SUMMARY: The sense you get after reading all of this is that Dennis McCallum did not have a sensitive delicate spirit and preferred to hold onto his roughness, hardness, stiffness, and mistaken assumptions for that is his way of being to remain in his character type, which caused his inordinate mental analysis. You can see he writes quite a few articles on his website. Perhaps he needs to slow down his mental gymnastics. This is the cause of his lack of discernment, inordinate self-proclamations. It seems to be the case that when a person does accuse with only proclamations, the one being accused, who is abiding in the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, is accused because of the authority and spiritual life given by God. When comparing Dennis McCallum to Watchman Nee that is my finding. You sense an arrogance in Dennis McCallum, even an attempting to exalt himself above Nee. What I find interesting is that McCallum goes so far as to say Watchman Nee held the most profound influence of any Christian that he knew (even above Wesley) in the church history by a wide margin, yet Dennis still attempted to find fault, which in itself is not wrong, but if done in error, then what is revealed is McCallum's spiritual condition. That is the conclusion I have come to. Dennis seemed perplexed. Attempting to explain with his mind that which does not agree with his spirit. Dennis was not listening to his conscience. Often this becomes spiritual jealousy from which he operates, or finding something that excelled him above Nee on spiritual matters. To me this seemed vain to misrepresent another on this basis making oneself authority over another through that misrepresentation as if to change the course of history. How men's flesh misread another. That is why we should be very slow to judge, because in judging another the flesh stirs quickly. That is the whole point of Watchman Nee's book, Spiritual Authority, is that men make the very same mistake Dennis just made here. As Christians, the minute we enter mistaken assumptions and errors, it becomes a slippery slope downhill, as has this presentation by Dennis McCallum. We love to be strong self-independent people, but we often pay a price in that independence from God in not seeing the harmony in God's authorities. Placing ourselves above others through misrepresentations is the sin here. You have to be able read beneath the surface of men's actions. That is the work of my response to Dennis McCallum. I have written this for Dennis McCallum, and others who will read Dennis McCallum to be careful in reading him. Read between the lines. Ask yourself, what is he really up to? If he can be in this much spiritual error, will he not be equally erroneous in other matters?
Dennis McCallum is Perplexed
Dennis writes - “Activism: Although Nee's works have been rightly criticized for "super spirituality", (falsely dichotomizing Christian good works and spirituality) his own life does not seem to have been plagued by introspective paralysis. Some later readers of books attributed to Nee have complained that he calls for so much concern over whether an action is "soulish" or "spiritual" apart from whether it is ethical, that he becomes very de-motivating, and deflating. A careful reader of Nee has no difficulty identifying faulty statements in this area. However, it is interesting to note that Nee's life and that of his immediate hearers was characterized by almost constant action.
Response - How do you show someone is being spiritual and not super spiritual? How do you show someone there is no difference between spiritual works and spiritual life? I think Dennis partly answered that question himself, when he said about Watchman Nee, “his own life does not seem to have been plagued by introspective analysis”. The fruit is good and spiritual, not because Nee is “superspiritual” and “falsely dichotomizing”, but because he really is walking after the spirit in life and truth. Dennis is perplexed by this. Perhaps he could learn a thing or two from Watchman Nee.
On June 25th, 1928, on page 17-18 in the second preface from Watchman Nee’s, The Spiritual Man, it reads “It is of the utmost importance that we never try to analyze ourselves. Upon reading such a treatise as this, we may quite unconsciously become over-active in self-analysis. In observing the conditions of our inward life we tend to over-analyze our thoughts and feeling and the movements of our inner man. This may result in much apparent progress, yet actually it renders treatment to the self life that much more difficult. If we persistently turn within ourselves we shall lose our peace completely, for we shall soon discover the discrepancy which exists between our expectations and our actual condition. We expect to be filled with holiness but we are found wanting in holiness. This makes us uncomfortable. God never asks us to be so introspective. To do so constitutes one of the main reasons for spiritual stagnation. Our rest lies in looking for the Lord, not to ourselves. In the degree that we look off unto Him to that degree are we delivered from self. We rest in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, not on our own shifting experience. True spiritual life depends not on probing our feelings and thoughts from dawn to dusk, but on “looking off” to the Savior!”
Dennis McCallum says Watchman Nee is “de-motivating and deflating” because he draws the difference between what is soulish and what is spiritual with no consideration for what is ethical. It is because of the consideration for what is ethical that one needs to know what is soulish and what is spiritual according to the Word of God to have sound footing on ethical matters, otherwise one is operating from self in what he considers to be ethical or not. Perhaps Dennis McCallum has his own set of ethical ideas. I can see why then it would be “de-motivating” and “deflating” because he would have to give up in himself that to which he holds so dear. Again, Dennis McCallum is perplexed by this when he says that Nee was “characterized by almost constant action”. Again, maybe Dennis needs to look to Christ to show him what is “soulish” and what is “spiritual” to a greater degree than he has been doing so that he can know more intimately what is spiritual in order to walk after the spirit and thus, build upon with proper ethics. What about the ethics of proper representation of another? Dennis said people will have no problem “identify faulty statements in this area” about Watchman Nee. What kind of people are these?
Watchman Nee writes on page 20 in his second preface to The Spiritual Man, “I recognize that a work which seeks to uncover the wiles of the enemy shall certainly incur hostility of the power of darkness and the opposition of many. I have not written with the thought of courting men the approval of men. This opposition I consider therefore as of no account. I also realize that if God’s children derive help from reading this book they may think more of me than is proper. Let me speak honestly that I am but a man, the weakest of all men. The teachings of these pages reveal the experiences of my weaknesses.”
On page 17 of the second preface Watchman Nee writes, “…though there are places which seem to defy understanding, my request is that you try your best to understand. If anyone desires to misunderstand, he can surely read into these pages that which I have not intended.
I deeply sense that only one class of people will actually understand this book. My original purpose was to supply the need of many believers; obviously only those who have need will be able to appreciate this book. Such ones will find here a guidebook. Others will either look upon these truths as ideals or criticize them as inappropriate. According to the measure of his need shall be the believer’s understanding of what is written here. Unless the reader has personal need he will not find any problem solved through the reading of these pages. This is what the reader must guard against.
The deeper the truth the easier it is to become theoretical. Apart from the working of the Holy Spirit, none can arrive at deeper truth. Thus some will treat these principles as a sort of ideal. Let us therefore be careful lest we accept the teachings in the book with our mind and deceives ourselves into thinking we have possessed them already. This is most dangerous, for deception which comes from the flesh and the evil spirit shall increase day by day”.
The reason the spiritual is attacked so much is because it is spiritual (a constant theme of "War on the Saints", by Jessie-Penn Lewis).
The Normal Christian Church Life and Locality
Dennis McCallum writes - Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Church Life, pp.97-111 This work was originally published under the title "On the State of Our Missions" in Chinese. Nee wrote a preface to the book expressing his reluctance to issue an English translation. He said that he would prefer having a book published which "better represents my ministry". He added that he dreaded "those who agree and would use it as a manual for service" far more than "those who oppose and would use it as a chart for attack," p. 6. Ironically, just as he feared, this book has been used by Witness Lee to substantiate his doctrine of "Locality". Although the book contains much that is useful, the reader must remember that Nee was struggling with how to set up the church in China (which often had no existing churches in a given locality), not with how to reorganize American Christianity.
Response - Based on what I see, Watchman Nee did not struggle for based on the Word of God, the church is never to exceed the boundaries of Biblical locality which is local ground, local community. And within that local ground, and local community, is the responsibility of authority whereby men are not paid for their ministering, but are freely taken care of by members of the body of Christ in that locality. Anything larger than a locality is susceptible to denominationalism. In fact, the Local Church, made a denomination out of Locality, modern day cities. Go figure.
Consistency in Money and Business
Dennis McCallum writes - (45) Kinnear thinks that Nee was also stimulated by the business world, and that this played a part in his decision. Angus I. Kinnear, Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee, pp. (no page reference given by Dennis). Cliff sees this period as a clear breech on Nee's part of his own teaching on church finance. However, he does not explain his reasoning, and I am more inclined to agree with Kinnear that it was in harmony with his teaching in Concerning our Missions. See Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984):p. 294
Note 45 The example above (note # 31) illustrates this well. Nee actually advocates lying for the sake of integrity! note p.104. In another incident, Nee refused to explain his own actions during the war (because he believed it was vainglorious to defend one's self when under attack), and as a result, was thrown out of the church! Angus I. Kinnear, Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee, pp. 165-166.
Response - The truth of this matter is that Watchman Nee inherited a business, and proceeded to then sell it, using all the proceeds for his ministry. Don't blame Nee for family inheritance. Kinnear is wrong on many details and so too is Cliff. And Dennis was in error here for stating that he agrees with Kinnear that Nee was stimulated with the business world. Nee was not stimulated by the business world for I have seen no proof to that affect. Note to self - read page 104 of Concerning our Missions which I think you can only get from LSM, unfortunately where McCallum claims Watchman Nee believes in lying for integrity. Not likely. Watchman Nee was never thrown out of the church, for the church is the body of Christ and Nee had the most authority in the church.
Intellect
McCallum writes - When this evidence is considered, it may seem surprising that Nee is sometimes considered anti-intellectual by western readers. This conclusion stems from his mystical-fideistic bent which was suspicious of autonomous reason. His very early magazine carried the statement of purpose, "The fostering and cultivation of the spiritual life, with no attempt to debate rationally." This position seems to have softened in later life, with better education.51
note -51Cited in James Mo-Oi Cheung, The Ecclesiology of the "Little Flock" p. 6. The statement was changed after 1931, and dropped the anti-rational portion. However, see his comment in 1948 that, "We cannot dissect divine facts and outline and systematize them. It is only the immature Christian who demands always to have intellectually satisfying conclusions." Watchman Nee, What Shall This Man Do? (Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: Christian Literature Crusade, 1967), p. 8.
Response - Watchman Nee's IQ apparently was extreme, he had a photographic memory.
Don't be afraid of these big words. They are merely inaccurate misrepresentations and derogatory big words. Mysticism relates to emotion, and fideistic relates to having no consideration for science. And autonomous suggests some independence apart from God. Self-declarations and proclamations are used by Dennis to explain away what is a true spiritual life in Watchman Nee a man who walked after the spirit, and did not place emotion, rationalizing above the movements of the spirit of our inner man, in complete dependence on God in all things. Spiritual life is abiding in the word of God following God's leading in all things, so the heading of Nee's early magazine is to point out that fact, not to emphasize arguing and analyzing seen throughout Christendom today. As Proverbs 19.2 says, "zeal without knowledge is not good; a person who moves too quickly may go the wrong way", and Proverbs 18.6 "fools get into constant quarrels; they are asking for a beating", and 18.4 "a person's words can be life-giving water; words of true wisdom are as refreshing as a bubbling brook". These words are the spirit of Watchman Nee's magazine, not to rely on the debating mind for God never reaches the mind first. He always come by way of the spirit entering the conscience of man's spirit first entering His intuition. Following the views of the rationalistic teachers like Calvinists will bear no fruit analyzing inordinately for the mind will never touch God's life.
It's unfortunate that Angus Kinnear did not cite the source of this writing of Watchman Nee's, but his point is well taken. If we are to take the full Word of God and make and systemize it all through analytical and intellectual conclusions, all that you are left with is the mind instead of what the Word of God is for, our spirit, as it is a book of spirit. Therefore, indeed, an immature Christian will make such demands on the Word of God for intellectually satisfying conclusions. A better answer is what Watchman Nee said on page 8 in regards to the Spiritual Man book, "When a man has read the book, he not to have any questions left; they ought to have all been answered." What Nee means here is that this book was so perfectly done that it answers the full redemptive design, and no man has put forth a better work to date. He further states, "The Word of God itself has this fundamental character, that it speaks always and essentially to our spirit and to our life."
McCallum has misrepresented. That is that.
Translation Accuracy
McCallum writes - A study of the context in Release of the Spirit, and Normal Christian Worker, will confirm that there is a translation difficulty, because the word "reason" is non-sensical in context.
Response - It is not really possible to comment on this proclamation or where McCallum may have misread what Watchman Nee may have stated, so McCallum will need to explain himself. I am able to understand explain all instances so I believe McCallum got confused.
Doctrinal Perfection
McCallum writes - Late in his career, Nee is said to have developed some doctrinal aberrations that went beyond his usual purism. These areas had to do with a heavy emphasis on authority and submission, and an increasing tendency to dichotomize the material and the spiritual, or the ideal and the real. Some of the literature published during the past ten years claiming to originate from the last 5 years of Nee's ministry are definitely deserving of criticism at many points.55 However, care must be exercised here because of an unusual feature in his writings. Only two books actually written by Nee's own hand are available in English. These are Concerning Our Missions, and The Spiritual Man. Ironically, Nee criticized both of these works.56 His other works are translated from notes taken from his lectures, and are therefore open to interpretive additions by the translators.57
55 See a ringing denunciation by Ranald McCauley and Jerram Barrs in Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience, (Downers Grove, ILL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978) pp. 44ff. with notes. What they call neo-platonism is actually neo-Chinese-ism. They also exaggerate and unfairly quote Nee, taking several of the statements cited out of context. They fail to adequately explain why, if an inner man- outer man dichotomy is so bad, does Paul use the same language. It is clear that Nee's objectionable language is not coming from Plato at all, but from Romans 7, and IICorinthians 4. It is also quite clear that in several cases Nee's Chinese word for "self-willed," or "stubborn," is translated "reason". While I cannot speak to the translation issue involved, a study of the context in Release of the Spirit, and Normal Christian Worker, will confirm that there is a translation difficulty, because the word "reason" is non-sensical in context.
56 He said that Spiritual Man was too dogmatic and systematized, and that Concerning Our Missions was liable to distortion. See note # 27 above (below) and Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life, (Wheaton, ILL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 1957)p. . (McCallum doesn't give the page number).
57 Not a single audio tape or movie of Nee has surfaced. It seems clear to this author and others 58 that there is a more radical interpretation of Nee evident in the later books.27Angus I. Kinnear, Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee, pp. 2-84. Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984): pp. 290-291. A stirring example of one of his experiences during this period can be found in his own words in Watchman Nee, Sit Walk Stand, (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1957) pp. 57-64.
Response - I am not sure what is wrong about the purity of the Holy Spirit and abiding in His Word deeply. McCallum also accuses Nee of idealism in addition to purism. Men accuse, but as you read the later works of Nee, you begin to realize they are very accurate strictly abiding in the Word of God of no concern for men's analysis such as "had to do with a heavy emphasis on authority and submission, and increasing tendency to dichotomize the material and the spiritual, or the ideal and the real....definitely deserving of criticism". What deserves criticism is Dennis McCallum's very own statement which he leaves as a proclamation. These are unsubstantiated statements that are the exact proof of men's inordinate mental analysis. All I can say is as I read Watchman Nee, you don't see such claims by McCallum bear out. Where's the proof? Since McCallum does not go into any detail, none whatsover, nor will we have to. Since he does not explain what he means by material and spiritual, but leaves it up to his reader to ponder, let us not ponder a proclamation in return and be shallow in the same way by guessing McCallum's mind.
Same goes for authority and submission, and dichotomizing ideal and real. If Dennis wants to be so shallow, let us not be like him and assume further since perhaps, Dennis imust explain his own statements. The reason he doesn't delve into them or explain them or provide writings of Nee to that effect is because he is unable, and he has stepped where he doesn't belong. When I read Nee's writings I do not find this at all, and proclamations don't mean anything to me from other men. I must be fair to the spiritual men and women in history, and if someone wants to judge them or exalt themselves above them, they will need to make their case. Dennis McCallum is not one to be considered, therefore, since we are just left with self-proclamations. I have read Spiritual Authority completely and it too is as close to a perfect work as anyone has ever done on the subject of authority and submission in God's creation in the Word of God.
It is unclear who said The Spiritual Man was too dogmatic and who said and where Concerning Our Missions was liable to distortion since no page was given. I am unable to check on this information as it pertains to note #27. What I have discovered in reading Watchman Nee is that his later works are increasingly more powerful and true to the Word of God when given serious consideration. One really gets a sense of how God intends and will have things be as time progresses on, especially at His return. So statements like "radical interpretation" can lead one away from Christ.
Holy Spirit is Always Accused of Being Extremism
Dennis McCallum writes - At the same time, it can not be denied that Nee was extreme in some areas, including spiritual authority and ecclesiology. The emphasis on delegated human authority was in perfect harmony with Confucian ethics. Confucius taught that parents were never wrong, and that even when they were, one should obey them. To understand Nee's extreme doctrine of "locality", one must remember that he had had a run-in with the exclusive brethren in England, and may have formed a rather one-sided picture of denominationalism in the west. He certainly did not want to see the western denominational divisions transplanted into China, let alone the unloving divisiveness of the exclusive brethren, and he can hardly be faulted for that.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Nee propounded an unworkable and unbiblical doctrine of locality and of under-qualified obedience to delegated authority which has resulted in extremism in modern America, China, and elsewhere.59
58Cliff and Kinnear both noticed this trend. Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984)pp.293,294 and Angus I. Kinnear, Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee, pp. 180,181.
59 Witness Lee has founded the `Local Church' movement, which according to Cliff, is "exclusive and traveling a different doctrinal path to that of Nee." Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984), p. 295. However, Cheung fails to see this distinction. He even thinks that Witness Lee can be studied in order to discover Nee's views on ecclesiology. But this overlooks important differences, particularly in the area of ecclesiology. Lee took the mild tendency of Nee to allegorize Scripture to such radical extremes that little if anything of Nee can be learned from studying Lee. Even Cheung admits that Lee's teaching on the kingdom is heretical. James Mo-Oi Cheung, The Ecclesiology of the "Little Flock" p. 15. Other off-shoots are not as radical. "A group of assemblies formed by his colleague Stephen Kaung on the east coast of the USA has been cooperative with all evangelical causes, retaining the best elements in Nee's teaching." Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol.8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984), p. 295. This author met Stephen Kaung in 1972. He was a stirring speaker, deeply committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, but also seemed somewhat legalistic and authoritarian. Again, these tendencies are not striking at all in a Confucian society. In India, Bok Sing continues to lead a vigorous revival, but with some of the same shortcomings mentioned above.
Response - Take a look at the term Dennis uses, "under-qualified" obedience. Does this really have any meaning to us? Are we to be mind readers? You get the sense in reading McCallum that he is operating from the world, and not from spiritual truth, and spiritual reality of a situation. Dennis uses derogatory terms such as this throughout his paper, but he doesn't explain himself or back it up. So nor do we have to go further than to say his self-proclamations are coming from himself since has not the courtesy to explain himself or making at least some effort to discern that which is spiritual by examining where he draws his assumptions from beyond what he hears from men. There is a great reliance of McCallum on taking other men's views. We should not appeal to other men's flesh. Now you will have to decide for yourself. But I can only compare what the Word of God reveals to me and what I perceive to be the Holy Spirit in my life, but what I am seeing is McCallum is trying to explain things with his mind, and not relying on the Holy Spirit and the agreement of the Word of God. I have read Spiritual Authority through completely, and I find it to be a perfect work on the subject, meaning, I have not found a better work to date. It was not extreme, but perfectly accurate. In all things their is authority and submission. Whatever Confucian ethics say is of no consideration as we stay in the Word of God. Certainly Watchman Nee never said parents are never wrong, and that even when they were that you should always obey them. That would be somewhere a misreading of Watchman Nee by McCallum. He would have to prove his case. Then McCallum proceeds to tear apart the fact of locality, Biblical locality based on local ground and community as cited in every case in the Scriptures. It is common sense, though Dennis does not understand it. Nee's appreciation of the Brethren (the Philadelphia church, 1828, of Rev. 3, prominent in their preserving the Word of God objectively to a greater degree than seen ever before in history since the time of Christ) or obvious observations of the problems with denominationalism anywhere is very reasonable, and not extreme at all. And proper locality solves that problem. It is purely Biblical. This is workable and exists already today everywhere. Dennis McCallum doesn't understand it. The extremism seen in the LSM-LC is the fault of the Witness Lee and has no part in Watchman Nee. Many make the mistake of marrying Watchman Nee to Witness Lee and Dennis has made the same mistake again. That is a matter between McCallum and God, and we will hand that responsibility back to him where it belongs of misunderstanding this biblical reality. We need not concern ourselves with men such as Cheung unable to see the distinction. On the Misreading Nee what you soon discover is that you can't see Nee as he really is because Witness Lee has altered so much, even Watchman Nee's very own writings. You can not look at the unspiritual to examine the spiritual. It is impossible. An attempt here to introduce Confucian is something Stephen Kaung may have done (but it is uncertain since it goes unexplained), but we can not say the same of Watchman Nee. We would be hard pressed to make such a claim even of Stephen Kaung, so that responsibilities lies with Dennis McCallum. He doesn't investigate it any further, therefore, nor shall we. Proclamations never suffice.
The Unspiritual Will Misuse the Spiritual for Gain
Dennis writes - 65Cliff also points out that Nee's influence has been considerable outside of China, especially in the Catholic Charismatic Movement, and the so-called "shepherding movement" associated with Mumford and others. His books are also, according to Cliff, being studied regularly in mainline Churches in the USA, including Methodist, Lutheran, and Baptist churches. According to Enroth, Ericson, and Peters, the so-called "Jesus Movement", read Nee as on of their few extra-Biblical sources. Norman H. Cliff, "Watchman Nee-- Church Planter and Preacher of Holiness," Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 8 No. 2 (Oct. 1984): pp. 294,295.
Response - What I have observed is that the attraction to matters that are very spiritual, is that they can often be taken and then misused, which the Local Church does profusely. But many other groups do the same thing, but always remember that is men's flesh at work. A perfect example of this is Pat Knapp who was lost in cults for years from what he blames, Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee. But with a clear head reading you will find Nee's book a consummate work of deeply spiritual truth conveying the Word of God on authority and submission in the universe. Since Dennis doesn't go into this and explain anything, I won't delve into it further. If he has not made any connections, I won't attempt to read his mind.
Church and State was Never for Nee
McCallum continues - It would be probable that Watchman, like so many others, was deceived by those Party officials he observed into thinking them reasonable men who could be dealt with wisely.75 If Kinnear is right, then Nee was in the same boat as the World Council of Churches, who have accepted the legitimacy of the TSPM from the beginning (and still do), as have most of the Protestant mission based churches.76 Indeed, few could have predicted the horrors of the cultural revolution. Nee did seem to be insensitive to the social currents at work in the communist movement in China. In another passage, Kinnear points out that in 1948, the Little Flock churches began to attain an unexampled level of prosperity, ". . . just at a time when "capitalist" was to become a term of opprobrium and when, in a regime without any concept of Charities Commission, the mere possession of wealth was going to arouse immediate suspicion. The case for ideological reformation of the movement seems almost, by this ill-conceived development, to have been presented to the Communist Party ready-made on a tray."77 This means, for instance, that the Little Flock would have had to do their charitable and educational works on the level of the local church, rather than through a national denominational agency. Ironically, the doctrine of "locality" (a hyper-autonomous view of the local congregation), one of Nee's most widely criticized doctrines, had the effect of conditioning these house churches to expect nothing from a national structure.
Response - There is no indication of Watchman Nee being deceived into believing party officials were reasonable men who could be dealt with for Nee knew and had a deeper working of the Holy Spirit in his life then dare I say not anyone that I have read about, aside the Apostles. It is good to point out here that although these governmental authorities of the world are not right, the Christian will recognize that authority but also recognize that it is misguided and misusing that authority. The Christian won't take up arms but urge for change of those authorities, just like David recognized Saul as an authority and waited for his time to pass away an God to end Saul's authority for that of David.
As per the matter of wealth, I hardly think the wealth of the Little Flock is the kind of wealth that is to arouse the sirens of the State. What aroused the crackdown upon the church in China was the fact that faith was flourishing, especially in Nee's Little Flock. I believe Stephen Kaung is wrong on this point. Watchman Nee is well aware of what is going on is willing to receive martyrdom for the cause for there is such a time and place for such a calling. God has a special place in his heart for his children to take up such a calling for they are raptured at 1st rapture and through the Tribulation. Is Watchman Nee really to be judged for the success of 300,000 men and women who so believed in what Watchman Nee was doing, so spiritual and so perfect with the Scriptures. It brings up such a joyful heart and much fruit. Let the Marxists crack down.
Locality as it pertained to the handling of the Governmental authorities was not to expect nothing from them but rather to realize the boundary of the locality of the church based on local ground, community, and spiritual fellowship to prevent denominationalism. It's purpose is not to shut down the mind to the State. That is a misunderstanding of spiritual affairs by Dennis McCallum. He has troubles understanding what locality really is and what is the purpose of the say the church in Jerusalem or the church in Corinth or the church in local communities in Shanghai of which there would be many. What we practice now in life is that which will exist in the future in the new earth, so we might as well get ready. This does not turn off the mind to the problems of the day, but rather, enhances the understanding and solving of those problems like that of the communist government of Nee's day. By this plan of God and use of locality to give spiritual strength, we can move against the terrifying impositions that confront us under ruthless governments.
Head Covering
Response - I read (can't find the page at the moment) where Dennis McCallum said Watchman Nee forced head covering upon women and women were required to not be allowed to minister in the Little Flock and had to take a subservient role. If you read pages 75-99 of Nee's(CFP), Love One Another, you see very deeply what head covering means. When I read this, I was amazed at how spiritual an answer this was. To state simply, head covering represents humility and obedience, and notice the Scriptures never point out what to cover your head with. How accurate the Scriptures are. It is the same thing with Baptism with water or without water. Cover your head with a veil or without.
Don't believe those who attack Watchman Nee from this angle like the unspiritual Dennis McCallum and presumably Angus Kinnear, according to Dennis.
See pages 7 and 8 of Spiritual Reality or Obsession by Nee on baptism. Then you can look at a bunch of other books like God's Work and Communion of the Holy Spirit.
If you need the deepest explanation and help with the Word, here is where you will find the answer, in spite of the misrepresentations by some.
Last Days
McCallum - His (Nee's) doctrine was also denounced because his preaching on the "last days" tended to demoralize the workers.
Response - Here we may see an indication of McCallum's issues. Watchman Nee believed in partial rapture, as do I, for it is the only explanation of end times given the fullness of the reading of the Word of God. I am not demoralized but I am uplifted, energized and full of zeal. My belief is that men in their flesh would be demoralized since they are rejecting the Scriptures on end-times. The Bible has us always looking and living as if today is the last days, keeping the Word of His patience (Rev. 3.10) for we do not know the hour of His return. McCallum as usual does not explain himself nor does he cite a source for his theory. Therefore, neither will I give him more attention on this point, except to say whatever his end-time view is, it does explain a lot about McCallum. The true blessing of Rev. 1.3 is itself having partial rapture work in you knowing basically this is God's working in end-times so that you can see all other views for what they are and not be deceived by them.
Spiritual Authority
Mar 10:35 And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.
Mar 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
Mar 10:37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on [thy] left hand, in thy glory.
Mar 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
Mar 10:39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mar 10:40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared.
Mar 10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John.
Mar 10:42 And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Mar 10:43 But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister;
Mar 10:44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.
Mar 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Drink the Lord’s Cup and Be Baptized with the Lord’s Baptism
Watchman Nee writes - While on earth our Lord rarely taught people how to be in authority, for this was not His purpose in coming to the world. The clearest passage in which the Lord did instruct on authority is this one found in Mark 10. If anyone wishes to know how to be in authority he ought to read this passage. The Lord shows us here the way to authority. It all begins with James and John. They longed to sit on the two sides of the Lord in His glory. Knowing the inappropriateness of such a request, they dares not come out with it directly but subtly suggested that the Lord grant them anything they might request. They wished to first obtain a promise from the Lord.
But the Lord did not quickly comply; instead, He asked what they wanted Him to do for them. So they said, “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left, in thy glory.” Such a request carried two meanings: one, to be near to the Lord; two, to have more authority. It was right for them to desire nearness to the Lord, but their request went far beyond that in their desire for more authority in glory than the other ten disciples. How did the Lord answer them? As He had earlier wondered what they wanted Him to do, now He says that they themselves do not know for what they are asking.
The Lord did not reject the desire to be near Him or to be in a position of authority, nor did He find fault with the longing to sit at His right hand and left. He simply answered that they must drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism before they could sit at His right or left. James and John thought they could get what they wanted just by asking, yet the Lord replied that it was not for the asking but for the drinking the cup and receiving the baptism. It is therefore evident that except men drink in the Lord’s cup and receive the Lord’s baptism they can neither get near to the Lord nor possess authority (pp.169-170 Spiritual Authority, CFP).
Response - The way to authority is not by seeking authority, but the humility in realizing we have no authority, we are unprofitable servants. On page 176, Watchman Nee writes, "Ministry comes from resurrection, service comes from ministry, and authority comes from service. May the Lord deliver us from high-mindedness".
Troy Brooks