Nee was clearly influenced by the Plymouth Brethren and the Keswick, or "victorious life," form of teaching. He also read and admired Hudson Taylor, George Meuller, and Madam Guyon. These influences are evident from the time of "The Spiritual Man" (1923) up until "The Normal Christian Life."
Based upon Nee's understanding of the Gifts of the Spirit, he was more influenced by the "Bristol Brethren" (Mueller) than the "Plymouth Brethren" (which spawned Darby and dispensationalism in part to minimalize the Gifts).
Jason.I don't totally agree with you on this. Brethren history has been a passion of mine for about 20 years.Watchman was very influenced by Darby and the "closed" Brethren and was in fact in "fellowship" with the closed Brethren for a period of time. Miss Barber had introduced him to J.N. Darby's "Collected Writings", of which he read them all, over 50 volumes. His book "Song of Songs" is almost a direct plagiarism of C.A. Coates' "Outline Of The Song of Solomon". Coates was with the "Taylor Brethren" as was Watchman Nee. I am not saying he was not influenced at all by Mr. Mueller and the "open Brethren" because he was. It eventuated in him and all the Chinese brethren from being dis-fellowshipped, in the early 30's, by the Taylor Brethren. Much of Nee's ecclesiastical views came from JND. His views of pneumatology came from a mixture of the Brethren and Keswick influences as well as his studies of Christian mystics. Especially Madame Guyon. Watchman Nee was very Brethren and the Little Flock meetings throughout China have been much patterned after early brethren meetings. Just for your information I was in a Taylor Brethren meeting for the last 7 years. I was privileged once to have had an older brother, who is now with the Lord, in my home for an evening, who recounted for me his remembrances of Watchman Nee and his visit to America. He was able to attend several of Nee's meetings and found him absolutely delightful. The Brethren universally really took to the Chinese brethren and were very saddened when the decision came to withdraw from them because of them holding to "open Brethren" principles. There is no doubt in my mind that T. Austin-Sparks, who was not Brethren, was the greatest influence on Watchman Nee and was partly responsible for the incident with the Brethren.Kevin
Thank you, Kevin, for that clarification and a much more detailed history than I could give.
Jason wrote:Thank you, Kevin, for that clarification and a much more detailed history than I could give.Your Welcome!!!!! :-D :-D :-D
I don't think it is fair to accuse Nee of "plagiarising" Coates' book on the Song of Songs!Watchman Nee's book on the Song of Songs is a transcript of spoken messages, in which he heartily recommended Coates' book to his coworkers.
Daniel,I don't recall that ever once being mentioned in the book and there is hardly an original thought in his book. It's almost all C.A. Coates. BTW the Coates book is much better than Nee's in my opinion!Kevin
It may be true that Coates was never mentioned in the published volume by Watchman Nee, THE SONG OF SONGS. Just a few days ago, though, I watched a video message of Witness Lee on the Song of Songs in which he describes sitting in those meetings with a small group of Watchman Nee's coworkers. Lee basically said that Watchman Nee acknowledged that he borrowed everything from Coates and that he recommended Coates' book to his coworkers. Witness Lee also recommended Coates' book to the congregation to which he was speaking. For more information on the connection between Nee and Coates, Witness Lee pointed to a section of his own biography of Watchman Nee, WATCHMAN NEE: A SEER OF THE DIVINE REVELATION IN THE PRESENT AGE.
If you study them side by side you will find Nee's version deeper, however similar they are. We want to examine what is deeper, and I am convinced you will come to this conclusion, though requiring detailed intricate consideration in your spirit for the little gems of differences (make note to use the version from CFP, not LSM, for the LSM version is lesser as is always the case when comparing CFP to LSM).
Troy, assuming that you can not read Mandarin, I would ask that you refrain from making so many provocative statements about something of which you cannot even be certain.
For everyone,Everything that comes out of Daniel's mouth is a manipulation. His false accusation this time is he claims that I suggest "assuming that you can not read Mandarin" or that that necessarily is required in order to discerdit me in some way to others or to himself. These are merely Leeist tactical ploys to attack through legalism those who know the true Leeist spirit, that Daniel knows that I know so that he can remain in the LSM cult relying on false cause. This is his motivation for his actions, always, so as not to be a man for God and come out the binding control of the Local Church denomination, that hurts God.
This discussion is locked.
