Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Sep 26, 2004.
A friend (Bill Gray) wrote me and questioned a new cultic view being promoted:
To implicate Watchman Nee in cultic practices simply because he supposedly taught Witness Lee at some point, is wrong. I have a whole shelf of Nee's work (Mostly early writings)and for the most part I find him to be a very Godly man and his works to be very edifying.
Watchman Nee isn't exactly a cult leader, though he had some strange beliefs. Witness Lee and the local Church are definitly a cult. The Local Church is famous for hiding its denomination in its recruiting, publications, etc. I even got a NT Study Bible written by them without ever knowing it was Local Church (until I investigated who did the notes). Good thing I checked NO when they asked if I wanted someone to follow up with me. BTW, don't say the Local Church is a cult, they are also famous for suing people who claim they are a cult.
Pete Richert is right. Watchman Nee has some very strange and troubling teachings; some of these were passed on to Witness Lee who founded the Local Church and taught a mystical brand of Christianity with practices like "pray-reading." Many of Lee's ideas came from Nee. The Local Church is cultic and they do sue some people who say so.
Here are some links with info:
Info on the Local Church
Below excerpt is on Watchman Nee from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n00.html#neew
If you scroll down a bit, you'll find Watchman Nee which has links to further info
More links on Nee
Detailed info on The Local Church with links
This sounds similar to what an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS told me they believe, similar, but not exactly the same.
BTW, I believe the tree of life typifies Christ. Is that cultic?
It's not non-Christian cultic, but it is out of the ballpark.
I've never heard of Witness Lee or Watchman Lee. I do know that I am supposed to beware of false prophets. Everything that I hear regarding spiritual truth gets filtered through my Bibles, regardless of the source. There are a lot of magazines, books, newsletters, and the like that are deceptive. I stay away from all of them. Temptation comes from many sources. Remember, Satan tried using scripture to lead Jesus astray!
It's not non-Christian cultic, but it is out of the ballpark. </font>[/QUOTE]A homerun?
Watchman Nee was a Christian mystic.
That view seems similar to something that is believed by Paul Crouch on TBN. Kenneth Copeland, and the Crouches promote something about how they are all little gods. That God makes no distinction between Himself and man and that once we're Christians, we become God too.
No, a theological absurdity.
Amen! </font>[/QUOTE]I agree Nee should not be implicated because of Witness Lee's beliefs, but he can be implicated for his own beliefs and teachings. Also, we can implicate Nee in cultic practices if he taught them, whether to Witness Lee or to anyone else. As the links show, Nee did have clear cultic and aberrant teachings.
Before I burn the man at the stake, I would like to see quotes, in context, from his writings that prove that he taught doctrines of a non-Christian cultic kind.
Before I burn the man at the stake, I would like to see quotes, in context, from his writings that prove that he taught doctrines of a non-Christian cultic kind. </font>[/QUOTE]No one is talking about burning anyone at the stake. If you read the links, there is enough info to create at least a concern. If you can't accept what anyone says about Nee, then check Nee's books for yourself. The fact that many sound Christians have investigated him and found huge problems should go for something, but if that means nothing to you, Craig, then read through a couple of Nee's books.
Wise. Same way I felt.
So I started a thread to that end some time ago. Feel free to come by and look at the links and the evangelical apologists who have raised eyebrows with the doctrines of Nee.
I have been "concerned" about the teachings of Watchman Nee for 35 years. I read the links that were posted and they were nothing but opinions from men who believe differently. Don't run a man down unless you have solid evidence that he deserves it. Where are the actual quotes in context from Nee’s writings? Self-righteousness in the name of theological correctness has no place in a Christian community.
Thoughts? </font>[/QUOTE]I have a question here. I have on several occasions posted something from an article and got rebuked by a moderator and even had the post edited. Why is not the ground level when a mod posts an article or part of one which is copy righted? I am always told to go through the channels but it NEVER does any good. It looks like a old buddy system. Can any understanding be given? I realize that you want this to be done in private but in private it gets covered up and excuses made. Why is the ground rules not the same for everyone?
To give a few paragraphs in direct quotation from an article with the source is done all the time. It is part of a scholarly debate. To take more than a short quotation or not give credit/link can be plagiarism and that is jumped on regularly.
I am sorry if something of yours was clipped. Perhaps it fell into that latter category??
And remember, the ground isn't level. Some are more equal that others. Get over it and learn to cope. [tongue-in-cheek icon inserted here]
Excerpt of testimony of former Local Church member:
Home page of site giving various sources of info on the Local Church: