Bearing False Witness of The Spiritual Man

CFP page numbers are from the book format, 1977 edition. The lsm/lc page numbers are not provided.


False Teaching Agendas

There are various kinds of unsaved tares in the kingdom of heaven. G. Richard Fisher is of one kind in Watching Out for Richard Fisher who misreads and bears false witness against Watchman Nee, which is to be expected because of jealousy of the spiritual believer and remaining in the world. While Richard has his agenda of his own underlying false teachings he seeks to promote, the unholy trinity of Living Stream Ministry, the Local Church and Witness Lee have their own false teachings too. Seeing what their motivation is through those false teachings reveals they are operating by another spirit not of God. We shall know them by their fruit.

In comparing the "collected" LSM works to CFP's Complete Works, the latter actually supplies more of Watchman Nee's writings (eg. Interpretting Matthew, chapter 1 and a paragraph in chapter 2 of Rethinking the Work are not available last time I checked at the lsm/lc cult). The lsm/lc cult supplies many more books, and comparison of same source material shows us they take liberties often 30% longer which requires adding material. Fabricating new material that Watchman Nee simply did not write is done in an attempt to agree with Witness Lee's false teachings. This cult actually keeps producing new never seen before Watchman Nee writings after all these years (Watchman Nee was imprisoned for life in 1953).

I have done a few comparisons in The Spiritual Man and Ministry of God's Word. The ranslations by Witness Lee are loose, misrepresentative, and lacking. This was enough to dissuade me from reading any further translations said to be of Watchman Nee from the man-made system of the lsm/lc cult.

The Physical is not Evil and Jesus is not the Third Person

Watchman Nee (CFP white covers) writes on page 25-26 of TSM, "However, we must remember well that whereas the soul is the meeting-point of the elements of our being in this present life, the spirit will be the ruling power in our resurrection state. For the Bible tells us that “it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15.44). Yet here is a vital point: we who have been joined to the resurrected Lord can even now have our spirit rule over the whole being. We are not united to the first Adam who was made a living soul but to the last Adam Who is a life-giving spirit (v.45)." Notice that small s is used for spirit.

But at the lsm/lc, their version reads, "However, we should clearly remember that in this life the soul is man's consummate expression, while in the next life and in resurrection the spirit will be man's consummate expression. This is why the Bible says, 'It is sown a soulish body, it is raised a spiritual body' (1 Cor. 15:44). Since we are now joined to the resurrected Lord, through Him the spirit can control our whole being. We can control our being because we are not joined to the first man Adam, who was a living soul, but to the last Adam, who is the life-giving Spirit."

Notice the differences. In the original (CFP), the "physical body" is not evil, but in the lsm/lc version they make the body evil, a "soulish body". Next, and most vital, notice how the lsm/lc cult change "life-giving spirit" to "life-giving Spirit". Jesus is not the 3rd Person of the Trinity. (I have made an effort for your benefit on only a couple examples since this lsm/lc cult is of no interest to me, but you can easily find many other examples through careful comparison).

The Cross is an Accomplished Fact, Not to be Fulfilled Sometime Later

On page 200, volume 2 of TSM (CFP), Nee says "The cross has dealt with...". We should think of the cross as an accomplished fact, by realizing “I have died in Christ, my sins have been forgiven”. But the lsm/lc version speaks forwardly, not backwardly, saying "The cross would deal with...". It sends a wrong message to us by overlooking the accomplished work of the cross upon our emotion which was Nee's point.

Hate is Not One of the Three Major Aspects of Emotion

The following chapter is entitled, “Affection" (in Part 7 - Emotion). Throughout The Spiritual Man "Affection" is applied as one of the 3 components of emotion: (1) Affection, (2) Desire, (3) Sensing and Feeling. For example, on page 190 (Volume 2), we see mentioned "three groups of (1) affection, (2) desire, and (3) feeling." The chapter in Part 7 after "Affection" is entitled "Desire", and the one after that, "A Life of Feeling." The LSM version correctly gives these titles to these chapters also on Emotion (on their website, approximately in 2004-5, they changed the heading for the chapter entitled Affection to Love so it would agree with their rendering in Volume 2 (see below). What a web they weave! As you read through this chapter entitled "Affection," take careful attention to the fact that it talks about all the different aspects of affection, not just love only!

To covet and to lust after man’s affection demonstrates that the Christian has not yet died to self life. His death to soul life is substantiated by his forsaking every affection other than that for God. How transcendent is a spiritual man! He walks far above human natural affection. (The Spiritual Man, Part 2, Chapter 2, page 211).

What are some of these various kinds of affection listed back in Volume 1, Chapter 2?


“The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” 1 Sam. 18.1

“You whom my soul loves” Song 1.7

“My soul magnifies the Lord” Luke 1.46

“His life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty food” Job 33.20 Darby

“Who are hated by David’s soul” 2 Sam. 5.8

“My soul was vexed with them” Zech. 11.8 Darby

“You shall love the Lord your God . . . with all your soul” Deut. 6.5

“My soul is weary of my life” Job 10:1 Darby

“Their soul abhorreth all manner of food” Ps. 107:18 Darby

On page 37 and 38 of volume 1 (CFP), Nee provides lots of verses to back up these three components of emotion. Yet, Witness Lee’s version uses the term “Love” instead of “Affection” on page 37 which totally alters the meaning since love is merely one of the aspects of affection. Nee listed various kinds of affection. There are different kinds of affection in our emotion. For example, a couple of verses that describe affection on page 37 (CFP) are 2 Sam. 5.8, "Who are hated by David's soul" and "My soul is weary of my life" (Job 10.1 Darby) in addition to verses for love and other aspects of affection. Also, the various verses used are not the same. The lsm/lc cult manipulatively changed the verses to suit their version of the three major components of emotion: (1) love, (2) hate, and (3) affected. The verses they use are completely different. Suffice it to say, the fact that they recently changed their website heading for the chapter on Affection to Love, shows they made these changes after the fact. It is certainly a deeper and fuller reading to know affection can be not just love. Let us not limit our emotions and thus, not be controlled by entities that would try to limit your emotions.

On page 93, volume 2, Nee writes "It's [emotion] love or hate must follow the affection of the spirit and not its own". This proves the affection includes love and hate, not that two of the three main categories of emotion are love and hate.

The lsm/lc replaces the second component emotion, which reads "Emotions of Desire" to "Emotions of Hate" on page 37 (CFP, Vol. 1). Obviously, the emotion here is "desire", not "hate". Different ways of expressing desire are shown with different verses (CFP). Desire is closely linked to the will also. But Witness Lee restricted all desire to be just hate and focused on just verses expressing emotions of hate to replace desire. I did not realize that desire was just hate. Should we be thankful to Witness Lee for this revelation? Yet is not desire is a legitimate emotion?

He even had the brass to add a line in his version which says, "These few verses teach us that hatred is a function of the soul" to justify his removing "Desire" and replacing it with "Hate" as one of the three main aspects of emotion. Desire and "aspiring" (volume 1, page 38) are many given in TSM (CFP) such as "My soul longs, yea, faints for the courts of the Lord" (Ps. 84.2); "My soul is well pleased" (Matt. 12.18). Where is the so-called hate in these desires? Not even one of the verses applied are the same in both versions. "Hate" belongs in the "Emotions of Affection"; it is not an "Emotions of Desire" according to the original. What we desire as an affection can cause us to hate, but hate itself should not be placed in such a lofty position to consider it to be one of man's 3 man areas of emotion. Thus is it is one emotion in a range of emotions of "affection".

How the Cult Controls through Emotion

What are the negative consequences of this false teaching perpetrated by the lsm/lc cult in their sinning bearing false witness against Watchman Nee by altering his writings?

Cults can control people by mixing up their emotions and creating confusion to the point where they become dependent on the cult for support. By teaching them that human desire is hateful only, they lose their desire in their emotion and their will is affected to be controlled by the cult. This problem is seen throughout the lsm/lc version. The same problem occurs with affection. Affection is not only love, but encompasses hate also and everything in between (see Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, page 37).

In the chapter on Affection, on page 206 (CFP), Nee writes, "Any error in our affection-be it an error in intention or purpose of excessiveness-is judged by God to be as wrong as an error in our hatred. Love and hate, when from ourselves, are equally defiled in the sight of God". I gave this quote to show, in agreement with "love" and "hate" being the components of Affection in chapter 2, Nee categorizes emotions of affection as being strongly for or against and everything in between. Note, this chapter is about all the different emotions of affection, not just love and not just hate.

When I compare Watchman Nee (CFP) to Watchman Nee (LSM), I feel I have to drop my intelligence, allow myself to be brainwashed, and overlook all kinds of errors in Witness Lee’s versions. It is not just I who has noticed these shallow versions at the lsm/lc in most of their books.

We Should Not Confuse the Soulical with the Soulish

On page 208 of TSM (CFP) in the 3rd paragraph, Volume 2, the word "soulical" is used to refer to the natural man’s love which is a proper expression of the soul. Witness Lee’s version changes soulical to “soulish”. This changes the meaning to one who is so overtaken by the soul life that it permeates his entire being. Witness Lee is telling you that those proper, appropriate, legitimate, or natural qualities, functions, or expressions of man's soul which the Creator intended from the very beginning for the soul uniquely to possess and manifest" (Explanatory Notes to the TSM, CFP) are not acceptable. Really!?

Witness Lee degrades human love in this way for control so that his organization becomes the love, replacing what is given to you by God soulically. In the first paragraph, page 209, Volume 2, the lsm/lc cult is responsible again for changing "soulical" to "soulish". Soulish is not the meaning intended here. The soulical speaks of the area of man's being designed from the beginning, but soulish is the corruption of that natural endowment which causes self to take over the whole being rather than allowing the spirit to be the guiding principle in leading the man.

The Godhead is Not a Person

On page 229, volume 2 (CFP), Nee says "encounter God as a Person" (in Christ). I think this could have confused Witness Lee if Lee interpreted this to mean the Godhead as a Person (modalism), the foremost teaching of the lsm/lc cult. Watchman Nee is not saying the Godhead is a Person but is talking about one of God's 3 Persons. Nee is saying that God the Son is a Person, that Person of Christ (the 2nd Person of the Triune God) whom we have a relationship with. This change of meaning is seen in lsm/lc version when it changes the meaning with the phrase: "touched with the Person of God". Witness Lee has been quoted as saying, “the Godhead is a Person” and "God is a threefold Person".

How many times have you seen this lsm/lc nomenclature Witness Lee and his spokespersons used profusely in their writings? It is quite unethical to take your erroneous beliefs and imprint them on another person’s writings. That is bearing false witness and just plain manipulative to create some special teaching of modalism. This has long since been a heresy to the Church. I have to honestly believe that Witness Lee did this willingly and consciously to the detriment of all who would believe him in his quest to create an organization whereby he could generate revenue off of unsuspecting souls - called filthy lucre!

In this same paragraph, we read in the "biography of many Christians we discover" (CFP) very humbly stated, whereas LSM makes the proclamation, "If we examine the history of a believer". How different are these renderings! One seems real, the other seems contrived. LSM is so hard and unspiritual like Witness Lee, I can’t stress this enough.

The Unholy Trinity is Not a Person Either

On page 14, Volume 3 of TSM (CFP), Nee draws a scenario of someone experiencing this difficulty: "the thoughts which presently arise in my head cannot be mine but rather those which emanate from another ‘person'," which is referring to the evil spirit working through another person, not the unholy trinity as a person. Even if it is the evil spirit directly, it is the person of spirit opposite to the Person of the Holy Spirit as the unholy trinity tries to copy the Trinity. Either thought is acceptable, but in no way are we to construe the unholy trinity as a person, just as we should not believe the Triune God is a Person, as taught under leeism. By misreading, this could be a place possibly where Witness Lee begins to develop his theory that Jesus and the Spirit are the same Person. Because I have the Holy Spirit and read carefully, I discerned accordingly. What's Lee's excuse for misreading and never repenting?

Not All Overcomers are Raptured at the First Rapture

Witness Lee also changed those whom Watchman Nee believed were raptured at the 1st rapture. Under leeism, you find the teaching that there is a resurrection of all the overcomers at 1st rapture. Watchman Nee disagrees: "at the first rapture there is no resurrection" (p. 78, Come, Lord Jesus, CFP). On page 78, he indicates at the bottom of the page only martyred and living overcomers are raptured at the first rapture. If we are going to preserve what an author originally intended, why would we then want to associate with those who have no consideration for at least keeping his words intact?

Harder Words are Insensitve

On page 44, Volume 3 of TSM (CFP), we find differences from the lsm/lc version. The lsm/lc version used hard blaming words like "torture" and "shallow", but the CFP says in a concerned and loving tone from the brethren that there was "damage done" and "weakened knowledge", rather than accusing them of being "shallow" (lsm/lc).

In another place on page 44, TSMP (CFP) reads: "suffered such damage", again, concerned for the brethren with this consideration. But the lsm/lc veresion says "evil spirits", a harder terminology of teaching sin is Satan. This passage on page 44 is about the way of deliverance. In my experience with leeists, when you try to talk to them about these these things, they don't study the information.  They just shout out: “Satanic”. They have done this to me on the Internet and in person.

We could write many books showing the alterations of Watchman Nee's writings by the lsm/lc cult, it's deceased leader Witness Lee and those who follow in the same error. My prophesy is that someone will.

Troy Brooks