Exposing G. Richard Fisher, Again!

Every couple of decades Richard tries, but fails, to find mistakes by sinning bearing false witness against Watchman Nee

G. Richard Fisher wrote a piece on Watchman Nee in "The Quarterly Journal," "The Newsletter Publication of Personal Freedom Outreach [PFO]," October-December 2003, edited by Keith A. Morse, Vol. 23, No. 4. The title of it was called, "Watchman Nee: The Master of Mix-Up...The Parable of the Chocolate Rabbit".

Richard Fisher had his go at Watchman Nee previously and failed miserably. His failure was shown in Watching Out for Richard Fisher. What I would like to do is simply go through this piece step by step to expose it.

The most important thing to learn is that G. Richard loves his favorite sin, the sin of bearing false witness, in being the great accuser, with no conscience what he is doing is wrong. It is easy to see, so follow along with me. The reason for his hostility towards Watchman Nee and sinning bearing false witness is because Watchman Nee believed in osas arminian, Biblical locality, partial rapture, restoration of creation in the six summary days, and our being tripartite: spirit, soul and body. Richard probably still rejects all of these 5 basic teachings.

Please understand what PFO teaches: calvinism. At the back of the PFO magazie, it states its owners' beliefs, "total depravity of all men". As you know the first point of calvinism is Total Depravity. This is a false teaching, since we are all made in the image of God to have a right to come to the cross to receive God's saving grace. God takes glory in giving us the choice (made in His image both before and after the fall) as well as saving those who come to the cross as helpless sinners to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 3.16,18). Calvinism teaches that man is no longer made in the image of God after the fall because of their false total depravity teaching, and that the only way the person can choose Christ is if God premade them that way like a robot or an automaton. This of course is evil, does not glorify God. How tragic that the editor of PFO believes in, and so does G. Richard Fisher. These are bad men because they deny Gen. 1.26,27, the garden choice, and the choice of right offering that Abel gave to God. We should never reject Rom. 8.29, ""For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate". First God foreknows, then He predestinates; ergo, He predestinates by foreknowledge, not by premaking. Praise the Lord!

Another proof of their false teachings is: "A local church is an organized assembly of believers". This is wrong because the local church is not a congregation assembly, but a Biblical locality of believers as a miniature of the new city in the new earth. Just as the Bible says, there is the church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia Minor or the church of Jerusalem in the churches of Judea. All of Ephesus is a local church. All of Jerusalem is the local church. A meeting place assembly is just one of the many meeting places of a local church. You can see what PFO is also fighting against - Biblical locality.

Let us begin.

Richard: Many of us remember getting a chocolate rabbit for Easter and discovering that it was only a shell - not solid. People experience the same kind of letdown from some religious icons. The accolades, promotions, and testimonials for these icons have been overdone. Sometimes the promotion has been a tool to sell books. Sometimes the teachers' words and presentations are shown to be aberrational or heretical. And sometimes these teachings are accused of attacking good men.

Troy: Richard begins his opening paragraph to plant thoughts in your head as any deceiver might, not realizing he is living on the shell which is no solid inside. There ought not to be any letdown for Christians about this since a discerning spirit will not be deceived by a deceiver. We will show how Richard's words are aberrational and heretical, and to sell more copies of The Quarterly Journal. We will also show how Richard's teachings are to attack a good man - an uttermost spiritual Christian. This will also show us Richard is jealous of those who lived a life of selflessness and the deeply spiritual life that Watchman Nee lived. Richard's hostility was long overdone two decades prior when he wrote his first bearing false witness piece.

Richard: Immature or undiscerning Christians often focus on the shell and never deal with what is - or isn't - inside. So the "Christian" marketing machine goes on pushing illusion with substance. Some hollow items are even touted as "Christian Classics." The shell of mock spirituality hides the lack of content or the corrupt content. We are being sold empty accounts of religious fold heroes inside a shell of religious cliches.

Troy: We might guess from this comment that Richard is not selling himself enough books and publications to line his pocket, projecting his own issues and showing a bit of low self-esteem. We are going to show how Richard is not a Christian, let alone an immature one. This is why he operates on the surface as would the tares in the outward appearance of the kingdom, but God says though they may try to look like the wheat (Matt. 13), God will take His sickle to them to separate them from His flock. Watchman Nee himself only ever published one book of size, The Spiritual Man (CFP) and lived in voluntary poverty. The rest of his writings were primarily by magazine given for free. Indeed, The Normal Christian Life is a Christian classic. The mock spirituality of Richard Fisher will show you his corrupted approach, beliefs and empty account, with his own religious cliches.

Richard: WATCHMAN WHO? Author Dan Roberts, writing on Watchman Nee, observes that Nee's books, "The Latent Power of the Soul and The Spiritual Man, teach us a gnostic psychoanalysis" [1. Dana Roberts, Understanding Watchman Nee, Plainfield, N.J.: Haven Books, 1980, pg. 150].

Troy: This amounts to a self-declaration, but I have ordered the Robert's book to reproduce page 150, to show there is no basis for this accusation. So far, all we see is coyness by G. Richard Fisher in self-declarations, accusing of gnosticism and psychoanlysis. Throwing around big words! Sounds vague. What is gnosticism, then, specifically? The basic tenet of its teaching is that the world and our bodies were created by an incompetent lesser God, but we contain a spark of divinity, and Jesus provided us with the knowledge to free it. Watchman Nee never believed this. So then, what does this make Richard Fisher and Dana Roberts? False accusers sinning bearing false witness. In The Spiritual Man (CFP), Watchman Nee writes,

"Today men give much attention to psychology. Even many who serve the Lord feel they must diligently study psychology. These believe if only their words, teachings, presentations, manners and interpretations can be made psychologically appealing to people, that many could be won to Christ. Psychology naturally refers in large part to the workings of man’s emotion. Occasionally it does seem to be helpful, but a child of God who relies on emotion serves no productive purpose for the Lord. We recognize already that regeneration of the spirit is the paramount need of man. Any work which cannot quicken man’s dead spirit or impart to man God’s untreated life or give him the Holy Spirit to indwell his regenerated spirit proves thoroughly futile. Neither our psychology nor that of the unbelievers can impart life to them. Unless the Holy Spirit Himself performs the work, all is vain."

What does Nee say about gnosticism?

"During the second and third centuries gnosticism invaded Christianity. This is typified by the parable of the leaven" (KKH). This is exactly what happened, but of course the gnostics failed. Watchman Nee speaks against gnostics, so why accuse Watchman Nee of believing in gnosticism without reason? Satan is that great and vague accuser and there are those who emulate him.

Richard: Many Christians have heard of Watchman Nee. His book, Sit, Walk and Stand appears to be a nice presentation of Ephesians. At one time, the prevailing view was that Watchman Nee was a martyr for the faith, something like a twentieth century Stephen, for being killed in a Chinese prison. that fact alone makes some think he was.

Troy: Appears to be a nice presentation? It is a true presentation, which is nice, not not nice. The prevailing view is still Watchman Nee was martyred for the faith as he spent the last two decades of his life in prison. He was put in jail for being a Christian. I am not sure who this Stephen is, which is careless name dropping without explaining who this person is. Christians don't think Nee was martyred because of some other human being. Christians believe he was imprisoned because he was a spiritual Christian. Still today, Watchman Nee is considered the foremost name in the history of the Chinese churches. I would tell you that his writings are the most spiritual Christian writings any man has ever written; none I have found match the depth of his writings in total. The Word of God was written by the Holy Spirit.

Richard: In 1984, warren Wiersbe said, "I don't doubt that Watchman Nee may have had some weaknesses in some areas. I fear that all of us have them whether we recognize them or not. I do realize, however, that Watchman Nee was one of the giants of the faith." [2. Letter to author, September 10, 1984, copy on file at PFO].

Troy: Sounds like a fair statement given the writings of Watchman Nee.

Richard: However, there are weaknesses and there are weaknesses. Weaknesses in critical areas cripple. The word weakness can be used to gloss over serious problems or rationalize the endorsement of a questionable teaching.

Troy: Of course, this is obvious.

Richard: NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS. Not all the reviews in 1984 were as glowing as Wiersbe's. A report came from mainland China that churches there had split and joined Nee's assembly, believing that his way was the one way to please God. Many in China did not see him as "one of the giants of faith," but as sectarian and rigid.

Troy: There is one pathway to God, which may seem rigid and sectarian to people, but their issue is not really with Watchman Nee, but with God, since Watchman Nee was abiding in God's will as his writings bear out. As it is in spiritual life, some will not walk along the narrow path. The wide path will be filled with the many. But praise the Lord there were some who accepted the truth which Nee proved in the Scriptures. Nee was not alive in 1984. He did not have an assembly, and when he was alive, the assembly he was in was for God. What Richard is alluding to here is Biblical locality, but in fact when you look deeper it is actually something else. He is trying to confuse Witness Lee with Watchman Nee. Witness Lee started a cult not long after Watchman Nee died. It had for itself a central hub now called Living Stream Ministry (which alters Nee's writings) Local Church (lsm/lc, and Witness Lee did all he could to marry himself to Watchman Nee, but Watchman Nee would have refused what he became because Biblical locality does not have a central hub. We see in the Scriptures the boundary of a Biblical locality does not extend to a central hub of an organization called The Local Church. This is why many wanted nothing to do with Witness Lee, but remained true to the revelation of the Word of God on the matter of Biblical locality, that first love that was lost in the first century. Witness Lee was a calvinist just like G. Richard Fisher, Keith A. Morse and probably Dana Roberts since what they are really going on about is defending calvinism, whereas Watchman Nee was osas arminian.

Richard: The report stated that Nee's early endeavors seemed like a real work of God: "Later however, he sees pride coming in, with strong denunciation of denominational churches, and an unhealthy authoritarianism" [3. "A Short History of The Little Flock, China's Largest Indigenous Church," Christian  Communications Ltd. Hong Kong, Research Paper, March 1984, No. 4 , pg. 5].

Troy: Again we see the error here in confusing the lsm/lc for the little flock. Many make this mistake of marrying Nee to Lee. These were two different movements. The little flock separated themselves as Richard Fisher unwittingly says they "had split and joined Nee's assembly" from the lsm/lc of Witness Lee because Witness Lee was pride-filled and had unhealthy authoritarianism. The little flock was already there, but Witness Lee wanted to do his own thing by creating his lsm/lc. Discerning believers did the right thing by staying with the little flock. Though denominations are wrong, Witness Lee was wrong to pound the denominations. Watchman Nee's treatment of the denominations is very well done in his writings (Church and the Work: Assembly Life, CFP),

"Let me first explain what we leave behind when we leave the denominations. If we do not know what we have left behind, it is true, we too may become a denomination. According to my understanding, when we leave the denominations, we leave behind two things: (a) various divisions such as are caused by the use of different names for the denominations; and (b) the pastoral system found in denominations. What is the pastoral system? It is bringing the intermediary priestly system of Judaism into Christianity. Unfortunately both Catholics and Protestants have adopted this."

When we abide in Biblical locality as did the little flock it prevents the pride of denominations, because it treats the Biblical locality as a Scriptural unit in which differences must be resolved together. This is God's will. This is a real work of God before His return as it was in the first century.

Richard: Along the way, this writer began to notice that people who were really enamored with Nee's teachings were very pushy and insistent that his was the last word on everything. Followers asked others questions simply to see how their answers stacked up against Nee's teachings. These people also seemed off-balance and tended toward a mystical and elitist position. But it was brushed aside and reckoned as a few unbalanced people who took Nee's writings too far or were off-center.

Troy: We need to realize there were the calvinist Leeists in the lsm/lc cult that disagreed with Nee unwittingly, and the osas arminians of the little flock that agreed with Watchman Nee on the Bible. Richard does not make this distinction, so this is like Satan as the author of confusion. However, I for one can not comment on these speculations and self-declarations. I think it is unloving to make the accusations that Richard makes without providing evidence. There are those in the lsm/lc that very well may have behaved this way. Who can say? What matters is this was not the way of the little flock in keeping with the writings of Watchman Nee which agree with the Word of God.

Richard: Further research into Nee's teachings brought a surprise. This led to a brief article, "Watching Out For Watchman Nee," which appeared in PFO's newsletter nearly two decades ago. Since then, the influence of Nee's teachings has grown. A deeper and broader look at this religious icon and presumed hero of the faith seemed necessary. No one wants to be overly critical of a giant with a few flaws unless the classification of giant itself is flawed.

Troy: This was extremely shoddy research by Richard, who wrote that piece. When I read it, I was surprised how a person could sin so profusely bearing false witness; but Richard managed to do just that, so I wrote a response entitled, "Watching Out For Richard Fisher" which answers in detail all his misreading and sins bearing false witness. Most amounted to self-serving self-declarations. One comes to the conclusion that Richard is a very bad man for writing what he wrote. The reason you find it on the internet so much is because people do NOT go deeper to see those sins bearing false witness, and just presumed what Richard wrote was true. I for one am grateful that the little flock functions in China, though I can't find Biblical locality working anywhere else in the world, at least that I know of. The beginnings of Biblical locality are starting again at Biblocality Forums. This will take time of course, for first we need twelve to come together in agreement to accept Biblical locality. We should expect this will take time because it has been over 1900 years since the universal church as forsaken it, though it has been operating in China to an extent. Watchman Nee's writings are gaining more traction. But again, we have to differentiate between Watchman Nee's writings at Christian Fellowship Publishers (the white covers) and the altered writings of Watchman Nee at Living Stream Ministry (Witness Lee's organization) to try to make them agree with Witness Lee's teaching. Richard always fails to make this distinction because he is either undiscerning or purposefully and knowingly attempting to deceive the reader by marrying Nee to Lee. We who appreciate Watchman Nee's writings do not presume him to be anything but an uttermost spiritual Christian because of the depth of his writings. This may offend Richard, but this is exactly what Watchman Nee was; no flaw of Nee's per se has been mentioned, nor by Richard. I would say Richard is acting like an elitist with so many self-declarations which require him to sin bearing false witness against the truth and humility of abiding in the Word of God as shown forth in Watchman Nee's writings (CFP).

To put the following Nee had into perspective, it is said when Nee was alive his ministry was half the time of John Wesley, but had twice the number of members.

Richard: A CUT ABOVE. Avid Nee followers are the poorest advertisements for his teachings. Their mentality can be cultlike. Judging Nee leaves one in  the position of being judged by his followers as judgmental. Ardent Nee disciples often display one or more of the following characteristics.

1. They often assume that everything - including the Bible - is judged by Nee's writings. They appear to be unaware that they are quoting what Nee said the Bible says. This mind set may not characterize all Nee devotees, but it is prevalent in many. Those who disagree with Nee may be considered sub-spiritual and a dwarf challenging a giant. Whole churches have been summarily judged with Nee's teachings as the ultimate test.

Troy: Since Richard does not make the distinction between Leeists who are in the lsm/lc cult which sells writings that have been altered, and those who agree with the Word of God which Nee's writings agree, I will respond as the words are given by Richard addressing Watchman Nee the person and those who actually agree with Nee on the Word of God instead. By doing so I take at face value what Richard says and respond as if he is actually speaking about Watchman Nee whom he is accusing. I can not really address much here regarding Richard's claims since he self-declares only, and does not back up anything he says. Most who understand Watchman Nee's writings as they were intended do not assume everything including the Bible is judged by Nee's writings. What Christians see in the Word they find Nee expresses also so that agreement is most wonderful in the body of Christ. Those who enjoy Nee's depth and accuracy with the Word are fully aware when quoting what Nee says the Bible says. Those who would be unaware they are quoting Nee would not be many as Richard overassumes, or even any. Richard can not name even one person. I think Richard is simply an arrogant man making self-declarations from the center of his self because he is being intellectually dishonest with himself about why he is really attacking Nee or those who agree with his writings. Richard is hostile to osas arminians. Those who agree with Nee's writings do not see Richard as sub-spiritual, but we do ask why he has so much hostility when he doesn't even back up what he claims? Is this the proper way to behave? Whole churches have been summarily judged by Nee? To point out the mistakes of denominations is beneficial so as not to be deceived by those mistakes; does Richard do any less in analyzing people and denominations at PFO? The question is, who is right and who is wrong? since obvious Watchman Nee would disagree with Richard's attacks while Richard is unable to back up any of his own claims. I am constantly reminded Satan is the great accuser.

I find this hostility by Richard very cultlike because it is selfish self-declaration which don't represent reality. If it did, Richard could somehow show it, but he fails to do so. We should never speak from a prideful pedestal, making ourselves the center when we speak. It is in cults that people make outrageous claims without foundation. This is very judgmental of Richard. What is Richard trying to do? Start a cult around him?

Richard: 2. When clear statements by Nee point toward error or even heresy, Nee's followers tell those who express doubt that they misunderstand Nee. Pressing for a clearer interpretation is futile.

Troy: What statements? Don't just self-declare something without evidence. This is like the great accuser. When such accusations are labeled (we don't know what they are since Richard doesn't say), those who agree with Nee's writings do not just say the accuser misunderstood. We actually show how they misunderstood. By doing so, we give the accuser the clearer interpretation as Watchman Nee shows in his words. What is futile is to make a lame excuse like it "is futite" to go further. Now the responsibility is on the accuser to respond to the explanation of how they misread what Watchman Nee said; even repent, as they have been shown wrong. Don't stop short!

Richard: Nee's followers say his writings had to be translated from Chinese and therefore may not be precisely rendered in English. If this is true, then no one can know for sure what he wrote.

Troy: It is incorrect to say Christians are Nee followers. We agree with Nee's writings, but we follow the Word of God. Moreover, we do not say that the translation was not precisely rendered. I can think of no better translations from Chinese to English that was accomplished at Christian Fellowship Publishers to accurately preserve Nee's writings. Since this is true, we can know for sure what he wrote. Richard is always wrong in what he says.

Richard: Nee's books come to us from a number of sources, which include the books he himself wrote, his articles and editorials from his magazines, and English and Mandarin shorthand taken during his lectures. These writings reflect his chronological transition and developing views from a handful of teachers who introduced him to their extremes, which then became Nee's new emphasis. Very little of his work can be considered biblical exposition.

Troy: Some have the impression the writings of Nee come from other people taking notes, but this is not the case at all, for as we read in Against the Tide by Angus Kinnear, "Watchman Nee personally put only one book into English [not books], but he left an almost complete record of his sermons, lectures, and conference addresses which were published in the several magazines he edited." [p. ix, Foreward, by Leslie T. Lyall]. This one book was The Spiritual Man (CFP) which was about 700 pages. There was one other book, called Church and the Work: Rethinking the Work which Nee, which sometime later was translated into English.

May the reader fully see at this point, what is spouting from Richard is self-declaration after self-declaration, like a clanging bell in which he never backs up anything he says. As Nee was led by the Holy Spirit and read over 3000 Christian books with a vast intellect and extreme genius, he was well equipped to fellowship with spiritual Christians and to be led in the right directions to delve deeply into the Word of God. I can think of very little of Nee's work that would not be Biblical exposition. It is said that Nee's writings "fit like a glove" to the Word of God, he is so accurate! Another expression is he is like a "precision expert" with the Word of God. I think it is most revealing why Richard would write such a long piece against Watchman Nee because he finds Nee a very great threat to his own faith. This is why he goes to this extreme to self-declare things against Nee and react as ferociously as he does bearing false witness.

One indication that Richard is speaking about the writings at Living Stream Ministry and not Christian Fellowship Publishers is that at lsm/lc they categories Nee's writings chronologically as Richard says "his chronological transition and developing views". But, at CFP we find that all Nee's writings are categories by concepts, with footnotes explaining the dates as well. This is definitely a more spiritual way to gather Nee's writings. The translation at CFP is much deeper too, thus truer to Nee's thoughts. The translations or non-translations at lsm/lc are not nearly as deeply translated. Often Christians say is, that the translation work done at lsm/lc is very sloppy. These teachers whom Watchman Nee fellowshipped with were not extreme, but were deeply led by the Lord and received much grace by God in the inner spiritual life to strengthen their spirits and to be helpful to Nee. However, we should not as a spiritual giant, Nee exceeded all those teachers before him in reaching into the depth of the Word of God. We should not blame someone for growing in Christ: "developing views" or "new emphasis". Richard is acting like the great vague accuser. Such accusations are exceedingly mindless.

Regarding Nee's writings, suffice it to say that most of what are in books were from his magazines.

Richard: Because the books are sold as Nee's writings and there are no disclaimers, sidenotes, or corrective and critical apparatus, we have only these translations to go on. Errors of doctrine cannot be blamed on editors or publishers because Nee's doctrinal blemishes are repeated in different books and establish a pattern of questionable teaching.

Troy: While reading my responses, let us remember what Richard said, he agrees what Nee teaches does "establish a pattern". Therefore, this should prove how well the translations were at CFP, preserving the consistency in Nee's writings. The only question then is, if Nee had blemishes an questionable teaching, it would be up to Richard to show it, but so far in his diatribe and filibuster, he has provided no evidence to his constantly repeating from his selfish center that Nee has some error.

At CFP, the books are filled with sidenotes, but nothing could be supplied as corrective or critical since what Nee wrote is unblemished. I am sure this frustrates Richard. Disclaimers are not necessary since the translators stand by what Watchman Nee said and did not need to protect themselves, for whatever Nee was accused of, they would stand by it. Perhaps again, Richard is referring to mistranslations of Nee's writings lacking footnotes at the lsm/lc, but who can say since he does not distinguish. All we can say is the depiction he gives is not that which would be true at CFP.

Richard: 4. There is further confusion with Nee's followers because Nee, like nearly every other mystic, confused illumination with revelation. General revelation is God showing Himself in creation. Special revelation is God communicating directly with prophets, apostles, through angels, and finally in and through Jesus Christ. It is information given directly by God that could be known in no other way. By inspiration the special revelation was recorded in the Bible for all generations.

Troy: You don't want to take a word like illuminate and legalize it to just the opening up of the Scriptures without illumination in the spirit because that would be doubletongued. You actually can't have the Scriptures open up if the inner man or inner woman has not also received commensurate light. It is because the light given within that you can see the Word in a clearer way. This is perfect cause and effect. Where does Richard show Nee confused illumination with revelation?

Where does Richard conclude Nee is a mystic? You don't see Nee being a mystic in his writings, so where does Richard come up with his ideas? Thus, there is no reason to think those who agree with Nee would be confused, but those who affiliate with one who bears false witness are susceptible to being deceived. And since those who agreed with Nee were not confused, why say "further confusion" if there were was not confusion in the first place? All we are left with to conclude is Richard is emulating that great false accuser.

What is a mystic? Watchman Nee writes in Revive Thy Work (CFP) about the Recovery of Inner Life, "Yet apart from these areas of external recovery, there was also a recovery of the inner spiritual life. Numbered among those involved in this spiritual recovery were Madame Guyon, Father (later Archbishop) Fenelon, and others. These people were commonly labeled as mystics. They learned to deny themselves. They joined themselves to God against their very own selves. They would not excuse themselves, nor would they plead to be spared. And in each age since, there have been those who have followed in their footsteps. But God also raised up other people of the inner life called the Pietists and the Quietists."

Regarding the church in Ephesus (Come, Lord Jesus, CFP), "'The church in Ephesus'—The church has two different aspects: one is the mystic church, the other is the local church. One is the body of Christ, the other is the house of God. The churches referred to in these two chapters are the churches in each locality. Great is the distinction between 'the church in Ephesus' and 'the church of Ephesus', for the church only sojourns at Ephesus, it does not belong to Ephesus. For this reason, names such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Chinese Church, and so forth are unscriptural."

In yet in another sense of the word mystic, Watchman Nee was against mystics (Do All to the Glory of God, CFP), "Although we have been preaching co-death, there will be many who still do not understand what it is. This is because co-death is a fact, not a doctrine. It is set before us as an already accomplished fact. Yet many are still seeking to die with Christ. We need to see that co-death is our starting point, not our ending point. The mystic looks at co-death as a goal to pursue, but this is not the Christian teaching. Unless we are dead with Christ, we cannot be Christians. To seek to die with Christ is an act of folly, clearly showing a lack of light. One who has light and meets the truth of co-death will praise, not pursue. It is the same as seeing the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus; it too sets our hearts to praising instead of pursuing".

In nothing Watchman Nee wrote about mystics would indicate any confusion between illumination with revelation. I think what Richard is trying to say is he (Richard) is a bipartite, confusing spirit and soul. These are people who confuse the spirit with the soul, even though the Word of God says we are tripartite with a spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23). The Holy Spirit makes contact with the spirit of man, whereas we make contact with world through our outerman. In the OT the Holy Spirit came upon man, but in the NT the veil was rent and the Holy Spirit indwelt men wherein the Holy Spirit communicates with spirit, and revelation of the Holy Spirit is given which must agree with the Word of God. Any understanding we may have must first enter our inner man in that still small voice through the intuition. All that needs to be received by the Spirit in truth must first enter the spirit directly, whether it be acceptance of creation or about what the prophets wrote or the words of Christ.

Still another sense of the word mystic can be related to emotion of the soul's outerman as it contrasts with the conscience and intuition of the inner man's spirit: we see this usage applied in Watchman Nee's, The Spiritual Man which is the best writing in the history of the human race on the dividing of spirit, soul and body. Richard should not reject revelation of the Holy Spirit in the spirit of the believer for it is the way God imparts spiritual knowledge: by revelation which is illuminating. God will illuminate something so revelation is seen. The revelation may have come, but needs further illumination. In other words, what is revealed through the window of man's conscience in the intuition will become illuminated with God's light.

Satan's way is always to work from the outer to the inner, but God works from the inner to the outer. This would be confusing for Richard to understand as a bipartite who rejects man having a spirit, soul and body, wherein God first makes contact with spirit with His Spirit. If you don't accept man as being tripartite, naturally you would confuse illumination and revelation as not being integral one with the other. We should never confuse our spirit for our soul, nor should we think what God gives by revelation is not illuminating. First there must be contact Spirit with spirit in revelation so illumination in the spirit brightens. This as well illuminates the Scriptures for us. Because we were right in our inner man, the Scriptures come alive and are illuminated.

Nee well points out in Revive Thy Work (p.158), "Let us understand that all revelations come as light. With the light there is revelation (see Ps. 36.9). Today there is abundant light in the church." It works both ways. The light of God gives us  revelation, and then the revelation given personally as well as corporately sheds further illumination. Spiritual life is never so cut and dry. Neither is it ever so complicated either.

"For with thee [is] the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light" (Psalms 36.9).

And still more: Nee writes on page 9 of From Faith to Faith, "Consequently, when truth is preached, it becomes doctrine if there is no enlightenment. But when it is preached with the light of God shining upon it, this truth becomes a revelation. Having revelation is possessing truth. All who have doctrines have their minds full of ideas; but all who have revelation have life and reality." So you see how Nee distinguishes illumination and revelation. The light must illuminate on the truth for it to become revelation. "In order to see the truth of God, we need His enlightenment. 'Send out thy light and thy truth' (Ps. 43.3). What does the light of God shine upon? God uses light to shine upon His truth. This is of great importance, since we know God’s truth through enlightenment. Truth is not obtained through preaching; it comes from the enlightenment of God...Whoever sees the reality is the one who has received the enlightenment."

We should not deny God's personal or special revelation, for if one does forsake God's leading in the spirit, that person remains in their head. There is the Word of God which is special for it is Jesus Christ, but this does not mean God has stopped giving revelation today.

Richard: Now as the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible, He gives believers illumination of the text. Because Nee called illumination "revelation," his followers are misled and misleading as they talk of their latest revelations. That confusion is taught by Nee in his book, The Ministry of God's Word: ' By revelation we mean that today God again breathes on His word, the Holy Spirit imparts light to me; the anointing of the Holy Spirit is upon this word so that once again I see what Paul saw in his day" [4. Watchman Nee, The Ministry of God's Word. New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc. 1971, pg. 87].

Troy: God daily is communicating to the spirit of the believer if the believer is open to receive the Holy Spirit's leading. The normal Christian life is not of latest special revelations, for there should be an ongoing flow of the Holy Spirit's movements in the believer's spirit. Both the illumination in the spirit of the believer is essential as well as the illumination of the Word in agreement with that light received in the spirit, for the Spirit must agree with the Word, just as the soul reads the Word and the spirit receives from the Spirit.

Here is the seriously negative consequences of Richard's beliefs as Nee well points out (The Spiritual Man), "As without the illumination of the Holy Spirit a sinner initially will never see the sinfulness of his sin and flee from the coming wrath into the obedience of Christ. If Richard only sees the illumination of the Word without the illumination of the Spirit in agreement with the Word, his inner man remains unchanged while he is talking a good talk about the illumination for the Word to his outer man as though he is trying to convince himself. You can't have a soulical illumination lighting one's understanding of the Word if the spirit of the man is unchanged. That is like putting the cart before the horse. There is a proper cause and effect to God's ordering from spirit to soul. It is quite evident in Richard's thoughts that he is in his head and forsaking the inner spiritual life. This is called will-worshipping by the strength of his soul without the leading of his spirit.

In the quoted text from The Ministry of God's Word (pp.86-87), we read:

Richard: Technically, Nee did not have or offer a systematic theology. His teachings are scattered through nearly 100 books, which makes it difficult to arrange and systematize his views. Living Stream Ministry has collected and published The Collected Works of Watchman Nee in 62 volumes, which include previously untranslated and unpublished materials.

Troy: Notice how Richard, as noted before, focuses on the lsm/lc version said-to-be of Nee's writings and not on his original writings preserved at CFP. To understand this problem, note that at the lsm/lc cult, there are 100 books, but at CFP there are only 55 books. It should begin to make sense that the lsm/lc adds to Watchman Nee's writings that which was not there before. This can be observed by taking two books said to be of Nee's, one from CFP and one from lsm/lc, and you will find the latter is often 30% longer. This can not account for mere wordiness alone. They must be adding things into Nee's writings (e.g. MOGW). It is difficult to find a systemized thought  when you have to unfold the chronological ordering of at lsm/lc, but at CFP, the ordering is according to concepts, which makes for a very well arranged thought process in Nee's writings to be revealed and illuminated. Richard is unwittingly alluding to this problem of the lsm/lc adding so much product from whence we do not know where it comes from as supposedly "previously untranslated and unpublished materials". Also, all materials were previously untranslated and unpublished; that is how they then become translated and then published.

Richard: NEE'S HISTORY. Watchman Nee was collector of religious ideas who tried to build a consistent system out of a hodgepodge of theological extremes and distinctives. He ended up with a patchwork quilt of the prevailing ideas of four diverse teachers. Nee borrowed extensively and uncritically, but gave the appearance of having unique incite into spiritual things.

Troy: Watchman Nee was not a collector of religious ideas, but rather, where the Holy Spirit led him, he was willing to go. Nothing in Nee's writings are extreme, but that which is for the normal Christian life. God showed him the dividing of spirit, soul and body, partial rapture, osas arminian, Biblical locality and restoration of creation in the 6 summary days. These are all true and they destroy bipartite man teachings, historicalism, calvinism, dividing the body in denominations, and the multitude of creation of views.

What we find is a very distinct set of teachings that agree with the Word of God precisely. Those teachers that God used to help brothers and sisters lead to deeper truths were very beneficial. Nee did not so much as borrow, but found agreement in the same Holy Spirit with other teachers. He was led down a similar path in Christ. Once a truth was known building on that basis is what overcoming in Christ is all about. Because of the depth to which Nee was led in the Lord, there was in truth some things that seemed unique to other Christians and most strange to the tares who are unsaved as they pass themselves off as being the wheat. I know that G. Richard Fisher is one of those tares because all his accusations are unable to be substantiated and proven to be wrong.

As usual Richard just self-declares things selfishly and does not back up what he says. This is the self on a rampage. Just as Richard has no experience of what Nee said about revelation, "Holy Spirit imparts light to me", so too does Richard get confused about these 5 basic teachings. He has a diabolically opposite view which is imprinted on him by the evil spirit.

Richard: Capitalizing on Luke 12.32, he called his movement the "Little Flock." It was formed in Fujian in the early 1920's [5. "A Short History of the Little Flock," op. cit., pg. 4].

Troy: This is exactly how the church should be in the humblest way possible as a little flock, not as big denominational herd exceeding the boundary of Biblical locality. Richard has a disease: his hostility degrades everything, even the very Word of God itself as though somehow Christians are capitalizing as though it is somehow wrong we are the little flock the Word of God speaks of. This is actually an attack against Christians and is without the love of the Lord.

Richard: Nee believed that the early Church truth had been lost and needed to be recovered. He saw some of the recovery occurring through the mystics of the Middle Ages. A historical sketch, provided by one researcher, reveals" "The Lord's Recovery began when the Lord raised up Martin Luther and the reformers, and continued in recovering lost biblical truths through others such as Madam Guyon, Father Fenelon, Brother Lawrence, Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian Brethren, John Darby, the Brethren, Watchman Nee, and today with Brother Witness Lee. Doctrinal conflicts arose between Lee and other leaders and members of the existing movement. Controversy brought about a split of the movement" [6. Jim Moran, " A Brief History of the Local Church." Moran published critiques of the Local Church on his website, Light of Truth Ministries - www.ltm.org. On January 17, 2003, Moran died and in April 2003, the Local Church - The Church in Fullterton Corporation - purchased from Moran's estate his web site including all files and postings. They have now removed these documents from the Internet and are notifying any other web sites which have these documents to remove them].

Troy: What was that early church truth that was lost? It was Biblical locality.  Watchman Nee goes into detail how each of these brothers in Christ contributed (see Revive thy Work, CFP), that is, what their opening up of greater awareness to the Word of God was. If by mystic Richard means those who had an inner spiritual life, we can see what Richard is severely lacking, for he knows not the difference between his spirit and his soul, thinking they are the same thing. How tragic. For him, his soulical functions are just as rough as his spiritual organs.

The Lord's Recovery is not associated with Watchman Nee's little flock. The Lord's Recovery often called themselves the Local Church, yet in the Church there is no central hub Local Church. This is a centralization that is not of God. The lsm/lc tries to copy Nee's work, but in the process they corrupt it. That is why I wrote this 5th point on How to Read Nee Properly,

 "What I have discovered is that as soon as the spiritual is reached, there is often someone close behind who will misuse it not caring for the truth. An analogy would be like a person standing on a table in which the table legs are strong enough to hold the man up, but as soon as he tries to pull or lift another person up, the table and both of them will topple over if the one being lifted pulls back too hard. The one on the table knows how to stand and stay there, but the one being lifted does not, nor does he want to; that is why he pulled so hard. It would seem better to have never offered such a person to come up in the first place, since now that person is looking for his own ways to get up which always fails him."

Witness Lee was not a Christian and Jim Moran had his own problems. We know that he was a fleshly Christian since he could not even accept that he had both a spirit and a soul. How strange! Moran did not accept that his spirit was different from his soul, thus confusing their functions which does not give glory to God. He did not have the illumination in his spirit to receive illumination in the Word on God's dividing of spirit, soul and body, which is the exact same problem Richard has.

We need to understand that there were essentially two splits. One back in as early as the 50's when the little flock did not accept Witness Lee's maneuverings for a central hub what is now today called Living Stream Ministry, and then a second division occurred in the lsm/lc itself where some recalled those in the little flock who never came over to Witness Lee's system in the first place. This is always overlooked by the accuser because they are trying to desperately marry Watchman Nee to Witness Lee, but clearly given what Witness Lee became, Watchman Nee would have rebuked him.

Please see Revive Thy Work on these individuals (do not confuse this with the lsm/lc, Witness Lee and his physical children who run his organization, which they call themselves the Lord's Recovery, since these various recoveries do not extend to the false teachings and false works of Witness Lee's system).

Watchman Nee is known as a scholar of church history. If you would like to learn more about the Commencement and the Continuation of Recovery or The Ruin and the Progress of the Church, when you read them, notice many other names are also mentioned of Christians in the history of their church, what they recovered as well as what was lacking in their ministries.

If you are going to try to disprove something Watchman Nee said, you should deal specifically with what Watchman Nee wrote, rather than speak generally or vaguely as though somehow your self-declaring makes your accusation have something valid about it derogatorily.

Richard: In other words, Nee opened himself up to mystical and Gnostic strains. Nee mixed and merged things from Reformed camps, mystical thought, dispensational ideas, and Roman Catholicism. Nee seemed to come up with very few original ideas while pushing these borrowed ideas with intemperate language. One of those fringe ideas has been denounced by Dave Hunt. In an analysis of Nee's 1933 book, The Latent Power of the Soul, Hunt writes: "It's basic premise (much like Benny Hinn's teaching) is that Adam was a superman with abilities at least 'a million times' greater than ours - p. 15 - and 'possessed [of] a hidden ability which made it possible for him to become like God. he was already like him in outward appearance." [7. Dave Hunt, "Q&A section, The Berean Call newsletter, April 1998, pg. 3].

Troy: It is a sin to accuse someone of opening themselves to a Gnostic strains when it is not shown. Richard does not even define mysticism or gnosticism as we have courteously done for the reader. Such big words need defining but coyly, Richard does not have the courtesy to do so as he probably does not even know what they mean. People like to drop big words without defining them to make themselves look greater than they are. You should not just self-declare something. Truths that Watchman Nee show in the Word that he found in agreement with others in church history, have no Gnostic strain in those truths. As in many things in life there are part truths and part untruths to a belief. Watchman Nee should be commended for splicing out those untruths, keeping only the truths as the Holy Spirit reveals, even whatever could be found in the Reformed camps.

It should be noted again that Richard uses the word mystical to describe his own incapacity to experience the dividing of the spirit, soul and body. Because he does not know what is of the spirit or how it differs from the soul, naturally he accuses of this being mystical to him, because it is mystical to him. How confused is the man who thinks he is bipartite wherein he claims the spirit is the soul and the soul is the spirit. The Holy Spirit has not given Richard the ability to discern this.

God works in time which are dispensations, so there is no reason to accuse of dispensations. Whatever truths the RCC held, Watchman Nee is not one to disagree with those truths. Nothing here said would indicate intemperate language like that of accusing mindlessly as Richard is so apt to do. I understand the need for Richard to think these ideas are borrowed, but that is not how the Holy Spirit works. The way God's Spirit works in the believer is to lead them in a direction and to sense that leading. Where the Holy Spirit leads in agreement with the Word, we find agreement in the body of Christ on certain principles. This is the normal way for the Christian, which is not borrowing of ideas, but being led into the same pathway of agreement in certain truths - this is spiritual life. One of those truths is the condition of man before the fall as we see Watchman Nee write in Latent Power of the Soul, on "Adam's Authority and Physical Prowess" on page 14,15. The explanation given there helps explain much of what Richard and Hunt do not understand and leave out so that you would not see the explanation,

"And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1.27,28). Have dominion over the earth, says God.  

Although we may not rate Adam’s power as being a billion times over ours, we can nonetheless safely reckon it to be a million times over ours. Else he would not have been able to perform the duty commanded him of God. As for us today, though, if we were required to merely sweep a lane three times daily, we would not be able afterwards to straighten our back. How then could we possibly rule the earth? Yet Adam not only ruled the earth but he also had dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, and every living thing on the earth. To rule is not just to sit by doing nothing. It requires management and work. From a seeing of this we should recognize the superior power which Adam in fact possessed. It far exceeds our present situation.

But do you think that this insight is something new? Actually this is the teaching of the Bible. Before his fall Adam had such strength that he never felt tired after work. It was only after his fall that God told him, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."