Soul-Life, Kundalini, and Watchman Nee

[Jo S]

In another thread here, a forum member used a term in one of his posts that perplexed me. Curiosity set me off to find out what that term meant. The word that he used was "soul-life".

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

If you haven't read this book it's basic premise, from my understanding, is that man has a hidden or dormant "force" within their souls (he also says within the flesh). And this force can be reawakened and used by an individual for malevolent purposes. Nee equates "soul life" to "soul force" which essentially is psychic power exercised through thought, will, and emotion.

Now from my own reading of scriptures I have to say the idea of a hidden power lying within all men is something that was never even remotely conveyed to me through the text. What I do read is that all powers exist in the heavenly realms; which is the power of God and also the power of the prince of the air (Satan). Man doesn't have power, per se, but has the free will or choice in which power to put their faith and trust in. Essentially, all power is outside of us but can potentially be carried on through us...to a certain extent.

Basically Nee's biblical argument for this soul force is that because Adam was given the seemingly enormous task of naming all the animals and the duty to tend to all of the Garden of Eden that he must have had some super-human powers. He says:

"There is in Adam an almost unlimited power, a near miraculous ability. This we call soul power."

This power he goes on to say was ultimately suppressed after the fall and is able to be awakened through specific intentionality.

Having been personally influenced earlier on in my walk with Christ through friends that were into new age occultism, the belief here that Nee is trying to convey is eerily similar to what you find in eastern mystic belief systems. It's the belief that a "coiled serpent spirit" lies dormant at the base of every person's spine called Kundalini. And it's a force that can be awakened sometimes randomly, by the laying on of hands, or through certain practices such as chanting, meditation, and asceticism which ultimately leads to spiritual liberation or enlightenment.

Now I do agree with Nee in that there is both a false spiritual experience of enlightenment that can be obtained by man through works, called in eastern mysticism "Nirvana" or "Kundalini awakening". Then there is revelation which comes from God by faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Where I disagree strongly is that the power that leads to the false spiritual liberation is inherently within man and tied to our very souls.

In my view, what this belief can do on the psyche of a person is dangerous.

First, it plants the false belief that there actually is a psychic power or force within man. This in itself can lead to a false identity. Not to mention it also can entice an individual when the person is led to believe there are hidden powers available at their disposal. This opens a door to the enemy and can inflate a person's sense of self.

Second, by Nee associating this latent power to man's soul, Nee's setting up our soul as something that is fallen and evil and should be suppressed at all costs. He says of the soul;

"Let me reiterate the difference between soul and spirit: Adam’s fallen soul belongs to the old creation; but the regenerated spirit is the new creation. "

also,

"We may say that while the Holy Spirit is the power of God, man’s soul appears to be the power of Satan. "

and,

"This is why I state with such emphasis that we must lay down our soul power. All that is of the soul is of no avail. "

Finally,

"It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus often declares how we need to lose our soul life."


Nee further goes on to say that emotions, which are of the soul, are useless. He says of emotions:

"Once I was working in Shantung. A professor there said to his colleague “that these preachers work with emotions.” It so happened that when I preached to the believers that afternoon I told them how undependable and useless was emotion. "

My issue with all this creates a schism in the mind and can cause great confusion and doubt in an individual about who they are and what the purpose of their souls is.

What I read in scripture is that we bless the Lord with our souls (Psalm 103). And I also read that the Lord himself commands us to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

The Lord Jesus often displayed a great deal of emotion. He cried, had compassion, he was brought to anger (flipped over tables) ect. The difference was that his thoughts, emotions, and very soul were all aligned with God. This does not mean we should suppress all of these things but it does mean we should align them and subject them through faith to the Holy Spirit.

From what I gather Nee teaches in this book exactly what gnosticism teaches, that is, everything of man is wicked. This includes man's thoughts, emotions, and his very soul. All is fallen and only the spirit is good (hyper-spirituality).

It's true, we are all inherently fallen but we are also all made in the image of God. Is this a contradiction or do we need to rightly divide truth?

Moving on, gnostics also teach that only when death to self is accomplished can the individual gain life. This is also influenced by eastern mysticism and the opposite of Christianity where dying to one's self, first off, isn't the annihilation of personal identity or sense of self (also called "ego") as Nee states:

"What is the highest attainment in Christianity? That of complete union with God and total loss of self. "

but 'dying to self' as a Christian is a continual submission or humbling one's self to God and is a process that happens only after being born of the Holy Spirit as a part of the individual's sanctification.

My fear is, if someone lets go of their individuality before coming to true knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ that unoccupied space that is created through practices of mysticism will definitely be filled with something but I'm most certain it won't be the Holy Spirit of God. (Matt 12:43) .

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If we let go of our individuality before coming to true knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ, that unoccupied space that is created through practices of mysticism will definitely be filled with something but I'm most certain it won't be the Holy Spirit of God. (Matt 12:43) .

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the things of self. But God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things. Jesus continually pointed us to the things which were above.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on cheeks, coats, shirts, miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father). My immediate context was Matthew 16

23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get out of my way, Satan! You are tempting me to sin. You aren't thinking the way God thinks but the way humans think."

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Those who want to come with me must say no to the things they want, pick up their crosses, and follow me. 25 Those who want to save their lives will lose them. But those who lose their lives for me will find them. 26 What good will it do for people to win the whole world and lose their lives? Or what will a person give in exchange for life? 27 The Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory. Then he will pay back each person based on what that person has done.

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

In the LC, people are taught to trust their "supernaturally-enhanced intuition", as I'd put it. I had a feeling, they say. I had a leading for such-and-such. This means that the Holy Spirit in their human spirit was telling them to take a left at Miller and Vine streets, and they didn't know the bridge was out. So they use this as proof that they are "in the flow". But they can't even say anything when the Church Leader sins, or when the Bible is suborned. So their conscience is burned as with a hot iron. It is calloused. So where is this intuition from? Not anything that I want.

All of which is to say that I think you are onto something.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the self. God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on coats or shirts or miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father).

Didn't mean to put you on the spot, Aron, but I took the opportunity to let some thoughts fly on the topic of eastern mysticism within the LC's.

Did you know where this term came from? Your definition doesn't really line up with Watchman Nee's. Maybe Lee had a different spin on it or it's just your personal view..

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get for it I guess, j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get I guess, lol j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

I was using LC terminology 'soul-life' without really checking if it were accurate or not. Someday such things might mean a lot to me but today I was focused on the principle of the re-oreintation away from the selfish things, me, me, and me, and looking to the things of God. Witness Lee seems like he never made that re-orientation, by his letting his admittedly unspiritual sons run roughshod over the church members.

But now that you focus on the term, "soul" or "soul-life", I think that you are onto something. The LC rank-and-file are sold something extra, something special, but those who sell them these goods fail at the basic level of righteousness. So what are they selling them?

Not something I want to buy.

Watchman Nee reminds me of a musician who wrote a smash hit pop song using some borrowed trope. Then he spends the rest of his/her days feeding off that hit, and trying vainly to put out something of substance, and covering for the fact that he/she is unable. Think Britney Spears or Madonna. There never was anything there, ever. It is just layers of schmalz covering up that simple fact that there's nothing there.

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

I agree that Nee had a misconstrued idea of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord with all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul. Perhaps the LC doesn't want you to know that but the Lord definitely does. He even said just before his crucifixion, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.". He knew that the part of him which was sorrowful was his soul. But I get what you're saying. When you get caught in the semantics of it all is where most of the confusion comes from.

Originally Posted by aron

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Jesus Christ is obviously male. Wouldn't then making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes cleverly promulgate the idea of androgyny? Androgyny was of course something not only practiced by pagan cultures outwardly but was also built into their spiritual belief systems.

This all comes from the gnostic "Sophian" doctrines (latter adopted by Roman Catholicism) that teach that the bride of Christ ("bride" inferring femininity) is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine (head) and feminine (body) creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature because it's the same duality taught in all forms of false religion. I touched on this is another thread here but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree that Nee had a false concept of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord will all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul.

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that ... refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Correct me if I'm wrong but Jesus Christ is male, right? Wouldn't making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes promulgate androgyny? Of course this all comes from the gnostic Roman Catholic "Sophian" doctrines that teach that the bride of Christ is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine and feminine creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature. I touched on this is another thread but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

Let me give another example. A brother on this forum, awareness, has said that his regional elder MP told him, "You will take my personality as your own". Whose personality was he fronting? Witness Lee's. Who was Lee fronting?

Another example: while Witness Lee was telling the reporter in Seattle, "Here we are so free", his hatchet-man RG was in BM's face, telling him, "Here, we do what we are told". This kind of two-facedness went on all the time. Like a dysfunctional family with a "public face" and a "behind-the-scenes family life". Now what spirit was at work? In any case where humans are, there is reason to be cautious, but where we are dabbling in mysticism and subjective experience of spiritism, we should be doubly wary.

Originally Posted by Nell

At some point Christians need to understand and acknowledge that there are two spirits. One is Holy. The other is not. I once witnessed a meltdown of a brother in a meeting. There were 50-60 people there who witnessed this. All the words he spoke were “right”. However, everyone there clearly knew something was “not right”. This brother wasn’t around much longer after what happened in that meeting.

This would have been the appropriate time for leadership to help all of us to understand what had happened...if leadership themselves understood what was going on. Instead, publicly it was ignored. Privately, I could never forget what I saw and I could never reconcile “release your spirit” with what I saw.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Aron, I understand what you're saying but I think we have to be a bit cautious here.

In Mark 12:31 when he says "love others as youself" Jesus assumes those he's addressing already know God's love for them. And as with any relational love, whether it be with God or man, comes by hearing, seeing, and understanding (experiential or revelatory).

None are separate from each other so we have to be careful also that we don't discard any of them as in saying feelings, or emotions, or subjective experiences in themselves are inherently bad and not a part of our relationship with God. The only thing is we shouldn't be chasing after these things or rely on them as validation because without a full understanding we'll actually chase our own constructs rather then what's real. And it's human nature to only want the ecstacy (good) rather than the hurt and suffering (bad) that comes along with God's love. And you know who will offer you only the convient things of life....(Mark 8:33)

With that in mind, Jesus is saying we should love other's as God has loved us. He doesn't say "love others as you love yourself". There's a big difference just by those two words and it's the difference between God's love and narcissism. We definitely don't want to love ourselves by ourselves as any type of means to an end but if God loves us and we in turn love Him, understanding His perspective on how He views us instills a deep sense of value and worth that can then be imparted to others. And so, we should love others as if we were standing opposite of ourselves and viewing our own person through God's eyes.

I probably don't need to say all of that, but I have seen young ones that came out of very legalistic and controlling religious environments that go from one extreme to the other extreme of new age self-love because they don't know where else to render from the love they're so desperately seeking. That in turn can lead down some very dark paths into false spirituality. Or they give up on love entirely and fall into pure rationalism and atheism.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

You just said, "you don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as wrong". Isn't that a judgement?

Unfortunately, from all that I've read and seen, Nee too thought he shouldn't judge in that he had the more liberal belief that everyone had a portion of "light" to be gained from and he carried this belief wherever he meet with the many people that shaped his worldview. Can people offer others light from God? Yes of course but not all people in all circumstances.

He too was judging but not judging at the same time. And unfortunately by this type of discernment believing all people and circumstances had potential to further him on his spiritual journey led him to be tossed like a wave in the sea inadvertently creating a mishmash of gnosticism and eastern mysticim with a veener of Christianity...I'm sorry if that last part sounds harsh but I truly do believe that. And to be clear, I do not have a vendetta against Watchman Nee or anyone else, but I do see him in some of the people I have gotten to know within the LC's. I'd hate for them to make the same mistakes, like Nee, I once made myself.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jo S

....I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". ...

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In another thread here, a forum member used a term in one of his posts that perplexed me. Curiosity set me off to find out what that term meant. The word that he used was "soul-life".

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Nell

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

The book is Soul and Spirit: How to Find Freedom from the Tyranny of the Soul

You can find the quote here

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the risk of appearing to be "hovering" over this thread, I question this opening premise. Nee was hardly the first to use this English phrase. I would suggest some good Word Studies and commentaries for clarification.

Secondly, the use of this phrase "soul-life" has nothing to do with Nee's wild speculations about "latent powers of the soul" ascribed to Adam at creation.

You're right Ohio, I wasn't sure if it was Nee or one of his influences that coined the term. It appears it was first used by Penn-Lewis. But in the context of Watchman Nee and his writings, I believe you'll find that phrase first appear in Latent Power of the Soul. Either way, now skimming through Penn-Lewis' book, I see how much of her ideas he borrowed from.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's source here was Penn-Lewis, who had a checkered influence over the Evangelist Evan Roberts and the revival in Wales. She brought much paranoia into that gospel work which sadly brought it to an abrupt end.

That's assuming gospel work was being done in the first place.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You're right Ohio, I wasn't sure if it was Nee or one of his influences that coined the term. It appears it was first used by Penn-Lewis. But in the context of Watchman Nee and his writings, I believe you'll find that phrase first appear in this book. Either way, now skimming through Penn-Lewis' book, I see how much of her ideas he borrowed from.

That's assuming gospel work was being done in the first place.

Nee's book "Spiritual Man" plagiarized JPL's writings.

Yes, the gospel work in Wales bore much fruit. It was called the "Welch Revival." Much has been written about it. JPL's paranoid counseling about demons drove Evan Roberts into depression, and ended the gospel work.

This is one case where a sister should have been silent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

Here is another example of the time-proven maxim, "Any truth taken to the extreme can become a falsehood."

There are numerous articles online about the Welch Revival. I can't remember which ones I read.

This is why I view all spiritual books with a dose of suspicion. Yes, they can be helpful, but they can also be unbalanced and extreme. The Bible is balanced. Nowadays too many Christians get their teachings from preferred books rather than from the Scripture.

We were not alone in the LC's to receive our teachings from one source.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's book "Spiritual Man" plagiarized JPL's writings.

Yes, the gospel work in Wales bore much fruit. It was called the "Welch Revival." Much has been written about it. JPL's paranoid counseling about demons drove Evan Roberts into depression, and ended the gospel work.

This is one case where a sister should have been silent.

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, 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 just been two deceived souls. That's also a possibility.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Do you think the body of JPL's writing should be defined and dismissed, in its entirety, because of whatever "checkered influence" she may have had over Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival? What did she do? Where can I read about it?

Nell

Nell,

I like Ohio's indirect response. It deals with it as an uncertainty.

I have tended to be more complete in taking an "OK or dismiss all" approach to Nee and Lee, but it is more because I have noted clear underlying problems that reach to the beginning of their ministries and not just because of specific problems at a particular time.

In the writings of others, I still believe that where there is uncertainty over what is OK and what is not, outright rejection can be preferred to risking acceptance of error. If there is truth in it, it is still true and should be able to be found somewhere else that is not so controversial.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the writings of others, I still believe that where there is uncertainty over what is OK and what is not, outright rejection can be preferred to risking acceptance of error. If there is truth in it, it is still true and should be able to be found somewhere else that is not so controversial.

Here is a copy of an online article:

Before Azusa Street in 1906, there was the Welsh Revival in 1904. It was one of the greatest revivals ever and perhaps the one with the most tragic end. That's because the spirit of Jezebel cut off the voice of Evan Roberts, a young man God used to set a nation on fire for God.
As history tells it, over 100,000 souls came to Jesus in Wales over the course of nine months. Hundreds of thousands more would come to know the Lord over the next couple of years—and it all started in Moriah Chapel in Loughor, South Wales where Roberts gathered with a few youth and began to pray, "Bend us! Bend us!" and eventually "Bend me! Bend me!"

"It was the very next month that Roberts had his first vision. While strolling in a garden, Evan looked up to see what seemed to be an arm outstretched from the moon, reaching down into Wales," writes Roberts Liardon, author of God's Generals. "He later told a friend, 'I have wonderful news for you. I had a vision of all Wales being lifted up to heaven. We are going to see the mightiest revival that Wales has ever known—and the Holy Spirit is coming just now. We must get ready."The pastor of his church let him start holding meetings on Oct. 31. The meetings turned into a two-week revival marked by fervent faith, strong intercession and late-night services that sometimes lasted until sunrise. Those meetings ignited a revival that spread across the world, including to Azusa Street in Los Angeles. But it wasn't long before Roberts cracked under the strain of the pressure.

"By 1905, Roberts' mind became confused from physical and emotional exhaustion. He began hearing conflicting voices in his head and doubted his ability to distinguish the voice of the Spirit among them," Liardon writes. "He would rebuke his listeners for not being pure of heart, while he became increasingly obsessed with examining his own self for un-confessed sin. He feared most that he would be exalted instead of God and became overly critical of his audiences and church leaders."

The revival finally fizzled out in 1905 when the spirit of Jezebel operating through Jesse Penn-Lewis, a Welsh evangelical speaker and author, beguiled young Roberts. Penn-Lewis seduced and deceived the revivalist in the prime of his anointing.

Penn-Lewis, whose doctrine was largely rejected in Wales and is even now described as apostate teaching by some modern theologians, sought to ride on Roberts' coat-tails. Ironically, this Jezebelic woman flattered him with words that aimed to ease the suffering he was experiencing from the religious spirits in the midst of revival. But her smooth words didn't heal his soul. He suffered a nervous breakdown and went to live at this wealthy woman's home to recover.

"They built their new home around his needs, including a bedroom, prayer room and private stairway. It was there that the great revivalist was confined to bed for more than a year," says Liardon. "Evan became ever more isolated and reclusive as years passed. He refused to see friends, and eventually family. He allowed Penn-Lewis to dictate who he would see, and what he would do. They wrote a number of books together, the first one, War on the Saints, was published in 1913. Mrs. Penn-Lewis stated the book was birthed from six years of prayer and testing the truth. Within a year after the book was published, Roberts denounced it. He was quoted as saying it had been a 'failed weapon which had confused and divided the Lord's people.'"

Although he lived to be 72, Roberts stopped preaching in his early 20s.

https://www.charismamag.com/blogs/th...-revivals-ever

I think the article is a bit subjective and shouldn't be taken too seriously. If there are other objective sources corroborating this, then perhaps it gets more weight. We should be careful in pronouncing what is of God and what is not. In any event, we should be cautious of Penn-Lewis because she was a bit extreme.

I quoted her influence on Nee and the (possible) "Kundalini Spirit" for two reasons: first that Nee copied her outright. Plagiarised. His publisher in the preface to the second edition of "Spiritual Man" had to explain this, saying it was a cultural thing with the Chinese, to show honour for someone's work, to copy it thus. So "Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation" must be modified to "Nee the Crib Artist Posing as a Seer". Second, why did the Little Flock openly base itself on a woman's teachings, if a woman is not allowed to speak (teach) in church? Nobody in LSM ever wants to address this question, perhaps because there's no answer?

But I've not read JPL enough to have basis for opinion, but note the 'red flags' of Nee's eager and naiive over-reliance on her work.

Where I see the Kundalini Spirit, if we would call it this, a spirit of bewitching, is that of all the thousands of members, nobody asks these kinds questions, that are so obviously needing to be asked. Why base a movement on a woman's teaching if women are not allowed to teach in your movement? The only reason that I can see that nobody asks this kind of question (among others) is that they've been bereft of their critical faculties, rendered senseless, bewitched. Benumbed, dazzled and baffled and dumb. They don't ask any questions, even the obvious ones. "Just keep calling, brother!"

[OBW]

aron,

I know that there have been discussions of this so-called "Jezebel spirit" in the past. It has always been problematic to me in that it tries to force an otherwise undefined label upon things without (to me) relevant scriptural support.

That being said, I do believe that there was something amiss in the relationship between Roberts and Penn-Lewis that had great impact on the Welsh revival. Was it something to lay strictly at the feet of Penn-Lewis? I can't tell.

But the idea that her writings/teachings are part of an unbalanced view of the whole of the Bible and of the Christian faith is probably supportable. Just like the writings of so many of the Christian mystics — both past and present — including Nee and his followers.

[aron]

Referencing my previous post (#17), here's another example. Link is from an LSM website.

http://marymcdonough.ccws.org/

God's full salvation consists of the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross and the subjective operation of the Triune God as the eternal life to man. In this remarkable study, Mary E. McDonough examines both aspects of the believer’s salvation but adds particular emphasis to the latter, unveiling the truth and experience of the uncreated life, the life of God in Christ Jesus that is shared by the believer.

This life experience begins with regeneration, continues with our transformation according to the divine life-principle, the law of the Spirit of life, and culminates with the transfiguration of our body. By this organic process, our entire being is made “like Him” as we are built up to be the Body of Christ and prepared to be His bride, unto the eternal glory of God.

After many years of being unavailable in its entirety, God's Plan of Redemption once again brings these precious and crucial truths to all the Lord's children.

How does a group that won't allow women to teach so revere this woman's teachings as "precious and crucial truths to all the Lord's children"? How come its members don't notice this glaring disparity between official doctrine and actual practice? They're either numbed into thoughtlessness, or cowed into silence. What spirit is at work, here?

[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.

[Jo S]

The more I delve into Local Church theology the more I realize the intricacies in the patchwork stitched together by Watchman Nee which seems to be mostly made up of the doctrines of failed Charismatic movements and eastern belief systems.

I was previously focused on Witness Lee's teachings but going to the root and now understanding Nee's mystical outlook on circumstance and his eclectic approach to gaining "light", it's more clear to me how similar his approach to spirituality is to those caught up in the false spirituality of New Ageism.

Here's a great article to read on the New Age in case you're not familiar with it's beliefs

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The more I delve into Local Church theology the more I realize the intricacies in the patchwork stitched together by Watchman Nee which seems to be mostly made up of the doctrines of failed Charismatic movements and eastern belief systems.

I was previously focused on Witness Lee's teachings but going to the root and now understanding Nee's mystical outlook on circumstance and his eclectic approach to gaining "light", it's more clear to me how similar his approach to spirituality is to those caught up in the false spirituality of New Ageism.

The problem with looking up Nee is that it's hard to get clear objective info. Here is the first website when you Google "Watchman Nee Keswick"

https://faithsaves.net/watchman-nee/

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

The problem with looking up Nee is that it's hard to get clear objective info. Here is the first website when you Google "Watchman Nee Keswick"

https://faithsaves.net/watchman-nee/

It's an interesting read.

It also hit me while reading on a recent thread here (the Body-Christ thread) that LCer's, even one that claims to have left, remains an adherent of modalism.

In the LC it's taught that Jesus, after resurrection, ceased being a human being as you and I. Rather, "the church" or "the body of Christ" literally became Jesus' physical aspect of existence and that the "head" resides in Heaven as "the spirit". That's a form of modalism and it's the same belief you'll find in new age groups that teach "Christ consciousness".

The man Jesus Christ our savior is still, to this very day, in a glorified physical body of flesh contained within his own individual person.

This modalist view of Christ is why movements like the Lord's Recovery believe they have to subdue the earth before his return (dominionism) because they think they are literally his physical body, as if he somehow dissevered during the ascension, and needs to be conjoined again by their works.

[Ohio]

These are strange teachings indeed about the LC, which I never knew nor heard, even after 3 decades of active service.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are strange teachings indeed about the LC, which I never knew nor heard, even after 3 decades of active service.

From the website:

“No single person is more responsible for the development of Nee’s theology than Miss Barber.” Pg. 15, Secrets of Watchman Nee, Roberts.

“[T]he main influences upon [Nee were] so often . . . women—Dora Yu, his mother, Margaret Barber, Ruth Lee, [and] Elizabeth Fischbacher[.]” Pg. 156, Against the Tide, Kinnear.

"Whenever [Nee] had a problem or needed spiritual instruction or strengthening, he would go to . . . Margaret E. Barber . . . an Anglican missionary[.] . . . [He testified that] [e]very Saturday [he] went to Ma-Kiang, Fukien, to listen to Miss Margaret Barber’s preaching. . . . [H]e said that he scarcely found one person in the Western world who could compare with Margaret Barber. It was through this sister that he obtained the foundation of the spiritual life. He frequently told others that it was through a sister [Dora Yu] that he was saved and that it was also through a sister [Margaret Barber] that he was edified. . . . Through Margaret Barber he became familiar with the books of [writers such as] Jessie Penn-Lewis . . . [who taught him about] the subjective aspect of Christ’s death[,] . . . spiritual warfare[,] . . . [and] the three parts of man. . . . Watchman Nee received a clear vision of what it means to be an overcomer by . . . reading the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis. . . . Madame Guyon’s biography . . . and the writings of other mystics helped him in the matter of life. . . . Mary McDonough’s book . . . was a great help . . . [c]oncerning God’s plan of redemption. Pgs. 11-18, 25-26, 70, 81, Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation, Lee.

Now, this web page is biased on a number of levels. The author clearly disapproves of women having any meaningful role in the church, which many of us don't agree with. But I cite it because the LSM, publishers of Nee and Lee, also don't let women function meaningfully. In the LC, women can bake the Lord's table crackers, set up coffee for after the meeting, and watch the children during the conferences.

But Paul said, "Women must be silent" so that's that... except Nee clearly didn't follow that in his development and they all know it! LSM even touts it in the Nee biography. All those "uppity women" trying to be "spiritual"... today they'd be run out of the LC so fast their heads would spin. But they were the edifice upon which the whole structure was built. Go figure. Talk about 'cut-and-paste' theology!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

From the website:

“No single person is more responsible for the development of Nee’s theology than Miss Barber.” Pg. 15, Secrets of Watchman Nee, Roberts.

“[T]he main influences upon [Nee were] so often . . . women—Dora Yu, his mother, Margaret Barber, Ruth Lee, [and] Elizabeth Fischbacher[.]” Pg. 156, Against the Tide, Kinnear.

"Whenever [Nee] had a problem or needed spiritual instruction or strengthening, he would go to . . . Margaret E. Barber . . . an Anglican missionary[.] . . . [He testified that] [e]very Saturday [he] went to Ma-Kiang, Fukien, to listen to Miss Margaret Barber’s preaching. . . . [H]e said that he scarcely found one person in the Western world who could compare with Margaret Barber. It was through this sister that he obtained the foundation of the spiritual life. He frequently told others that it was through a sister [Dora Yu] that he was saved and that it was also through a sister [Margaret Barber] that he was edified. . . . Through Margaret Barber he became familiar with the books of [writers such as] Jessie Penn-Lewis . . . [who taught him about] the subjective aspect of Christ’s death[,] . . . spiritual warfare[,] . . . [and] the three parts of man. . . . Watchman Nee received a clear vision of what it means to be an overcomer by . . . reading the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis. . . . Madame Guyon’s biography . . . and the writings of other mystics helped him in the matter of life. . . . Mary McDonough’s book . . . was a great help . . . [c]oncerning God’s plan of redemption. Pgs. 11-18, 25-26, 70, 81, Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation, Lee.

Now, this web page is biased on a number of levels. The author clearly disapproves of women having any meaningful role in the church, which many of us don't agree with. But I cite it because the LSM, publishers of Nee and Lee, also don't let women function meaningfully. In the LC, women can bake the Lord's table crackers, set up coffee for after the meeting, and watch the children during the conferences.

But Paul said, "Women must be silent" so that's that... except Nee clearly didn't follow that in his development and they all know it! LSM even touts it in the Nee biography. All those "uppity women" trying to be "spiritual"... today they'd be run out of the LC so fast their heads would spin. But they were the edifice upon which the whole structure was built. Go figure. Talk about 'cut-and-paste' theology!

I guess that could happen if/when you shut the mouth of the one sent to help you.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

While researching I went down a rabbit hole and landed on a book by Watchman Nee titled, "Latent Power of the Soul" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where this term originated. I'd like to share some thoughts on what I found.

I say to Nee : It takes one to know one. Given the conflict of Nee's wonderful ministry, and his private sexual proclivities, I'd say Nee had tremendous soul power.

And then there's Lee's confession that for 30 odd years he was working from his natural man, so Lee had tremendous soul power too.

It's the power to attract simple minded or ignorant ones, looking for answers in someone of greater minds than them.

Just look into Nxivm, and the control an extraordinary genius mind can have on people.

And I don't even know if we should be worried about soul power. Ones like Nee and Lee are needs of the flesh ; in that we need a agent in the flesh ; it's the need for fleshly power we should avoid. Then soul power would have no takers.

Thanks for taking me down memory lane with your "Latent Power of the Soul" references.

That takes me way back. Thank the Lord, I've been free of Nee and Lee's latent power of the soul for a long time.

In the end, when it comes to soul power, Nee and Lee were preaching to themselves.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

I guess that could happen if/when you shut the mouth of the one sent to help you.

Nell

One of the worst things in the Bible is to ignore God's messengers. God will send the 'small' and 'weak' things, and watch your response. That 'sensitive sister' may have the most important word of all... or as current ministry mouthpiece RK once put it, mockingly, "spiritual sisters". He sounded like he was spitting out rotten food. It was shocking (I was a die-hard LC'er sitting in the front row).

He told us, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister".

And yet they brag about all the ones that "raised up" Watchman Nee. Go figure.

[Jo S]

Although I have an idea, I can't fully understand what you guys have been through in the LC's. I do pray the Lord's healing on all you who are still fighting to try to understand. Even though this isn't necessarily my fight, I'm gladly standing along side you and all those in the LC I've gotten to know along the way.

I know it's difficult to separate the men from their teachings but I would really ask to try and keep more focus on the doctrines themselves and their pretenses.

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Our fight shouldn't be against Lee or Nee but on exposing the entity behind the lies. It's easy to put all the blame these men, they were deceived the same as you, but it's Satan that seems to always get away unnoticed and scot-free in these circumstances. The Lord will be their judge.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I know it's difficult to separate the men from their teachings but I would really ask to try and keep more focus on the doctrines themselves and their pretenses.

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

There's a line from Isaiah 40: "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens/who created all these?" The prophet was trying to get those ensnared by idols of wood and stone and brass to lift up their consciousnesses, their views, towards the Eternal One. One day I decided to believe in the existence of God. It seemed that all of creation demanded of me that I acknowledge, at least in principle, a Creator. At some point further on I confessed Jesus as Lord, which set me on a path. In this I am no different than Watchman Nee or the apostle Paul, or any other professing believer.

Now we should test any arguments for pretense, especially our own! There are a lot of poorly reasoned ideas out there, that should be called out. People have been badly stumbled by them. People have become disillusioned, cynical, frustrated, discouraged, dispirited. We should call out bad ideas, always knowing we're no better than anyone else.

Jesus has been tested and approved, and is worthy of every accolade. As for the rest, it waits. We should presume nothing.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

One of the worst things in the Bible is to ignore God's messengers. God will send the 'small' and 'weak' things, and watch your response. That 'sensitive sister' may have the most important word of all... or as current ministry mouthpiece RK once put it, mockingly, "spiritual sisters". He sounded like he was spitting out rotten food. It was shocking (I was a die-hard LC'er sitting in the front row).

He told us, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister".

And yet they brag about all the ones that "raised up" Watchman Nee. Go figure.

Aron,

I once heard a brother "testify" about how much of a burden his wife and children were to his walk with the Lord. His wife wasn't in that meeting. She was in the hospital, having just delivered his 4th child.

In one of the early 10-Day Training meetings our "locality" was called on to be "tested." Lee singled out this same sister individually to answer the test question. She froze. He kept saying "Sister!...Sister!...Answer the question..." He was brutal. He went on and on and wouldn't shut up. She was obviously terrified. She was a quiet sister by nature and very sweet. Everyone in the room was dying for her...everyone except Witness Lee. After that, she was never the same. Not only did she not testify in the meetings anymore, she rarely smiled. Witness Lee destroyed her.

One time in my locality, another married brother charged into the meeting screaming and shouting "O_L_J"! His wife was behind him, her arms full carrying their infant child, the diaper bag, her purse, her Bible and Hymnal... As her spiritual husband was "releasing his spirit" he let the door close in his wife's face. Elder George Whitington stopped the meeting. He just about blew a gasket. He stopped this brother in his tracks and with an angry red face, and his index finger pointing, George rebuked this brother to his face in front of everyone in the hall. George was a good man and gifted with the talent of speaking plain English. I had never seen anything like that before, and haven't seen anything like it since.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

In one of the early 10-Day Training meetings our "locality" was called on to be "tested." Lee singled out this same sister individually to answer the test question. She froze. He kept saying "Sister!...Sister!...Answer the question..." He was brutal. He went on and on and wouldn't shut up. She was obviously terrified. She was a quiet sister by nature and very sweet. Everyone in the room was dying for her...everyone except Witness Lee. After that, she was never the same. Not only did she not testify in the meetings anymore, she rarely smiled. Witness Lee destroyed her.

Yet not one person had the courage and conviction to do the right thing and stand up to the bully on behalf of that sister.

How could we get that way?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

There's a line from Isaiah 40: "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens/who created all these?" The prophet was trying to get those ensnared by idols of wood and stone and brass to lift up their consciousnesses, their views, towards the Eternal One. One day I decided to believe in the existence of God. It seemed that all of creation demanded of me that I acknowledge, at least in principle, a Creator. At some point further on I confessed Jesus as Lord, which set me on a path. In this I am no different than Watchman Nee or the apostle Paul, or any other professing believer.

And it's to this point I hope all those involved in the LC's can return to for a fresh start and relearn the truth directly from the source of truth. I see the struggle with many lies in the belief that there are still somethings to salvage.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yet not one person had the courage and conviction to do the right thing and stand up to the bully on behalf of that sister.

How could we get that way?

Behind every bad idea is a bad spirit. I remember when Witness Lee passed and we were told from the dias, "The age of spiritual giants is over". No scripture was given. So this idea of "one revelation per age" ended with the passing of its progenitor. Now there are no more "seers of the divine revelation", as Lee's biography called Watchman Nee.

But the "new light from the word" ended on what basis? No basis was given. And yet no one has the ability to question such a pronouncement? What spirit is behind this?

As I wrote elsewhere, perhaps "God's economy which is in faith" is related to the daily dispensing in Acts 6:1, and the dispensing (RecV) of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 12:25 and the "remember the poor" of Galatians 2:10 and Paul hurrying to Jerusalem by Pentecost with gentile-sourced alms (Romans 15:25-27; Acts 20:16; 24:17)... perhaps it isn't... but why can't we think about such things anymore? Why does LSM say that "the age of unfolding revelation is over"? What spirit is at work behind that kind of thought (or non-thought)? Anyone who thinks, or questions the status quo, is in danger of being labeled "divisive" and "factious" and "ambitious"?

What spirit is at work, here?

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by aron

Behind every bad idea is a bad spirit. I remember when Witness Lee passed and we were told from the dias, "The age of spiritual giants is over". No scripture was given. So this idea of "one revelation per age" ended with the passing of its progenitor. Now there are no more "seers of the divine revelation", as Lee's biography called Watchman Nee.

But the "new light from the word" ended on what basis? No basis was given. And yet no one has the ability to question such a pronouncement? What spirit is behind this?

As I wrote elsewhere, perhaps "God's economy which is in faith" is related to the daily dispensing in Acts 6:1, and the dispensing (RecV) of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 12:25 and the "remember the poor" of Galatians 2:10 and Paul hurrying to Jerusalem by Pentecost with gentile-sourced alms (Romans 15:25-27; Acts 20:16; 24:17)... perhaps it isn't... but why can't we think about such things anymore? Why does LSM say that "the age of unfolding revelation is over"? What spirit is at work behind that kind of thought (or non-thought)? Anyone who thinks, or questions the status quo, is in danger of being labeled "divisive" and "factious" and "ambitious"?

What spirit is at work, here?

It was "Brother We" carrying on Br Lee's ministry. They said they felt that they hadn't really gotten into a lot of his ministry. There is fresh light when different portions if it are combined, RK said. Hence, publishing the collected works of Lee. It seems they may think that any walking with, experiencing the Lord, etc is based on his ministry. There are other groups, such as the Armstrong Church of God, that follow the ministries of deceased founders.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

It was "Brother We" carrying on Br Lee's ministry. They said they felt that they hadn't really gotten into a lot of his ministry. There is fresh light when different portions if it are combined, RK said. Hence, publishing the collected works of Lee. It seems they may think that any walking with, experiencing the Lord, etc is based on his ministry. There are other groups, such as the Armstrong Church of God, that follow the ministries of deceased founders.

When studying LC doctrine, what I see is a lot of equivocation. The Jesuits were well known for this as a method to avoid persecution. On a lesser scale, perhaps Nee and Lee taught with ambiguity out of a subconscious fear of criticism and so opened the door to the enemy....? Point being this is just one way insecurities can reflect in teachings the same as our shortcomings attract us to certain types of leaders and movements. Which is why it's important to have one teacher alone (Matt 23:10)

In politics, equivocation is used to avoid answering questions that can't be answered directly. Or it's used to conform others to ideologies. In the book 1984, it's end goal was to put an end to independent thought, believe everything the party said, and achieve total control over the people and their minds.

Using equivocation can also give the illusion of multilayered complexity. With a lack of commitment in doctrine, you can literally make things mean whatever you want them to mean depending on the situation or agenda.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

When studying LC doctrine, what I see is a lot of equivocation. The Jesuits were well known for this technique as a method to avoid any type of persecution. And so, the only reason the teachings of the LC gives the illusion of multilayered complexity is because everything is so ambiguous so you can literally make things mean whatever you want them to mean depending on the situation or agenda.

In some cases the equivocation is blatant, obvious. Women are on one hand pillars of the recovery light, and then they can't teach, because "Paul said so". At one point the psalmist's imprecations are Christ defeating Satan, elsewhere the psalmist is entertaining "fallen human concepts" for similar sentiments. Early Nee was all about independent local churches (free from Western control, natch) and Later Nee "recovered" centralised control (under his aegis, natch). Lee said there was one spiritual giant per age, then when he died his lieutenants said the age of spiritual giants was over.

And none could question any of these obviously questionable assertions or they'd be expelled from the assembly. What sort of spirit is at work, here?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

And none could question any of these obviously questionable assertions or they'd be expelled from the assembly. What sort of spirit is at work, here?

Perhaps the same spirit that prevents people from leaving oppressive and abusive environments... the spirit of fear.

[Jo S]

...Edit...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

When studying LC doctrine, what I see is a lot of equivocation... Using equivocation can also give the illusion of multilayered complexity. With a lack of commitment in doctrine, you can literally make things mean whatever you want them to mean depending on the situation or agenda.

Actually you're onto something here. One of WL's most ardent supporters 40 years ago said of him, "He doesn't tell you what he wants. You have to read between the lines". That brother is today one of the uber-blendeds.

There is always the standard 'orthodox' line put out as a kind of fall-back position, and as a bait to the naive. That was how I got caught. We were singing the familiar Protestant hymns of my youth and I thought, "Oh, these guys can't be bad".

Eventually, if you stuck around, someone like RG or MP would come around and tell you what it really all meant. Just in case you hadn't figured it out yet. All the orthodox posturing was so much smoke-screen.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

...What sort of spirit is at work, here?

There are only two options.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

There are only two options.

Nell

Yes. It clearly isn't the Lord, so...

On another thread, someone pointed out Galatians 5:20 and the various less-than-divine issues of the flesh, "idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions". Quite a list. But if you want to sum it up, it's not the Lord.

We saw a lot that was not the Lord, in the LC, but we kept our mouths shut because in the LC you keep your mouths shut. Which in itself is not of the Lord. He told us how to deal with sins (Matthew 18; cf 1 Tim 5:19). It was over-ridden by the cultural practices of the LC - "Don't let the Maximum Brother lose face."

Another example of equivocation was that Protestantism was our "goodly heritage" and often waved as a mark of our bona fides, and also was Mystery Harlot Babylon to be dissed at every turn. Sometimes we got both in the same message but everybody pretended not to notice. We got very good at compartmentalising knowledge in the LC. The trick is, never open both boxes at the same time, the "Babylon" and the "goodly heritage" ones. Always keep them isolated from each other.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes. It clearly isn't the Lord, so...

On another thread, someone pointed out Galatians 5:20 and the various less-than-divine issues of the flesh, "idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions". Quite a list. But if you want to sum it up, it's not the Lord.

Don't forget "lasciviousness." Nee and Lee's boys had that.

That cinches it for me. From the very beginning : NOT OF THE LORD! But I've known that for decades.

I'm baffled I was so duped. Won't do that again. And haven't. Thank God!

[Jo S]

....edit....

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Jo S

None are separate from each other so we have to be careful also that we don't discard any of them as in saying feelings, or emotions, or subjective experiences in themselves are inherently bad and not a part of our relationship with God. The only thing is we shouldn't be chasing after these things or rely on them as validation because without a full understanding we'll actually chase our own constructs rather then what's real. And it's human nature to only want the ecstacy (good) rather than the hurt and suffering (bad) that comes along with God's love. And you know who will offer you only the convenient things of life....(Mark 8:33)

After reading some more LC literature today, I wanted to expound on this point.

Be cautious of leaders who put emphasis on some vague and mysterious "subjective experience of Christ" rather than a simple and understandable relationship with Jesus Christ.

In mysticism, spirituality consists of subjective experiences that are fleeting feelings of ecstasy and elation. These are usually preceded by certain works or techniques as found in the LC's such as "pray reading" or euphoric cries of "Oh, Lord Jesus".

Christians, on the other hand, differ from mystics in that there is an ongoing (not fleeting) relationship with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit beginning the moment one receives salvation.

While God works subjectively in concert with our thoughts and emotions, it wouldn't be considered so much as a "subjective experience". Experiences are gained and experiences come and go but when the spirit of God indwells you, he will never leave you nor forsake you to the point that you feel you have to constantly gain or chase after him.

With mysticsm, there's a constant seeking after an experience of "God", or what in reality is just a generic experience of the spiritual realm. And like a drug, with these types of experiences, once the previous high wears off you're back at it looking for the next trip.

Normal relationships, however, don't consist of a series of highs and lows. In them you understand there are going to be different seasons but for the most part there's a certain continuity and stability.

At points where relationships are suffering, it usually isn't something that can be fixed or repaired with a just a simple act or gesture, it's a deeper issue of the heart that takes reflection, communication, and repentance to mend. But with the mystic, the solution to fixing a low always seems to be a quick psychological technique or other practice to alter the circumstance.

Mind altering practices learned though mysticism are specifically designed to pierce through the spiritual veil but the danger is it's not timed by God but imposed on by human will.

Through practices like chanting, meditiation, scheduled fastings ect. you can have genuine spiritual experieces that makes it seem like you're living the Christian life but these are the same types of experiences that so many other non-Christian mystics have as well. Jesus said even if you find a way to cleanse your innerself, without him and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whatever spirit that was purged will only return with 7 different spirits leaving your spiritual condition worse off than before. (Matthew 12:45).

Speaking from my own experience even a Christian at a low point in their walk with Christ can be tempted with mysticism when desiring to reestablish closeness to God that seemed to have disappeared, but rather than doing things the hard way through humbling ourselves by admitting wrongs and changing our ways we begin to learn how to manipulate spiritual things through practices taught to us by deceiving spirits or deceived leaders.

With that said, we were warned by the Savior, if you are entering the sheep fold by any other way than the door, you are a thief and a robber (John 10:1).

And I'll finish with this. Paul says that there are different Jesus's being taught in the churches and through them different spirits other than the Holy Spirit of God are being imparted (2 Corinthians 11:4). If you were one that was raised in the Local Church's of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and affirmed by members of the LC's that you are saved or you received "Jesus" at a later time through the LC's but feel that there is something seriously wrong and experience strong doubts, test the spirits that you received through the Local Church by scripture and earnest prayer (1 John 4).

[JJ]

Very good synopsis, Jo S!

For those of us who were addicts to Nee and Lee’s brand of mysticism, we can certainly relate to always looking for that high we once had while calling on the Lord or shouting local church slogans.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

With mysticsm, there's a constant seeking after an experience of "God", or what in reality is just a generic experience of the spiritual realm. And like a drug, with these types of experiences, once the previous high wears off you're back at it looking for the next trip.

Normal relationships, however, don't consist of a series of highs and lows. In them you understand there are going to be different seasons but for the most part there's a certain continuity and stability.

At points where relationships are suffering, it usually isn't something that can be fixed or repaired with a just a simple act or gesture, it's a deeper issue of the heart that takes reflection, communication, and repentance to mend. But with the mystic, the solution to fixing a low always seems to be a quick psychological technique or other practice to alter the circumstance.

Wisdom. (I would have added at the end "... or to alter the consciousness.").

Our spiritual experience is to be one of a relationship with a Person. This relationship entails joy, peace and an inner sense of an amazing reality, but at its core it is a personal relationship with a conscious, thinking, emoting Being. Leave that out and you are out in the weeds of feelings, sensations, highs, lows, metaphysical gymnastics and other forms of consciousness alteration.

Never forget the river of water of life is a Person. That is a wonderful thing!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wisdom.

Our spiritual experience is to be one of a relationship with a Person. This relationship entails joy, peace and an inner sense of an amazing reality, but at its core it is a personal relationship with a conscious, thinking, emoting Being. Leave that out and you are out in the weeds of feelings, sensations, highs, lows, metaphysical gymnastics and other forms of consciousness alteration.

Never forget the river of water of life is a Person. That is a wonderful thing!

I'd also add, that rundown of mysticism is really for those just starting to experiment with spirituality. Eventually continuing to flirt with mysticism can lead into a personal relationship, not with Jesus Christ, but with antichrist who's good at disguising himself as an angel of light. But that's for another discussion. That's why I say test all things and examine yourself to make sure you're in the Christian faith (2 Cor 13:5, 1 Thess 5:21) and not some other form of spirituality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In mysticism, spirituality consists of subjective experiences that are fleeting feelings of ecstasy and elation. These are usually preceded by certain works or techniques as found in the LC's such as "pray reading" or euphoric cries of "Oh, Lord Jesus" . . .

. . . With mysticsm, there's a constant seeking after an experience of "God", or what in reality is just a generic experience of the spiritual realm. And like a drug, with these types of experiences, once the previous high wears off you're back at it looking for the next trip.

Are you saying that calling on the Lord and prayreading are just another way to "get a fix?"

I remember that. I remember a brother so hooked on calling that that's all he did when awake. It annoyed everyone, and eventually became such a problem that it had to be addressed.

Looking back now it's like my whole local church experience was like constantly getting my fix. It was an addiction. That needed constant supply.

All the calling ; all the prayreading ; all the meetings, conferences, and communal relating ; I was addicted. And it needed constant daily maintenance, reinforcement, and supply.

Thanks for pointing this out bro Jo S.

[Jo S]

And to any young ones out there. Spirituality shouldn't be something to be desired. Anyone can be spiritual, but not everyone can be Godly.

Be cautious of groups that idolize spirituality. You'll often times hear speaking about how spiritual this person is or how unspiritual that person is. Comparisons like these are what Jesus often rebuked his disciples for doing (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24). These people may actually be "spiritual" but by this type of boasting they really just show immaturity in their relationship with God. Again, spirituality doesn't equate to holiness.

Opening yourself up to the spiritual realm without the guidance and protection of God will land you in a world of hurt, believe me I know. Trust the LORD to be spiritual for you. And be obedient to his word in return.

And going back to the original point of this thread, you'll see the annihilation of your sense of individuality (soul-life) is at the core of all forms of false spirituality. "Ego" is the word you'll typically find in these systems and it's viewed and taught as something that prevents spiritual growth when in fact it's what makes you uniquely you and the part of yourself that guards against those that seek to control and manipulate you.

So don't get caught up on "spirituality". Pursue righteousness, holiness, and godliness. All that can be found in Christ Jesus.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

So don't get caught up on "spirituality". Pursue righteousness, holiness, and godliness. All that can be found in Christ Jesus.

I get your point. But to me being spiritual just means being a person who lives in the Spirit. As Romans 14:17 says, "The kingdom of God is... righteous, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit." All good things are found in Christ Jesus, but Christ Jesus is found in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is our connection to Jesus.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I get your point. But to me being spiritual just means being a person who lives in the Spirit. As Romans 14:17 says, "The kingdom of God is... righteous, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit." All good things are found in Christ Jesus, but Christ Jesus is found in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is our connection to Jesus.

"Being spiritual" implies that you have to do something to be "in the spirit". It turns into a practice rather than renewal and transformation by faith and God's grace. The thought that a Christian needs to do anything to be "spiritual" is where you get teachings such as "get out of your mind and into the spirit" or "leave your soul-life ". Constantly teaching that you have to put something aside in order to exercise another is why people are so inwardly conflicted.

It's also no wonder the LC's are divided even against themselves. Division is what's embedded in many aspects of their doctrine whether they're aware of it or not. Satan knows if division starts at the level of the individual it's easier to seperate you from the truth altogether and lure you into a lie. All you have to do is spiritualize the lies and sell them to individuals that desire spirituality above truth.

A son or daughter of God that has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit now has God's spirit in them. There's no need to "be spiritual" or "get in the spirit". You're already in a relationship with God through this indwelling. Scripture teaches a relationship by being in agreement with and walking by the Spirit of God, not having to sidestep in order to get in the spirit.

Jesus proceeded from God the Father, The Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus. God > Christ > Spirit.

If you're taking a bottom up approach by desiring spirit rather than the things of God thru the Son, then you may get into some other spirit altogether. It the slightest change of perspective but makes the biggest difference. It's why I caution against desiring to be spiritual. This way reliance is on faith in Christ's person and his qualities rather than being led by desires of spiritual greatness or from personal insecurities of not being spiritual enough.

To those that feel pressures of not being "spiritual" enough. You'd be respecting yourself by keeping distance from environments like that lest you too give into temptation and fall into false spirituality. God will never make you feel like you're not good enough but congregations that make an idol out of spirituality will.

Again, you don't have to be Christian to be spiritual. Anyone can be spiritual in the sense that there are two spirits, as others have said here, the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the world. Even the spirit of the world can mimick the things of God such as great wisdom, spiritual knowlege, and even miracles so those that still are in the spirit of the world and desire to be greater will only get the greater things that the spirit of the world can offer.

[Cal]

Jo S, I believe you are overthinking things.

If you want to say that there are false spiritualities we need to avoid, then just say so. But the Bible clearly commands us to "walk in the Spirit," and it wouldn't say that if it was not possible to NOT walk in the Spirit. So your saying we are already always in the Spirit rings kind of hollow there. And the Bible clearly lauds being spiritual. So it's kind of silly to tell people to avoid it.

Obviously, when the Bible tells us to be spiritual it is talking about HOLY spirituality. I think people are smart enough to realize that. They are probably not going to go about embracing every spirit because they think that's what the Bible means by being spiritual.

It's like you are telling people to avoid driving cars because you're afraid they might drive on the wrong side of the road. I think most people are smarter than you are giving the credit for being.

Just say what the Bible says. Why people have this need to redefine everything it beyond me.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

"Being spiritual" implies that you have to do something to be "in the spirit". It turns into a practice rather than renewal and transformation by faith and God's grace. The thought that a Christian needs to do anything to be "spiritual" is where you get teachings such as "get out of your mind and into the spirit" or "leave your soul-life ". Constantly teaching that you have to put something aside in order to exercise another is why people are so inwardly conflicted.

It's also no wonder the LC's are divided even against themselves. Division is what's embedded in many aspects of their doctrine whether they're aware of it or not. Satan knows if division starts at the level of the individual it's easier to seperate you from the truth altogether and lure you into a lie. All you have to do is spiritualize the lies and sell them to individuals that desire spirituality above truth.

A son or daughter of God that has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit now has God's spirit in them. There's no need to "be spiritual" or "get in the spirit". You're already in a relationship with God through this indwelling. Scripture teaches a relationship by being in agreement with and walking by the Spirit of God, not having to sidestep in order to get in the spirit.

Jesus proceeded from God the Father, The Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus. God > Christ > Spirit.

If you're taking a bottom up approach by desiring spirit rather than the things of God thru the Son, then you may get into some other spirit altogether. It the slightest change of perspective but makes the biggest difference. It's why I caution against desiring to be spiritual. This way reliance is on faith in Christ's person and his qualities rather than being led by desires of spiritual greatness or from personal insecurities of not being spiritual enough.

To those that feel pressures of not being "spiritual" enough. You'd be respecting yourself by keeping distance from environments like that lest you too give into temptation and fall into false spirituality. God will never make you feel like you're not good enough but congregations that make an idol out of spirituality will.

Again, you don't have to be Christian to be spiritual. Anyone can be spiritual in the sense that there are two spirits, as others have said here, the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the world. Even the spirit of the world can mimick the things of God such as great wisdom, spiritual knowlege, and even miracles so those that still are in the spirit of the world and desire to be greater will only get the greater things that the spirit of the world can offer.

I agree with you Jo S. It is our faith and trust in Jesus Himself which makes us one with Him, in Spirit. There was a pervasive feeling of checking oneself to see if one was in the proper man, the old man or the One new man, are we in our spirit or not? It was crazy making! I remember driving to meet with saints in a home meeting once upon a time, but being turned away by the admonition of the brother coordinating the group....'come in your spirit!!' Here I was, filled with faith, loving the saints, wanting to be with them! But that evening, I turned around and drove back home because of doubt....was I in spirit? Was I in my mind? Or death! Who could tell? I wasn't sure I qualified....then. Now I reject the idea altogether. We qualify, being those who first trusted in Jesus. That is enough.

There is, certainly, an atmosphere of encouragement to leave your (self, mind, flesh, soul life) and to 'be spiritual' to come together. As if we could divide our selves up in such a way....well I could not make it but the Word can, divide soul and spirit, that is. And there can truly be an idol made out of trying to 'be spiritual'. We who have received Christ have been given this Holy Spirit, and He is enough. He makes us spiritual. But there is no way to not be mere humans who have been given the Holy Spirit. We are a mystery, the church. I experienced exactly what you rebuked above, Jo! And I know it to be a massive discouragement!

byHismercy

[Jo S]

Thanks for your post, byHismercy