Interesting talk about Nee/Lee/Local Church Movement by Mike Sullivan

[UntoHim]

This is a brief, 48 minute talk by a Mike Sullivan, one of the pastors/teachers of Xenos Christian fellowship in Columbus Ohio. He has some relatively insightful perspectives and conclusions regarding the life and times of Watchman Nee. Hang on to your hats, Local Churchers, he doesn't give Witness Lee a very good review in this talk.

I found the last 7 or 8 minutes especially insightful.

http://services.media.xenos.org/teac...Sullivan-1.mp3
-

[Cal]

• I like his comment that church history shows that every Christian movement loses its way. Sad, but generally true.
  
  
• Enlightened by the insight that Witness Lee was brought in to bring order to the movement, and his authoritarianism resulted in damage which continues to this day.
  
  
• The belief in absolute submission to authority that is ingrained in the Chinese psyche and was a catalyst to the authoritarian abuses of the movement--we've mentioned that here before.
  
  
• Enlightening that he mentioned that every offshoot of Nee's movement has problems with authoritarianism.
  
  
• Accurate and fair, I think. If only the LCMers had such a healthy perspective about their founders instead of the extreme reverence they practice.

[aron]

I only listened to the first 1/3 of the recording. But wanted to comment on that.

Sullivan says Nee was excluded from Brethen fellowship because he broke bread with others. (He says Darby kicked him out; Darby was long gone by then). Then he says this was the catyst for Nee's militant anti-denominationism. Number one, the statement doesn't make sense (never has; I've heard it before). How does excluding fellowship based on meeting others equal being a denomination? I thought it meant taking a name. Second, didn't Nee take exactly the same path, in excluding his senior co-worker Leland Wang? Wang wanted to receive others outside the SCA ambit, and Nee wanted 'purity'. Didn't Nee thus follow exactly the same foible he experienced in Engand? Was his memory that short?

My conclusion is this: Nee wanted power. This drive to be the Alpha Male was in him from day one, and it never let him go. Yes he repented, believed and followed, but lust for power ruined his path and stumbled how many more? Countless.

My premise is based on the obsevations of Sullivan and many others: Nee's formative spiritual experiences were all from women. Sullivan dutifully lists them -- Peace Wang, Ruth Lee, Margaret Barber (plus his only authored book, 'Spiritual Man', was plagiarized Jessie Penn-Lewis). Yet all this was in a male-dominated society. So Nee knew there was a vacuum at the top, and by his mid-twenties he was already in place. He was in such a rush to get out a 'spiritual' book he didn't even bother to write one and just translated Penn-Lewis, and put his name on it. Later editions had to acknowledge this but by then he was already Top Dog so it didn't matter.

All that is of course circumstantial evidence and doesn't 'prove' anything, at least if you're a die-hard Nee-ite. But for me the last piece of the puzzle, the proverbial smoking gun, was his ouster of Wang, his senior co-worker. Suddenly for Nee it was about Authority and Submission. There are simply too many perfectly timed coincidences in the Nee story. Everything co-operated to put him at the pinnacle. Every single thing he did was about the acquisition and maintenance of temporal, earthly human power. What Jesus called "the way of the gentiles".

[ZNPaaneah]

His opinion of Nee is obviously much higher than yours. I also found his explanation of Nee's expulsion from ministry in Shanghai strained and difficult to believe. The idea that the elders canceled his ministry there, and he submitted to them, because of jealousy seems very difficult to believe. Nee was a renowned author by this time, had international contacts and could have continued his ministry anywhere in China or the world. Why would you submit to two or three envious elders unless not submitting would require them to tell the church your sins.

Also, I find him biased by his own admission to how much they have fashioned their own ministry based on Nee's doctrines.

Also, I agree with you that it is difficult for me to see a stark distinction between WL and WN. The seeds of the personality cult seem to my own opinion to have very clearly been sown by WN. He was the one that came up with the damnable heresy of the ground of the church, justifying a distinct break with other Christians. WL's condemnation of Christianity began with WN's condemnation. WL's attempts to make merchandise of the saints can be seen to have been inspired by WN's profitable ventures. All of the abusive doctrines of submission to authority originate with WN. Finally the reason for the discipline from the elders in Shanghai is absolutely essential in getting a fair view of WN and his ministry. You cannot pass it off as "jealousy" or "envy". You have to address the charges of fornication and either clearly refute them or else demonstrate that this was dealt with. This is why I feel WL was very disingenuous about this matter. If WN had been slandered it was his responsibility to set the record straight with a clear and convincing testimony. By his own admission no one knew the situation better than him. Instead he completely ducked the charges and then even though his version was repeated often he didn't put it into writing. That to me is the action of a man who knows he is lying.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

Second, didn't Nee take exactly the same path, in excluding his senior co-worker Leland Wang? Wang wanted to receive others outside the SCA ambit, and Nee wanted 'purity'. Didn't Nee thus follow exactly the same foible he experienced in Engand? Was his memory that short?

Nee and Wang were together in Fuzhou, not Shanghai. That predated his contact with the Exclusive Brethren, Sparks, and his visits to England.

[Ohio]

This is extracted from Xenos History:

During this period, the group's theology was influenced most by four strangely contradictory sources: Francis Schaeffer and the L'Abri group, Plymouth Brethren teaching as typified by authors like T. Austin Sparks and Miles Stanford, grace-oriented Bible commentary like that of William R. Newell, and Watchman Nee. Yet, such eclectic approaches were common in the milieu of the Jesus revolution, which was in full swing in those years. The theological emphases they gleaned from these authors were: the centrality of the grace of God, the importance of learning Christian truth content--including the Bible, theology, church history and contemporary social criticism, the importance of staying in touch with contemporary culture, and the importance of developing Christian community, including a network of deep relationships.

Xenos' leaders, like the LCM, were highly influenced in by Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life.

Btw, T. Austin Sparks was never with the Plymouth Brethren, who never approved of him or Honor Oak.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Nee and Wang were together in Fuzhou, not Shanghai. That predated his contact with the Exclusive Brethren, Sparks, and his visits to England.

I had read that Wang purchased the property for the SCA building. Then Nee moved him out over doctrinal differences and took over.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I had read that Wang purchased the property for the SCA building. Then Nee moved him out over doctrinal differences and took over.

My memory is perhaps faulty. Here is Leland Wang's account, from 1965.

Originally Posted by Leland Wang

In 1921, while serving as a lieutenant on a Chinese gunboat, I felt led to proclaim God's Word. Later I began to preach in the open air, drawing crowds by ringing a hand bell. I rented a hall in Foochow that later became known as the Christian Assembly, and was joined by Watchman Lee, my younger brother Wilson, Simon Meek of Manila, Faithful Luke of Singapore, and John Wang of Taiwan. This turned out to be the genesis of a vital Christian evangelical movement in China.

So it seems to be Foochow, not Shanghai. But the point remains that Wang preceded Nee, who had to remove him and assume sole control, before he (Nee) 'recovered God's deputy authority'. Because it wouldn't have worked if Nee was still with Wang.

More quotes on Nee v/v Wang:

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

In January 1923, Miss [Ruth] Lee came to Foochow, and we prepared ourselves for the meetings and gospel preaching. Before that, we were meeting in Brother Wang’s sitting room. Now that we needed to hold special meetings, there was no meeting place and no chairs. Moreover, we were afraid that no one would come. As a result, we decided to meet in the pavilion of Brother Wang’s house.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

Miss Barber always put Watchman Nee under Leland Wang (Wang Tsai), one of his co-workers. Leland was five years his senior and was continually disagreeing with Watchman's concept. This caused Watchman a great deal of suffering. When appealing to Miss Barber for the solution to their problems, she would continually put him down, saying that Leland was older than he.

Originally Posted by Biographical dictionary of Chinese Christianity Web site

From the time of his conversion, Ni became a diligent student of the Scriptures and a constant witness to Christ. He joined with several other students of Trinity College, including Wang Zai (Leland Wang), to form a home fellowship. They split, however, when Ni insisted upon a total dissociation from Western denominations, which he had come to consider anti-Christian.

How is Nee's treatment of Wang any different from the Exclusives' treatment of him when he was in England, seeking to have fellowship outside their narrow circle? Nee wouldn't have "total dissociation" from non-Exclusives. Was it okay for Nee to look afield, but not okay for Wang? How did Nee parse his argument, to have it both ways?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

So it seems to be Foochow, not Shanghai. But the point remains that Wang preceded Nee, who had to remove him and assume sole control, before he (Nee) 'recovered God's deputy authority'. Because it wouldn't have worked if Nee was still with Wang.

I always enjoy it when people can be wrong about something yet actually be right.

I cannot locate a single published account that matches your version of this story. Every account I can find states that in 1924 in Fuzhou (Foochow), Leland Wang excommunicated Nee because Nee disagreed with Wang's receiving a formal ordination.

The statements you make above are invented. There is no record of Nee saying anything in this instance about "recovering God's deputy authority." It is okay to make a point, but it is not okay to do so by playing fast and loose with facts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

in 1924 in Fuzhou (Foochow), Leland Wang excommunicated Nee because Nee disagreed with Wang's receiving a formal ordination. .

Don't bother me with the facts. Can't you see that I'm onto something here?



Okay, so my spotty memory bows before your sources. Still, the point remains that Nee was mentored & inspired by women, and in a male-centric society this shows a vacuum at the top. And Watchman Nee was nothing if not perceptive. Add to that the deep and widespread resentment of the West and a door was open, and beckoning.

Even the fabled 3,000-book personal library assured Nee the Top Dog status in any room. No one else had his arsenal. The theme throughout his biography is of the acquisition and maintenance of temporal human power.

"And a discussion took place among the disciples, as to which of them was greatest" (Luke 9:46,22:24) No one needed to have such a discussion with either Nee or Lee. The answer was obvious from the start. And any discussion, to them and their acolytes, would have amounted to rebellion against God's deputy authority.

[aron]

"And a discussion took place among the disciples, as to which of them was greatest" (Luke 9:46,22:24) No one needed to have such a discussion with either Nee or Lee. The answer was obvious from the start. And any discussion, to them and their acolytes, would have amounted to rebellion against God's deputy authority.

I deliberately misquoted the verses from Luke in an attempt at humour. A better word would be "fight" or the more civilised "argument". We must all see that power plays steal our peace. "All power belongs to God". (Psa 62:11; 1 Pet 5:11)

Nee's so-called recovered church life was a fig leaf over a power play. Once you see this, they'll have no power over you, and cannot harm you.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee's so-called recovered church life was a fig leaf over a power play. Once you see this, they'll have no power over you, and cannot harm you.

I just had a chance to listen to the recording. It seems to be an accurate assessment of Nee’s life and legacy. More importantly, I appreciate the honesty regarding some of Nee’s missteps, especially since it seems it was spoken to an audience who might have an affinity for Nee’s books.

Is there anything inherently wrong with appreciating Nee or recommending him? I don't think so, but at the same time, the element of his positive influence is not so cut and dry. As aron points out, there are at least some indications that Nee was after power. Do we know that was the case for certain? Of course not, but based on the various accounts I have read, speculation about his motives seems to be fair game, and it would even cause me to be weary of his teachings that are seemingly beneficial or positive.

The elements of Nee’s influence that people will always point to are things such as his focus on the inward aspect of Christian life, attempting to practice some kind of supposed early church model, or the rejection of the clergy laity system. And all of such things might seem like valid points that he made, but it's interesting to consider just where such an emphasis lead.

Just look at the LCM. A focus on the “inner life” turned into something esoteric, a weird type of subjectivity. The focus on a supposed early church model lead to an aggressive form of sectarianism. The rejection of traditional leadership structures became a void waiting to be filled by authoritarian leaders. In essence, what I am trying to say is that Nee’s emphasis on things seemingly ‘missed’ by other Christians metastasized into something far worse than any supposed mediocre state it was meant to rectify.

The LCM is the best example of what kind of fruit was produced. Most certainly, some type of positive legacy can be attributed to Nee in China. But the other side to that legacy is Lee and the LCM. I’m not so sure that these aspects of his legacy can be clearly distinguished from one another. As such, I find it hard to attribute Nee as being a person of influence.