Questionable Doctrines of Watchman Nee

I certainly do not agree with some things Chafer writes but I have gained from some thiungs he has written.

One of the things I like is in the intro. to the systematic theology when he writes about how a seminary no matter how true its aim can do nothing more than to give an introduction.

The point being that the rest is up to us to study and discover the gems in scripture as we walk with God.

 

Unfortunately, I do not find that Chafer ever managed to get significantly beyond that point.

 

For an introduction to the aberrations of 20th century dispensational theology from a Dallas perspective it is not too bad. For most other purposes it is a sad waste of paper.

 

Karen,

God has blessed you with much wisdom. Your observations are very accurate and your dealing with them very astute. If I could say the same for Chafer, I would praise him also.

The reason why I extend less benefit of the doubt to Chafer is that I am much more familiar with the theology of Chafer than I am with that of Nee. From my point of view, Chafer’s analysis of the Bible is little more than elementary and his conclusions radically wrong on several important theological issues.

Eating a meal with Lutherans and enjoying their fellowship is a very different thing than agreeing with their analysis of the Bible and the conclusions that they draw from it. However, with only one exception, my experiences in fellowship with Lutherans were most enjoyable. I can not speak so highly of my fellowship with “others far removed from much of Baptist thought,” but we still got along great (that should be an adverb).

I should also point out that Chafer is not a member of this board, and that the only Baptists on this board with whom I do not get along with in theological debates are those who are adamant in presenting views that I know to be incorrect, especially when they present their views in a manner that seems to me to be distinctly less than Christian. You may have noticed that I avoid the “other religions” forum or forums. I would be very much at odds with many people posting there.

It may very well be that I have been too dismissive of problems with Watchman Nee's writings. Certainly there are some serious problems. When I saw him implicated with the teachings of Witness Lee, I was personally offended and perhaps I was too zealous in defending him. However, in the two examples of his writings in which I was dismissive of problems, I do not believe that the problems in those particular writings are nearly as severe as some problems in Chafer’s theology. I am a Baptist, and Chafer was a Baptist while he was still alive, but the differences in our beliefs are enormous. Nonetheless, had we shared meals together, we may have gotten along very well socially and have had some very fine Christian fellowship together.

Karen, thank you for carefully reading by posts, thinking intelligently about them, and sharing with me your thoughts about them in an honest, forthright, and yet very Christian manner. I am confident that you will be blessed by God for doing so. I certainly have been blessed by what you shared with me.

 

Craig,
Thanks very much for your kind response.

Karen

 

Hi Everybody,

I found this thread by accident via Google, and being a member, I should like to respond. I think there are several important things that should be understood about Nee:

First, there can be no honest discussion about Watchman Nee without first separating him from Witness Lee, his "student". Make no mistake, Witness Lee and his Local Church are CULTIC. However, to associate Lee and/or the Local Church with Watchman Nee is to greatly miss the mark. This is the classic mistake so many make, unintentionally, when they first come across Nee.

And it is so very easy to do because, second, there are very few original and authentic published works of Nee. We must remember that he lived in China, in primitive conditions and then under a Communist China dictatorship, which imprisoned him for 20 years or so (certainly the reader must be aware of the huge cultural differences). He didn't have resources to publish works the way we have always had over here. Much of the work now available that is attributed to Him (especially via the internet) is either (1) Witness Lee's writings, (2) Works that were transcribed and/or written by Witness Lee followers from works of Nee or worse, second hand material, hence the cultic bias, (3) honest efforts to preserve Nee's work but by people using less than authentic sources, (4) the best known sources of Nee which are, primarily, several orthodox Christians who were dedicated to preserve the best teachings of Nee and thus carefully compiled and translated them from the most original sources, and are always forthcoming in their acknowledgements of transcript and translation limitations. Simply put, it is no simple ordeal to come into possession of an authentic Lee writing, since only one known manuscript of anything he ever personally wrote is known to exist - and, since it was written in his particular Chinese dialect, there are translation problems with it, especially the English.

This is not to say that Nee was without error or had, it would seem to us, some strange ideas. Quite the contrary. When I first stumbled across Nee, I began to read and was fascinated with his teaching on Romans 6. But, after a few chapters, I felt the need to check him out and did so, in fact I stopped reading for a month because of the conflicting information I found, including some of the material in this thread. I resumed reading only after much investigation and finally, assurance from a very mature Christian author, whose work I know well and who had read the same works I have some 20 years earlier and benefited greatly from them.

Also, by no means am I an expert on Nee. In fact I have only read 2 of his books due to the screening process mentioned above and, at the present time, only plan to read one or two others. But the things I have learned from reading Nee have been invaluable to me. Further, none of the material I have read is heretical or anything like that. IMHO, it is by far more dangerous to walk into your local Christian bookstore and pick up a book than it is to read Nee, assuming you have a Watchman Nee work and not a counterfeit, or a poor compilation or translation. Nee is thorough, somewhat technical, and based on what I have read, at his best teaching directly from scripture. Yet, I would say that to study Watchman Nee is to "cherry pick" from a pile. The right cherries are lush and delicious, but, like with everything else, you should pick carefully. I may change later but for now I would only recommend Nee to the more mature, discerning Christian.

I would agree, that has been my experience. Certainly to dismiss him as heretic, or associate his teaching with Lee, is to miss a great blessing, IMHO. Watchman Nee is not for everybody but if you like tough, red meat, you will probably gain from reading Nee.

 

IveyLeaguer

Thank you for sharing with us!

 

Dr. Bob wrote,
**********
Nee teaches the "second blessing." He later said he felt he had "recovered" truth for the church and taught four subsequent experiences after conversion.
**********

One of the Living Stream books, whether it is a reliable source I do not know, put together a book of 'Nee's writings' from sermons notes several years ago. In it, Nee encourages the following practice: when a person is baptized, elders lay hands on him and pray for him to be filled with the Spirit. Elders may then be moved to prophesy about the person. Nee may have had a little bit 'loose' Brethren-style view of prophecy. (Not that I am denying that all Brethren 'prophesying' is prophesying.)

*********
Nee adopted "perfectionistic theology".
*********

Do you have any specifics? If Nee taught that Christ gave us power not to sin, that is Biblical. If he taught a one-time experience after which you are sinlessly perfect and never sin again, I can't find that in the Bible.

*********
Nee taught a "partial rapture" theory assigning carnal believers to a kind of Protestant purgatory.
*********

Please explain. If Nee taught a form of a pre-trib rapture, that is goofy enough, but plenty of Baptists believe in that.

***********
Nee adopted the teaching of gnostic and Catholic mystic leaders, seeing many parts to man's inner nature.
***********

So what? A lot of those Catholic mystics taught that Jesus is the Son of God. The beliefs Nee believed in stand or fal on their own merit.

************
Nee identified with the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, rejecting clergy as unscriptural.
************

Good for him! I have read some of Nee's writings on this subject, and he makes some excellent points. I do not agree with the folk etymology interpretation of 'Nicolaitan' but Nee is write on when he points out that God raised up elders from among the flock. His idea of 'elders' being the first believers and seeing the Biblical standards as something that cannot be met is dangerous, imo. But overall, _Concerning Our Mission_ (editted down to _The Normal Christian Church Life_) is a really good source for this topic. The one-man-pastorate of today just isn't in scripture. The professional pulpiteer is not from scripture either. The Bible teaches us to have mutually edifying church meetings. The leaders of the churches were a plural number of elders who had been appointed from within their own congregations.

*********
Nee professed to be led by inner leadings. He justified this subjective means of revelation by saying that the ways of God are not known by external means but by "internal registrations." Again, he was rejecting external authority.
*********

Nee acknowledged inner leadings. So what? Plenty of figures in the Bible were led in similar ways by the Spirit of God. A lot of Baptist preachers claim a 'call to preach.' Isn't that an internal leading?

As for the 'internal registrations'-- I think you will need to go into some specific issues you see as problems. Believing in such things is not a denial of external authority. What I have read of Nee shows that he was very much into the Bible. one can believe in internal leadings and believe that true leadings are in line with scripture. I would be surprised if Nee was of a different opinion than this.

Nee's idea of there being one church in every city has merit. His practical application of one church considering itself to be 'the church' in that city based on the fact that does not divide over doctrine, but holds to the doctrine of 'local ground' is just plain illogical. His theory on it is good, but the practical application doesn't make sense. Imo, a better approach is to seek unity among true believers in Christ in a city.

As far as Nee being authoratarian, do you have any evidence of it? His teaching on authority may have been a bit authoratarian, but from what I have read, he tried to follow his own principles. The elders of his church didn't agree with him owning a factory and if I recall correctly, kept him out of or limited his preaching ministry for about 7 years and he submitted to it.

Nee lived in a authoratarian culture. I lived in South Korea, which is still influenced by Confusion culture. It is very much top-down. I can imagine that pre-Communist China was much more authoratarian. Maybe nee was influenced by his culture. Just like a lot of American preachers are influenced by their individualistic culture. I heard an independant preacher say once "If you don't like how the pastor runs the church, go get yourself a phone booth and start a church yourself.'

Some of Nee's terminology may seem strange and unspecific, or just weird. Let's remember he was a speaker of Chinese. I do not know if he wrote his books in English as well, or if they were translated. A lot of common evangelical sayings we hear all the time sound pretty cheesy if you aren't used to them. Just imagine how strange they would sound if they were translated directly into Chinese.


Marcia mentioned the fact that 'Rebecca Brown' used Nee's writings as an argument against Nee. Rebecca Brown's use of scripture in some of her book is really bad. If she misunderstands scripture, does that argue against the value of scripture?. No. Why would the fact that she uses Nee mean Nee's writings are without value.

As for the issue of Modalism, I had never read the quote from Nee about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit before. I guess you learn something new every day.

 

Thank you. My pleasure.

 

Marcia,

What is the problem you have with the two selections you quoted from Watchman Nee on prayer.

The first one, about praying three times, appears to be addressing some beliefs held by his readers (or perhaps arguments he made earlier.) Watchman Nee was into Biblical patterns, and he likely noticed that Christ prayed a particular prayer three times and that the apostle Paul once prayed for something three times, and saw this as evidence that prayers had to be repeated.

Nee and the movement he was involved with were influenced by Plymouth Brethren writings and Holiness writings, as well as the missions movement. George Muller was a part of what we not call the Plymouth Brethren or Brethren movement. He was one of the key figures of the Bethesda meeting, which became a contraversy among exclusive brethren.

Muller would pray about something until he had peace about it and knew that it was accomplished. This is probably something that Nee has in mind here-- not Muller, but praying until you had faith that something was accomplished, and there were times you had to pray repeatedly. He had some examples of people in the Bible praying three times about something. He could show that as a principle that there are times you have to pray three times, or even more before you know that you have recieved something. What is wrong or 'questionable' about this? Can you show the passage of scripture that you feel this contradicts.

You also expressed concern about the following quote.

*************
A person may be able to pray by his own self, five persons may all be capable of praying respectively, but all of us, when we come together must learn a new way of praying, which is a praying with one accord. Let us see that corporate prayer does not come automatically; it has to be learned. If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt.18.19). This is not a small concern. We should learn how to sense the feeling of others, learn to touch what is called the prayer of the church, and learn when a prayer burden has been lifted. And thus will we know how to fulfill in the meeting the ministry of prayer.
*************

What is wrong with this. It is very true. If you have only experienced one-man-show traditional church meetings, you probably do not know what Nee is talking about. Nee was influenced by the Brethren movement, which had uncovered some Biblical truths about what church meetings should be like.

Jesus taught that you should pray secretly in your closet. The purpose of this prayer is not to edify other people, and it is not to be prayed before men, to be seen of them. That kind of prayer is different from prayer in church, which should be done in a manner that edifies the church. Jesus also prayed in John 11

41. Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.


We see here that Jesus admits to praying a certain way for the benefit of those around him. Prayer in the church is also to be done in a manner that edifies other people.

I Corinthians 14:16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.


When we pray in church, we must not only be concerned with prayer to God, but also with edifying other people.


If you go to one of the churches influenced by Watchman Nee (at least the one I visited here in Indonesia before learning about Witness Lee and the history of the Local Church movement) the members of the congregation take turns praying short one line prayers. It can be a very powerful thing if done in agreement. I am not into a lot of Lee's teachings or the way they went over and over their hymns 'pray reading' or whatever it is people call their practice, but some of their prayer practices were really good. And there is a Biblical basis for it in I Corinthians 14. 'Let all things be done unto edifying.'

A lot of churches do not give an opportunity for the saints to take turns praying. It is clear from scripture that in the early church, saints would take turns speaking. I Corinthians 14 shows us how to take turns using certain gifts in an orderly manner. The Plymouth Brethren caught on to some of these principles, and the Brethren Movement Nee was a part of in China had meetings for mutual edification.

Remember that the preacher preaching one long sermon on Sunday morning is the 'weird' practice, since it is not in scripture. Mutual edification may seem weird to you if you are not used to Biblical church meetings, or even the concept of it.

In Acts, we see that the church was in one accord, and they prayed in one accord. Paul taught believers to be of one mind. So there is something to sensing the mind of the church and the mind of the Lord for the church, so that the church can be in one accord that Nee is teaching here. Nee had experience being in metings where the meeting was flowing and the saints were edifying one another with their gifts. He tried to communicate this in his teaching about prayer quoted above. Can you show where Nee's teachings on prayer, here, contradict scripture. I think the quote you gave is good and cannot see where it contradicts scripture.

Nee might have a point about God not being called the 'God of heaven and earth' when His people were not in the land. 'earth' also means 'land' and 'ha eretz' often refers specifically to the land of Israel. I do not care for the way he worded his idea, but I would need to see more context to see the point he is making.

As for the latent power of the soul. I think he is on to something. The argument that because Adam named animals, he had all this power is pretty weak, imo, and the argument that soul power is forbidden because Jesus said he that loses his life (soul) for Christ's sake shall find it does not make sense, imo. The Lord would sanctify us spirit, soul, and body. I do not necessarily agree with all of the particulars, but I do think there is some power that seems supernatural that is not demonic power, and not necessarily a gift of the Spirit, like some people being able to pick up other people's thoughts on occasion, or mother's knowing when their children are in trouble, or twins knowing when their other twin is in trouble or in pain.

Nee's description of what the soul is is fairly common among different evangelical groups-- not all the details, but a lot of them. My understanding from studying scripture, however, is that the meaning of soul is the breath, the life force in the body, and the person himself.