"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Hope]

Dear Posters,

This morning I received an email from Brother Nigel. It is copied below.

Dear Brother Don,
Here is a quote from Watchman Nee exactly along the lines you brought out about God starting again/afresh with each generation/era concerning Acts 13:36 David served his own generation: "David 'served his own generation,' and slept (Acts 13:36). He could not serve two! Where today we seek to perpetuate our work by setting up an organization or society or system, the OT saints served their own day and passed on. This is an important principle of life. Wheat is sown, grows, ears, is reaped, and then the whole plant, even to the root, is plowed out. That is the Church, never rooted permanently in the earth. God’s work is spiritual to the point of having no earthly roots, no smell of earth on it at all. Men pass on, but the Lord remains. The spiritual testimony of believers is to be heavenly, not earthly. Everything to do with the Church must be up-to-date and living, meeting the present—one might even say the passing—needs of the hour. Never must it become fixed, static. God Himself takes away His workers, but He gives others. Our work suffers, but His never does. Nothing touches Him. He is still God.” [W. Nee, What Shall This Man Do? in the Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 40, pp. 84-5]

WN certainly said about what I had written only much better. I assume that the messages for What Shall This Man Do came from the early ministry of WN.

This discussion has caused me to mull over some saying of WL. I heard him countless times relate the circumstances around his leaving Mainland China for Taiwan just before the communist took over. He shared in private and in public how WN told all the co-workers that they all could go to the Lord for what they should do but that Witness Lee must leave in order to preserve the Lord’s work should they on the mainland be wiped out. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE MEANING OF WORDS. I assumed WL was referring to truth and testimony. I now realize that it was the continuation of a movement.

When WN and WL referred to “Work” they did not mean the work of the Lord in a generic sense but rather their particular work and not just their particular personal work but a movement and particular entity which had a life and direction of its own.

The concept of “the Work” was a huge mistake by WN and was and continues to undermine many truths that he did open up to the Body of Christ.

I have had several interesting talks with former co-workers from the mainland. They all have their own version of what happened before the communist came in. As far as I am concerned most, including WL’s account, are in the category of myths and endless genealogies referred to in 1 Timothy. Unfortunately all the various versions eventually have a central point. That is, the continuation of the “Work” of WN. The stress will always eventually come to how WN would want his work and legacy carried on and who is doing so in the truest way. Thus you have the basis for all the purges and storms of the last 60 years.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

I have had several interesting talks with former co-workers from the mainland. They all have their own version of what happened before the communist came in. As far as I am concerned most, including WL’s account, are in the category of myths and endless genealogies referred to in 1 Timothy.

I have come to the conclusion that just about all church history, past and present, which I heard from WL can now be considered "myths and endless genealogies," used for self-serving purposes.

Unfortunately all the various versions eventually have a central point. That is, the continuation of the “Work” of WN. The stress will always eventually come to how WN would want his work and legacy carried on and who is doing so in the truest way. Thus you have the basis for all the purges and storms of the last 60 years.

For years I was given the impression that because we were "so special" to the Lord, that his enemy worked overtime to damage us. This resulted in the numerous "storms" we passed thru. I bought into the whole package.

[kisstheson]

Amen, dear brothers Hope and Ohio,

You have brought up some very important points which require serious reexamination by all those who, like me, "bought into the whole package".

The sweet portion shared by dear brother Nigel was spoken by WN somewhere between July of 1938 and May of 1939 while WN was in Europe. That places this sweet speaking squarely within the period of "early Nee".

"Wheat is sown, grows ears, is reaped, and then the whole plant, even to the root, is plowed out. That is the Church, never rooted permanently in the earth. God’s work is spiritual to the point of having no earthly roots, no smell of earth on it at all. Men pass on, but the Lord remains."

Amen and Amen! What a view. The Church is never rooted permanently in the earth. There surely is both a time to plant and also a time to plow out, even down to the root. Instead of putting all our efforts into preserving a movement which has already fully run its course, we should rather be open to whatever God is doing to bring forth something so new and fresh.

BTW - There is an excellent message spoken by a leading brother in Toronto regarding "David serving his own generation". Go to http://churchintoronto.org/Video.htm. Click on the message entitled "Acts 13 & 14". One warning - at the end of this message, there is a VERY touching tribute to a certain class of sisters. I had no idea that this tribute was there and it snuck up on me. I was so touched and I almost cried my eyeballs out! Make sure you bring plenty of handkerchiefs! This is by far the most touching tribute to sisters I have ever seen in any Local Church setting.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

This discussion has caused me to mull over some saying of WL. I heard him countless times relate the circumstances around his leaving Mainland China for Taiwan just before the communist took over. He shared in private and in public how WN told all the co-workers that they all could go to the Lord for what they should do but that Witness Lee must leave in order to preserve the Lord’s work should they on the mainland be wiped out. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE MEANING OF WORDS. I assumed WL was referring to truth and testimony. I now realize that it was the continuation of a movement.

When WN and WL referred to “Work” they did not mean the work of the Lord in a generic sense but rather their particular work and not just their particular personal work but a movement and particular entity which had a life and direction of its own.

The concept of “the Work” was a huge mistake by WN and was and continues to undermine many truths that he did open up to the Body of Christ.

I have had several interesting talks with former co-workers from the mainland. They all have their own version of what happened before the communist came in. As far as I am concerned most, including WL’s account, are in the category of myths and endless genealogies referred to in 1 Timothy. Unfortunately all the various versions eventually have a central point. That is, the continuation of the “Work” of WN. The stress will always eventually come to how WN would want his work and legacy carried on and who is doing so in the truest way. Thus you have the basis for all the purges and storms of the last 60 years.

Hope, thank you for your perspective and the counterpoint you have provided. I'm sure many who have been brought up in the local churches would never hear of a perspective.
On another day you brought up the term recovery. It should be a personal matter of the Lord recovering us daily from the snares of the world and of ourselves.

Terry

[kisstheson]

Dear ones,

I do believe dear brother Hope is touching upon something very important when he brings up this matter of “the Work”. While the concept of “The Ministry, The Work, and The Churches” is part of the speaking of “early Nee”, going at least as far back as The Normal Christian Church Life, the boundaries and the relationships between the “the Church” and the “the Work” were laid out very, very, carefully in TNCCL. In addition, in TNCCL the term “the Work” is used in a broad, scriptural, manner. WN says on page 187 of TNCCL: “. . . the work is the Body seeking increase”. This is a far cry from the later, much more limited, concept of “the Work” in which “the Work” has come to mean the continuation of the movement begun by WN.

As proof of the change in speaking regarding the boundaries and relationships between “the Church” and “the Work”, please compare the following two portions. Notice how in "later Nee" the apostles, the ones who are responsible for “the Work”, have come to have authority over the elders of the churches. (The emphasis in the following excerpts was added by me.)

From 1938’s The Normal Christian Church Life:

“Once a church was established, all responsibility was handed over to the local elders, and from that day the apostles exercised no control whatever in its affairs. All management was in the hands of the elders, and if they thought it right, they could even refuse an apostle entry into their church . . . How did Paul deal with the adulterous believer in Corinth? . . . Paul could only bring his spiritual authority to bear on the situation. In the name of the Lord Jesus he could “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh" (v.5). He had no official authority to discipline him, but he had spiritual authority to deal with the case. He had his spiritual ‘rod’. The affairs of the local church are entirely independent of the apostles. Once elders have been appointed, all control passes into their hands, and while thereafter an apostle may still instruct and persuade, he can never interfere.” (pp. 44-45)

Some Speaking from 1948 in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry:

The elders are responsible for the church in a locality (Titus 1:5), whereas the apostles are responsible for the work in a region . . . First, God established the elders as the authority. God has also established apostles as the authority. Accusations against an elder should be presented to the apostles (1 Tim. 5:19). The elders are the authorities, and the apostles are also the authorities. Moreover, the elders have to submit to the authority of the apostles. (pp. 308-309)

Compare the last sentence in each of these two excerpts. A definite shift in attitude and speaking has taken place. In 1948, the elders now had to submit to the authority of the apostles. On top of that, the reference to 1 Tim. 5:19 is troubling. I realize that WN was speaking “off the cuff” in the second excerpt, but 1 Tim. 5:19 clearly states that any accusations against an elder must be based upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. There is nothing at all in 1 Tim. 5:19 related to presenting accusations against an elder to the apostles. Am I missing something here?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Compare the last sentence in each of these two excerpts. A definite shift in attitude and speaking has taken place. In 1948, the elders now had to submit to the authority of the apostles. On top of that, the reference to 1 Tim. 5:19 is troubling. I realize that WN was speaking “off the cuff” in the second excerpt, but 1 Tim. 5:19 clearly states that any accusations against an elder must be based upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. There is nothing at all in 1 Tim. 5:19 related to presenting accusations against an elder to the apostles. Am I missing something here?

Kisstheson, thank you for the quotes. I have read the first book you quoted from 1938, but not the second. What a change over a ten year period. As for your question about 1 Timothy 5:19, I see it as an interpretation based off an assumption. In order to make such an assumption, there would have to be words in the Bible that just aren't there. Same as you KTS, "am I missing something here?"

Terry

[Oregon]

I got your message UntoHim. Forgive me if I misunderstood you. Please realize that I am not promoting the LSM church life...but I am also not going to throw out the reality of what we have seen. It seems as though some of the posters here just want to get away from the one church in the locality and it is being spoken of in a very negative way. The oneness of the church has to be real in a practical way and just staying in our divisions and proclaiming a oneness in the spirit isn't it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

...I do believe dear brother Hope is touching upon something very important when he brings up this matter of “the Work”.
...Compare the last sentence in each of these two excerpts. A definite shift in attitude and speaking has taken place. In 1948, the elders now had to submit to the authority of the apostles. On top of that, the reference to 1 Tim. 5:19 is troubling. I realize that WN was speaking “off the cuff” in the second excerpt, but 1 Tim. 5:19 clearly states that any accusations against an elder must be based upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. There is nothing at all in 1 Tim. 5:19 related to presenting accusations against an elder to the apostles. Am I missing something here?

When a Christian group is first formed, or emerges from another, things tend to go rather smoothly at first. This is especially true when a movement is under the leadership of one person. When a church or group of churches expands some harsh realities must be delt with - natural human feelings, differences and strong preferences come into play. This is where it becomes silly and even dangerous to over-spiritualize things by telling everybody to "just take Christ" and then somehow everything will be ok. We have seen what happens when people "just take Christ"...you end up with The Local Church of Witness Lee religion.

On the "practical" side we have these two matters of "the work" and the artificial, man-made doctrine of locality. Both of these can and have been used as tools of great abuse among God's people. As far as I can tell, I think early Watchman Nee had a biblical and healthy notion of "the work" and how it should be carried out. Now his locality teaching, that's another matter, for it essentially ignores hundreds and hundreds of years of church history.

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

On the "practical" side we have these two matters of "the work" and the artificial, man-made doctrine of locality. Both of these can and have been used as tools of great abuse among God's people. As far as I can tell, I think early Watchman Nee had a biblical and healthy notion of "the work" and how it should be carried out. Now his locality teaching, that's another matter, for it essentially ignores hundreds and hundreds of years of church history.

The teaching of one church in every city is not artificial UntoHim. How can you make such a statement. Look in the Word of God. Look at the record of the New Testiment. You may not like it but that doesn't change what is recorded in scripture. The New Testiment writings are full of evidense that in the minds of the early saints all the believers in a city were the church in that city......the church in Corinth, the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem etc. The local churches may have deviated from the true practice of oneness but that doesn't change the reality of the Word. The hundreds of years of church history that you refer to is a history of fallen man's exercising his own thoughts and views rather than submitting himself to the truth of the Word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Oregon

The teaching of one church in every city is not artificial UntoHim. How can you make such a statement. Look in the Word of God. Look at the record of the New Testiment. You may not like it but that doesn't change what is recorded in scripture. The New Testiment writings are full of evidense that in the minds of the early saints all the believers in a city were the church in that city......the church in Corinth, the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem etc. The local churches may have deviated from the true practice of oneness but that doesn't change the reality of the Word. The hundreds of years of church history that you refer to is a history of fallen man's exercising his own thoughts and views rather than submitting himself to the truth of the Word.

Oregon,

I also embraced the "one city, one church" doctrine and practice for decades ... that is, until I began to seriously examine the fruit of such practice in the wake of recent quarantines and lawsuits. The "one city, one church" doctrine and practice has accurately been explained as being descriptive, but not prescriptive in the New Testament. This is very important to me. As one LC author has noted, "there is more scriptural basis for head-covering in the N.T., than the practice of one city, one church."

I currently view this church model similarly to the practice of "having all things common" at the end of Acts ch. 4. This practice was described in the N.T. but never prescribed by the Apostles for us to practice. This was tried once -- it's called communism. For us to do so now, prescribing what the scripture only describes, is to "add to the word of God." Peter also cast his net "on the right side of the boat" (John 21.6), which was quite productive at the time, but has never worked for me as it did for him.

The Bible is filled with events such as these. They are marvelous testimonies of God's dynamic salvation, but we should not infer that this alone is the "God-ordained way." Church history is replete with brothers who unsuccessfully attempted to convert God's one-time blessing into a mandate for future practice -- it's called religious tradition, and is the basis for every denomination and sect.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Church history is replete with brothers who unsuccessfully attempted to convert God's one-time blessing into a mandate for future practice -- it's called religious tradition, and is the basis for every denomination and sect.

External impositions are not reality. We are one due to the one life, not due to one mandate, externally imposed. Requiring that all christians be one, practically, is to shove God aside and impose our own warped view of how things "should" be upon what God is already doing.

Yes, all christians are one in every city, hamlet and burg, but to make that a condition of fellowship bears horrid fruit. It brings scattering, bitterness, estrangement, division; the opposite of what is on God's heart. If you ignore the "oneness" and focus on the One, and you'll find yourself more one, and more blessed, than you could have imagined. But if you focus on the "oneness" you'll go somewhere strange, and dark.

If you want to see the paragon of externally derived oneness, look at Revelation 13. People could not buy or sell if they didn't have the "one" mark, that of the beast (v.17). That is the "oneness" of totalitarianism; it is the "oneness" of those who don't trust God, and impose their own.

These cities which are supposedly the basis of our practical oneness are as temporary and valueless as our current physical bodies. Galatians 3:28 says, there is no Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female...we could add there is no Detroit, Toledo, or Missoula. It may be that we temporarily congregate with those in Missoula, but to make the "church in Missoula" the center of our orbit is to create a new Babylon. It is man-made, not divine, it attempts to make something permanent which is merely temporary, it thwarts the move of God on earth, and it divides and scatters, rather than building and assembling.