Nicholas Stivers Has an Untruth Bias Problem
"Nicholas Stivers" svshalom@yahoo.com at Cephas Ministries rationalizes his inclusion of untruths on his site because he said it is acceptable since he did not write them. Yet he says he agrees with them, these writings about Watchman Nee, so that is why he includes them. http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists.html#anchor6169 If you read through each of these articles (which a response to is provided below in a link) you see the bias in Stivers inclusions, usually throughout, but often right at the end of the article, not getting down to the truth, but preserving an untruth. For even at the end of Ed’s article, which commends Nee greatly throughout we see this problem. Ed, a dutch translator, who wrote About Watchman Nee (1903 - 1972) you see at the end a negative conclusion that men of the little flock overdid Watchman Nee’s way of praying by imitating. I have no doubt such shallowness would exist since you see the same shallowness at the Witness Lee cult, and speaks more of men in general who try to attain what is spiritual.
There is no error found in Watchman Nee’s writings at CFP to speak of so wonderfully accurate which then nullify’s these negative pieces of Nee’s writings, which is proven in the below links. There is nothing wrong with appreciating Watchman Nee’s writings mind you (that is, his true writings, from CFP), and though some may idolize Nee as Lee is idolized, most who truly read Nee fairly, appreciate his writings for their depth in the Word. Did some idolize Nee at the little flock? Of course this is possible, for it is to be expected when reading Nee’s works of such depth, some men falter in proper treatment. But we also have to be careful, is such way of being idolizing, or is it simply seeing accuracy in someone’s writings and seeing how they are so accurate to the Scriptures. These are all relatively general statements, and do not profit much. I prefer to deal in specifics, and if you would like to get in to those specifics with me, then you will enjoy what is to follow.
I have responded to this article Nicholas posts on his site, http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists_nees_latent_power.html with this article I wrote, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/discipling.htm showing how the Berean Call totally misread Watchman Nee’s writings so horribly, and Nicholas admits he agrees with the Berean Call. This is bad apologetics and shallow. The excuse Nicholas provides to me in writing is “no one here at Cephas wrote this material but we having agreed with it’s contents chose to provide this information to our participants” instead of getting to the bottom of the truth. Obviously Nicholas collects articles but doesn’t go any deeper than that at least in this matter. He has not collected any of my articles on my site http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm which indicates that the bias is not for truth but for marrying Nee to Lee since all of what he has provided so far on his site are several erroneous articles of which the proof is provided in this page with links.
Nicholas asked me “why do you still believe I or we have failed in our duty and responsibility to accurately discern?” even after I have already responded in the preceeding link. My response to him was that it is because of the several articles on Watchman Nee posted being so wrong in that they are in error with no discernment in them. It is like me posting evil material on my site and just leaving it there with no discernment. For example, they posted on their site, http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists_nee_one_root_of_discipling_movement.html to which I responded with discernment,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/discipling.htm So we have come to see there is a one sided view by Nicholas. Posting Ed’s article on their site who spoke up for Watchman Nee was inadequate in that it did not deal with these other articles specifically, but as a stand alone piece it is very good, except for the slight generality at the end as previously mentioned which is of little value since generalities are not that helpful to begin with; especially since that generality is not attributable to Nee as the cause. Instead of seeing these improvements to his page that he could make, Nicholas responds with “might you be willing to admit…error”? Of course, but what mistake was it that I made and in identify Nicholas as having made these mistakes?
Here is the reasoning of Nicholas - “I see no cause for concern…in this little piece having come from Watchman Nee’s materials”. As I pointed out to Nicholas on several occasions, it is not Watchman Nee’s writing that is the problem but the misreading of it, both the lengthier and the shorter ones. Nee’s material is fine. The “little piece” is in error so that what Nicholas collects is more error than facts. There was one piece by Ed, that was factual, http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists_watchman_nee.html but the rest is a marrying Nee to Lee for that is the approach and innuendo of Nicholas throughout. Can you sense this? It is all too readily apparent. This is the mistake being made and the posting of too many erroneous pieces inordinately so to marry Nee to Lee. Even after I showed Nicholas my response to that little piece, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/discipling.htm he believes it ok to post untruth on his site. He does not seem to read what I give him. I can’t force him for it is of his own free-will what he chooses to do, and so he continues to do what he does without discernment.
Nicholas has no idea what he is doing wrong for he says “this is all very well balanced material and is a good presentation”. He is not willing to let his conscience be reached. I do not believe untruth is a good presentation nor is it balanced. Nicholas is “in agreement with much of Watchman Nee’s writings” yet posts two seriously erroneous pieces as noted above and lots of innuendo overtones, that is, a marrying Nee to Lee. If his section is on Nee, then why is it so much on Lee?
In this piece we see Nicholas trying to marry Nee to Lee for there is no section on Lee on his site, just Nee as if Nee was much like Lee, http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists_watchman_nee_1.html and that because the publishers of the Koran also publish Leeist materials, that therefore, somehow that comes back to Nee. This reasoning is unfruitful.
After several emails, Nicholas mindlessly still responds to me with in which he can “find nothing for me (Troy) o pick on him about”. Nicholas said he made “no derogatory statements” about Watchman Nee, yet posts derogatory misreadings of Watchman Nee, even saying he agrees with them. I love be able to see the flaw in this reasoning of his. Praise God! There is some doublespeak for he says “we do not stand on all the material publishes”, yet at the same time he said “he has agreed with its contents” about Watchman Nee. Yet we have totally proven such material false, clearly, and precisely, that very material Nicholas agrees with. Interesting huh?
Nicholas desires to deflect away from himself, but these mistakes he has made are undeniable. Nicholas deflects away from these mistakes by saying not to make “false worships and idols” of Watchman Nee. This is a common tactic when dealing when one attempts to deflect. Of course I am not doing that, since that is not the problem, for the problem is that Nicholas harbors these false writings on his page with no discernment. You don’t see the apostles doing that. You don’t see me posting all kinds of articles on my site without discernment. Everything on my site is for edification and truth. I don’t just mindlessly post an article and then say I agree with it, but then try to cover myself and say I don’t agree with all things I post on my site.
Nicholas is sinning the sin of marrying Nee to Lee just like the bereans, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/bereans.htm
On Cephas is Richard Fishers link but not post which response you can see here, but we have the truth of Richard Fisher’s mistaken assumptions here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Richard_Fisher.htm
Don't you know these collected works at LSM are altered writings, that is, literally new additions never before found, and translating horribly to side with Witness Lee’s thought. A proof of this is found here,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm
Watchman Nee's true writings are found with Stephen Kaung, found here,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm
The corruption you are noticing is those misusing Watchman Nee's writings for their own personal gain as Witness Lee seeks filthy lucre, and Pat Knapp who had fallen into some cult or another by misreading Spiritual Authority.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Pat_Knapp.htm
These men you say that are admirers of Nee are really not admirers of Nee but are seeing how they can misuse Nee's writings for their own personal gain, obviously, since Nee never said anything to warrant such accusation upon himself that is recorded anywhere. If you read the last paragraph it will give you a sense of what is going on as I have tried to isolate the essence of misreaders of Watchman Nee, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm
Conclusion: Nicholas’ work on Watchman Nee is unbalanced and primarily false marrying Nee to Lee. That is a common condition prevalent out there, but with a little discernment you can see Nee is definitely an unsaved calvinist and Nee was OSAS arminian. Nicholas claims his work is "for the most part praised!" You have to ask yourself what did Watchman Nee do wrong, specifically? This is the 24,000 question. Nicholas leaves the door open to some mistake Nee made but does not in actuality identify it for these negative articles are shown to be in error. This is what I find interesting, so that the question I ask is what is going on is really just lazy apologetics and possibly being against one of these principles,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SCLforums.htm I can not say for certain what it is, but it is either or both even for in experience that has been the cause of why people misread Watchman Nee.
I almost forgot, find out the errors of Steve Amato here, http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html at BCBSR.
I responded here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/myabsurd.htm to his antinomianism.
Troy Brooks