"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Ohio]

The matter of "handing over" finds its support in the N.T. in Acts 4.32-37. The disciples had "all things common," and "as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them," and the proceeds were "placed at the feet of the apostles." Reading these verses alone, the case might be fairly compelling. This account provides one of the fruits of the Spirit following Pentecost. The story does not end positively, however. The end of the story is two disciples being "slain in the spirit," and "great fear came upon the whole church."

The scriptural record never refers to this event again. No N.T. teaching or practice alluded to this. Whenever this practice was attempted again, the results were painful. The "communes" of the 60's and 70's attempted this. Karl Marx based his communist theories upon these "ideals." Perhaps only the post-pogrom kibitzes in early 20th century Israel enjoyed any amount of success. At least that I am aware of.

We should take note that the end of the record is "great fear came upon the whole church."

[Cal]

Again, in order for something like "handing over" to take place, someone has to be the enforcer. In the case of Acts (Ohio's example), Peter, a bona fide Apostle, was the enforcer.

The early genuine apostles had such extra authority. Their apostleship was verifiable, they had been with the Lord, they had been appointed by Him, they had worked signs and wonders.

These days there is no way to verify apostleship. No matter what anyone says, deciding whether one is or isn't can be nothing more than a matter of opinion and taste. I do not believe that God expects anyone to "hand over" their entire fortune based on so tenuous an assumption.

In my opinion Nee was grossly in error simply by saying that people should hand over everything to the church, because that meant Nee thought he was an apostle (an enforcer).

So although I agree with KTS that "handing over" would definitely cause tension between those that had and those that hadn't, that symptom is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that Nee presumed he had the authority to command such a thing in the first place.

It's just another case of "deputy authority" run amok.

[Oregon]

Please don't be offended Igzy but I think you are going too far to label Peter as an enforcer. The account of "giving all" in Acts was no doubt a genuine move of God. To be labeled "an enforcer" gives the impression that someone is doing something out of themselves and apart from God. I just simply cannot believe this concerning Peter in Acts.

[Cal]

Oregon,

I see your point. But that is not at all what I meant. I meant that Peter's authority to enforce his apostolic commands came from God, whereas no one has such authority today, or at least, there is no way to verify that anyone has such authority today, which is effectively the same thing.

My larger point was that rules like "giving all" cannot work without some enforcement, which presumes that someone has the authority to enforce giving all. Simply entertaining that someone has such authority is opening the door to abuse. Any clear thinking adult should be able to see that.

Lee's infamous "fermentation" tirade (and others like it) are examples of his trying to enforce by swinging his self-presumed deputorial weight. In all these cases he overstepped his bounds. Lee's authority stopped at any organization he formed (LSM) or any church he led (none).

I'd like to make another point. Lee stated in his defense during that time, "I had the deputy authority. But I never used it", trying to impress that he was meek. His statement is disingenuous and hollow for the following reason: Simply leading people to believe that he had deputy authority was using it, because their entire reaction to him and what he said is going to be warped by their believing such a thing.

One would think he was smart enough to realize that.

[Cal]

Let me clarify that Peter's prediction of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira and the instant fulfillment of that prediction were strong confirmations of Peter's apostolic authority.

I think that was the reason for the "giving all" command, and the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira: To demonstate the apostles' authority and to show everyone that this church thing was serious business, no game, not another man-made thing to exploit.

I suppose if something like that happened today then it would be a confirmation of someone's apostleship. But such a thing never happened with Nee nor Lee, nor anyone else I know of. I heard of dire warnings and threats, but nothing to back it up.

Neither Nee nor Lee were able to summon such a demonstration. They were both fine servants in their own way. They were not apostles in the way Peter was. Deputy authority is a chimera.

[Hope]

Dear Posters,

This thread is very very helpful in our search to learn from the past and to move forward. The discussion about handing over illustrates two of the cardinal problems in the teaching and practice of WN: Authority and Oneness. The authority that is “The Authority” we as believers must honor is the headship of Christ realized through the authority of the Holy Spirit. We may touch this authority in the members of His body and when we do, it is a glorious thing. But the authority is His not the members and it is 100% a conditional matter related to the persons through whom we experience the authority of the Holy Spirit. That is, sometimes the authority of the Spirit can flow through a saint and sometimes it does not due to the condition of the brother or sister at the time or due to the Lord chosing not to express His authority at that time through that particular member. (More on this in the future.)

Just as critical is the concept of “Oneness.” The scriptural oneness is the “oneness of the Spirit” and “the oneness of the Faith,” and of course the reality of the “One Body of Christ.” Never are we urged to always join in oneness with a spiritual enterprise or a burden of a servant of the Lord. Rather, Regarding the practice to preserve the “oneness of the Body” please see 1 Cor 12:23-25, "and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another."

Please note that any preferential care is a division in the body. If those who “Handed over” are given more preference, then there is the practice of dividing the body of Christ, a most serious matter. In fact, to preserve the oneness of the Body we must give more abundant honor to the weaker ones. In other words, WN should have urged his co-workers to shower love and care on those who had not “handed over” their possessions.

The example of “handing over” in China cannot be compared to Acts chapter five. There was not a promotion of laying all possessions at the feet of the apostles in order to facilitate the work of the apostles, but rather a pooling of their resources to meet the common needs. Initially the apostles administered the funds. Thus the Word records that they laid their possessions at the feet of the apostles rather than a gift to the church. The possessions were not for carrying out “the Work” but to meet the needs of the believers in the church in Jerusalem. Please keep in mind that many of those saved on the Day of Pentecost were from other countries and had no way to support themselves in Jerusalem. Later the apostles separated the administration of the funds from their responsibility and asked that this be carried out by the deacons. Thus, the practice of WN to raise funds through a promotion of “handing over” in order to supply his workers and migrations is not according the New Testament. Even more the business enterprises of WL in order to support workers and migrations to new places cannot be supported by the New Testament. Yes, Paul made tents and worked night and day to support those who labored with him but that had absolutely nothing to do with raising funds from saints whether it is “handing over” or an “investment in a business.”

It was the teaching of "Deputy Authority" and the practice of a special, particular “oneness”, a oneness which was related to the “apostles” that led to so very many problems and even tragic results. Thus, to be “one” with WL’s latest “burden” was not a matter of a free choice and individual leading from the Head, Christ, but became a matter of rebellion against or submission to the Lord’s Deputy Authority and a matter of keeping or breaking of the oneness. On the other hand, all the new, latest and greatest flows became an opportunity for ambitious fleshly men to gain leverage in their rush for position and recognition. I am sickened, as I reflect back on elder-co-workers’ meetings and how some of the sycophants would stand and lie about their spiritual feats which they claimed were due to how one they were with “the Ministry’s” burden. Also, it was so sad to witness dear brothers publicly humiliated for their failure to support the latest boondoggle or because they were caring for the local church under their care without the proper sufficient regard for Anaheim and the LSM.

When the third chapter of my account is released in December, I will tell the parallel story of the rise of the centralized movement under the twin leadership of Witness Lee and Max Rapoport and at the same time I will tell of the genuine work of the Spirit in many places in the lives of many of the dear believers. Do not presume that WL and MR only had bad motives and had no gift or supply that could benefit others. But for sure, the concept of “Oneness” and “Deputy Authority” led the two leaders and many others including myself to err greatly, to sin against the truth and against the members of Christ.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

[Ohio]

To connect I Cor 12.24-25, "But God has so composed (blended?!?) the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another," with the matter of "handing over" is extremely appropriate. How many other allegories were used to divide the LC's? I remember the matter of the "trainees," the "army," and the "overcomers," three such classifications of believers, which caused huge devastations and conflicts to the Lord's people. Each was used to divide the saints. Each was used to manipulate us into the "have's" and the "have nots."

Brother Hope, to expand on your points here is very helpful. Related to "oneness with the ministry," consider how many precious brothers became "man-pleasers" through this errant form of distorted oneness. We were usurped from living before the Lord and pleasing Him. Zealots rose to prominence in leadership positions, while mature shepherds were shamed as humiliated backsliders. I witnessed many who were divisive in the name of oneness, causing destruction to God's children, yet commended and uplifted by "headquarters." Nearly everybody was fooled. The few who were not were "branded" as they walked out the door.

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oregon,

I see your point. But that is not at all what I meant. I meant that Peter's authority to enforce his apostolic commands came from God, whereas no one has such authority today, or at least, there is no way to verify that anyone has such authority today, which is effectively the same thing.

My larger point was that rules like "giving all" cannot work without some enforcement, which presumes that someone has the authority to enforce giving all. Simply entertaining that someone has such authority is opening the door to abuse. Any clear thinking adult should be able to see that.

Lee's infamous "fermentation" tirade (and others like it) are examples of his trying to enforce by swinging his self-presumed deputorial weight. In all these cases he overstepped his bounds. Lee's authority stopped at any organization he formed (LSM) or any church he led (none).

I'd like to make another point. Lee stated in his defense during that time, "I had the deputy authority. But I never used it", trying to impress that he was meek. His statement is disingenuous and hollow for the following reason: Simply leading people to believe that he had deputy authority was using it, because their entire reaction to him and what he said is going to be warped by their believing such a thing.

One would think he was smart enough to realize that.

Thanks for the clarification Igzy.