Article: Beware of the writings of the Watchman

[Freedom]

http://thecripplegate.com/beware-the...-the-watchman/

I found this to be an interesting article and it seems the author hits the mark with some of the problems of Nee. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Perhaps the best way to describe Nee is to label him a confused Christian mystic. Here’s one lengthy but insightful example. I chose this example because it is indicative of his writing style, as well as an excellent example of his lack of clarity:
Some years ago I was ill. For six nights I had high fever and could find no sleep. Then at length God gave me from the Scripture a personal word of healing, and because of this I expected all symptoms of sickness to vanish at once. Instead of that, not a wink of sleep could I get, and I was not only sleepless but more restless than ever. My temperature rose higher, my pulse beat faster and my head ached more severely than before. The enemy asked, ‘Where is God’s promise? Where is your faith? What about all your prayers?’ So I was tempted to thrash the whole matter out in prayer again, but was rebuked, and this Scripture came to mind: “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17 ). If God’s Word is truth, I thought, then what are these symptoms? They must all be lies! So I declared to the enemy, ‘This sleeplessness is a lie, this headache is a lie, this fever is a lie, this high pulse is a lie. In view of what God has said to me, all these symptoms of sickness are just your lies, and God’s Word to me is truth.’ In five minutes I was asleep, and I awoke the following morning perfectly well” (The Normal Christian Life, 33-34).

While Nee places heavy stock in personal “spiritual” experiences of that kind, the more significant danger prevalent throughout his books is his consistent lack of clarity. Nee does not come right out and say that faith can cure physical illness, nor does he claim outright that he receives direct revelation from the Lord. He doesn’t hold his experience up as an example to follow, but simply relates it as it happened, and then passes it along to us.

This observation regarding of Nee's "lack of clarity" is a good point. As we know, in the LC, WN is held as a MOTA and as basically being infallible. When WN describes his experiences and doesn't provide any qualification about what these experiences should be taken to mean, it can lead to people trying to take this stuff too seriously. If he was a pattern for the LC, then members might strive to match his "experiences".

Sometimes its better to keep certain "experiences" to yourself. I believe that the experience that WN described here is one of those experiences. In the LC, the emphasis on "experiences" might not appear to be a problem at first sight, but there is, in fact, such a great weight placed on experiences. Following the example set by WN, there is not always clarification as to what these experiences should be taken to mean and thus it can lead to a lot of confusion.

[Freedom]

In the comments section at the end of the article, there is a post that caught my attention:

That is the response I think a lot of people will have to this post--which is why I am thankful Tommy wrote it. Nee's works have been so helpful to so many Christians, especially those younger in the faith. That being said, I think a lot of people grow in their concern for some of the details of his theology as they grow in the faith.

It is undeniable that many have received help from WN’s ministry. For those who have received help, a proper response to WN’s ministry should be to not view his ministry as being a definitive guide to living a “normal Christian life”. Just as much as certain help to be found in WN’s ministry, there are some potentially serious pitfalls, many of which have been detailed already.

There is the notion in the LC that everyone must give themselves "absolutely" to a particular ministry because there is a perceived benefit being provided by that ministry. This was certainly the view that WL expressed in Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. He brazenly admitted: “I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that I followed a man...” WL took great pride in his following Nee. He didn’t see any problem with following WN, even though he very well knew that he should have been following Christ.

Do all to the Glory of God (Watchman Nee)
Chapter: Discipline Your Children Wisely
Point No. 5 - Consider Beating as a Big Thing

Originally Posted by Nee

Do not make whipping a common thing. Look upon it as a big affair. Call the whole family together and let all know about it. For they father or the mother to whip a child is like a surgeon operating on a patient. It is not because of being provoked to anger, but because the cutting is necessary in order to deal with the difficulty. Likewise, in disciplining, the parent must be absolutely calm. No parent should beat the child when he himself is angry. How should it be done? I have a suggestion to make: When a child has made a very serious mistake that requires a whipping, you may ask his brother to prepare a basin of cold water and his sister to be ready with a towel. Then you should show your child wherein he is wrong and that a wrong must be seriously punished. Tell him that to flee from chastisement is also wrong. People who have the courage to sin ought to have the courage to accept punishment. After you have explained this to him, you may strike his hand twice or thrice. This may bruise his hand and cause it to swell. Call his brother to help soak his hand in the cold water to keep the swelling down. Then ask his sister to gently dry his hand with the towel. This whole act is like going through a ritual. This will show them that there is only love, no hate, in the family.

Some years ago the Chinese 'sisters' in the LC that I was meeting with were 'studying' this book of Watchman Nee. One of the 'sisters' decided to take this 'word' seriously and took action against her son. He was ten years old at the time. His 'sin' - wanting to play soccer with the neighbourhood kids after school. The sister forced her husband to beat his son with a rod till his son was bleeding. Then the mother cleaned the sons wounds. (I still to this day cry for the son every time I recall this episode.). I served with this brother and he broke down and cried for what he had done to his son. He was a good brother but his actions nearly destroyed him. He eventually did have a breakdown.

How can anyone in their right mind do this to a child? How can you take this word of WN and act on it? How many children did WN have? Does he speak from 'experience'?

THERE IS NO LOVE, MERCY OR COMPASSION IN THE LC

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Some years ago the Chinese 'sisters' in the LC that I was meeting with were 'studying' this book of Watchman Nee. One of the 'sisters' decided to take this 'word' seriously and took action against her son. He was ten years old at the time. His 'sin' - wanting to play soccer with the neighbourhood kids after school. The sister forced her husband to beat his son with a rod till his son was bleeding. Then the mother cleaned the sons wounds. (I still to this day cry for the son every time I recall this episode.). I served with this brother and he broke down and cried for what he had done to his son. He was a good brother but his actions nearly destroyed him. He eventually did have a breakdown.

How can anyone in their right mind do this to a child? How can you take this word of WN and act on it? How many children did WN have? Does he speak from 'experience'?

THERE IS NO LOVE, MERCY OR COMPASSION IN THE LC

This is a perfect example of how ready and willing LC members are to put into practice things that Nee/Lee taught. Of course, beating a child is one of the more extreme examples, but still, WN clearly endorsed it and described his own recommended method of corporal punishment.

As you put it, someone really has to be out of their mind to be willing to do something like this. Unfortunately, it really just boils down to people not being willing to give what they hear or read any amount of critical thought. The attitude is as simple as: "WN said it so it must be good advice." LC members have really gone off the deep end in this way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The attitude is as simple as: "WN said it so it must be good advice." LC members have really gone off the deep end in this way.

Reinsert WN with WL and the same applies. Refer to the burnings, acceptance of television, work full time versus going to college....All of these if WL spoke against it, you didn't do it. If WL endorsed it, brothers did it. Even in dress attire it's as if WL was the LC fashion plate. Wearing black slacks, long sleeve white shirts, and a skinny tie became the trend.
This manner of dressing also became my aversion. Wear collared dress shirts of any color. Just no whites.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a perfect example of how ready and willing LC members are to put into practice things that Nee/Lee taught. Of course, beating a child is one of the more extreme examples, but still, WN clearly endorsed it and described his own recommended method of corporal punishment.

As you put it, someone really has to be out of their mind to be willing to do something like this. Unfortunately, it really just boils down to people not being willing to give what they hear or read any amount of critical thought. The attitude is as simple as: "WN said it so it must be good advice." LC members have really gone off the deep end in this way.

Reminds me of that husband who refused to help his sick wife do dishes because he didn't want to do it "out of his natural man," due to Lee's aberrant teachings. Notice how Lee's "natural man" teachings reinforced laziness and superseded hundreds of other New Testament teachings about love.

Nee never had children of his own, so it's hard to believe he would recommend something so harsh for others, yet never had to practice it himself.

On second thought, knowing the system as I do, it's actually easy to believe Nee would teach that. Think about how Lee raised his own sons, and then covered for them, as they bedeviled the saints for decades.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of that husband who refused to help his sick wife do dishes because he didn't want to do it "out of his natural man," due to Lee's aberrant teachings. Notice how Lee's "natural man" teachings reinforced laziness and superseded hundreds of other New Testament teachings about love.

This is exactly the twisted mess some of these kinds of teachings create. Why does it always seem like these teachings get used in a way resembling some kind of reverse psychology?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee never had children of his own, so it's hard to believe he would recommend something so harsh for others, yet never had to practice it himself.

On second thought, knowing the system as I do, it's actually easy to believe Nee would teach that. Think about how Lee raised his own sons, and then covered for them, as they bedeviled the saints for decades.

As the article makes reference to, because so much of Nee's life is shrouded in mystery, he seems to come across to many (especially LCers) as being some type of spiritual guru.

The commonly held LC notion that he had some deep spiritual insight has probably precluded most from realizing these tidbits about his actual streghts and weaknesses. As someone who didn't have kids, he had no business telling others how to raise their kids, or even giving advice. I wonder what other subjects he presented himself as an 'expert' on?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Do all to the Glory of God (Watchman Nee)
Chapter: Discipline Your Children Wisely
Point No. 5 - Consider Beating as a Big Thing



Some years ago the Chinese 'sisters' in the LC that I was meeting with were 'studying' this book of Watchman Nee. One of the 'sisters' decided to take this 'word' seriously and took action against her son. He was ten years old at the time. His 'sin' - wanting to play soccer with the neighbourhood kids after school. The sister forced her husband to beat his son with a rod till his son was bleeding. Then the mother cleaned the sons wounds. (I still to this day cry for the son every time I recall this episode.). I served with this brother and he broke down and cried for what he had done to his son. He was a good brother but his actions nearly destroyed him. He eventually did have a breakdown.

How can anyone in their right mind do this to a child? How can you take this word of WN and act on it? How many children did WN have? Does he speak from 'experience'?

THERE IS NO LOVE, MERCY OR COMPASSION IN THE LC

Being a father I could see spanking a child once or twice, but beyond than until the child bleeds is incomprehensible. I'm sure in the LC there is no outrage. Along the lines of "I never did it and I never saw it results in the speaker being disengaged." Even if a husband hits his wife. Brothers get disengaged from domestic violence by saying we don't talk about those things around here.
I do agree with the last statement....THERE IS NO LOVE, MERCY OR COMPASSION IN THE LC....I would only add, just get right with the brothers.

[markpaul]

This is an interesting topic. I studied the part on beating a child several years ago. Because my personal experience in China told me this was more likely Chinese cultural stuff, I didn’t take it seriously. But now I realize that a lot of LCers cite WN’s teaching like Bible, it would be helpful to figure out what the problems are with this teaching. Could anybody show some verses in Bible to me to against this teaching? Thanks.

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

Could anybody show some verses in Bible to me to against this teaching? Thanks.

I note 7 verses in Proverbs which encourage "discipline" for the child. Most of these verses are connected to the "rod", i.e. beating.

Then Deuteronomy 8:5 says, "Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you."

Hebrews 12:7 echoes this: "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?"

But where does the NT encourage violence against one another? The 12 closest followers of Jesus were called "disciples" - where did He beat them? Or suggest that they beat one another? And I'd suggest that it carries also to women, children, slaves, etc; violence is evidence of lack of power. Lack of control and lack of power. Period.

I got spanked. Not saying that I didn't deserve it, and maybe it did me some good. But Nee seems to be advocating ritualized violence. Will this really bring about "peacable fruit"? I doubt it. Scarred and alienated children, more likely. Demoralized, traumatized and bitter.

[Ohio]

Could anybody show some verses in Bible to me to against this teaching? Thanks.

How about the verse I mentioned in Ephesians 6.4?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by markpaul

This is an interesting topic. I studied the part on beating a child several years ago. Because my personal experience in China told me this was more likely Chinese cultural stuff, I didn’t take it seriously. But now I realize that a lot of LCers cite WN’s teaching like Bible, it would be helpful to figure out what the problems are with this teaching. Could anybody show some verses in Bible to me to against this teaching? Thanks.

I can't say that I have a good answer to your question, but I can provide some of my thoughts on WN's view of discipline.

To quote some of the verses aron referred to:
Prv 13:24 He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.
Prv 23:13-14 Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.

When you see these verses, the question arises: what are we to make of these kinds of verses? Obviously, WN's teaching would fall in line with Proverbs and other verses. But are these verses meant to be taken literally? It's probably safe to say that most people would agree that the point of these verses is about the need for discipline rather than the form of punishment utilized. What I would point out is that Biblical forms of discipline match what was socially acceptable at that time. Stoning people was also a form of punishment, both endorsed in the Bible and practiced by all. So obviously we can't take things too literally here.

I think this is exactly part of the problem with Nee's style of exegesis. Nee liked to take things literally, even to the point of reading much more into the text than is actually there. Of course, there is also the cultural aspect of it - that being that there was no negative stigma about beating or whipping a child back in Nee's time. Nowadays, employing this form of disciple can get someone arrested. WN even says you can go so far as to cause bruising and swelling. Would anyone in their right mind take this kind of advice now? Apparently someone thought it well to listen to Nee's advice. I think aron said it well when he put that Nee holds a 'ritualistic' view of discipline. It's certainly not the view the Bible presents.

WN claims that the act of beating a child is done in love, saying that the family should have towel and cold water ready to reduce the swelling. This doesn't seem very loving to me. If there were concern about pain and swelling, how about not inducing it in the first place? WN's advice here is simply absurd. There is really no other way to put it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by markpaul

Could anybody show some verses in Bible to me to against this teaching? Thanks.

Best verse I could find that does not support this teaching is Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not provoke or irritate or exasperate your children [with demands that are trivial or unreasonable or humiliating or abusive; nor by favoritism or indifference; treat them tenderly with lovingkindness], so they will not lose heart and become discouraged or unmotivated [with their spirits broken].
Amplified Bible

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by Terry

Best verse I could find that does not support this teaching is Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not provoke or irritate or exasperate your children [with demands that are trivial or unreasonable or humiliating or abusive; nor by favoritism or indifference; treat them tenderly with lovingkindness], so they will not lose heart and become discouraged or unmotivated [with their spirits broken].
Amplified Bible

Terrific, Terry!

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Terry

Best verse I could find that does not support this teaching is Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not provoke or irritate or exasperate your children [with demands that are trivial or unreasonable or humiliating or abusive; nor by favoritism or indifference; treat them tenderly with lovingkindness], so they will not lose heart and become discouraged or unmotivated [with their spirits broken].
Amplified Bible

Paul also said in 1 Thes 5:14: "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men."

The idea here is to apply the appropriate medicine for the situation at hand.

The unruly are to be warned, not comforted or supported.
The feebleminded are to be comforted, not warned or supported.
The weak are to be supported, not warned or comforted.

Discipline would be appropriate in some cases. In other cases, an encouraging word to a child might be more helpful in encouraging the correct behaviour.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Discipline would be appropriate in some cases. In other cases, an encouraging word to a child might be more helpful in encouraging the correct behaviour.

The New Testament of the Bible doesn't forbid physical discipline of unruly or disobedient children. But it presents a spiritual environment, and a clear spiritual walk, where we should be very cautious and circumspect about violence. Nee's adjuncts to violence, a tub of cold water and a towel, don't seem sufficient at all.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Paul also said in 1 Thes 5:14: "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men."

The idea here is to apply the appropriate medicine for the situation at hand.

The unruly are to be warned, not comforted or supported.
The feebleminded are to be comforted, not warned or supported.
The weak are to be supported, not warned or comforted.

Discipline would be appropriate in some cases. In other cases, an encouraging word to a child might be more helpful in encouraging the correct behaviour.

Great, this is one more useful verse!

[markpaul]

Great! Brother aron gave me some description (I enjoy especially the New Testament part). Brother Ohio showed me specific verse. I'm very happy with those. Thanks to all of you!

[micah6v8]

As a Chinese, I would point out that there is a Chinese saying "打是疼，骂是爱" which translates to "Beating is a sign of affection, Scolding is a sign of love".

The meaning behind this saying is that discipline is a sign that we care. This chain of thought is similar to that in Hebrews 12 v 6 to 11.

There is another saying (not sure of its origin) which says that suffering can make you better or bitter. [There is a bit of a wordplay here as "better" and "bitter" differ by one alphabet.]

But the idea is that two Christians who face difficult situations may respond differently: One may be bitter and leave the faith; another may deepen his faith in God.

Lastly, I would also point out that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." If taken literally in today's culture, it would be considered radical.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

There is another saying which says that suffering can make you better or bitter.

Certainly I overstated my case. Long-time readers here will recognize my pattern of dramatic generalizations that are not universally applicable.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Lastly, I would also point out that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." If taken literally in today's culture, it would be considered radical.

Nobody took that literally. (Except a few like Origen, who was deemed unbalanced for doing so.) Nor about drinking poison in Mark 16:18.

Violence was, and is, another story. You could get stoned to death for eating pork chops on Saturday. And Jesus didn't forbid violence per se, but he certainly was pointing in another direction. A new age had dawned, and the orientation of the Old Testement was being brought out of the shadows and into reality. The Old Testament wasn't being superseded as much as fulfilled. The True Son, the Last Adam, was coming home, and he was bringing us with him. Beating one another is an iffy proposition at best, here, and easily a path of stumbling.

Look at the scenarios: "Moses said for us to stone such a one - what do You say?" Look at Jesus' response to that. Now transpose that conversation onto the Proverbial "beating your child" dictum, hmm? What direction are we pointing, here? Backward, or forward?

And society itself has moved on. Why pretend we live in the middle ages? Human relations are governed by different rules today. Interpersonal violence isn't the norm any more. LC recruiters are going to have a hard time on the college campus if they think they can present these out-dated teachings and behaviors which look regressive, not progressive.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by aron

Nobody took that literally. (Except a few like Origen, who was deemed unbalanced for doing so.) Nor about drinking poison in Mark 16:18.

.

Hi Aron

I am interested about your understanding of Mark 16:18. The verse reads as follows

"They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."

There are three items in this verse:-
1) Handling snakes and suffering harm
2) Drinking poison and not getting hurt
3) Healing hands by placing hands.

Items 1 and 3 were fulfilled by Paul in (i) Acts 28 v 3 to 6 and (ii) Acts 28 v 9 respectively. I don't know of any biblical passage of a person who drank poison and did not get hurt.

If items 1 and 3 can be interpreted literally, why shouldn't one expect item 2 to be understood literally too?

My view is that Mark 16:18 is understood in its literal sense, but that it does not apply now. Today, I would not touch a snake or drink poison for the sake of it; I would also see a doctor if I am ill.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

My view is that Mark 16:18 is understood in its literal sense, but that it does not apply now. Today, I would not touch a snake or drink poison for the sake of it; I would also see a doctor if I am ill.

I have not read a lot of Watchman Nee, and thus am not an expert in his teachings. I read a few books when I was in the LC, and have commented on the excerpts I've seen on this forum, and online (the Roberts/Hsu book, for example).

So I don't know what he said, but it seems that Nee would have taken Mark 16:18 literally. But he was smart enough not to apply it! In other words, he would ascribe these "supernatural" feats to our original, pre-fall state, which was lost by Adam's sin. Now, Jesus offers it again.

But we should be wise in how we apply it. "Be wise like serpents, guileless like doves." Jesus taught that if we go forth to battle with 10,000 troops and see an enemy coming with 20,000 soldiers, don't try to fight. So if I go to a church and they have cups of poison, passing them around to "prove" my spirituality, I will probably not take it!

In other words, don't let the enemy tempt you beyond your measure of grace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi Aron

I am interested about your understanding of Mark 16:18. The verse reads as follows

"They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."

There are three items in this verse:-
1) Handling snakes and suffering harm
2) Drinking poison and not getting hurt
3) Healing hands by placing hands.

Items 1 and 3 were fulfilled by Paul in (i) Acts 28 v 3 to 6 and (ii) Acts 28 v 9 respectively. I don't know of any biblical passage of a person who drank poison and did not get hurt.

If items 1 and 3 can be interpreted literally, why shouldn't one expect item 2 to be understood literally too?

My view is that Mark 16:18 is understood in its literal sense, but that it does not apply now. Today, I would not touch a snake or drink poison for the sake of it; I would also see a doctor if I am ill.

There are a few churches in West Virginia that take this verse literally. They handle poisonous snakes for show, to apparently prove their faith. So far a few pastors have died from the poison snake bites.

Not a smart idea, if you ask me.

Actually these miracles and millions more have transpired over the course of church history, but usually not by those who tempt the Lord for vain glory and the praise of men.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

As a Chinese, I would point out that there is a Chinese saying "打是疼，骂是爱" which translates to "Beating is a sign of affection, Scolding is a sign of love".

The meaning behind this saying is that discipline is a sign that we care. This chain of thought is similar to that in Hebrews 12 v 6 to 11.

There is another saying (not sure of its origin) which says that suffering can make you better or bitter. [There is a bit of a wordplay here as "better" and "bitter" differ by one alphabet.]

But the idea is that two Christians who face difficult situations may respond differently: One may be bitter and leave the faith; another may deepen his faith in God.

Lastly, I would also point out that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." If taken literally in today's culture, it would be considered radical.

I know these things. But to my understanding the Chinese saying is equivalent to a philosophical opinion that cannot be used as some verses in Bible. To me, Bible is God’s Word. The saying in the Bible is endorsed by God. When I meet a situation and need to apply God’s Word I’ll try to consult Holy Spirit not judge by myself.
My understanding on the stumble (some translate it into sin) is the deviation from God’s command (or the narrow road heavenly Father wants us to go). Only in this case, I agree that I should deal my sin seriously! In a word, Chinese saying is dead sentence but God is living and true and control everything.

[micah6v8]

Hi markpaul

I agree with you that cultural sayings are not to be elevated to the same level as biblical words. My main purpose in quoting the Chinese saying is to show the context that Watchman Nee was living in. In the Chinese society, physical discipline is more common than one might expect.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi markpaul

I agree with you that cultural sayings are not to be elevated to the same level as biblical words. My main purpose in quoting the Chinese saying is to show the context that Watchman Nee was living in. In the Chinese society, physical discipline is more common than one might expect.

I see what you mean now. Thanks.
That's also my feeling his teaching came from Chinese culture not Bible. I lived in a community where beating one's own kids very popular.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

As a Chinese, I would point out that there is a Chinese saying "打是疼，骂是爱" which translates to "Beating is a sign of affection, Scolding is a sign of love".

The meaning behind this saying is that discipline is a sign that we care. This chain of thought is similar to that in Hebrews 12 v 6 to 11.

There is another saying (not sure of its origin) which says that suffering can make you better or bitter. [There is a bit of a wordplay here as "better" and "bitter" differ by one alphabet.]

But the idea is that two Christians who face difficult situations may respond differently: One may be bitter and leave the faith; another may deepen his faith in God.

Lastly, I would also point out that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." If taken literally in today's culture, it would be considered radical.

I've read the Hebrews 12. Thanks!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by markpaul

But now I realize that a lot of LCers cite WN’s teaching like Bible, it would be helpful to figure out what the problems are with this teaching.

To follow up with my last post, WN’s teaching of discipline is only scratching the surface of problems with his teachings.

A while back, I started a thread to discuss some of WN’s more questionable teachings, and particularly, those that LC members might not be so familiar with. You might find the thread interesting if you are particularly interested in WN. That thread can be found here: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5225

Because LCers are given to follow the ministries of WN and WL “absolutely”, it is worthwhile for them to consider just what they are following. Below are a few Nee quotes which can be found in the thread in the link.

These quotes don’t need much context. It becomes quickly evident that these are all example of Nee’s own speculation being presented as fact. Notice the lack of scripture references:

Although we may not rate Adam's power as being a billion times over ours, we can nonetheless safely reckon it to be a million times over ours.
…
Today in each and every person who lives on earth lies this Adamic power, though it is confined in him and is not able to freely express itself… The work of the devil nowadays is to stir up man's soul and to release this latent power within it as a deception for spiritual power.

The modern-day Church of Christ, Scientist was founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy. She denied the existence of sickness, pain, sin, and death (though Mrs. Eddy has already died. Since according to her teaching there is no such thing as sickness, whenever one is sick he only needs to exercise his mind against any recognition of pain and he will be healed…
When this teaching was first promulgated, it was opposed by many people. Physicians especially opposed it, for if this were true, then there would be no need for physicians. Yet following their examination of those people healed by the Christian Scientist, these doctors were unable to repudiate it as false. Consequently, more and more people believe; even many famous scientists and physicians embrace this teaching. This is not at all surprising, though, since there is a reservoir of tremendous power in the soul just waiting to be released from the confines of the flesh.

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

I know these things. But to my understanding the Chinese saying is equivalent to a philosophical opinion that cannot be used as some verses in Bible. To me, Bible is God’s Word. The saying in the Bible is endorsed by God. When I meet a situation and need to apply God’s Word I’ll try to consult Holy Spirit not judge by myself.

Originally Posted by Freedom

... these are all example of Nee’s own speculation being presented as fact. Notice the lack of scripture references:

Here are a few scriptural references.

Ezekiel 18:16
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.

Romans 12:13
Share with the Lord's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Hebrews 13:2
Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

James 2:15
Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

Isaiah 58:7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Ezekiel 18:7
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.

Job 31:32
but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler--

Isaiah 58:7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Where was the philosophical opinion or folk wisdom to remember the poor? It wasn't strongly promoted in his culture, so Nee didn't cover it in his "Do all to the Glory of God" book. And in the LC where I was, it was all about 'building up the Body', and promoting the ministry, and the minister (Lee).

And Nee was interested in what Nee was interested in, not in what God was interested in; often Nee's pursuit coincided with the Bible, but often it didn't. If he didn't have any folk wisdom or cultural pre-disposition that coincided with the words of scripture, then scripture was ignored. So his "glory to God" teachings didn't cover some basic essentials of the Christian walk.

The Lord Jesus taught, "Give to those who cannot repay you, and your reward in heaven will be great." In the LC we were told to ignore those who couldn't repay us, and go instead after the "good building material" on the college campus.

So they presume to be according to scripture, but in reality, they are not.

But none of us are: that is the core of the gospel. Only Jesus is sinless; only Jesus met every mark of God's righteousness. Our salvation is in Him. Somewhere along the way, in his rush to be a great Christian teacher, Watchman Nee forgot this simple fact. And those who think that the path of salvation is closely following the footsteps and writings of Nee (and Lee) will eventually find this out.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To follow up with my last post, WN’s teaching of discipline is only scratching the surface of problems with his teachings.

A while back, I started a thread to discuss some of WN’s more questionable teachings, and particularly, those that LC members might not be so familiar with. You might find the thread interesting if you are particularly interested in WN. That thread can be found here: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5225

Because LCers are given to follow the ministries of WN and WL “absolutely”, it is worthwhile for them to consider just what they are following. Below are a few Nee quotes which can be found in the thread in the link.

These quotes don’t need much context. It becomes quickly evident that these are all example of Nee’s own speculation being presented as fact. Notice the lack of scripture references:

Thanks. Both Nee and Lee introduced questionable (false) teachings. In Chinese speaking Christian society, Lee’s heretical teachings were identified and posted in a lot of websites. However, Nee’s teachings (include questionable) are still accepted as orthodox ones.
Although I was LCer, I didn’t pay much attention on NEE or LEE’s teachings therefore I was not a real insider. But you guys (former LCers in this web) not only studied but also practiced their teachings thus you are experts on these stuff. I would like to learn from you guys on identifying false teachings with great pleasure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This observation regarding of Nee's "lack of clarity" is a good point. As we know, in the LC, WN is held as a MOTA and as basically being infallible. When WN describes his experiences and doesn't provide any qualification about what these experiences should be taken to mean, it can lead to people trying to take this stuff too seriously. If he was a pattern for the LC, then members might strive to match his "experiences".

An article on Watchman Nee's theology/ecclesiology and showed clear parallels to his interpretation of what it meant to be a spiritual man, discerned by none, versus what Paul had intended in 1 Cor 2:15. I know that Witness Lee waved off any perceived linkage to so-called "confusionism" but maybe he was wishfully trying to throw gullible Jesus people off the scent. Certainly, if you consider, Witness Lee also tried to be "a great man exercising a transforming influence...[and who was] beyond our knowledge" as the quote below says.

Originally Posted by Tien

[Confucius teaching that]A man who commands our liking is what is called a good man. He whose goodness is part of himself is what is called a real man. He whose goodness has been filled up is what is called a beautiful man. He whose completed goodness is brightly displayed is what is called a great man. When this great man exercises a transforming influence, he is what is called a sage. When the sage is beyond our knowledge, he is what is called a spirit man.可欲之謂善，有諸己之謂信。充實之謂美，充實而有光輝之謂大，大而化之之謂聖，聖而不可知之謂

Tien, H. E. (2020). Spirituality and Authority of the Corporate Christ: An analysis and critique of Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology (Doctoral dissertation).