Low-Impact Christianity Page 2 WATCHMAN WHO? Watchtower … Nee Master of Mix Up.pdf · October-December2003 The Quarterly Journal · 11 Nee’s books come to us from a number of

VOL. 23, NO. 4 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2003 EDITOR: KEITH A. MORSE

by G. Richard FisherMany of us remember getting a

chocolate rabbit for Easter and discov-ering that it was only a shell — notsolid. People experience the samekind of letdown from some religiousicons. The accolades, promotions, andtestimonials for these icons have beenoverdone. Sometimes the promotionhas been a tool to sell books. Some-times the teachers’ words and presen-tations are shown to be aberrationalor heretical. And sometimes thosewho biblically scrutinize these teach-ings are accused of attacking goodmen.

Immature or undiscerning Chris-tians often focus on the shell andnever deal with what is — or isn’t —inside. So the ‘‘Christian’’ marketingmachine goes on pushing illusionwith little substance. Some hollowitems are even touted as ‘‘ChristianClassics.’’ The shell of mock spiritual-ity hides the lack of content or thecorrupt content. We are being soldempty accounts of religious folk he-roes inside a shell of religious cliches.

WATCHMANWHO?

Author Dana Roberts, writing onWatchman Nee, observes that Nee’s

Many Christians have heard ofWatchman Nee. His book, Sit, Walkand Stand appears to be a nice presen-tation of Ephesians. At one time, theprevailing view was that WatchmanNee was a martyr for the faith,something like a twentieth-centuryStephen, for being killed in a Chineseprison. That fact alone makes somethink he was.

In 1984, Warren Wiersbe said, ‘‘Idon’t doubt that Watchman Nee mayhave had some weaknesses in someareas. I fear that all of us have themwhether we recognize them or not. Ido realize, however, that WatchmanNee was one of the giants of thefaith.’’2

However, there are weaknesses andthere are weaknesses. Weaknesses incritical areas can cripple. The wordweakness can be used to gloss overserious problems or rationalize the

(continues on page 10)

Inside this Issue:Low-Impact Christianity .............................................. Page 2Watchtower May Sell Brooklyn Building .................... Page 3Excavating a Mountain of Evidence ............................. Page 4

books, ‘‘The Latent Power of the Souland The Spiritual Man, teach us agnostic psychoanalysis.’’1

10 · The Quarterly Journal October-December 2003

Tsvika Tsuk, ‘‘Bringing Water to Seppho-ris,’’ July-August 2000, pp. 34-41; andZeev Weiss, ‘‘The Sepphoris SynagogueMosaic,’’ September-October 2000, pp. 48-61, 70.23. See further, Sandy Brenner, ‘‘SpendingYour Way Through Jewish History,’’ Bibli-cal Archaeology Review, May-June 2003, pp.46-51; and Herod King of the Jews and Friendof the Romans, op. cit., pp. 203-215. Alsothe art museum at Forest Lawn Memorial-Park in Glendale, California, makes avail-able two different sets of ‘‘Museum Repli-cas - Coins of the Bible.’’24. For more information on these cities,see Rami Arav, ‘‘Bethsaida Revealed,’’Eretz magazine, March-April 1999, pp.54-58; also Randall Price, The Stones CryOut. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Pub-lishers, 1997, pg. 304.25. The Stones Cry Out, op. cit., pp.305-306.26. See further, Zvi Greenhut, ‘‘BurialCave of the Caiaphas Family,’’ and RonnyReich, ‘‘Caiaphas Name Inscribed on BoneBoxes,’’ Biblical Archaeology Review, Sep-tember-October 1992, pp. 28-44, 76.27. ‘‘History, Archaeology, and Jesus,’’ op.cit., pg. 22.

28. Harold Mare, The Archaeology of theJerusalem Area. Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerBook House, 1987, pg. 200.29. Jack Finnegan, The Archaeology of theNew Testament. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1969, pp. 240-250.30. Jean Gilman, ‘‘Jerusalem Burial CavesReveal Names, Testimonies of First Chris-tians,’’ Jerusalem Christian Review, Vol. 7,Issue 3, pp. 1, 7.31. Jean Gilman, ‘‘Priestly Artifact, CrossMarks Discovered in Tomb of Lazarus,Martha, Mary,’’ Jerusalem Christian Review,Vol. 7, Issue 8, pp. 1, 7.32. Said K. Aburish, Children of Bethany.Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1988.33. Kenneth Holum, editor, King Herod’sDream, Caesarea on the Sea. New York:W.W. Norton and Company, 1988, pp.109-110.34. The Stones Cry Out, op. cit., pp.307-308.35. See further, The Archaeology of the NewTestament, op. cit., pp. 27-32.36. See further, Adolf Deissmann, LightFrom The Ancient East. Grand Rapids,Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978, pp. 270-271.37. The Holy Temple Revisited, op. cit.,

pg. 16.38 The Stones Cry Out, op. cit., pg. 192. Seealso, Linden D. Kirby, Footprints in theHoly Land. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Discov-ery House Publishers, 1998, pp. 77-80.39. See further, Shelley Wachsmann, ‘‘TheGalilee Boat — 2,000-Year-Old Hull Re-covered Intact;’’ David Adan-Bayewitz,‘‘Dating the Pottery from the Galilee BoatExcavation;’’ and Israel Carmi, ‘‘How OldIs the Galilee Boat?,’’ Biblical ArchaeologyReview, September-October 1988, pp. 18-33.40. Mendel Nun, ‘‘Cast Your Net Uponthe Waters,’’ Biblical Archaeology Review,November-December 1993, pp. 46-56, 70.41. ‘‘History, Archaeology, and Jesus,’’ op.cit., pg. 27.42. The Stones Cry Out, op. cit., pp.308-311.43. See, ‘‘A Death in Jerusalem,’’ Timemagazine, January 18, 1971, pp. 64-65.44. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion. Philadel-phia: Fortress Press, 1977, pp. 86-87.45. Alan Millard, Discoveries From The TimeOf Jesus. Oxford, England: Lion Book,1990, pg. 133.46. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1965, Vol. 2, pg. 469.

WATCHMAN NEE(continued from page 1)

endorsement of a questionableteacher.

NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS

Not all the reviews in 1984 were asglowing as Wiersbe’s. A report camefrom mainland China that churchesthere had split and joined Nee’sassembly, believing that his was theone way to please God. Many inChina did not see him as ‘‘one of thegiants of the faith,’’ but as sectarianand rigid.

The report stated that Nee’s earlyendeavors seemed like a real work ofGod:

‘‘Later however, he sees pridecoming in, with strong denuncia-tion of denominational churches,and an unhealthy authoritarian-ism.’’3

Along the way, this writer began tonotice that people who were reallyenamored with Nee’s teachings werevery pushy and insistent that his was

the last word on everything. Follow-ers asked others questions simply tosee how their answers stacked upagainst Nee’s teachings. These peoplealso seemed off-balance and tendedtoward a mystical and elitist position.But it was brushed aside and reck-oned as a few unbalanced people whotook Nee’s writings too far or wereoff-center.

Further research into Nee’s teach-ings brought a surprise. This led to abrief article, ‘‘Watching Out ForWatchman Nee,’’ which appeared inPFO’s newsletter nearly two decadesago. Since then, the influence of Nee’steachings has grown. A deeper andbroader look at this religious icon andpresumed hero of the faith seemednecessary. No one wants to be overlycritical of a giant with a few flawsunless the classification of giant itselfis flawed.

A CUT ABOVE

Avid Nee followers are the poorestadvertisements for his teachings.Their mentality can be cultlike. Judg-ing Nee leaves one in the position of

being judged by his followers asjudgmental. Ardent Nee disciples of-ten display one or more of the follow-ing characteristics:

1. They often assume that every-thing — including the Bible — isjudged by Nee’s writings. They ap-pear to be unaware that they arequoting what Nee said the Bible says.This mind set may not characterize allNee devotees, but it is prevalent inmany. Those who disagree with Neemay be considered sub-spiritual and adwarf challenging a giant. Wholechurches have been summarilyjudged with Nee’s teachings as theultimate test.

2. When clear statements by Neepoint toward error or even heresy,Nee’s followers tell those who expressdoubt that they misunderstand Nee.Pressing for a clearer interpretation isfutile.

3. Nee’s followers say his writingshad to be translated from Chinese andtherefore may not be precisely ren-dered in English. If this is true, thenno one can know for sure what hewrote.

October-December 2003 The Quarterly Journal · 11

Nee’s books come to us from anumber of sources, which include thebooks he himself wrote, his articlesand editorials from his magazines,and English and Mandarin shorthandtaken during his lectures. These writ-ings reflect his chronological transi-tion and developing views from ahandful of teachers who introducedhim to their extremes, which thenbecame Nee’s new emphasis. Verylittle of his work can be consideredbiblical exposition.

Because the books are sold as Nee’swritings and there are no disclaimers,sidenotes, or corrective and criticalapparatus, we have only these transla-tions to go on. Errors of doctrinecannot be blamed on editors or pub-lishers because Nee’s doctrinal blem-ishes are repeated in different booksand establish a pattern of question-able teaching.

4. There is further confusion withNee’s followers because Nee, likenearly every other mystic, confusedillumination with revelation. Generalrevelation is God showing Himself increation. Special revelation is Godcommunicating directly with proph-ets, apostles, through angels, andfinally in and through Jesus Christ. Itis information given directly by Godthat could be known in no other way.By inspiration the special revelationwas recorded in the Bible for allgenerations.

Now as the Holy Spirit helps usunderstand the Bible, He gives believ-ers illumination of the text. BecauseNee called illumination ‘‘revelation,’’his followers are misled and mislead-ing as they talk of their latest revela-tions. That confusion is taught by Neein his book, The Ministry of God’sWord:

‘‘By revelation we mean thattoday God again breathes on Hisword, the Holy Spirit impartslight to me; the anointing of theHoly Spirit is upon this word sothat once again I see what Paulsaw in his day.’’4

Technically, Nee did not have oroffer a systematic theology. His teach-ings are scattered through nearly 100books, which makes it difficult to

arrange and systematize his views.Living Stream Ministry has collectedand published The Collected Works ofWatchman Nee in 62 volumes, whichincludes previously untranslated andunpublished material.

NEE’S HISTORY

Watchman Nee was a collector ofreligious ideas who tried to build aconsistent system out of a hodge-podge of theological extremes anddistinctives. He ended up with apatchwork quilt of the prevailingideas of the early twentieth century,based on the ideas of four diverseteachers. Nee borrowed extensivelyand uncritically, but gave the appear-ance of having unique insight intospiritual things.

Capitalizing on Luke 12:32, hecalled his movement the ‘‘LittleFlock.’’ It was formed in Fujian in theearly 1920s.5 The Little Flock Move-ment disrupted and divided churchesin China.

Nee believed that early Churchtruth had been lost and needed to berecovered. He saw some of the recov-ery occurring through the mystics ofthe Middle Ages. A historical sketch,provided by one researcher, reveals:

‘‘The Lord’s Recovery beganwhen the Lord raised up MartinLuther and the reformers, andcontinued in recovering lost bib-lical truths through others suchas Madame Guyon, FatherFenelon, Brother Lawrence,Count Zinzendorf, the MoravianBrethren, John Darby, the Breth-ren, Watchman Nee, and todaywith Brother Witness Lee. Doctri-nal conflicts arose between Leeand other leaders and membersof the existing movement. Con-troversy brought about a split ofthe movement.’’6

In other words, Nee opened himselfup to mystical and Gnostic strains.Nee mixed and merged things fromthe Reformed camp, mystical thought,dispensational ideas, and RomanCatholicism. Nee seemed to come upwith very few original ideas whilepushing these borrowed ideas withintemperate language. One of those

fringe ideas has been denounced byDave Hunt. In an analysis of Nee’s1933 book, The Latent Power of the Soul,Hunt writes:

‘‘Its basic premise (much likeBenny Hinn’s teaching) is thatAdam was a superman withabilities at least ‘a million times’greater than ours (p. 15) and‘possessed [of] a hidden abilitywhich made it possible for himto become like God. He wasalready like him in outward ap-pearance.’’7

These kinds of statements by Neemay seem inconsequential and evensilly to some, but it is dangerous tospeak of Adam as being like Godoutwardly and inwardly without, atthe very least, careful explanation andqualifiers. Adam, in many ways, wasreally as unlike God as anythingcould be. But there is more going onwith Nee than just a few ill-statedreligious ideas about Adam. We mustgo back to his formation in his earlydays.

Pentecostals, Holiness groups, andeven evangelicals appeal to Nee. Re-grettably, someone as prestigious andorthodox as Adrian Rogers, formerpresident of the Southern Baptist Con-vention, wrote his latest book, King-dom Authority, claiming he firstlearned the principles for his newbook from Nee’s Spiritual Authority.Rogers floated the oft-reported ideathat Nee ‘‘was imprisoned for hisfaith for 20 years.’’8 Some have goneso far as to describe Nee’s writings as‘‘new light’’ for ‘‘end-time ministry.’’9

In 1980, Dana Roberts’ book Under-standing Watchman Nee was publishedby Haven Press, a division of LogosInternational. It was the first defini-tive work on Nee and his writings.However, because Haven Press was asmall company that eventually ceasedpublishing, Roberts’ book fell intoobscurity. Though Roberts was notcompletely critical of Nee at everypoint, he was objective and brutallyhonest where he had to be.

Roberts gives the details of Nee’sbirth and naming by his mother:

’’...Ho-P’ing promised that if theLord gave her a boy, she would


return him back for His service.On November 4, 1903, in Swa-tow, a male child, Nee Shu-Tsu,was born. His name means ‘hewho proclaims his ancestors’merits.’ Years later, after theboy’s mission in life becamemore evident, she proposed anew name, To-Sheng, ‘the soundof a gong.’ The name wouldremind both mother and son thathe would be a ‘bell ringer’ (orWatchman) who would raise thepeople of God for service.’’10

Nee was molded in his early daysby the teachings and ideas of threeinfluential women. He attended theBible school of Miss Dora Yu, wherehe became dissatisfied with his Chris-tian life and growth. Yu encouragedhim to submit to the tutelage of MissM.E. Barber, a Keswick higher-lifeteacher.11 With Barber’s help, Neeexperienced what he called the Bap-tism of the Holy Spirit and followedBarber’s victorious life principles.12

Through Barber’s encouragement,Nee’s mind was profoundly shapedand influenced by the mystical anddemon-obsessed Jessie Penn-Lewis.Penn-Lewis divided soul and spirit soradically that she ended up domi-nated by psychic-warfare strugglesthat took her out of the realm ofreality. She became the basis for theformulations of Nee’s anthropologicalstruggles and convoluted sanctifica-tion ideas. Penn-Lewis believed andtaught that Christians could be ind-welt by demons.13 Nee adopted thisunbiblical teaching as well.14

Barber also introduced Nee to thetheory of a partial Rapture. This view,still held by many Pentecostals, as-signs carnal and unsanctified believ-ers to a kind of Protestant purgatoryin which they suffer the horrors of thetribulation to be purged and mademore ready for the Kingdom. Thisteaching came from the bookshelvesof Barber through the writings ofRobert Govett. Govett’s The ApocalypseExpounded especially influenced Nee.Nee taught two levels of Christians:overcomers and ‘‘Christians living insin according to works who must berefined through a limited period ofpunishment.’’15 Nee’s carnal/spiritual

Catholic and Protestant denomina-tions and missions.18 Nee thoughtchurch workers could do outsidework only in special circumstances,but saw trusting God as the idealmethod of support and income.

However, something changed asone report points out that ‘‘Nee [be-came] involved in [a] pharmaceuticalcompany and is criticized for with-drawing from full time Christianwork.’’19 Nee left full-time ministryfor a number of years.

One can speculate about all thereasons that Nee decided in 1942 toaccept an invitation to work in theadministration of his brother George’schemical factory. The commercialtrade problems of China at that time,along with diminishing finances, hadto play a large part.

Eventually, as the factory was ineffect turned over to the church andstaffed by the members of the LittleFlock, the communist authorities be-came angered at the commercialism.One source says, ‘‘Nee was latersuccessful in business, but turned hissuccesses over to his church.’’20

During this time, Nee changedmany of his principles and earlierteachings. This led to disaffectionwith people vying for work-relatedstatus.21

Mao Tse-tung declared and estab-lished the People’s Republic of Chinaon Oct. 1, 1949, and Nee and hisfactory-owning Flock were seen asimperialists and people of wealth whohad to be confronted and stopped. OnApril 10, 1952, Nee was arrested,jailed, and charged with corruption.So, technically, he went to jail, not forthe Gospel, but for being a businessowner and having some wealth. Hisbiographers say he tried at the lastminute to disassociate the assembliesfrom business, but it was too late.

Another brief biography confirmsthis scenario:

‘‘This business venture causedhim much suffering because hisfellow workers misunderstoodhis intentions; this resulted inNee’s withdrawal from activeministry for several years. Later

division of Christians carried overinto his prophetic views.

CHURCH OR CHURCHES?

Nee’s ideas on ecclesiology (doc-trine of the church) came almostentirely from the collected writings ofJ. Nelson Darby and the PlymouthBrethren. Like the early Brethren, Neewas quick to point out ‘‘the sin ofdenominations.’’16 Yet, despite hiscontempt, many denominations lovehim. Many Plymouth Brethren todaydo fellowship across denominationallines. Darby’s strong reaction to boththe Anglican denomination and Ro-man Catholicism caused him to useintemperate, sweeping generalizationsregarding all churches.

So it is clear that Nee’s formationtook place in the seedbed of Brethrenand Keswick teachings, though hetook notice of other teachers of thatday. Nee took some of the currentstrains of current Keswick teaching afew steps further because he oftendecided things by way of innerpromptings and leadings and by whathe determined subjectively was God’sway. His well-known statement was:‘‘God’s way for us is not known byexternal indications but by internalregistrations.’’17 It is apparent thatNee got stuck in the theory andtheology of the mid-to-late 1800s. Heis in every way a product of his timeand his writings are a mirror of thelate 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1935, Nee came under the influ-ence and instruction of a Pentecostalnamed Elizabeth Fischbacher, whointroduced him to speaking intongues. Though Nee never spoke intongues, he did not regard the prac-tice as unbiblical. In some writings, hedid warn about false tongues ortongues out of the human psyche orsoul power.

MARTYR OR MANAGER?

The question of whether Nee was amartyr for the faith has to be raised.Early in Nee’s leadership over the‘‘Little Flock,’’ he exhibited a humblelifestyle as he and his church disasso-ciated from business and commerce.Nee opposed a salary and any systemof wealth demonstrated in so many


it provided an excuse for hisarrest by the Communists.’’22

Nee’s biographer, Angus Kinnear,fills in the details of the arrest:

‘‘In his fiftieth year he was ar-rested in Manchuria by the De-partment of Public Safety on 10April 1952, and at his first in-quiry, either at Harbin or inPeking, he was charged as alawless capitalist ‘tiger’ who hadcommitted all the five crimesspecified in the Wu-Fan cam-paign against corrupt businesspractices. He was warned thatthe Sheng Hua Company wouldbe required to pay a fine of17,200 million yuan in old cur-rency (equivalent to 1½ millionU.S. dollars). He neither acceptedthis unfair accusation, nor did hehave the funds to pay such afine. So he remained in prison,and the Company was in duecourse confiscated by theState.’’23

It could be argued that Nee eventu-ally would have been arrested any-way because he was a Christianleader, but no one knows for sure.Kinnear also documents that many ofthe Little Flock defected and joinedthe Three Self Movement, a pro-StatePolitical/Religious organization.24

Later suppression by the Governmentshrunk the numbers of the Little Flockeven more. By 1967, after Nee hadserved 15 years, all churches wereclosed.

The Three Self Movement was com-mitted to control by the State, finan-cial dependence on the State, andpropagation of the various party linesof the State.25

No one would suggest that prisonlife is less than austere and rigorous,but contrary to all the reports ofextreme suffering, mutilation, or tor-ture, Roberts relates that while in jail,‘‘Nee was given a sufficient diet toserve the state as a translator ofEnglish chemical journals.’’26 Kinnearreports that when suffering fromcoronary problems, he was relieved ofmanual labor and proper drugs werepurchased from a pharmacy andgiven to him.27 On June 1, 1972, at theage of 68, Nee died.28

NEE’S HERESIES

With such reverence to Nee by hisdevotees, a charge of heresy brings afamiliar hostility. Therefore, properrecognition of the use of heresy is inorder. This article uses heresy in itsnormally defined and normally un-derstood way. The Greek word haire-sis is defined as:

‘‘denotes (a) choosing, choice,(from haireomai, to choose); then,that which is chosen, and hence,an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substi-tuted for submission to thepower of truth, and leads todivision and the formation ofsects.’’29

It is clear that Nee in many placeschose to stray from the clear teachingsof Scripture and imposed his opinionsand artificial interpretations on certainBible portions, leading to an elitismand sectarianism among his followers.Nee himself warned that ‘‘History isstrewn with innumerable cases ofsanctified saints who propagated her-esies!’’30

Nee taught that spiritual growth, orsanctification, is reduced to an agoniz-ing internal struggle between souland spirit. Scripture is clear that ourstruggle is a battle on three fronts: theworld, the flesh and the devil. Neemistakenly created a sharp dichotomybetween soul and spirit. This falsedivision permeates most of his writ-ings.

The internal struggle is against oursin nature, our baser drives and sinfuldesires. That in itself is difficultenough without getting tangled up ina theoretical and mystical campaignto separate the soul from the spirit.Nee’s dichotomy was artificial. Bibli-cally speaking, those two words canbe interchangeable.31 Nee promotedthe concept that the soul is always theevil part that we must reject. How-ever, this is likewise unbiblical. Davidspoke of God restoring his soul inPsalm 23:3; of his soul thirsting andhoping for God in Psalm 42:2, 5; andof God’s comforts delighting his soulin Psalm 94:19. Nee’s view was reallymore in league with metaphysics,

rather than good exegesis. Jesus spokeof loving God with ‘‘all your heart, allyour soul, and with all your mind’’(Matthew 22:37). Nee fabricated theconcept of a spirit trapped in the soul,having to break free.

ROUND AND ROUND ANDROUND AND ROUND

Nee did not see sanctification aspractical character change in accor-dance with the Word and motivatedby grace and the Holy Spirit as muchas subjective scraping of one’s insideswhile struggling to understand ‘‘bro-kenness’’ and ‘‘the release of thespirit.’’ Nee states that ‘‘revival, zeal,pleading and activity are but a wasteof time.’’32 To be of help or blessing toanyone else there must be ‘‘broken-ness,’’ Nee said. Somehow the spiritmust break through the soul andbody in some significant way.

Brokenness is not just repentance orbeing broken by sin. Neither is it theexpected sufferings that drive us toour knees throughout life. It is notjust the hard experiences we face.How does one, to use Nee’s depiction,‘‘break our alabaster box’’?33 Neeproposed that it must be the destruc-tion of ‘‘our opinions, our ways, ourcleverness, our self-love, our all.’’34

Our cleverness and self-love may be aproblem for us and should be dealtwith biblically, but to have no opinionand to question all our ways — evengood ones — could reduce one to anintrospective muddle.

Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrsexpress their objection:

‘‘Nee’s stress on not putting con-fidence in one’s own ideas isexcellent, but it seems to us hegoes beyond this, in suggestingthat doctrine and its expositionare not helpful even if they seemto be helpful. He is, we suggest,bound to reach such a conclusionbecause his view of the self is sonegative and because he sees theHoly Spirit working only in thespirit, not into the whole of thebeliever’s experience.’’35

Nee offered a crisis prayer of conse-cration for ‘‘our brokenness,’’36 butthat is just a beginning. Later he took


that back when he wrote, ‘‘It isaccording to His law of accomplishinga brokenness and release in us; all ourpraying will not alter this law.’’37 Neeturned clearly mystical and said thatbrokenness can come through directrevelation by soliciting: ‘‘May Hetruly reveal to us what is meant bythe destroying of the outward man.’’38

Nee went on to say that we cannotserve effectively without this broken-ness. Still later, his formula seemed tobe that ‘‘God wants to divide ourspirit and soul. ... How rare it is thesedays to find a pure spirit.’’39 This isjust a small sampling of how obscure,metaphysical, and confusing Neecould be.

In the end, brokenness seems to bean experience of unmediated, undis-turbed communion with God. Nee’ssomewhat gnostic formula is:

‘‘THE OUTWARD MAN IS BRO-KEN THROUGH THE DISCI-PLINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; ITIS DIVIDED FROM THE IN-WARD MAN BY THE REVELA-TION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.’’40

HOUSE OF CARDSNee based his entire anthropologi-

cal/psychological view of man on hismisuse of Hebrews 4:12, which states:‘‘For the word of God is living andpowerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to thedivision of soul and spirit and ofjoints and marrow, and is a discernerof the thoughts and intents of theheart.’’

Nee’s book, The Release of the Spirit,is based on his misunderstanding ofthe Hebrews’ passage as he stated:

’’...that the ability to use ourspirit depends upon the two foldwork of God: the breaking of theoutward man and the dividing ofspirit and soul, i.e., the separat-ing of our inward man from theoutward. Only after God hascarried out both of these pro-cesses in our lives are we able toexercise our spirit.’’41

Note his words, ‘‘the dividing ofspirit and soul,’’ after which he refer-ences Hebrews 4:12. Nee went on tosay that ‘‘our spirit and our soul are

divided’’ and then has God sayingthat His Word ‘‘is able to divide thesoul and spirit.’’42

Nee read the verse as if it meansthat God divides two things, soul fromspirit and joints from marrow. Hereinwas his crucial mistake. His premise,upon examination, falls apart sincethere is no marrow in joints, but thereis in bones. What Nee missed is theplain meaning of the word ‘‘and.’’Hebrews 4:12 uses four separatethings to declare what God can di-vide. He can divide a soul as well as aspirit, and joints as well as marrow.The point being that God can dividewhat no human sword can ever di-vide no matter how sharp. God’sWord is sharper than the sharpestsword on earth and can slice intoareas of our inner being that nothingelse could.

F.F. Bruce was a Rylands Professorof Biblical Criticism and Exegesis inthe University of Manchester. He saidthat the dividing of both soul andspirit and both joints and marrow:

’’...are to be understood as a‘rhetorical accumulation of termsto express the whole mental na-ture of man on all its sides’; soA.B. Davidson, who furtherpoints out that since ‘the idea ofdividing the soul and spirit sug-gests the division of a body intoits members, hence joints andmarrow are attributed to them,expressing the subtle articula-tions of the spiritual being andthe innermost nature and sub-stance of it’. It would indeed beprecarious to draw any conclu-sions from these words about ourauthor’s psychology, nor is itnecessary to understand them inthe sense of the Pauline distinc-tion between soul and spirit.That the word of God probes theinmost recesses of our spiritualbeing and brings the subcon-scious motives to light is what ismeant; we may compare Paul’slanguage about the coming daywhen the Lord ‘will both bring tolight the hidden things of dark-ness, and make manifest thecounsels of the hearts’ (I Cor.4:5). It is not surprising, accord-ingly, that a judicial function is

here attributed to the word ofGod. It is ‘discriminative of theheart’s thoughts and intents.’’’43

The focus of Hebrews 4:12 is not thepsychology of man, but the power ofthe Word. Jerry Vines concurs:

‘‘The Bible explores our lives... Itpenetrates to the depths of ourexperiences. The Word of Godreaches areas no human being isable to see. It gets under ourskins. The Bible divides soul andspirit. That means it examines ourlives. ... Other people see whatwe do, but God’s Word examineswhy we do what we do. It dealsnot only with our thoughts, butalso with the intents behind thethoughts. ... The Bible also ex-poses our lives.’’44

Jay Adams believes that people aremisled at times because of slightinaccuracies in the King James Ver-sion and he states:

‘‘The point is not that the soul isdivided from spirit, or joint frommarrow. Rather, what is said isthat God’s Word splits the spiritand also the soul, the joints andalso the marrow. Many who mis-understand have always won-dered why the joints are to bedivided from the marrow whenthey are not in close contiguity.The word between has been im-ported into our thinking aboutthe passage... The true idea isthat God’s Word penetratesdeeply enough into man’s inner-most being to cut open and laybare his desires and thoughts.’’45

Dana Roberts homes in on the realissue with Nee:

‘‘The local churches had investedhim with the job of metaphysi-cian, and, using the historic toolsof the ‘inspired’ Scripture in con-junction with personal revelation,Nee felt confident enough in theposition to propose a practicalmetaphysical map of the souland the spirit.’’46

At the very least Nee was unclear,contradictory, and misleading. Bro-kenness teaching is an example of themystical and fuzzy extremes thatmark Nee’s teachings throughout.


One can easily make that judgment,even at the expense of being evalu-ated as unspiritual by Nee’s followers.

REVELATIONPerhaps even Nee realized that his

readers were mentally exhausted byhis verbal gymnastics when he wrote:

’’...it is extremely difficult to ex-plain this matter of dividing thenatural from the spiritual, theoutward from the inward. Onlyas there is revelation, is theproblem solved. Whenever youare enabled to discern thethoughts and intents of yourheart, you can be sure your souland spirit are being divided.’’47

In the end, it is something super-naturally revealed and discoveredwithin the believer. Just as with Mor-monism, it is an inner assurance. Therub is if we are not quite sure what itis, we cannot be sure that we have it.

BECOMING LORD JESUS

Another troubling aspect of Nee’steaching is his view of Jesus. He is offthe mark in so many ways withregard to the person of Christ. Adefective Christology is no small mat-ter. From the days of the early Churchthere were struggles because of at-tacks regarding who Jesus is, as wellas His work on earth. One writersuggests that the question of whoJesus is happens to be hugely impor-tant:

‘‘This is the most important ques-tion that any person will everface. The deepest joys we willever know in this life and ourvery hope of eternal life dependon the proper answer to thatquestion. Because this is true, wemay be sure that the primaryactivity of Satan will be to ob-scure as much as possible thetrue nature of the person of ourblessed Saviour, the LordJesus.’’48

Heresy hardly ever begins as aquick U-turn, but rather as a slightcurving away. Nee taught clearly thatJesus was not always inherently Lord.Lordship was something that Christhad to gain or earn. Nee stated it thisway:

‘‘As regards the Godhead, theSon and the Father are co-equal;but His being the Lord is re-warded Him by God. The LordJesus Christ was made Lord onlyafter He emptied Himself. Hisdeity derives from who He is, forHis being God is His inherentnature. His being Lord, though,issues out of what He has done.He was exalted and rewarded byGod to be Lord only after Heforsook His glory and main-tained the perfect role of obedi-ence. As regards Himself, He isGod; as regards reward, He isLord. His Lordship did not existoriginally in the Godhead.’’49

This is a shocking paragraph. Neesaid Christ had to work for HisLordship. He suggested that some-thing was added to the Godhead thatwas not already there. This under-mines Christ’s eternal Lordship, andthe doctrines of the Trinity and thenature of God. Lordship comes fromthe Greek word kurios and signifiespower and authority (as an adjective)and can be translated as Master,owner, and Lord (as a noun). It is theequivalent (when used of Jesus) of theOld Testament names Yahweh andAdonai. The Lord Jesus did not haveto wait until after He was exalted tobecome Lord, but was addressed asLord all through His earthly ministry.Though its full significance was onlyrealized after the resurrection (Acts2:36), He was called Lord at birth(Luke 2:11), and even in His pre-incarnate existence (Psalm 110:1).Jesus Himself affirmed that evenDavid called the Messiah his Lord(Matthew 22:42-45). The Messiah wasboth son of David and Lord of David.

Nee missed the fact that we cannotever disconnect Christ’s deity fromHis Lordship. Jesus is eternal deity.Therefore He must be eternal Lord, asone writer affirms:

‘‘Jesus Christ, therefore, is Lordto Christians in the same sensethat Jehovah was Lord to theHebrews. The usage referred tois altogether peculiar; no man —not Moses, nor Abraham, norDavid, nor any of the prophets orApostles, is ever thus prevail-

ingly addressed or invoked asLord. We have but one Lord; andJesus Christ is Lord. ... Everybeliever knows in what sense hecalls Jesus Lord... He knows thatit is from the New Testament hehas been taught to worshipChrist in calling him Lord.’’50

To say that Jesus was lacking some-thing, or that He became somethingHe was not already, or that theGodhead had something added to italong the way, is a total distortion.Probably not realizing it, Nee putforth a form of open theism (or finitegodism). If followers of Nee want toargue for Nee’s position and accept alimited and diminished Christ or evena developing Christ, that is up tothem. Clinging to Nee and his teach-ings gives one no choice.

The exact nature of the union ofChrist’s deity and humanity pushesus into a study in which we mustwalk a fine line. Helpful biblicalexplanations and guidelines can befound in most systematic theologiesor in books like Thiessen’s IntroductoryLectures in Systematic Theology.51

Though no one can give a precisepsychological analysis or detailed ex-planation of the personality of Christand the union of His two natures inone person, there are things in Scrip-ture that are evident or may beinferred that keep us from the mis-takes being made by Nee. Hebrews13:8 is clear: ‘‘Jesus Christ, the same,yesterday, today and forever.’’ Hewas fully Lord in the past, is Lord inthe present, and will ever remainLord in the future.

Nee then promoted an incrediblescenario by suggesting that Jesuscould have ascended to heaven de-void of His glory:

‘‘He braved the possible peril ofnot being able to return withglory. Should He have becomedisobedient on earth as a man,He would have still been able toreclaim His place in the Godheadby asserting His original author-ity; but if so, He would haveforever broken down the prin-ciple of obedience.’’52


It is hard to understand why Needid not understand that a ‘‘disobedi-ent’’ Jesus would have been a sinner.A sinner could not be a Savior.

Even worse is the use of the words‘‘reclaim His place in the Godhead.’’Here Nee argued for the possibility ofa time when Jesus would be excludedfrom the Godhead, thereby againdiminishing His deity and the veryexpressed nature of the Trinity. Itseems that Nee had ‘‘glory’’ confusedwith ‘‘Lordship’’ and ‘‘Godhead’’ andwas using ‘‘glory’’ as if it were theother words. ‘‘Glory,’’ which is doxain Greek, is used of ‘‘honor,’’ at timesof God’s nature or acts as exhibited inthe person and work of Christ, and ofthe power of God. It is even used ofthe believer’s future.53

It is hard to understand how Neewas even using the word glory, letalone propose that Christ might havereturned to heaven without it. John17:4, 5, and 22 speak against Nee’sidea of Jesus Christ minus His glory.Vine informs us that ‘‘When doxazo ispredicated of Christ..., it means thatHis innate glory is brought to light, ismade manifest.’’54 Christ’s glory be-ing innate could never be forfeited ortaken away, but either manifested ornot manifested.

John MacArthur emphasizes whywe could not even suggest that Christwould be divested of glory:

‘‘Believing God means we ac-knowledge His glory, which isthe sum of all His attributes andthe fullness of all His majesty.’’55

COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED?

The other issue raised is the ques-tion of whether Jesus could sin or bedisobedient.

Respected theologians insist thatJesus was impeccable — that Hecould not have sinned:

‘‘Christ’s deity overruled anysusceptibility to sin that mayhave been in the human nature.Christ’s deity made it impossiblefor Him to sin as a person. Thus,as a person, Jesus Christ was notsusceptible to sinning. ... Thevery fact that God’s sovereign

decrees are certain to be fulfilledrequired the impossibility ofChrist’s sinning.’’56

The late John F. Walvoord con-cluded:

‘‘In the person of Christ, how-ever, the human will was alwayssubservient to the divine will andcould never act independently.Inasmuch as all agree that thedivine will of God could not sin,this quality then becomes thequality of the person and Christbecomes impeccable. ... The con-cept of peccability in the personof Christ is contradicted princi-pally by the attributes of immu-tability, omnipotence and omni-science. The fact of the immuta-bility of Christ is the first deter-mining factor of His impeccabil-ity.’’57

Professor of Systematic Theology,Bruce Demarest, summarized:

‘‘In some mysterious way thedivine nature of the God-manshielded His human natureagainst the possibility of sin.’’58

Some may argue, ‘‘What does itmatter anyway since Jesus didn’t sinand everything worked according toGod’s plan and purpose in the end?’’What matters is that if we take thatapproach to the Bible, it demonstratesa carelessness in how we handletruth. A metamorphosed biography ofJesus is a false one.

Saddam Hussein is known to havesaid, ‘‘Don’t tell me about the law.The law is anything I write on a scrapof paper.’’59 We need to be verycareful about taking anything thatanyone writes on paper and making itour law. The Bible is our only safeand consistent guide.

MYSTICS AND FUSION

Nee’s view of the Holy Spirit is alsotroubling and it reflects a mysticalmove toward what is known as fusionor mingling. The medieval mystics, attimes, confused God with their innerman, believing that there could be atotal fusing or mingling of God withtheir spirit to the degree that theiridentity was lost in the divine pres-

ence. These have been called pantheis-tic mystics. Nee seems to have bor-rowed from the evangelical strain ofmystics, as well as the pantheisticstrain.60

Consider some of Nee’s statementswith regard to the Holy Spirit:

‘‘Of the whole Bible, Romanseight may well be the chapterwhere the word ‘spirit’ is usedmost frequently. Who can dis-cern how many times the word‘spirit’ in this chapter refers tothe human spirit and how manytimes to God’s Spirit?’’61

Here Nee clouded the issue bysuggesting that no one can knowwhose spirit is being spoken about inRomans 8. What he said initially doesnot sound like a huge problem. Whathe went on to propose pushed farbeyond this and suggested a reasonwhy we cannot sort the ‘‘spirits’’ outin that chapter. Besides, many woulddisagree with his initial premise any-way, but we will proceed to hisconclusions.

Nee built on the earlier theory:

’’...we find it hard to discernwhich is the Holy Spirit andwhich is our own spirit. TheHoly Spirit and our spirit havebecome so mingled; while each isdistinctive, they are not easilydistinguished.’’62

The word ‘‘mingle’’ means ‘‘to mix’’so Nee suggested that our spirits getmixed in with the Holy Spirit. Wemay at this point say he is wrong andeven confused, but he has at leastheld that the two spirits are ‘‘distinc-tive.’’ However, Nee pushed hispremise further:

‘‘Since the Holy Spirit and ourspirit are joined into one, theycan be distinguished only inname, not in fact. And since therelease of one means the releaseof both, others can touch theHoly Spirit whenever they touchour spirit. Thank God that inas-much as you allow people tocontact your spirit, you allow themto contact God. Your spirit hasbrought the Holy Spirit to man.When the Holy Spirit is working,


He needs to be carried by thehuman spirit.’’63

Here Nee taught mingling or fusionand is close to, if not fully teaching,pantheism.

Macaulay and Barrs address thisflaw:

‘‘He seems to suggest here thatthere is a union of being betweenthe Holy Spirit and man’s spiritso that the two become onebeing. This is contrary to thebiblical teaching that God isnever confused with man.’’64

MAJOR ON MINORS

Another mark of a cultic or aberra-tional group, according to DaveBreese, is what he calls ‘‘segmentedbiblical attention,’’ or overemphasison one portion of Scripture at theexpense of others that might bringbalance and moderation. If one minoror debatable area of the Bible isoveremphasized, strangeness and di-visiveness can result.65

When special emphases become all-important points and defining doc-trines for fellowship, heresies anddivisions occur. Enslaving organiza-tional structures often follow. Breeseobserves:

‘‘Human dispositions, respond-ing to the portions of Scripture towhich they have given attention,have made of this amorphousthing called ‘Christianity’ a crazyquilt of groups whose resem-blance is obscure indeed.’’66

Nee was willing to divide over theissue of localism. In his early teach-ing, he was against denominationalnames and taught that believersshould gather in only one church inany given locality. The Bible nowherecommands or condemns local churchnames. It seems to be unimportant toGod or it surely would be regulatedor forbidden. Since the Bible does notmake it an issue, it is not an issue.

Nee advocated his form of localism.Local can mean a town, a borough, ora large city. So, according to Nee,there was to be only one church inany locality. It was an expansion of

the Plymouth Brethren teaching andled to sectarianism. Dana Robertswrites:

‘‘Nee castigates Roman Catholicsas the church of Thyatira, Protes-tants as Sardis and many of theBrethren as Laodicea. Nee’s argu-ments are based on interpretingchurch history as a progressiverecovery of the original truths ofthe Ephesus and Smyrnachurches. While Nee always re-garded other denominations withdisfavor, Nee here brings escha-tological judgment upon all otherchurches.’’67

Any of the above churches that findsolace in Nee surely have no ideawhat he taught.

Later, however, Nee received “newlight,” which is expressed in his bookSpiritual Authority. He established re-gional centers over local churches atleast partially negating the autonomyof those churches. Nee, with hislocalism, overemphasized one portionof Scripture while ignoring others.The Apostle Paul himself, in address-ing the locality and region of Galatiagreeted them with ‘‘To the churches ofGalatia’’ (Galatians 1:2).

FIRST YOU SAY YOU DO,THEN YOU SAY YOU DON’T

Initially, Nee was the main teacherin the regional center, periodicallytraining workers and elders. It ischilling to realize what Nee taughtabout absolute authority:

‘‘People will perhaps argue,‘What if the authority is wrong?’The answer is, If God dares toentrust His authority to men,then we can dare to obey.Whether the one in authority isright or wrong does not concernus, since he has to be responsibledirectly to God. The obedientneeds only to obey; the Lord willnot hold us responsible for anymistaken obedience, rather willHe hold the delegated authorityresponsible for his erroneous act.Insubordination, however, is re-bellion, and for this the oneunder authority must answer toGod.’’68

Nee could not have been morewrong. Saying ‘‘no’’ to sin or error, nomatter who commands it, is neverwrong, always right. It certainly is notrebellion. A leader directing a fol-lower toward an unbiblical course hasexceeded his or her biblical authority.When the Apostles were commandedtoward something unscriptural, theyreplied: ‘‘We ought to obey Godrather than men’’ (Acts 5:29). NewTestament leadership is servant lead-ership. A servant leader never asksanything he will not do himself.Loyalty to the point of obeying wrongis perverted loyalty and another culticmark that Dave Breese calls ‘‘enslav-ing organizational structure.’’69 Un-questioned authority can only pro-duce monarchs or princes. True lead-ers feed the sheep as they modelChrist (Hebrews 13:7).

Nee said even God is restricted bydelegated authority:

‘‘Having delegated His authorityto men, God Himself will notsupersede delegated authority;rather is He restrained by theauthority He has delegated. Heconfirms what delegated author-ity has confirmed and voidswhat it has also voided.’’70

Here Nee had God under man and‘‘restrained.’’ This is a frontal assaulton God’s omnipotence and a chal-lenge to other attributes.

However, later in the book Nee saidleaders should be humble servants —but what he offered was too little, toolate. Then, in a mind-boggling rever-sal, Nee stated:

‘‘Should the delegated authorityissue an order clearly contradict-ing God’s command, he will begiven submission but not obedi-ence. We should submit to theperson who has received del-egated authority from God, butwe should disobey the orderwhich offends God.’’71

Nee’s confusion stems partiallyfrom his making submission some-thing internal and subjective, but obe-dience external. Submission, he said,is a ‘‘heart attitude’’ and obedience is‘‘related to conduct.’’72 In other


words, we can be submissive whilenot obeying. That division will nothold up since submission means to beunder someone and yielded to them,making obedience just an outwardexpression of submission. Nee pro-moted a false distinction because sub-mission and obedience come from thesame root word. Obedience is thefulfillment of submission. At times,they are almost interchangeable. Sub-mit (or submission) is hupeiko,73 andobedience is hupakoe.74 Both conveybeing under someone or somethingand responding positively to orders.We could in no way say we weresubmitted to God if we did not obeyHim.

Nee would have made believersunquestioning robots had the follow-ing been true:

‘‘God puts above you the broth-ers and sisters in the church whoare more advanced spiritually sothat you may accept their judg-ment as your judgment. This willthen enable you to possess theirwealth without you yourself hav-ing to go through their painfulexperiences.’’75

With this criteria we would have tojudge the Bereans as rebellious andcarnal since they questioned a spiri-tual authority and checked himagainst Scripture (Acts 17:11). Somuch of Nee’s parallel teaching pointsto unrestrained authoritarianism.

With all the above teaching onauthority, Nee weakened the conceptof individual responsibility. We mayask others for their opinion, which iswisdom, but we do not have to accepttheir judgment as final.

Nee said individual Christians can-not put on the armor of God. He sawleadership and the body (the Church)as protection and as a ‘‘covering’’without which we are mincemeat forSatan.76 While fellowship is good andright, Nee pushed this truth beyondproper boundaries when he suggestedthat only under the ‘‘covering’’ canwe have the armor of Ephesians 6.Nee wrote:

‘‘We should understand thatspiritual warfare belongs to the

church, not to an individual. ... Inview of this fact, let us not forgetthat this spiritual armor is givento the church and not to anyoneindividually. You as an indi-vidual cannot cope with Satan. Itrequires the church to deal withthe enemy. ... Satan is not afraidof your personal prayer... Satanlooks for such solitary and un-covered persons to attack.’’77

No one would think for a momentthat Paul was addressing anyoneother than individual believers inEphesians 6. Early in the chapter,specific commands are addressed tocertain believers (children, fathers,masters) and then specific directionsare given to all believers. The ‘‘we’’and ‘‘you’’ are each of us. A parallelpassage Romans 13:12 (‘‘put on thearmor of light’’), and its contextshows it is addressed to individuals.

Kenneth Wuest’s Expanded Transla-tion shows how intensely personalEphesians 6 is when it translates theliteral Greek of ‘‘put on,’’ as ‘‘clotheyourselves’’ and ‘‘having clothedyourself.’’ Paul’s point in the imageryof a Roman soldier and his armor isthat the soldier alone can don hisarmor. The Roman government couldnot dress him. He was responsible todress himself so that he would beprotected.

It would be silly to think that Satanonly attacks in Church or when one iswith other believers. In Nee’s view, itwould follow that a shut-in or one cutoff from fellowship and the Churchwould be defenseless.

Church fellowship must always beheld in balance with personal respon-sibility, but it seems Nee goes toextremes by so emphasizing one healmost excludes the other. While indi-vidualism is wrong, covering — reallysmothering — can produce passive,immature, unthinking believers. Goodleadership and accountability goalong with personal responsibility.Growing along with while servingothers gives liberty and balance in thelocal church.

No wonder Nee’s followers areconfused and ready to defend him,because he did not always teach the

unavailability of armor to individualChristians. In another publication onEphesians 6 where Nee annotates thephrase ‘‘stand therefore,’’ he sayswithout qualifiers that, ‘‘Every Chris-tian must learn to stand.’’ He thenspeaks of warfare ‘‘in relation to ourpersonal Christian lives.’’78 Onewishes the real Watchman Nee wouldhave stood up.

BEYOND ALL REASON

Nee denigrated reason. He believedthat it was forever disqualified at theFall, but produced no adequate scrip-tural basis for his theory. The Biblepicture is that although human reasonis tainted by the Fall, it can beenlightened, aided, instructed, andguided by the Scripture. Redeemedreason, guided by the Word of God, ispart of discernment. The Lord calls usto ‘‘come reason together’’ (Isaiah1:18) and Paul said our Christianservice was ‘‘reasonable’’ (Romans12:1). Here Nee was into his simplisticreductionism and polarization again.The Bible instructs us that reason canbe used for or against God. Paulconstantly ‘‘reasoned’’ with others re-garding the faith (Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19;24:25).

Nee railed against reason, spendingseven pages in Spiritual Authorityknocking it. Samples of his thoughtsinclude:

‘‘One who is subject to authority,however, lives under authorityand not in reason.’’79

‘‘Reason cannot bear thinking.’’80

‘‘It is very true that we need tohave the eyes of our reason putout in order to follow theLord.’’81

‘‘The servants of God must bedelivered from the life of rea-son.’’82

‘‘Hence there are two classes ofChristians: those who live on thelevel of reason, and those wholive on the level of authority.’’83

’’...there is no possibility of mix-ing up reason with obedience... itis absolutely impossible to liveby both.’’84


‘‘He who knows God knowshimself and therefore is deliv-ered from reason.’’85

‘‘All who still live in their rea-sonings have not known Him.’’86

BY WHAT STANDARD?

When we compare them with Scrip-ture, we can see why many of Nee’steachings are in error. Nee oftencavalierly and subjectively assignsmeanings to Scripture that do not dojustice to the verses or context. If Neehad any consistent hermeneutic at all,it can only be defined as quasi-devotional and, at times, almost gnos-tic. It can create in some a completelyintrospective life.

Dana Roberts is not convinced thatdiscovering the fine details and intri-cacies of our psyche is all that neces-sary or important:

‘‘Whether one understands thecharacteristics of the soul and the‘human spirit’ is irrelevant. Oncesin is made known, continuinggrowth is conditioned upon re-pentance and surrendering our-selves more to the work of theHoly Spirit. ... Indeed, sanctifica-tion preconditioned upon ourcomprehension of the hiddenmechanics of the spiritual manmay lead to a spirit of priderather than to a humble andcontrite heart.’’87

No one would believe that if theyhad only the Bible and had never readWatchman Nee they would be spiritu-ally impoverished. No one wouldsuggest that Nee was not a Christian.The larger questions are whether heshould have been a teacher andleader. Mixed-up teachers producemixed-up students.

THE RETURN OF THE RABBIT

In closing, let’s return to the choco-late rabbit and add to it the followingparable:

There was a man who lived next tothe Hershey’s chocolate factory andwas friends with the Hershey family.The son of the owner invited the manto come to the factory at any time andenjoy free of charge anything they

made. This was an open invitationwith no time limits or barriers. Theman, a chocolate lover, rejoiced as hethought of all those treats, so avail-able and there in both quality andquantity everyday. What a graciousgift.

The parallel to the Bible and theriches of Scripture should be clear. Inthe end, people might still want thechocolate bunny. It is really up tothem. However, they need to knowwhat they are getting and not expectanything more.

Endnotes:1. Dana Roberts, Understanding WatchmanNee. Plainfield, N.J.: Haven Books, 1980,pg. 150.2. Letter to author, September 10, 1984,copy on file.3. ‘‘A Short History of The Little Flock,China’s Largest Indigenous Church,’’Christian Communications Ltd. (HongKong), Research Paper, March 1984, No. 4,pg. 5.4. Watchman Nee, The Ministry of God’sWord. New York: Christian FellowshipPublishers, Inc., 1971, pg. 87.5. ‘‘A Short History of The Little Flock,’’op. cit., pg. 4.6. Jim Moran, ‘‘A Brief History of theLocal Church.’’ Moran published critiquesof the Local Church on his web site, Lightof Truth Ministries (www.ltm.org). OnJanuary 17, 2003, Moran died and in April2003, the Local Church (The Church inFullerton Corporation) purchased fromMoran’s estate his web site including allfiles and postings. They have now re-moved these documents from the Internetand are notifying any other web siteswhich have these documents posted alsoto remove them.7. Dave Hunt, ‘‘Q&A’’ section, The BereanCall newsletter, April 1998, pg. 3.8. Erin Curry, ‘‘Rogers addresses King-dom Authority, human battle with Satanin new book,’’ Baptist Press News, De-cember 26, 2002. Document available at:www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=14922.9. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. xiii.10. Ibid., pg. 5.11. Ibid., pp. 11-12.12. Ibid., pg. 12.13. For a further critique of Jessie Penn-Lewis, see G. Richard Fisher, ‘‘PressingTruth to the Extreme — The Errors ofJessie Penn-Lewis,’’ The Quarterly Journal,April-June 2000, pp. 1, 11-20.14. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pp. 96-97.15. Ibid., pg. 140.

16. Ibid., op. cit., pg. 17.17. Ibid., pg. 20.18. Ibid., pg. 26.19. ‘‘A Short History of The Little Flock,’’op. cit., pg. 4.20. J.D. Douglas, New 20th Century Ency-clopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rap-ids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1991, pg.588.21. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. 29.22. J.D. Douglas, Who’s Who In ChristianHistory. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale PublishingHouse, 1992, pg. 501.23. Angus Kinnear, Against the Tide — TheStory of Watchman Nee. Fort Washington,Penna.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1973,pg. 204, italics in original.24. Ibid., pg. 205.25. Ibid., pg. 200.26. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pp. 32-33.27. Against the Tide, op. cit., pg. 226.28. Ibid., pg. 237.29. W.E. Vine, The Expanded Vine’s Exposi-tory Dictionary of New Testament Words.Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1984, pg. 547.30. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. 103.31. See, for example, John 12:27 and 13:21;Hebrews 12:23 and Revelation 6:9; Mat-thew 10:28 and 1 Corinthians 5:5. Also seestandard works on systematic theologysuch as James P. Boyce, Abstract of System-atic Theology. Escondido, Calif.: den DulkChristian Foundation, 1887, pp. 194-212;Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. Pea-body, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,1999, Vol. 2, pp. 44-51, (Hodge labelstrichotomy as ‘‘anti-Scriptural’’); andWayne Grudem, Systematic Theology.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publish-ing House, 1994, pp. 472-489.32. Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit.Indianapolis: Sure Foundation, 1965, pg.10.33. Ibid., pg. 13.34. Ibid., pg. 15.35. Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs,Being Human. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978, pg. 204.36. The Release of the Spirit, op. cit., pg. 14.37. Ibid., pg. 36.38. Ibid., pg. 18.39. Ibid., pg. 65.40. Ibid., pg. 29, upper case in original.41. Ibid.42. Ibid., pp. 71, 72.43. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1964, pg. 82.44. Jerry Vines, The Believer’s Guide toHebrews. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers,1993, pg. 60, italics in original.45. Jay E. Adams, A Theology of ChristianCounseling . Grand Rapids, Mich.:


Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, pg.112, italics in original.46. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. 112.47. The Release of the Spirit, op. cit., pg. 73.48. Dave Breese, Know the Marks of Cults.Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1975, pg. 76.49. Watchman Nee, Spiritual Authority.New York: Christian Fellowship Publish-ers, Inc., 1972, pg. 47.50. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology.Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,1999, Vol. 1, pg. 496.51. Henry C. Thiessen, Thiessen’s Introduc-tory Lectures in Systematic Theology. GrandRapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952,pp. 305-306.52. Spiritual Authority, op. cit., pg. 48.53. See further, The Expanded Vine’s Exposi-tory Dictionary of New Testament Words, op.cit., pp. 483-484.54. Ibid., pg. 482, italic and ellipsis inoriginal.55. John MacArthur, Truth For Today.Nashville: J. Countryman, 2001, pg. 60,entry for February 17.56. Renald Showers, ‘‘Foundations ofFaith: The Sinlessness of Jesus Christ,’’

Israel My Glory, February-March 1999, pp.27-28, italic in original.57. John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ OurLord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, pp.150-151.58. Bruce Demarest, Jesus Christ: The GodMan. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1978,pg. 68.59. Khidhir Hamza, Saddam’s Bomb Maker.New York: Scribner, 2000, pg. 11.60. See further, Hodge, Systematic Theol-ogy, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 76-81.61. The Release of the Spirit, op. cit., pg. 20.62. Ibid., pp. 20-21.63. Ibid., pg. 21, emphasis added.64. Being Human, op. cit., pg. 200.65. A classic example of this trait is theLatter-day Saint (Mormon) interpretationof 1 Corinthians 15:29 (‘‘why are theybaptized for the dead’’) in which theyhave built an elaborate theology andtemple ceremony.66. Know the Marks of Cults, op. cit.,pg. 87.67. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. 135.68. Spiritual Authority, op. cit., pg. 71.

69. Know the Marks of Cults, op. cit.,pg. 95.70. Spiritual Authority, op. cit., pg. 73.71. Ibid., pg. 109, italic in original.72. Ibid.73. See further, The Expanded Vine’s Exposi-tory Dictionary of New Testament Words, op.cit., pg. 1100.74. Ibid., pp. 795-796.75. Spiritual Authority, op. cit., pg. 81.76. Watchman Nee, The Body of Christ: AReality. New York: Christian FellowshipPublishers, Inc., 1978, pg. 72.77. Ibid., pp. 73-74.78. Watchman Nee, Sit Walk Stand. FortWashington, Penna.: Christian LiteratureCrusade, 1966, pp. 41-42.79. Spiritual Authority, op. cit., pg. 92.80. Ibid., pg. 93.81. Ibid.82. Ibid.83. Ibid., pg. 94.84. Ibid.85. Ibid., pg. 97.86. Ibid.87. Understanding Watchman Nee, op. cit.,pg. 151.

EDITORIALS(continued from page 2)

member, there is little — if any — encouragement ordiscipline to obey the command of 1 Peter 4:10. Thedemands (or lack thereof) of Riverbend and similarchurches allow for a brand of Christians who are salt thathas lost its flavor and lamps hidden under a basket(Matthew 5:13-16).

In the first chapter of 1 John, the apostle spells out thatwe have been brought into fellowship with God and eachother. Christians are not to be isolated from one another,but rather they are to be team players. A number of yearsago, Christianity Today ran a brief sidebar entitled, ‘‘TheTeam Player.’’ The article provided some helpful obser-vations:

• Team members supplement one another and theybuild one another’s strengths.

• Team members encourage one another and moti-vate each other to develop and use their abilities.

• Team members are accountable to one another.

The article also reminded us, “Shared work meansshared responsibility.” Local churches that allow mem-bers the option of being anonymous allow them theoption of dodging work and responsibility.

No doubt, Riverbend Church (and other low-impactChristianity churches) would protest and claim that theyare reaching those who would never darken the doorstep

of some other church. Pastor and author Gary E. Gilleyrepeatedly defuses such an argument and shows itsunbiblical premise in his insightful volume, This LittleChurch Went to Market. Gilley demonstrates the flaw inthis logic when he writes:

‘‘The seeker-sensitive experts would defend market-ing as a tool they use to attract more unchurchedHarrys to hear the gospel. ‘Methods change, themessage stays the same,’ is the cliche. What they donot seem to understand is that the message willultimately be shaped by the method. ... In theseeker-sensitive church, ‘needs’ reign supreme; Godexists to meet Harry’s needs. Harry comes to Christ,not to glorify Him, but to find the promisedfulfillment and happiness in this life’’ (pp. 81-82).

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Southern Baptist Seminarypresident, is right on target when he states, ‘‘Americansare now fanatic devotees of the cult of self-fulfillmentand personal autonomy.’’

Mann’s desire not to expose his flock to ‘‘guilt-inducing sermons’’ may well impede the work of theHoly Spirit. In the hours before His crucifixion, Jesus toldHis disciples that the work of the coming Spirit would beto point to Christ and to convict the world of sin:

‘‘And when He has come, He will convict the worldof sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin,because they do not believe in Me’’ (John 16:8-9).

Christians assemble under the preaching of the Word,not to feel better, but to be better. Scripture demands that

Documents

Low-Impact Christianity Page 2 WATCHMAN WHO? Watchtower … Nee Master of Mix Up.pdf · October-December2003 The Quarterly Journal · 11 Nee’s books come to us from a number of