Soul-Life, Kundalini, and Watchman Nee

[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?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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?

Ohio, I have to say the way you phrased that statement makes it sound very LCesque and a bit too ambiguous. Sort of like saying "get out of your mind" or "lay down your soul-life". I don't think we should be freed from the thought of perfection as a reality to strive toward but we need to have a realistic view of what it means in our walk with Christ.

"Therefore be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."

The issue I see is that in the LC's people trusted in another man's idea of perfection. When that eventually snowballs into an oppression it taints these biblical ideals.

But if you mean that just because someone is flawed doesn't mean God can't work through them, you'd be right. But at the same time just because there's a massive move in the spiritual with all kinds of signs and wonders, especially with one man at the center of it all, doesn't mean any of it is from God either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Ohio, I have to say the way you phrased that statement makes it sound very LCesque and a bit too ambiguous. Sort of like saying "get out of your mind" or "lay down your soul-life". I don't think we should be freed from the thought of perfection as a reality to strive toward but we need to have a realistic view of what it means in our walk with Christ.

"Therefore be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."

The issue I see is that in the LC's people trusted in another man's idea of perfection. When that eventually snowballs into an oppression it taints these biblical ideals.

But if you mean that just because someone is flawed doesn't mean God can't work through them, you'd be right. But at the same time, just because there's a massive move in the spiritual with all kinds of signs and wonders, especially with one man at the center of it all, doesn't mean any of it is from God either.

OK. Agreed. Perhaps I can clarify.

There has always been two definitions of "perfection." At least for me. One is Biblical, meaning matured, full-grown, becoming fit, reaching completion. The second is sinless, flawless, error free, without mistakes, completely free from the flesh, from the old man, etc.

The second definition can only be applied to Jesus Christ. Never to us. Yet it becomes the standard of comparison by which we Christians are unfairly judged.

In the Recovery during my 30 years, Witness Lee transitioned from definition #1 to #2 at least in the eyes of the Blendeds. Titus Chu famously said that the Blendeds viewed WL as god, while he viewed WL as man. There was no doubt some truth to that. Every healthy New Testament minister needs peers, needs balance, needs feedback. God designed it this way. He would only allow his Son to be perfect. Sounds obvious, yet Nee and Lee operated alone on top, as if they were. Officially they declined such an honor, but the facts are the facts, and proof that power does indeed corrupt.

[Jo S]

I also wanted to add this point to my original post.

The bible verse that Watchman Nee/Penn-Lewis misinterpret and use to justify the need to separate and compartmentalize the soul from the spirit is found in Hebrews 4:12;

"for the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

If you continue on to Hebrews 4:13 and add a bit more context, it goes on to state;

"...and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."


The Hebrews author isn't teaching an esoteric dividing of soul from spirit, he simply teaches through metaphor that the Word of God penetrates past things that are seen and discerns the things of both the soul and the spirit.

How they conclude "soul is bad, spirit is good" from that verse is baffling but nevertheless it's twisted to justify losing one's soul-life, that is, losing the sense of individuality.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

How they conclude "soul is bad, spirit is good" from that verse is baffling but nevertheless it's twisted to justify losing one's soul-life, that is, losing the sense of individuality.

We were conditioned by the need to "drop your concepts" and "don't have any opinions", both of which were held as relics of the old man, as dross to be burned, as the fallen soul, to be 'crossed out' in the [LC] church life. All those aspects of one's personality were held with distrust. It was strongly suggested that local churches were to be "absolutely identical" with "no differences whatever".

But the Maximum Leader (ML) got to have an opinion, which was held as the "flow from the throne" in heaven. The ML could hold forth concepts, which were held as divine revelation of eternal truth (no matter if those 'truths' flipped over time). The only one allowed to retain the sense of individuality, as you put it, was the ML, who was evidently fully transformed in his/her soul and alone could freely channel God to the 'small potatoes'. All others were expected to adopt, to some degree or other, the ML's person as their own. I heard stories from China that Little Flock attendees would unconsciously adopt Watchman Nee's speaking style. The same in the LC: the more "Leeisms" the better, with head rolls, heel rocks, hand thrusts, and sing-song tempo, indicated that an attendee was "in spirit" and "one with the apostle".

It's one thing to give up your soul-life, and another thing entirely to give it up to someone who won't give up theirs. That's becoming co-dependent in a dysfunctional relationship.

Opinions and concepts have purpose as approximations and placeholders as we grope toward the light. I was greatly helped by seeing "much discussion" among the disciples, that important decisions were not made by fiat (Acts 15:7). Quite unlike the Local Church, I daresay.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I heard stories from China that Little Flock attendees would unconsciously adopt Watchman Nee's style. The same in the LC: the more "Leeisms" the better, with head rolls, heel rocks, hand thrusts, and sing-song tempo, indicated that an attendee was "in spirit" and "one with the apostle"..

"As surely as Watchman Nee clicked his dentures when he prayed, his admirers clicked when they prayed, dentures or no dentures"

The Anatomy of Preaching by David Larsen p.113

"Nee's popularity rose dramatically, but others dissented from the church's change of emphasis ["Jerusalem principle"]. Nee's own nephew became disillusioned by the growing idolization of Watchman. Lyall even reports that the clicking that accompanied Nee's speech because of his loose-fitting dentures was often unconsciously imitated in prayer."

Secrets of Watchman Nee by Dana Roberts, p.33

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

"As surely as Watchman Nee clicked his dentures when he prayed, his admirers clicked when they prayed, dentures or no dentures"

The Anatomy of Preaching by David Larsen p.113

"Nee's popularity rose dramatically, but others dissented from the church's change of emphasis ["Jerusalem principle"]. Nee's own nephew became disillusioned by the growing idolization of Watchman. Lyall even reports that the clicking that accompanied Nee's speech because of his loose-fitting dentures was often unconsciously imitated in prayer."

Secrets of Watchman Nee by Dana Roberts, p.33

"Even W. Nee's own nephew became disillusioned by the growing idolization of Nee."

That's something we never heard from W. Lee.