Pulled in Two Directions

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by OBW

You cover a lot of specifics. And there will never be a significant Christian teacher — fully legitimate, marginal, or out-and-out sharlatan — that does not teach some true things.

But the evidence suggests that Nee was pretty set on his own abilities and claiming special place with God by his mid-20s. And there is both strong an suggestive evidence of sexual issues from not long after that.

Then after being set aside for several years due to moral/sexual issues, he returns with a new book that makes himself unable to be set aside by any person or persons again.

So his pedigree is pretty spotty, no matter how you look at it.

As for Lee, we know less about him prior to Taiwan other than him being the one who basically set the way for Nee to return with his Authority and Submission messages. And some vague reference to Lee by some other coworkers when he doesn't come to one of Nee's conferences.

But then he manages to saddle the churches in Taiwan with his business debts, and then after being somewhat cast aside there, returns (like Nee) to clean house and take control again. Then he comes to the US with a failed business of selling suits in Vancouver, BC, and starts up in the LA area, followed by various businesses, most significantly Daystar, that took his followers' money and moved it to his family's bank accounts.

Whatever was worthy about the so-called local churches would seem to be something unrelated to its leaders. Neither should have been granted access to the opportunity to teach. And since the reason for the group to exist is peculiar doctrines "found" and taught by Nee and Lee, it makes the whole thing seriously suspect.

can you please lead me to some sources? I wat to look into this in a Berean way (Acts 17:10-15) "And there is both strong an suggestive evidence of sexual issues from not long after that."

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

can you please lead me to some sources? I wat to look into this in a Berean way (Acts 17:10-15) "And there is both strong an suggestive evidence of sexual issues from not long after that."

I can think of two stories. The first was told by Witness Lee. Supposedly Watchman Nee was removed from his ministry because the elders in Shanghai discovered that he was living with a woman not his wife. They confronted him, he admitted, and they removed him from leadership.

But, said Lee, that woman was his mother! Nee bore the cross of unrighteous judgment due to his spiritual path and receiving all from the Father without murmuring.

Then he was restored to position by Lee, some 6 (?) years later. Then the second case was when the Communists took over, Nee was charged with the production and possession of pornography. A witness at the trial heard him confess.

The first story I heard anecdotally and can't provide proper sources. Perhaps others here know? The second story was published in a book by Dana Robert's and Lily Hsu and is available. Called "My Unforgettable Memories". If you do 'advanced search' on this forum, under keywords in the title, you can find the discussion thread.

For what it's worth, I objected to the admission of a confession at a Chinese show trial as objective evidence. My question was, where do you see anyone protest innocence, mount a defence, and be acquitted? In 1954 China, no where. Accusation equals guilt. So his confession is effectively meaningless.

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by aron

I can think of two stories. The first was told by Witness Lee. Supposedly Watchman Nee was removed from his ministry because the elders in Shanghai discovered that he was living with a woman not his wife. They confronted him, he admitted, and they removed him from leadership.

But, said Lee, that woman was his mother! Nee bore the cross of unrighteous judgment due to his spiritual path and receiving all from the Father without murmuring.

Then he was restored to position by Lee, some 6 (?) years later. Then the second case was when the Communists took over, Nee was charged with the production and possession of pornography. A witness at the trial heard him confess.

The first story I heard anecdotally and can't provide proper sources. Perhaps others here know? The second story was published in a book by Dana Robert's and Lily Hsu and is available. Called "My Unforgettable Memories". If you do 'advanced search' on this forum, under keywords in the title, you can find the discussion thread.

For what it's worth, I objected to the admission of a confession at a Chinese show trial as objective evidence. My question was, where do you see anyone protest innocence, mount a defence, and be acquitted? In 1954 China, no where. Accusation equals guilt. So his confession is effectively meaningless.

Thank you for taking the time. I dont really understand why the first "case" is still in circulation. I frankly find it of evil nature that anyone would continue to talk about this story, if he was living with his mother. It will only give room for misunderstanding. The second case, if you consider how the ungodly government of China has continuously persecuted genuine Christians in China, any charges coming from such a source should be disregarded as baloney except there be provided real and solid evidence. I keep hearing the same things about Watchman Nee, but the evidence seem to be slim to none. So in my eyes the I find it repulsive that true Christians go about spreading what seem merely to be rumors.
Leviticus 19:16
1 Tim 5:13

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that throughout his life, Watchman Nee led many people to the Lord, both gentiles and jewish people.

Well, those who continue on such a path will reap what they sow, even in this life.

Now I wonder, if Watchman Nee lived today and was in the church life, most likely what would happen to him, would be the same that happened to John Ingalls. This is of course just my speculation, but I wouldnt be surprised.

Among "co-workers" from the ministry I have for instance asked them about what br. Nee wrote in Orthodoxy of the Church, concerning receiving all believers, not just in words and theory, but in attitude and actuality, meaning, if some Christian attend a meeting, he must have the liberty to share anything that the Lord has shown him, or what is on his heart, as long at it is for the building up, may it be from brother lawrence or any other source that focus on Christ, but this has been ignored and the "spirit of the ministry" or "the attitude from the ministry" is just too strong. I have also brought people to meetings, and time and time again, they testify to me, "there is no way to share or to function." This makes me quite sad, and this solidify what people begin to realize, this is not an organism as they claim, this is simply a movement led by men, today. I received alot of training and help from a brother who was present in the meetings in 1963. I knew him from 2003 until he passed away, so I saw him in his last years on earth. In his last years he lived and breathed for the Lords heart. But he told me the following: Wherever you are, with whoever you are, if you minister Christ (or dispense), you are in the ministry. This is absolutely not what is happening today, not in a single of the local churches I have been to, in Europe, UK, Scandinavia og in the US. So the Lord must have moved on then?

[Ohio]

Googlelight: "So the Lord must have moved on then?"

I have always found this question interesting. On its face it implies that our Lord can only be with one minister or collection of churches at a time.

The Lord, however, is with all those who confess His name. When He was with Apostle Paul, was He not also with the other Apostles whose work was not recorded? For example, we know that Thomas went to India, and Bartholomew went to Armenia. Their fruit remains even to this day.

When Nee and Lee were anointed to minister, that did not mean that there were not hundreds, thousands of other ministers anointed by the Spirit of God. This whole concept of "Minister of the Age" or "Oracle of God" is so deceptive. How could the speaking of the Lord ever be restricted to one man? This concept is entirely from the Old Testament, citing Moses, and never in the New Testament.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Googlelight: "So the Lord must have moved on then?"

I have always found this question interesting. On its face it implies that our Lord can only be with one minister or collection of churches at a time.

The Lord, however, is with all those who confess His name. When He was with Apostle Paul, was He not also with the other Apostles whose work was not recorded? For example, we know that Thomas went to India, and Bartholomew went to Armenia. Their fruit remains even to this day.

When Nee and Lee were anointed to minister, that did not mean that there were not hundreds, thousands of other ministers anointed by the Spirit of God. This whole concept of "Minister of the Age" or "Oracle of God" is so deceptive. How could the speaking of the Lord ever be restricted to one man? This concept is entirely from the Old Testament, citing Moses, and never in the New Testament.

This selection of an early baptismal creed, that Paul used in Galatians, starts out with "For ye are all the children of God."

Gal 3:28* There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.*

Basically, there was no "us" and "them" in pre-Pauline Christianity.

So obviously this is a forgotten creed, in practice.

Certainly, Nee and Lee didn't practice it.

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Googlelight: "So the Lord must have moved on then?"

I have always found this question interesting. On its face it implies that our Lord can only be with one minister or collection of churches at a time.

The Lord, however, is with all those who confess His name. When He was with Apostle Paul, was He not also with the other Apostles whose work was not recorded? For example, we know that Thomas went to India, and Bartholomew went to Armenia. Their fruit remains even to this day.

When Nee and Lee were anointed to minister, that did not mean that there were not hundreds, thousands of other ministers anointed by the Spirit of God. This whole concept of "Minister of the Age" or "Oracle of God" is so deceptive. How could the speaking of the Lord ever be restricted to one man? This concept is entirely from the Old Testament, citing Moses, and never in the New Testament.

good point and thank you for pointing it out. There are so many things I have to reconsider now Yes how could it, and why should it?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by googlelight

can you please lead me to some sources? I wat to look into this in a Berean way (Acts 17:10-15) "And there is both strong an suggestive evidence of sexual issues from not long after that."

There was a thread here some years back concerning the observations of, and accounts provided to, a woman who was in the church in Shanghai for some years up to the time of Nee's trial in China. Someone may remember the name(s) better and point to the thread for your perusal.

As for my statements concerning Nee apparently thinking very highly of himself, I note that he was saved near the time he started college and before he was out, he was publishing a Christian paper. And he wrote his 3-volume book, The Spiritual Man, by about the time he was 25. Included in one of his prefaces are statements that effectively say that no one could have seen what he saw. All this with no evidence of training other than by his own private reading. He was admittedly somewhat of a genius, but this does not provide spiritual knowledge necessary to make those kinds of statements. It seems to be something repeated later in life when he writes the things in Authority and Submission, dancing around (and never quite directly saying) that he is the top of the "spirituality" hierarchy and no one can make any charge against him for anything. Only God can do it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for my statements concerning Nee apparently thinking very highly of himself, I note that he was saved near the time he started college and before he was out, he was publishing a Christian paper. And he wrote his 3-volume book, The Spiritual Man, by about the time he was 25. Included in one of his prefaces are statements that effectively say that no one could have seen what he saw. All this with no evidence of training other than by his own private reading. He was admittedly somewhat of a genius, but this does not provide spiritual knowledge necessary to make those kinds of statements. It seems to be something repeated later in life when he writes the things in Authority and Submission, dancing around (and never quite directly saying) that he is the top of the "spirituality" hierarchy and no one can make any charge against him for anything. Only God can do it.

So Nee wrote "The Spiritual Man" when he was in his mid twenties!? I have a copy of those three volumes I recently picked up from someone was trying to cull their library. Are they worth picking up and reading? Frankly, I have to admit that when I read what you said about him being around 25 when writing it, my bias against youthful so-called wisdom came out! (We used to say not to trust anyone under 40, but now that has sort of flipped . . . ) Frankly, I have enough to read and would probably not get to this particular book of Nee's. So should I donate to the church library - or perhaps throw it in the trash?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So should I donate to the church library - or perhaps throw it in the trash?

Somone else can fill in the gaps. But my understanding is that The Spiritual Man is borderline (actual?) plagiarism. He said no one else could see what he saw. But he took almost everything from one source without reference. I can't remember who the other writer was.

All this from the "spiritual man."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Somone else can fill in the gaps. But my understanding is that The Spiritual Man is borderline (actual?) plagiarism. He said no one else could see what he saw. But he took almost everything from one source without reference. I can't remember who the other writer was.

All this from the "spiritual man."

Spiritual Man was cribbed from Jessie Penn-Lewis, both the book "War on the Saints" plus she had a periodical. In the publisher's preface to the second edition it is stated. The publisher said that copying by the Chinese wasn't theft but homage.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Included in one of his prefaces are statements that effectively say that no one could have seen what he saw. All this with no evidence of training other than by his own private reading. He was admittedly somewhat of a genius, but this does not provide spiritual knowledge necessary to make those kinds of statements. It seems to be something repeated later in life when he writes the things in Authority and Submission, dancing around (and never quite directly saying) that he is the top of the "spirituality" hierarchy and no one can make any charge against him for anything. Only God can do it.

I always heard LC people making a big deal about Nee being borderline genius, having a photographic memory, etc. However, no one ever really talked about how old he was when he started writing. When put under that context it makes a lot what Nee was saying seem super questionable, almost laughable.