Equipping and Training of Watchman Nee

So many have said things that aren't right or true about Nee, but he helped me so much, when I first got saved, that I owe him a big hand-shake One Day.I feel the same way Grannie..."Normal Christian Life", and "Sit Walk Stand" are very helpful books.The controversy over Nee, as I understand it, is that many books bearing his name were published through an associate of his named Witness Lee who may have have contributed to the content. In short, many of the words attributed to Watchman may not be his, but loosely collected oral teachings that were recollected and written down by Witness Lee. As such they are not authentic Watchman. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish Witness' editorial influence from straight Watchman thinking.At least this is how I understand the controversy and dubious reputation of many books credited to Watchman. Some of the books I have read of his do indeed feel more mystic and seem to have a different "voice" then NCL. (I noticed this before I heard about Witness Lee...) Maybe someone else here has a better understanding of this issue.MC

Actually, the Nee titles published by Living Stream Ministry (Witness Lee's publisher) are generally considered very good editions. They can always be compared to the editions published by CFP (Stephen Kaung's publisher), and one will always see that any differences are minor. The problems people usually have with Nee are related to some of his own teachings - some feel that THE SPIRITUAL MAN can lead to extreme introspection; some feel that SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY (aka AUTHORITY AND SUBMISSION) can lead to control and abuse, etc. None of these stem from differences of translation.And, I would say that problems people find even with these books are personal - misapprehensions of teaching, or misapplications of practice, not necessarily results of Watchman Nee's theology.Just my thoughts. :-)

Thank you Greg for your post.I'd like to say something which is just a personal observation.I have read Watchman Nee for many years. Some of his books, (actually transcribed messages for most of them), are better than others.But I would like to say that I cannot and would not recommend "The Spiritual Man", nor "Spiritual Authority" to anyone.Brother Nee himself was reluctant to have "The Spiritual Man" translated into English. It was written when he was very young, and when he was being greatly influenced by Jessie Penn Lewis. As Daniel said, it can lead to introspection, which is never a good thing. The chapter "An Analysis of the Spirit", (i.e. the spirit of man), while acknowledged by many is inadequate.Having said this, there are many good things in the book, but I would definetly say that it shouldn't be read by the young believer.I have a big problem with "Spiritual Authority". To me it might be his worst book. I will say why I don't like it in a sentence: it is solely based on the Old Testament. Authority in the New Testament has nothing in common with the one we find in the Old.Having said this, Watchman Nee remains one of my favourite authors.Manfred

Annie,Thank you for your post, I'll try to answer your questions.1) I think that all those who desire to study Romans, should indeed read "The Normal Christian Life"; to me it is WN's best book.2) I never gave too much importance to the theories of a few raptures, or to the teaching of "partial rapture(s)". WN got this teaching from a circle of godly men whose names were: Robert Govett, D. M. Panton (Govett's successor at Norwich), G. H. Pember and especially G. H. Lang. I have and appreciate these men's ministry, but I feel that their insistance with their "partial rapture" theory is unacceptable. I think that they considered the rapture as a reward, which it is not.2) I liked what you said about reading the classics, but not aggreeing with all that they say. This is, I think, putting Paul's words into practice: "Examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good."3) I don't disregard JPL, I disagree with some of the things she taught. She definetely taught that a truly born-from-above believer could be demon-possessed. It is in the unabridged version of the book called "War on the Saints". A book I certainly don't recommend.4) As to Nee's "introspection", I have read the "Spiritual Man" many years ago, and can't quote off hand. But you should perharps check the following chapters/parts: "The Analysis of the Soul", in volume 2 and 3.I can't agree either with what he says in his chapter/part called "The Analysis of the Spirit", i.e. man's spirit. For the reason that the spirit cannot be defined in rational terms.I hope this helps, otherwise revert.Manfred

I've thought about it a lot more since I've read Nee, and I used to be pretty convinced that perhaps Witness Lee had tampered greatly with Nee's writings, especially given the cultish nature of "the little flock" as it exists in the states today. However, I think it is much more reasonable to conclude that Watchman Nee's theology grew very much over time, thus, changes of "tone" and the like. This would also explain the many contradictions his writings are riddled with (or at least appear to me as contradictions), especially regarding the gifts of the Spirit and nature of Church government and authority.

I've thought about it a lot more since I've read Nee, and I used to be pretty convinced that perhaps Witness Lee had tampered greatly with Nee's writings, especially given the cultish nature of "the little flock" as it exists in the states today. However, I think it is much more reasonable to conclude that Watchman Nee's theology grew very much over time, thus, changes of "tone" and the like. This would also explain the many contradictions his writings are riddled with (or at least appear to me as contradictions), especially regarding the gifts of the Spirit and nature of Church government and authority.Hello Jimmy,I would like to respond to your post making some remarks.1) I don't think that Witness Lee has tampered with Watchman Nee's messages. (Remember that WN wrote only one book, all the other books are transcribed messages.) Let me quote what Daniel said about this in an earlier post: Actually, the Nee titles published by Living Stream Ministry (Witness Lee's publisher) are generally considered very good editions. They can always be compared to the editions published by CFP (Stephen Kaung's publisher), and one will always see that any differences are minor. I know Daniel well, and I also know that his assessment is trustworthy.2) There is no "Little Flock" movement as such in the US. Even though WL claims to have carried on from WN, that is not true; WL's movement is radically different from the "Little Flock" in China. WL's movement is called "The Local Church" or "The Lord's Recovery", never it is, or should be, referred to as the "Little Flock". In fact in China today the two movements are very distinct, and those counted among the "Little Flock" won't have anything to do whith the "Local Church", (also called the "Shouters", in that country).3) Third, you speak of WN's theology growing over time. For some things it should be so. (Of course I don't refer to what we call "the foundamentals of the Christian faith"). When I was a young believer I held things I wouldn't hold today. As we grow in the Lord, we see the things spiritual in a different light; that in fact is the nature of being a disciple compared to just being a believer. A disciple keeps on learning, and will do so until the end, so adjustment to some things will be necessary.That is why it is often wise to read WN in a chronological order. Some of the dates when these messages were given are stated at the beginning of the books.Hope this helps,Manfred

There is no "Little Flock" movement as such in the US. Even though WL claims to have carried on from WN, that is not true; WL's movement is radically different from the "Little Flock" in China. WL's movement is called "The Local Church" or "The Lord's Recovery", never it is, or should be, referred to as the "Little Flock".Correct. Witness Lee's offshoot is not the same, though of course, he would have begged to differ. You are right as well, it is called "The Local Church" here in the states. It's been a while since I've done any reading on the issue, so I could not recall exactly what it was called. Third, you speak of WN's theology growing over time. For some things it should be so. (Of course I don't refer to what we call "the foundamentals of the Christian faith")Indeed. I can even look at my own web site that I have maintained for a couple years now, and see that I even disagree with some of the things which at the time I asserted with much confidence. Such is perfectly fine, and can often be a sign of health, for somebody to be willing to change a doctrinal position they previously held, especially considering how stubborn we can all be. Indeed, fundamentally he seems to have remained the same. Though regarding his doctrines regarding the church, he seems to have changed quite a bit. And being that Nee was a highly motivated missionary, and very active in planting new churches, I can only imagine how this must have effected his oversight of his churches. It is also interesting enough to note that Nee seems to have considered his doctrine regarding the Church relatively a pretty important fundamental. I recall in one of his writings where he refused to have fellowship with other denominational churches in the area, because they did not meet under the headship of Christ.

But I'd like to hear where you disregard Jessie Penn-Lewis.Some say she taught that Christians can be demon "possessed", but I didn't get that from the book. I know she said, oppressed.I recently read her book a second time. The first time was in about '85 also.I don't find the introspection in her writings.Here are a couple of threads about JPL. I just posted them for FYI. To discuss JPL it would probably be better to start another thread on her.. I don't know but there might already be one somewhere. War on the SaintsTypes of believersThe thread on Types of belivers starts with a quote from the book. Type 2 she clearly tells that she belives (I do not)they are possesed

Josh,We can, should and must reject the teaching that says that born-from-above believers can be demon possessed simply because it is not taught in the New Testament. We cannot find one verse that will back this up. I am amazed that JPL and Evan Roberts could write so much about this without having any support from the New Testament, and it is even more amazing to see that many Christians believe it! Obviously these ones have not apllied Acts 17:11.Manfred

I'm somewhat leary of responding cause I dont want to get off tract here but I assume it does have something to do with the topic, since Watchmen Nee did read JPL books. I have heard that Evan Roberts did regret having his name on the book War on the Saints. From what I have read and seen JPL completely drug Evan Roberts away from the ministry. I think (i cant remember the exact number) that Evan Roberts only preached 8 or 10 times after being taken in by JPL.

I wouldn't want to expand too much here about JPL and ER, by doing a search on SI, one can find quite a few threads of the past about them and even on "War on the Saints".Watchman Nee is the subject of this thread. You may want to start another one about JPL and ER.(For your information there is a good biography of ER: "Evan Roberts: An Instrument of Revival, Brynmor Pierce-Jones 1995, published by Bridge Publishing") Manfred

If I might continue the discussion on the different English editions/translations of Watchman Nee, I would just add that I agree with Manfred in the usefulness of going through Nee's writings according to their order of original publication. I have two full sets Nee's books (one called "complete", the other "collected") here. One of these is published in a chronological format. Just to compare the first volume (written when Nee was still a very young man in his early 20's) with the last (immediately prior to his imprisonment) is very striking. General differences are very noticeable. I think there can be little doubt that Nee's theology, tone, and even his style gradually changed as he matured. Perhaps it would be of interest here to show an example with two texts, one from the beginning of Nee's public ministry, followed by another from near the end:Throughout church history, there has never been a time when messages on the cross are as needed as today. For the present-day Christians, who, being Christians, are obviously redeemed by the blood, the most important thing is to know and to experience the deeper aspects of the fundamental truths of the cross. It is, of course, a glorious thing to know about the substitutional death of the cross, but this will not afford the believers much growth. All the things that Christ has accomplished for us on the cross must be experienced by us one by one before we can mature in life and can become a vessel for God. ~The Christian Life and Warfare, pg. 6, 1922 (Watchman Nee is just 19!)God desires to express His authority through the church. Many people do not realize that the church is a crucial and solemn institution. God must carry out His will fully through the church; the church cannot afford any hindrance to Him. If a man does not see the seriousness of this matter, he may presume the church to be nothing but a gathering of Christians, a society of brotherly and sisterly love. He may consider the church a mere gthering of men with the same faith or same love who cherish the same future hope. However, God has a different view toward the church. In man's eyes the church is an organization, a gathering of men with kindred love, but God's view is different. He considers the church to be the Body of Christ. God has made Christ the head of the church. The church is the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); it is not merely the gathering of men with similar goals. The relationship between Christ and the church in God's ordination is a relationship between the Head and the Body.~Miscellaneous Records of the Kuling Training (1), pg. 166, 1948 (WN is 45)Not only is Nee touching deeper, more difficult matters by the second quote, there is even a clear difference between the form of the first (being a published article) and the form of the second (being a spoken address).Unrelated to this, but allow me also to show the difference between two translations of the same book as edited by two different people. The first is from Stephen Kaung's publisher; the second from Witness Lee's:The word "flesh" is basar in Hebrew and sarx in Greek. Seen often in the Bible, it is used in various ways. Its most significant usage, observed and made most clear in Paul's writings, has reference to the unregenerated person. Speaking of his old "I," he says in Romans 7: "I am fleshly" (v. 14 Darby). Not merely his nature or a particular person of his being is fleshly; the "I" - Paul's whole being - is fleshly. He reiterates this thought in verse 18 by asserting "within me, that is, in my flesh." It follows clearly that "flesh" in the Bible points to all an unregenerated person is....~The Spiritual Man, CFP, pg. 69The word flesh is basar in Hebrew and sarxin Greek. This word is often seen in the Bible and is used in various senses, but chiefly in reference to an unregenerated person. If we take a look at what Paul has said, we shall have a clear insight into its meaning. He said, "I am fleshy" (Rom. 7:14). It was not only his nature or merely any one part of his being that was fleshy; it was "I" as a person, the whole being of Paul was fleshy. In verse 18, in further clarification of his meaning, he declared "In me, that is, in my flesh." It is very clear here that the flesh in biblical usage refers to all that is in man when he is still in an unregenerated state....~The Spiritual Man, LSM, pg. 59For all practical purposes, these two quotes could be one and the same (the reason, coincidentally, that I choose The Spiritual Man here is only because, as Manfred has pointed out earlier, it the only actual book written by WN, and thus easier to compare....I chose the portion randomly).In doing all of this, I hope it can be a clarification for those who wonder about differences in WN's writings (it is not uncommonly brought up). I do not want to give the impression that I study Nee more than I study the Holy Word! Surely, this would be ridiculous. But it is something that interests me, and something I have spent time looking into. Personally, I prefer to read CFP's translations. I find I have an easier time reading them. However, I know others who would say the exact converse! CFP's translations seem to be edited more thoroughly in order to give them a literary polish (vs. spoken form being retained) - slightly more "elegant", less repetition. For me, this makes for an easier time reading. LSM's translations come across as more plain and straightforward. The spoken form is retained. One might argue that LSM's are actually more "accurate" than CFP's (though I am not arguing that at all). It seems to be a matter of preference. I think either set is very worthy. Remember, not only are most of these redacted from individuals' shorthand notes (no tape recording from which to transcribe!), they are also translated from a language which is entirely different from our own. Being a multi-lingual person, I am very familiar with the fact that two different people can translate the same text and, without consulting the other, come up with two similar, but quite different end-results. Both may be entirely accurate to the original, and yet elicit the response, "How do they differ so?" That's just the way it is...As others have said, I would be more cautious as to choosing which of the books you read. Some are not recommeded, especially to younger believers.Regards,

Watchman Nee had a very great impact on my life, going back to 1967 when I read "The Normal Christian Life" for the first time. I regard the chapter entitled "Why This Waste?" on the woman with the alabaster flask, as one of the messages that had the most profound influence on my life.However, I have long stopped reading Watchman Nee and it is not because I reject him. Not at all. I believe the greatest problem with Watchman Nee was that with most things in his life it became a "law" and I believe in the end he could not get away from his own personal "laws".He had this thing about "locality" which he adopted from the Brethren teachers. To him you simply could not get past this principle. While he was in England in 1937-1938 he spent a lot of time with T. Austin Sparks, about 18 months altogether (Manfred can correct me on this). The matter of locality frequently came up in fellowship and TAS even went so far as to print "Concerning Our Missions" (with the later English title "The Normal Christian Church Life"). However, this book was never distributed and I have a feeling it was by mutual agreement.That was the turning point in Watchman Nee's life: had he given up his strong opinion on "locality" and had he built on his relationship with T. Austin-Sparks, I believe the remaining years of his ministry could have been much different. He had embraced so much of others (Penn-Lewis, Govett, Panton, Pember, Godet, Lang and many others, including John Nelson Darby, from which he took over extreme dispensational teachings) but he was unable to let go of some, including the Brethren teaching of "locality".Watchman Nee and TAS never saw each other again and until Nee's imprisonment in 1952 seldom corresponded by letter. However, in a letter to Austin-Sparks not long after his visit, he lamented that he did not have a true soulmate amongst his co-workers, someone with whom he could fellowship on an equal footing.It is my humble opininion that Watchman Nee's views on "locality" cost him much in terms of acceptance to a wider audience, which I believed he deserved. His strict "laws" has made him somewhat unpalatable to most. In my own case, I just had to let go of him.Just a passing note: like Manfred pointed out, Nee's "Little Flock" and Witness Lee's "Local Church" are not the same. They are much the same on several points of teaching but Lee's practices were somewhat dubious, to say the least.

While he was in England in 1937-1938 he spent a lot of time with T. Austin Sparks, about 18 months altogether (Manfred can correct me on this). Actually, according to different sources, Watchman Nee spent 10 months in Europe; from July 1938 to May 1939.I don't think personally that Watchman Nee was as dogmatic as Witness Lee on the "ground of the church", viz. one church per locality. Sure, he held and taught this view for many years, which he had picked up from the Brethren. But I think that with time and maturity, he would have seen that this system was not only not practical, but it wasn't in accord with the Scriptures.For one thing, T. Austin-Sparks didn't adhere to this teaching, and if only he and Watchman Nee had had the opportunity to fellowship about this matter, I think that Watchman Nee would have changed his views. Unfortunately he did not have the time to rethink and reconsider this matter.Witness Lee pushed it to extremes, so as to become very exclusive.Manfred

Witness Lee's gotten a bad rap, I feel, amongst the Church at large - not that I disagree with the sense that he did go to "extremes" concerning the idea of 'locality.'I do feel that's the main separating point from his stream of ministry and Brother Nee's, perhaps moreso than Nee from Sparks ( over the thought of locality ). But I'm an outsider to the why's and wherefore's of their dividings.How it must sadden the Lord's heart, to see these dividings over time .... yet under His sovereign provenance.I am curious to see if the Lord is going to bring these separated 'streams' together, as we reach the end of this age.The little flock in China, with the so-called 'shouters' ....the Stephen Kaung 'adherents' with the Witness Lee 'adherents' in North America, Taiwan, and other parts of the earthat this point in time, I don't believe there would be many fellowships that would say they divide over Nee and Sparks, though It's been refreshing reading this thread, seeing many here use discernment in the teachings of a so-called "giant" like Brother Nee.I've always had the impression that he's one saint in particular that his devotees won't question.I too have profited through his teachings ( mainly The Release of the Spirit ) .. and I don't find him " too mystical " at all. But I do find The Spiritual Man to have been too "wallowing" in peeling the onion of the human soul, which I stayed away from, as that's my carnal tendency too much.Refreshing thread!baruch

Manfred wrote:Josh,We can, should and must reject the teaching that says that born-from-above believers can be demon possessed simply because it is not taught in the New Testament. We cannot find one verse that will back this up. I am amazed that JPL and Evan Roberts could write so much about this without having any support from the New Testament, and it is even more amazing to see that many Christians believe it! Obviously these ones have not apllied Acts 17:11.ManfredWe really can't believe that everything that there is to know about the spiritual realm is included in the Bible. One missionary speaking at our church was amazed that he had to cast a demon out of a Christian-his church's traditions said it wasn't possible. But, God showed him that she was born again. When illuminated on the subject, he was shown that though they can't get into your spirit, they can get into your body if you let them. Or if, in this case, you are an African brought up in a demonic religion. Getting saved doesn't automatically cast all of them away from you. There is quite a difference between our spirits and our souls and our bodies.May all the blessings of the Bible overtake you. Deut. 28:2