Ed was Mostly Right about Watchman Nee
Ed has troubles understanding partial rapture in my conversations with him in which he disagreed with some parts of the partial rapture proof by Watchman Nee, but he was unjustified. I agree with Ed on most things. I disagree with his treatment of women, denying them roles in the Church like would exist in society today. This is no small problem, because the Church remains divided as a result. I would not think the Little Flock would worship Nee. That is perhaps a stretch. So I think Ed has overextended himself there, possibly reading from (or reacting similarly as) Richard Fisher or Dana Roberts, who both have an angst against Nee because of their own false teachings which Nee exposes in his writings.
Distinguish between the Little Flock and The Local Church. The Little Flock reject The Local Church as do I because of the 6 major sins of leeism. These would be their issues. Also, it is not so much overemphasizing locality that was the issue at all, but Witness Lee just got it plain wrong. Where are the actual apostles in the LSM system? And why the need for a central hub commonly referred to as The Local Church with product distribution from Living Stream Ministry to its outlets? This becomes filthy lucre. This central problem always sticks out like a sore thumb. If Biblocality is going to succeed, it has to be done right.
Ed's commentary below is a response to this article. In that article, the writer was a long-time cult member of The Local Church. The writer says there are suicides because of dangerous Watchman Nee teachings. He continues on talking in vagaries and not realizing he is describing a Nee from LSM's ideologies which is not Nee at all, but is actually Witness Lee's alteration of Nee's writings or simply misreading Nee. I do believe this is a weapon of the evil spirit to never deal in specifics and bear false witness to have a completely wrong view. The cult of leeism took hold of that man, and the fallout of his many years is lost on him. It will be very difficult to get back to a normal condition. There is so much error in this piece I have devoted a response to it here. Also see my response to Richard Fisher who suffers a similar mindset of misreading Nee.
About Watchman Nee (1903 - 1972) - Ed
First of all I would like to say something about Light of Truth Ministries of
Jim Moran. He warns against Witness Lee's Movement (and rightly so because it is
a cult) and also against Watchman Nee (which Nee does not deserve in any way).
Witness Lee was a former co-worker of Watchman Nee. I have contacted Jim a few
times in the past about his incorrect views regarding Watchman Nee, but he never
responded to my e-mails, , untill recently, after I signed his guestbook. He now
has my site listed on his site as "Local Church" related, but I have not even
ONE article of Witness Lee on my site, I only mention his name! I think this is
a very low thing to do. I even strongly disagree with Lee's radical vision. Jim
Moran puts Nee on the same level as Lee, and this is due to a complete
misunderstanding of Nee.
The whole issue revolves around certain aspects about the "locality of the
church." Lee over-emphasized the locality of the church in a way Nee did not. If
you are interested in how Nee really thought about the locality of the church,
visit this site that shows how Nee thought about the locality of the church. You
will find that this differs greatly from Lee's teaching on church locality. Lee
also came up with so-called "pray-reading," which turns out to be nothing else
than "chanting God's Word without using ones mind." Well, I can't find this in
any of the 70 books by Watchman Nee. You can read more articles by Watchman Nee
here: Watchman Nee.
Jim also speaks on his site about a person who has read over 40 books by Nee.
This person claims that Nee in his book Spiritual Authority sets himself up as
the sole authority in the church and that his "disciples" have to obey him
blindly. Well, I have about 70 books of Nee and have translated some into Dutch,
inluding Spiritual Authority. They will be published by a Dutch publishing
company called Novapres, somewhere in the first half of 2001. Anyway, I would
like this person to point out to me where in that book Nee puts himself forth as
the sole authority to be obeyed in blind ignorance! I just can't seem to find
it, LOL.
After consulting with Dennis McCallum, who wrote a long article on Watchman Nee
the House Church Movement in China, to whom Jim Moran also does not respond, I
came to the conclusion that Jim Moran is only interested in spreading his own
views, without actually trying to find out what is really true. Actually, it is
hilarious to hear that they view Nee as some kind of dictator. Remember that
this great man of God was put into a Chinese labourcamp for 20 years, and even
there, while suffering greatly, he continued to testify of his Redeemer. It is
said that in the end they cut his tongue out. His own words were these: "I
myself do not know where I will be one year from now. If God does not keep me, I
may not even follow Him next year."
This shows that he had absolutely no trust in himself, in his own flesh. Some
critics claimed he had his own disciples. But Nee said that only Jesus should
have disciples. If other people viewed it that way he said, than that's their
business. The fact that some members of the Little Flock almost worshipped Nee,
and even imitated the way he prayed, was something that disstressed him very
much. It shows the childishness of some believers in the movement. So please my
readers, don't be fooled by Jim Moran. Understand that Lee took some teachings
of Nee and practised these teachings in a way Nee never would have approved of.
[Source:
http://hermes.spaceports.com/~eddy4god/Pictures.htm ]