are so free", his hatchet-man RG was in BM's face, telling him, "Here, we do what we are told". This kind of two-facedness went on all the time. Like a dysfunctional family with a "public face" and a "behind-the-scenes family life". Now what spirit was at work? In any case where humans are, there is reason to be cautious, but where we are dabbling in mysticism and subjective experience of spiritism, we should be doubly wary.

Originally Posted by Nell

At some point Christians need to understand and acknowledge that there are two spirits. One is Holy. The other is not. I once witnessed a meltdown of a brother in a meeting. There were 50-60 people there who witnessed this. All the words he spoke were “right”. However, everyone there clearly knew something was “not right”. This brother wasn’t around much longer after what happened in that meeting.

This would have been the appropriate time for leadership to help all of us to understand what had happened...if leadership themselves understood what was going on. Instead, publicly it was ignored. Privately, I could never forget what I saw and I could never reconcile “release your spirit” with what I saw.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Aron, I understand what you're saying but I think we have to be a bit cautious here.

In Mark 12:31 when he says "love others as youself" Jesus assumes those he's addressing already know God's love for them. And as with any relational love, whether it be with God or man, comes by hearing, seeing, and understanding (experiential or revelatory).

None are separate from each other so we have to be careful also that we don't discard any of them as in saying feelings, or emotions, or subjective experiences in themselves are inherently bad and not a part of our relationship with God. The only thing is we shouldn't be chasing after these things or rely on them as validation because without a full understanding we'll actually chase our own constructs rather then what's real. And it's human nature to only want the ecstacy (good) rather than the hurt and suffering (bad) that comes along with God's love. And you know who will offer you only the convient things of life....(Mark 8:33)

With that in mind, Jesus is saying we should love other's as God has loved us. He doesn't say "love others as you love yourself". There's a big difference just by those two words and it's the difference between God's love and narcissism. We definitely don't want to love ourselves by ourselves as any type of means to an end but if God loves us and we in turn love Him, understanding His perspective on how He views us instills a deep sense of value and worth that can then be imparted to others. And so, we should love others as if we were standing opposite of ourselves and viewing our own person through God's eyes.

I probably don't need to say all of that, but I have seen young ones that came out of very legalistic and controlling religious environments that go from one extreme to the other extreme of new age self-love because they don't know where else to render from the love they're so desperately seeking. That in turn can lead down some very dark paths into false spirituality. Or they give up on love entirely and fall into pure rationalism and atheism.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

You just said, "you don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as wrong". Isn't that a judgement?

Unfortunately, from all that I've read and seen, Nee too thought he shouldn't judge in that he had the more liberal belief that everyone had a portion of "light" to be gained from and he carried this belief wherever he meet with the many people that shaped his worldview. Can people offer others light from God? Yes of course but not all people in all circumstances.

He too was judging but not judging at the same time. And unfortunately by this type of discernment believing all people and circumstances had potential to further him on his spiritual journey led him to be tossed like a wave in the sea inadvertently creating a mishmash of gnosticism and eastern mysticim with a veener of Christianity...I'm sorry if that last part sounds harsh but I truly do believe that. And to be clear, I do not have a vendetta against Watchman Nee or anyone else, but I do see him in some of the people I have gotten to know within the LC's. I'd hate for them to make the same mistakes, like Nee, I once made myself.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jo S

....I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". ...

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Nell

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

The book is Soul and Spirit: How to Find Freedom from the Tyranny of the Soul

You can find the quote here

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In another thread here, a forum member used a term in one of his posts that perplexed me. Curiosity set me off to find out what that term meant. The word that he used was "soul-life".

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

Here is another example of the time-proven maxim, "Any truth taken to the extreme can become a falsehood."

There are numerous articles online about the Welch Revival. I can't remember which ones I read.

This is why I view all spiritual books with a dose of suspicion. Yes, they can be helpful, but they can also be unbalanced and extreme. The Bible is balanced. Nowadays too many Christians get their teachings from preferred books rather than from the Scripture.

We were not alone in the LC's to receive our teachings from one source.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

Nell,

I like Ohio's indirect response. It deals with it as an uncertainty.

I have tended to be more complete in taking an "OK or dismiss all" approach to Nee and Lee, but it is more because I have noted clear underlying problems that reach to the beginning of their ministries and not just because of specific problems at a particular time.

In the writings of others, I still believe that where there is uncertainty over what is OK and what is not, outright rejection can be preferred to risking acceptance of error. If there is truth in it, it is still true and should be able to be found somewhere else that is not so controversial.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the writings of others, I still believe that where there is uncertainty over what is OK and what is not, outright rejection can be preferred to risking acceptance of error. If there is truth in it, it is still true and should be able to be found somewhere else that is not so controversial.

Here is a copy of an online article:

Before Azusa Street in 1906, there was the Welsh Revival in 1904. It was one of the greatest revivals ever and perhaps the one with the most tragic end. That's because the spirit of Jezebel cut off the voice of Evan Roberts, a young man God used to set a nation on fire for God.
As history tells it, over 100,000 souls came to Jesus in Wales over the course of nine months. Hundreds of thousands more would come to know the Lord over the next couple of years—and it all started in Moriah Chapel in Loughor, South Wales where Roberts gathered with a few youth and began to pray, "Bend us! Bend us!" and eventually "Bend me! Bend me!"

"It was the very next month that Roberts had his first vision. While strolling in a garden, Evan looked up to see what seemed to be an arm outstretched from the moon, reaching down into Wales," writes Roberts Liardon, author of God's Generals. "He later told a friend, 'I have wonderful news for you. I had a vision of all Wales being lifted up to heaven. We are going to see the mightiest revival that Wales has ever known—and the Holy Spirit is coming just now. We must get ready."The pastor of his church let him start holding meetings on Oct. 31. The meetings turned into a two-week revival marked by fervent faith, strong intercession and late-night services that sometimes lasted until sunrise. Those meetings ignited a revival that spread across the world, including to Azusa Street in Los Angeles. But it wasn't long before Roberts cracked under the strain of the pressure.

"By 1905, Roberts' mind became confused from physical and emotional exhaustion. He began hearing conflicting voices in his head and doubted his ability to distinguish the voice of the Spirit among them," Liardon writes. "He would rebuke his listeners for not being pure of heart, while he became increasingly obsessed with examining his own self for un-confessed sin. He feared most that he would be exalted instead of God and became overly critical of his audiences and church leaders."

The revival finally fizzled out in 1905 when the spirit of Jezebel operating through Jesse Penn-Lewis, a Welsh evangelical speaker and author, beguiled young Roberts. Penn-Lewis seduced and deceived the revivalist in the prime of his anointing.

Penn-Lewis, whose doctrine was largely rejected in Wales and is even now described as apostate teaching by some modern theologians, sought to ride on Roberts' coat-tails. Ironically, this Jezebelic woman flattered him with words that aimed to ease the suffering he was experiencing from the religious spirits in the midst of revival. But her smooth words didn't heal his soul. He suffered a nervous breakdown and went to live at this wealthy woman's home to recover.

"They built their new home around his needs, including a bedroom, prayer room and private stairway. It was there that the great revivalist was confined to bed for more than a year," says Liardon. "Evan became ever more isolated and reclusive as years passed. He refused to see friends, and eventually family. He allowed Penn-Lewis to dictate who he would see, and what he would do. They wrote a number of books together, the first one, War on the Saints, was published in 1913. Mrs. Penn-Lewis stated the book was birthed from six years of prayer and testing the truth. Within a year after the book was published, Roberts denounced it. He was quoted as saying it had been a 'failed weapon which had confused and divided the Lord's people.'"

Although he lived to be 72, Roberts stopped preaching in his early 20s.

https://www.charismamag.com/blogs/th...-revivals-ever

I think the article is a bit subjective and shouldn't be taken too seriously. If there are other objective sources corroborating this, then perhaps it gets more weight. We should be careful in pronouncing what is of God and what is not. In any event, we should be cautious of Penn-Lewis because she was a bit extreme.

I quoted her influence on Nee and the (possible) "Kundalini Spirit" for two reasons: first that Nee copied her outright. Plagiarised. His publisher in the preface to the second edition of "Spiritual Man" had to explain this, saying it was a cultural thing with the Chinese, to show honour for someone's work, to copy it thus. So "Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation" must be modified to "Nee the Crib Artist Posing as a Seer". Second, why did the Little Flock openly base itself on a woman's teachings, if a woman is not allowed to speak (teach) in church? Nobody in LSM ever wants to address this question, perhaps because there's no answer?

But I've not read JPL enough to have basis for opinion, but note the 'red flags' of Nee's eager and naiive over-reliance on her work.

Where I see the Kundalini Spirit, if we would call it this, a spirit of bewitching, is that of all the thousands of members, nobody asks these kinds questions, that are so obviously needing to be asked. Why base a movement on a woman's teaching if women are not allowed to teach in your movement? The only reason that I can see that nobody asks this kind of question (among others) is that they've been bereft of their critical faculties, rendered senseless, bewitched. Benumbed, dazzled and baffled and dumb. They don't ask any questions, even the obvious ones. "Just keep calling, brother!"

[OBW]

aron,

I know that there have been discussions of this so-called "Jezebel spirit" in the past. It has always been problematic to me in that it tries to force an otherwise undefined label upon things without (to me) relevant scriptural support.

That being said, I do believe that there was something amiss in the relationship between Roberts and Penn-Lewis that had great impact on the Welsh revival. Was it something to lay strictly at the feet of Penn-Lewis? I can't tell.

But the idea that her writings/teachings are part of an unbalanced view of the whole of the Bible and of the Christian faith is probably supportable. Just like the writings of so many of the Christian mystics — both past and present — including Nee and his followers.

[aron]

Referencing my previous post (#17), here's another example. Link is from an LSM website.

http://marymcdonough.ccws.org/

God's full salvation consists of the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross and the subjective operation of the Triune God as the eternal life to man. In this remarkable study, Mary E. McDonough examines both aspects of the believer’s salvation but adds particular emphasis to the latter, unveiling the truth and experience of the uncreated life, the life of God in Christ Jesus that is shared by the believer.

This life experience begins with regeneration, continues with our transformation according to the divine life-principle, the law of the Spirit of life, and culminates with the transfiguration of our body. By this organic process, our entire being is made “like Him” as we are built up to be the Body of Christ and prepared to be His bride, unto the eternal glory of God.

After many years of being unavailable in its entirety, God's Plan of Redemption once again brings these precious and crucial truths to all the Lord's children.

How does a group that won't allow women to teach so revere this woman's teachings as "precious and crucial truths to all the Lord's children"? How come its members don't notice this glaring disparity between official doctrine and actual practice? They're either numbed into thoughtlessness, or cowed into silence. What spirit is at work, here?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

You're right Ohio, I wasn't sure if it was Nee or one of his influences that coined the term. It appears it was first used by Penn-Lewis. But in the context of Watchman Nee and his writings, I believe you'll find that phrase first appear in Latent Power of the Soul. Either way, now skimming through Penn-Lewis' book, I see how much of her ideas he borrowed from.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

That's assuming gospel work was being done in the first place.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You're right Ohio, I wasn't sure if it was Nee or one of his influences that coined the term. It appears it was first used by Penn-Lewis. But in the context of Watchman Nee and his writings, I believe you'll find that phrase first appear in this book. Either way, now skimming through Penn-Lewis' book, I see how much of her ideas he borrowed from.

That's assuming gospel work was being done in the first place.

Nee's book "Spiritual Man" plagiarized JPL's writings.

Yes, the gospel work in Wales bore much fruit. It was called the "Welch Revival." Much has been written about it. JPL's paranoid counseling about demons drove Evan Roberts into depression, and ended the gospel work.

This is one case where a sister should have been silent.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's book "Spiritual Man" plagiarized JPL's writings.

Yes, the gospel work in Wales bore much fruit. It was called the "Welch Revival." Much has been written about it. JPL's paranoid counseling about demons drove Evan Roberts into depression, and ended the gospel work.

This is one case where a sister should have been silent.

I don't know too much about the Welsh Revival and obviously wasn't there so I can't discern the fruit for myself. Like you, I'm cautious about books outside of scripture, but I also approach mass revivals with skepticism (Azusa street comes to mind). It's interesting this Evan Roberts, even after the revival died out, maintained a yoke with Penn-Lewis.

I just read a charisma magizine article claiming it was Jezebel in Penn-Lewis that killed the Welsh revival but seeing as she was Roberts's main influence, how can you conclude that it was ever a move of God to begin with? After the failure of the revival, Penn-Lewis blamed Roberts and Satan and then other Charismatics blamed Penn-Lewis and Jezebel. I just see a lot of passing the buck here. This could very well have just been two deceived souls. That's also a possibility.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I don't know too much about the Welsh Revival and obviously wasn't there so I can't discern the fruit for myself. Like you, I'm cautious about books outside of scripture, but I also approach mass revivals with skepticism (Azusa street comes to mind). It's interesting this Evan Roberts, even after the revival died out, maintained a yoke with Penn-Lewis.

I just read a charisma magizine article claiming it was Jezebel in Penn-Lewis that killed the Welsh revival but seeing as she was Roberts's main influence from the start, how can you conclude that it was ever a move of God to begin with? After the failure of the revival, Penn-Lewis blamed Roberts and Satan and then other Charismatics blamed Penn-Lewis and Jezebel. I just see a lot of passing the buck here. This could very well have been not only be a Jezebel issue but an Ahab issue as well, two deceived souls. That's also a possibility.

Many lives were changed via regeneration by the work of God's Spirit as a result of Roberts' gospel preaching. Sure there was blaming and buck-passing. That exists everywhere.

What we have to be freed from is this thought of perfection. Lee and Nee and Darby and others would like us to believe that their movement was free from all fleshly influence. Even Apostle Paul's co-workers turned on him when things went South. Look at the Galatians. Did not they begin in the Spirit, and then finish in the flesh?

Even Azusa Street was a real move of the Spirit. That's undeniable. But that doesn't mean that everything else since then is real. I've seen numerous frauds on TV. I know many folks who many pilgrimages to Azusa Street. Is that not superstitious?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

I say to Nee : It takes one to know one. Given the conflict of Nee's wonderful ministry, and his private sexual proclivities, I'd say Nee had tremendous soul power.

And then there's Lee's confession that for 30 odd years he was working from his natural man, so Lee had tremendous soul power too.

It's the power to attract simple minded or ignorant ones, looking for answers in someone of greater minds than them.

Just look into Nxivm, and the control an extraordinary genius mind can have on people.

And I don't even know if we should be worried about soul power. Ones like Nee and Lee are needs of the flesh ; in that we need a agent in the flesh ; it's the need for fleshly power we should avoid. Then soul power would have no takers.

Thanks for taking me down memory lane with your "Latent Power of the Soul" references.

That takes me way back. Thank the Lord, I've been free of Nee and Lee's latent power of the soul for a long time.

In the end, when it comes to soul power, Nee and Lee were preaching to themselves.