Pulled in Two Directions

[googlelight]

DISCLAIMER: This is only my subjective experience. I know "the heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer. 17:9), so I may have gotten it all wrong. I don`t claim I see, and that others are blind. I am just a seeker of the Lord, and want to pursue the Lord in all stages of the song of songs. I have no idea how this can be, but I just try to have simple conversations with Him throughout the day and let Him be my Lord and guide, to guide me into all truth or reality, like He promised (John 16:13).

I am not sure whether I am a current or a former member of LC. I am seeking the Lord concerning this. I have been meeting with the recovery since 2003. I have countless of friends that are meeting as "the church" in different cities in Europe, and I still enjoy, very much, 1 to 1 fellowship/Bible reading with them and I appreciate the friendships. Since they are brothers in the Lord, I don`t want to be negative or criticize any of them (Matt 25:40). But for years I felt uneasy about a number of things.

(1) When in this fellowship, I have never really felt I could bring my unbelieving friends to meetings, "the Lord`s table" or to meetings. I did however try this a few times, but with very damaging results, that needed explanation and repair later. I don't say any church meeting is perfect, but if the Lord is really present, shouldn't a church meeting be a place where one could easily bring his friends? Just asking really.

(2) The continuous mentioning of "Br. Lee," so many times. I got really bothered by this over the years. I do sometimes myself, if sharing something with Christians give credit to the authors, like recently I appreciated Spurgeon's view of Eternal life: "Eternal life is fellowship with the Father, Son and Spirit." My spirit was quickened when reading this and I shared it to others. But the excessive mentioning of brother Lee makes me feel he is uplifted by people. and I only know One in the entire universe who is worthy to be uplifted (John 12:32). This always made me feel uneasy. At one point I asked those I know the best to please stop mentioning br. Lee all the time, but to no avail. It seems that this trend and habit was just too strong.

(3) I was also involved in Campus work and sometimes sharing myself. Much of what is in the life-studies I personally think is very good and I am happy to share it. But my personal desire has always been just to spread the truth as I see it, if it has helped me. But I feel I am drawn into some kind of "hidden agenda" trying to "gain" others. I never felt at peace with this. One the one hand, we learn that there is one church in one city, and that it consist of all Christians, then why would we try to "gain" them into the way of our custom? What I see in the Bible is just to "feed the My Lambs, feed my sheep." Nothing else. If the Lord use us, and through us, feed others, I feel the outcome it not up to us. Maybe certain ones we feed has a psychological need for a "church" that is very human and have talk a lot about grace and assurance of salvation, not "the High Peak of the divine revelation." Well, I don't know anymore. I am happy to hear what you brothers and sisters in the Lord thinks.

(4) I don't know if one church/one city is Biblical or not. I feel the Scripture is vague concerning this. I can understand someone interpreting it this way. However, what I learned is that if there is such a thing as one church/one city, and it comprise all believers, I don't understand why the LC (I know this is a generalization), insist on other believers doing it "their" way? I recently brought a sister to the meeting, and then there was insisting on reading Morning Revival and singing their own hymnal. She is a sister that have a very rich prayer life (she is my pattern concerning prayer), but she had no way to participate and not the best experience. This makes me feel sad, and it made me question myself. So my question is; isn't it a little bit proud to believe one way of meeting is superior to all others, when the New Testament isn't that specific of exactly how believers meet, except that each one has a psalm, revelation etc, and that we ought to do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves (Phi 2:3)? I welcome all thoughts.

I could have written several other items, but perhaps I should stop here.

Trying to be balanced: The hardest part of it all... "the world" as I understand it today, and this might be unpopular to say but ... There are two books written on Song of Songs by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I find these truly amazing, and I cannot fathom, that these could be so full of light if W.L and W.N were false prophets/teachers. I believe only deep and intimate fellowship with the Lord could open up these books. Also when it comes to the book of Leviticus, it was a totally "closed" book to me, until I read the life-study (written by Witness Lee). How do I make sense of this? Did the Lord use Nee and/or Lee in the early stages, and then they became disobedient? This is confusing. I sometimes wonder if it is Descartes evil spirit that is fooling me.

Finally... and this is the core, and concerning this I will embrace all feedback.

One of my absolute favorite quotes from Watchman Nee is the following:
"Today if you have left the denominations and have seen the church, then only the Word of God can be the standard. Consider a brother who is born again. Can you say that he is not a brother? He is a brother if he knows the truth clearly, and he is still a brother if he does not know the truth clearly. If he stays at home he is my brother, and if he falls into the ditch by the street he is still my brother. If there is a problem, I can only blame my Father for begetting him. The special characteristic of Philadelphia is brotherly love—today this way is the only way for us to walk. But we should never have this kind of attitude: I love the brothers who are clear and the brothers who are lovable, but those who are not lovable I will not love. Whether he is clear or not, that is his business. We should never say, 'You are a rebellious one.' What we see this year, we did not see last year. Perhaps next year he will also see what we have seen this year. While he reads the Bible, the Lord will also show him the light. God's heart is great; so ours must also be great. We must learn to have a heart that is large enough to include all of God's children. Whenever we say 'we' and yet do not include all the children of God, we are the biggest sect, for we are not standing in the position of brotherly love but exalting ourselves. The way of Philadelphia is the way we must take. The difficulty lies in the fact that Philadelphia includes all the brothers, yet some are not able to include as much."

I truly love this attitude, but the paradox here is, if I truly want to follow this quote and live it, then to me, it seems the only way to follow this quote is outside of the influence and realm of what today is called the "Lords recovery." This is all just so confusing. I have no ill feeling towards anyone in the "Lords Recovery". By his grace there is not even one brother or sister that I have anything against that is currently in the Lords recovery. I am just very confused.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I am learning, I am just a simple disciple of Christ saved by His far-reaching and unfathomable mercy and love. I ask that You cleanse me and forgive me, if I have written anything inaccurate, Lord Jesus.

In the midst of confusion in my heart and soul, all I can do is to give myself into His hand once again.

if any member of the Body of Christ can advise me, I am happy to hear from you and fellowship <3 all I want is to pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim 2:22). Christ has become to great of a companion and attraction to me to leave Him now. Nothing else but Him is of interest to me anymore.

I apologize for such a lengthy post. I guess I am just so involved so my emotions get the better of me.

I appreciate that I can be open about this here, so thank you and God bless the ones who made this website!

[least]

googlelight
I wish I can articulate like you do. You've said in clear thinking what "IT IS" in the local chuches of 'Lord's Recovery'.
Many in this forum are still truggling in this 'pulled in two directions' dilemma. That's why we write.
In the process, are many outbursts of anger, bitterness, pains, ... And seem to be bias in our views. Compare to me, you are calm, rationale fairly, maintained love and peace and joy.

What you wrote expressed what I feel and think. May be I can pick out small bits of 'not agree' with you. First read, I have not straight away identify what I disagree with your writing. But after every few sentences, I have 'big agree'.

One thing about myself, I resist reading Lee Nee 'Song of songs', don't know why. May be its more resisting King Solomon's 'songs' than the interpretations of it.

I used to like the 'bible study' type messages in LC, but for many years by the Lord's mercy and shepharding, I read the bible as is. Jesus is my shepherd.

I also listen to other christian speakers on youTube due to easy access and 'rebellion' against LC 'one publication' one mota eddict
Jesus still the shepherd, my shepherd. These other christian speakers do not have the 'grip' on my life like taking over from Christ to rule over me, like in LSM 'Lord's Recovery'.

As for the people (the saints, bros and sisters, personal families) in the LCs, is the hardest and most painful 'pulled in 2 directions'. Heart breaking.

Thanks for writing. May The Lord Himself leads you.

-

[byHismercy]

Hi Googlelight,

Thank you so much for your honest testimony. Your faith and exclusive interest in Christ alone ministers to me and encourages me! The word that came up as I read your post is 'test all things, hold fast the good'. This word tells me that the Lord knew we would encounter both the good and the lie simultaneously, in one person, or in one ministry. I believe we should stick very closely to what scripture teaches us.

If you freely rejected doctrine that conflicts with the word, and embrace the good, what would happen in the Lords Recovery? If you care for the truth in the word, which is obvious to me, you care deeply, then you are free in Christ Jesus to dispute anything false which is brought to you. You love the Lord Jesus, so no matter what happens, you cannot go wrong. Whether in or out of the LR, if He is leading you, you can be at peace! If you find that you cannot stand in the truth as God shows you AND remain in fellowship there, you have your answer.

I did and do believe what Gods' word says about the one body, one Spirit, one hope of His calling, one God the Father, one Lord Jesus, one faith, and one baptism. The preaching of the reality was there with them, but I discovered I could not practice this reality with them, not by my own choice. So the decision was easy for me. I was 'cast out', 'shunned'. I came to understand through Gods' word that I had too many disagreements with how they 'practiced' their faith, really their faith in their ministry. I found they followed their traditions of their unique way, but it left Gods' word behind. I could not stand with their practices. I felt they didn't just leave love, but threw it in the dirt and ground it in with their heels. It was to spit on Gods' commandment to us who believe on Him.

God bless you so much as you follow your King, dear brother? Sister? I am sister with 3 kids! God love you!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by googlelight

I sometimes wonder if it is Descartes evil spirit that is fooling me.

As I look back it looks to me like Descartes' deceiving spirit was Nee and Lee ... and I admit they both are spellbinding.

But it took me decades to learn all that was going on in the history of Nee's movement ... and about both Nee's ministry side, and his private lascivious side.

Lee brought Nee's ministry side, and Lee's sons brought Nee's lascivious side.

Hey, I admit that I once was enamored with their ministry side.

But in the end Descartes was behind it ... or that deceiving spirit he mentions ... drawing visuals from the scripture, that look real, but aren't.

They could even make it look to their followers that they were the MOTA's ... again, using Jedi mind like tricks with scripture in support of it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by googlelight

(1) When in this fellowship, I have never really felt I could bring my unbelieving friends to meetings, "the Lord`s table" or to meetings. I did however try this a few times, but with very damaging results, that needed explanation and repair later. I don't say any church meeting is perfect, but if the Lord is really present, shouldn't a church meeting be a place where one could easily bring his friends? Just asking really.

I can relate to this, and I think you are asking all the right questions. When I made the decision to leave the LC, there was a lot of inner turmoil. It was hard to reconcile the things which I perceived to be positive about the LC with the concerns that I had.

I think that I had a number of positive experiences. Those were the kinds of things that I always felt like others should know about. I wanted people to come to the LC and have those same experiences. It just never happened though. In every single instance, the people that we tried to gain either weren't interested or were scared away. That was a big eye opener for me. It also helped me to place less emphasis on any of the "positive" LC experiences that I had.

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

How do I make sense of this? Did the Lord use Nee and/or Lee in the early stages, and then they became disobedient? This is confusing.

This is a challenging question. I'll offer my view. If you look at Peter in the NT, occasionally he channelled the divine, and sometimes he erred, even greatly. And David in the OT -same thing. These characters are representative of us all, and (so I believe) emblematic of humanity in toto. Only Jesus was, and is, without spot of error. In all cases of those who attempt to acknowledge, and confess, and obey, there's an admixture.

Luther "saw" faith as foundational to any work or act, yet his racist expressions towards the Jews was used by his countrymen to gird the holocaust. Billy Graham made mistakes, and he admitted. I've written things here with a bitter spirit, or adversarial attitude, or lack of grace. Everyone fails.

In the case of Nee, when he resumed his ministry, post scandal (sexual impropriety) he mandated centralization and absolute control, and effectively negated those generous and open statements you admire. It went by "the Jerusalem Principle" and "handing over". If you search you will find it. He overturned his earlier positions of localism and autonomy but subordinates didn't question the blatant reversal because their culture won't allow its leaders to lose face.

Likewise, Lee clearly had insight, at least in part. As he was a confessing believer, one can't say that he had no gifts. Again, his good work was marred by his inability to see the effect of culture on his organisational schema. If he as God's deputy wanted to set up a for-profit business with saints' $$ benefitting his progeny, that was his business. If he used 'training fees' to offset losses of said business, that was his purview. If he wanted to shuffle others' money between shell accounts, that was his business. If he wanted to characterise those who raised questions and/or objections as "rebels" that was his prerogative. And so on.

Again, his birth culture didn't permit openness or correction. If one's off by even a half-degree, and travels far enough, one's eventually off by a lot. And it's endemic to our species. Only Jesus never erred.

Today, their apologists try to brush it off with vagaries like, "Everyone makes mistakes" to cover Nee & Lee, and "There are bad people everywhere" to cover bad things which happen in their assemblies. But if that's sufficient to drop the complaints then why did Luther leave Catholicism, anyway? Why did Wesley speak up in the Church of England? Why did Nee and Lee leave their denominations? Those who critique should be critiqued. That goes for everyone, including me. Only Jesus is without sin.

[least]

Only Jesus never erred.

Only Jesus is without sin.

This Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin.
This Jesus by his flesh and his blood established a new covnenant by which we can be His holy people.
This Jesus died and resurrected.
This Jesus, defeated death and sin, and reconciled man and God.
This Jesus crowned Lord and Christ.
This Jesus lives. This Jesus saves.
This Jesus is the captain of our salvation.
This Jesus said He will build HIS church.
This Jesus is coming again.
This Jesus, when we see Him we shall be like Him.
This Jesus, before His judgement seat we all have to stand and face the fire.
This Jesus. His name is JESUS (YeShua). He is Immanuel.

And more, but, don't call Him 'processed triune God'. He has not said that that is His name ...
-

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by least

googlelight
I wish I can articulate like you do. You've said in clear thinking what "IT IS" in the local chuches of 'Lord's Recovery'.
Many in this forum are still truggling in this 'pulled in two directions' dilemma. That's why we write.
In the process, are many outbursts of anger, bitterness, pains, ... And seem to be bias in our views. Compare to me, you are calm, rationale fairly, maintained love and peace and joy.

What you wrote expressed what I feel and think. May be I can pick out small bits of 'not agree' with you. First read, I have not straight away identify what I disagree with your writing. But after every few sentences, I have 'big agree'.

One thing about myself, I resist reading Lee Nee 'Song of songs', don't know why. May be its more resisting King Solomon's 'songs' than the interpretations of it.

I used to like the 'bible study' type messages in LC, but for many years by the Lord's mercy and shepharding, I read the bible as is. Jesus is my shepherd.

I also listen to other christian speakers on youTube due to easy access and 'rebellion' against LC 'one publication' one mota eddict
Jesus still the shepherd, my shepherd. These other christian speakers do not have the 'grip' on my life like taking over from Christ to rule over me, like in LSM 'Lord's Recovery'.

As for the people (the saints, bros and sisters, personal families) in the LCs, is the hardest and most painful 'pulled in 2 directions'. Heart breaking.

Thanks for writing. May The Lord Himself leads you.

-

Thank you for your reply and encouraging words. It is ok if we disagree on some points, my friend. I dont even know if I agree with myself at times hehe. I think it is a healthy habit you have also listening to other ministers on youtube. I have received alot of help from this myself. I have discovered many Christians on youtube that have nourished me and brought me back to Him. Christians I didnt expect! the Lord can really use anybody and anything. Let me relate to you something that happened to me a few months ago. I was unlucky in an accident and crushed my tibia bone in my foot and the schaphoid bone in my hand simultaneously. At that time, after the surgery, I felt quite helpless. I realized toilet visits, shopping and even going to the kitchen was a big hassle. By His grace a sister helped me during that time, but as she was also busy, there was a day she couldnt help. Now where I lived there was a neighbour who was partying (in the student dormitory) loudly quite often, and it was quite annoying. And he also often didnt clean after himself. I remember I complained to both the Lord about the situation and to my friends. I tried to get along with him, but it was in "the air" that we didnt like each other too much. Now, let me tell you what happened. At that day, when the sister couldnt help, I just realized how helpless I was. Because of the hand, I couldn really do anything in the kitchen to prepare food. So while I was laying on the bed... maybe with a bit self-pity and a few tears, I heard door knocking. I opened the door and saw my neighbour standing there. He said: I heard that you had been unlucky and has been in the hospital, so I have cooked a dinner for you. He handed a big plate of taco to me. I cant really describe that feeling. I was reminded about that verse in Psalm 23:5 "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies."
I really repented that evening; and realized my heart is rotten and judgmental. I had bad thought about this person all along, and now the Lord used him to help me when I needed it the most. How good it is never to judge people. I apply this also to the Christians. Whether he sees the truth "clearly" or, lets say, like I see it, or like the ministry view it, that is not the important thing. As long as He has Christ, I want to have fellowship and have the attitude of loving them. Yes, Jesus is truly your Shepherd indeed my friend.

PS: I hope you some day read song of songs, because it is truly amazing. If you dont like to read Nee or Lee, Hudson Taylor has written Union and Communion which is about that book.

Anyhow Least, thank you for your input, and I pray that the Lord will also lead you and reveal to you all the secrets in His heart for you. You are beloved.

-googlelight

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by aron

This is a challenging question. I'll offer my view. If you look at Peter in the NT, occasionally he channelled the divine, and sometimes he erred, even greatly. And David in the OT -same thing. These characters are representative of us all, and (so I believe) emblematic of humanity in toto. Only Jesus was, and is, without spot of error. In all cases of those who attempt to acknowledge, and confess, and obey, there's an admixture.

Luther "saw" faith as foundational to any work or act, yet his racist expressions towards the Jews was used by his countrymen to gird the holocaust. Billy Graham made mistakes, and he admitted. I've written things here with a bitter spirit, or adversarial attitude, or lack of grace. Everyone fails.

In the case of Nee, when he resumed his ministry, post scandal (sexual impropriety) he mandated centralization and absolute control, and effectively negated those generous and open statements you admire. It went by "the Jerusalem Principle" and "handing over". If you search you will find it. He overturned his earlier positions of localism and autonomy but subordinates didn't question the blatant reversal because their culture won't allow its leaders to lose face.

Likewise, Lee clearly had insight, at least in part. As he was a confessing believer, one can't say that he had no gifts. Again, his good work was marred by his inability to see the effect of culture on his organisational schema. If he as God's deputy wanted to set up a for-profit business with saints' $$ benefitting his progeny, that was his business. If he used 'training fees' to offset losses of said business, that was his purview. If he wanted to shuffle others' money between shell accounts, that was his business. If he wanted to characterise those who raised questions and/or objections as "rebels" that was his prerogative. And so on.

Again, his birth culture didn't permit openness or correction. If one's off by even a half-degree, and travels far enough, one's eventually off by a lot. And it's endemic to our species. Only Jesus never erred.

Today, their apologists try to brush it off with vagaries like, "Everyone makes mistakes" to cover Nee & Lee, and "There are bad people everywhere" to cover bad things which happen in their assemblies. But if that's sufficient to drop the complaints then why did Luther leave Catholicism, anyway? Why did Wesley speak up in the Church of England? Why did Nee and Lee leave their denominations? Those who critique should be critiqued. That goes for everyone, including me. Only Jesus is without sin.

Amen to what you wrote.
So you have gone this road before me, can I ask what you do today when it comes to church / church life?
I am considering getting together with 2-3 open brothers, and just pray. But it would be helpful, perhaps, to listen to your story post-recovery
Sincerely

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

Amen to what you wrote.
So you have gone this road before me, can I ask what you do today when it comes to church / church life?
I am considering getting together with 2-3 open brothers, and just pray. But it would be helpful, perhaps, to listen to your story post-recovery

My story: I left because I was sick of sitting in the same chairs every week with the same few people, congratulating ourselves on arriving at the "high peaks" on the "proper ground" and our "oneness" and so forth. But our lives were not being metabolically transformed as the ministry had promised (my impression of course, but I came from Christianity and had basis for comparison), and our impact on the world was minimal if any. Jesus on the other hand had great impact. "Jesus went around doing good, because God was with him" said his close associate Peter, in summarising his ministry (Acts 10:38), but we were discouraged from "wasting our time" on "good works" - sorry, "dead works" - which we all knew, per Paul, that they were vain. (I guess Jesus and Peter didn't get the memo).

So I quit. There was no internet, I knew nothing of Daystar and Philip Lee, just rumors of "storms" far away. I thought I was sold-out but the Lord led me out anyway. Amazing in retrospect.

From there, I went into even more strict churches, where the women didn't speak in church because "it's in the Bible" and so forth. Eventually I got discouraged and dropped out, and stopped meeting anywhere, and became functionally agnostic. But over the years, I got nudged, and nudged...

Today, I just try to confess Jesus as Lord, risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in glory, and given dominion and a name which is above every name, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and any name which was or is or is to come. I try to receive all whom God has received in Jesus Christ, per Paul's word in Romans 15:7. And it's important to me today, not to passively wait for the "right Christians" to come along to meet with, but to actively reach out to those around me. Just like you see in the NT: Jesus reached the Samaritan woman where she was. He reached Peter casting a net in his boat. He reached people. Should not I trust this Christ? Should I not follow, and imitate, and obey?

And I find, like you did with your seemingly uncouth neighbour in post #8, that the rough ones are an opportunity to show grace (1 Cor 12:23). And as you forgive others, so God will forgive you. And if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will God forgive yours. Today I think that any supposed 'gap' between myself and that uncouth neighbour is probably less than the 'gap' between myself and God. So let the Lord cover the gap! His grace is sufficient.

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם

[OBW]

Originally Posted by googlelight

How do I make sense of this? Did the Lord use Nee and/or Lee in the early stages, and then they became disobedient? This is confusing. I sometimes wonder if it is Descartes evil spirit that is fooling me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

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

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

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

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

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

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

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So obviously this is a forgotten creed, in practice.

Certainly, Nee and Lee didn't practice it.

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by googlelight

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

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

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

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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

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

All this from the "spiritual man."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

All this from the "spiritual man."

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

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

[Barnabas]

Originally Posted by googlelight

DISCLAIMER: This is only my subjective experience. I know "the heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer. 17:9), so I may have gotten it all wrong. I don`t claim I see, and that others are blind. I am just a seeker of the Lord, and want to pursue the Lord in all stages of the song of songs. I have no idea how this can be, but I just try to have simple conversations with Him throughout the day and let Him be my Lord and guide, to guide me into all truth or reality, like He promised (John 16:13).

Dear Brother, I am very touched by all that you said. My heart echoes you. My experience is much like you except I am sure that I need not choose to leave or stay. I still gather with the saints that call themselves a local church. My heart is sad when some talk about “us” and citizens poor Christianity, not realizing we are part of what we condemn, perhaps worse. My realization is that I am a member of the Body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed, not just our group. Today I spoke to a new sister who had questions about our group. Some of her friends felt uncomfortable and went back to their church. I assured her that each of us must be faithful to follow the Lord’s leading and be at peace with all Believers.

Concerning Song of Songs, I am sure that Hudson Taylor wrote a commentary on it and I enjoy reading Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Books of Moses. You can go to Biblehub.com to read online.

[Barnabas]

Originally Posted by googlelight

One of my absolute favorite quotes from Watchman Nee is the following:
"Today if you have left the denominations and have seen the church, then only the Word of God can be the standard. Consider a brother who is born again. Can you say that he is not a brother? He is a brother if he knows the truth clearly, and he is still a brother if he does not know the truth clearly. If he stays at home he is my brother, and if he falls into the ditch by the street he is still my brother. If there is a problem, I can only blame my Father for begetting him. The special characteristic of Philadelphia is brotherly love—today this way is the only way for us to walk. But we should never have this kind of attitude: I love the brothers who are clear and the brothers who are lovable, but those who are not lovable I will not love. Whether he is clear or not, that is his business. We should never say, 'You are a rebellious one.' What we see this year, we did not see last year. Perhaps next year he will also see what we have seen this year. While he reads the Bible, the Lord will also show him the light. God's heart is great; so ours must also be great. We must learn to have a heart that is large enough to include all of God's children. Whenever we say 'we' and yet do not include all the children of God, we are the biggest sect, for we are not standing in the position of brotherly love but exalting ourselves. The way of Philadelphia is the way we must take. The difficulty lies in the fact that Philadelphia includes all the brothers, yet some are not able to include as much."

Dear Brother, can you tell me where to find that quote by WN? I want to tell the saints in our LC not to call anyone a rebellious one. It may have more impact if I quote WN. I prefer to quote the Bible but it seems the people in our church listen more to WL and WN, so I will try that.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Barnabas

Dear Brother, I am very touched by all that you said. My heart echoes you. My experience is much like you except I am sure that I need not choose to leave or stay. I still gather with the saints that call themselves a local church. My heart is sad when some talk about “us” and citizens poor Christianity, not realizing we are part of what we condemn, perhaps worse. My realization is that I am a member of the Body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed, not just our group. Today I spoke to a new sister who had questions about our group. Some of her friends felt uncomfortable and went back to their church. I assured her that each of us must be faithful to follow the Lord’s leading and be at peace with all Believers.

Very good bro - there is one body and one Spirit. His love flows between us!

[Barnabas]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Very good bro - there is one body and one Spirit. His love flows between us!

I found it on page 103 conclusion of Orthodoxy of the Church

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Barnabas

Dear Brother, can you tell me where to find that quote by WN? I want to tell the saints in our LC not to call anyone a rebellious one. It may have more impact if I quote WN. I prefer to quote the Bible but it seems the people in our church listen more to WL and WN, so I will try that.

What you said, and I underlined is why I left TLR. Barnabas, think about how scary that is!

[SAAggie]

I feel the same way....yet here I am.
Maybe out of love for my wife.
Maybe out of having no place else to go.
Maybe the Lords not ready to release me from where I am...HIS timing, not mine.
I still attend and host home meetings and what-not, and I DO "stir the pot" on some occasions when we cover something that has no logical sense about it, and I'm sure it make some of the saints uncomfortable because I'm not fully engaged with the talking points. Even in my sharing, I share from my experiences not what the HWMR says I should say, I can't relate the authors experience, only mine.
But again...here I am, and here I'll be, enjoying the LORD in my own intimate way.

[Barnabas]

Originally Posted by JJ

What you said, and I underlined is why I left TLR. Barnabas, think about how scary that is!

I would like to know the details of why you left if that is good with you.

[Barnabas]

Originally Posted by SAAggie

I feel the same way....yet here I am.
Maybe out of love for my wife.
Maybe out of having no place else to go.
Maybe the Lords not ready to release me from where I am...HIS timing, not mine.
I still attend and host home meetings and what-not, and I DO "stir the pot" on some occasions when we cover something that has no logical sense about it, and I'm sure it make some of the saints uncomfortable because I'm not fully engaged with the talking points. Even in my sharing, I share from my experiences not what the HWMR says I should say, I can't relate the authors experience, only mine.
But again...here I am, and here I'll be, enjoying the LORD in my own intimate way.

To me the most important thing is our relationship with the Lord and how we convey that among the Lord’s people no mater where we meet. I like what you said and can relate to you at this time.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Barnabas

I would like to know the details of why you left if that is good with you.

That’s a long story, I’ve posted it before on these boards on Introductions and Testimonies when I first joined LCD boards in 2015 or 16, but can’t find the posts to point you too. ��

When I have time this weekend, I’ll redo it, unless someone else is better at searching for my oldest postings than I am, and points them out.

JJ

[JJ]

Originally Posted by JJ

That’s a long story, I’ve posted it before on these boards on Introductions and Testimonies when I first joined LCD boards in 2015 or 16, but can’t find the posts to point you too. ��

When I have time this weekend, I’ll redo it, unless someone else is better at searching for my oldest postings than I am, and points them out.

JJ

So, I wrote my history with TLR again, but decide not to post it again.

This topic isn’t about me. It really is as simple as this. The Bible is not the criteria used to determine truth, in teaching or practice in “The Lord’s Recovery”, the words of two men are Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. That is a very scary and dangerous place to be.