Talk:Watchman Nee

Debate of the recent edit inclusions, accusations of impropriety
If this is a serious study we need to debate the issue fully here first. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply showing that there are differences between translations proves nothing other than the fact that there are differences between the translations. Without examining the source material it's impossible to determine which translation is more accurate.  Astarf 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Added Asian Christians and Chinese Christians
Added to these categories--Kathanar 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tone & Better sources / Regarding Watchman Nee and this article and to the editors on NPOV
I put the inappropriate tone template on the top of this article only after removing a lot of purely point-of-view commentary on Nee's life. It could have been tagged as a NPOV issue, but as it stands now, it still has a tone of near hero-worship that I am at a loss as to how to correct without gutting much of the valid content, here. There really needs to be some fair evaluation by outside sources about his radical departure from mainline Protestantism. The controversy is touched on but it is all presented in favor of Nee.Brian0324 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article states that Watchman Nee & the Christian Assembly, he founded was one of the fastest growing native Protestant movements in China during the early twentieth century This seems to be an instance of being termed "Protestant" in the sense of being non-Roman Catholic. This article seems to make the case that the Little Flock is more like the other unregistered Protestant groups. Interestingly, the current head of the TSPM grew up in the Little Flock movement. So, the Chinese Government and Western media see him and his movement as "Protestant", possibly for lack of a better word. It would be good if someone could incorporate this kind of reliable third-party sources into the article.Brian0324 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I have studies Mr Nee for more than 4 years now (almost 50+ of his books) and articles. I would request all the editors to read and research first, at-least Nee's testimony -- before writing. All of his books has a lot of facts, information and truths. And all easily available, anywhere, in many languages.

2. We all have (some) POVs, unique to each one of us regrading Nee, Lee, and/or the local churches.

3. In China, the largest (both seen or underground) intra-fellowship of the churches are of the local churches -- I don't have data on how many but all I can say that local churches are growing very rapidly in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and many other south Asian countries. People there are not like "American minded about cults and new religions" for eg. (I too, have seen religions and variety of religions in India and those true seekers those who are really honest and true know how to expose a cult and to beware of it).

4. "The local church is not a cult", neither Mr Nee or Lee were paganist, heretic, cultic, religionists, new-ager, or humanist or satanist or "trying to make man God and superior" (which some Christian think and perceive) -- in respect to their belief, teachings, and ministry. To know this without any strong POVs the best is to read them and to visit few of these local churches as all the local churches are unique and independent in LORD. This is an information age but also a global and airlines age. You might have tons of information on Nee and local churches but I am pretty sure that if you travel also to these churches and to step forward enough to see and know and understand what they (these people and Nee or Lee) really believed, believe, and are, and speak, and think of God, Christianity, you, the saved, the unsaved, etc .. -- I am very sure that your view will become "real neutral".

5. We all are have our own POVs, but some POVs are right and factual and some are based on just informations, second guessing, and emotions. "Oh that we see that we may see it". And it is this division about which Nee/Lee/others were talking that even after knowing that (many of us here) are saved and Christians and one in eternity and heaven --our communication/talks seems not to be of a brotherly fellowship but rather a secular discussion.

6. I trust that one will be honest in findings truths about Nee and particularity about (local church) (not just by reading/collecting information of this information age) but by stepping forward in love, truth, spirit, and God's way before assuming that some people are making Nee a "hero" and not "Christ the Head".

7. Finally, We all have POVs. Is the Neutral point of view (in matters of God and divine) compromising or truly neutral and factual? Are we compromised? Are we secular? I am not? Neither I am a member/ advocate of any religion, nor do I consider myself a religionist. I only have Christ Lord Jesus and HIS word, the Bible, which I hold with all my strength. So before calling someone a cultist or cultic or cult -- we should check the spirit (Is this from spirit or from our fallen mind and flesh??) Thanks to all. HopeChrist (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowledge of the subject of Watchman Nee is not a prerequisite to improving this article, when un-sourced personal opinion about the subject is interspersed throughout. By removing language such as "Throughout the nearly thirty years of his ministry, Watchman Nee was clearly manifested as a unique gift from the Lord to His Body for His move in this age" as I did here it is a simple case of insisting on the same neutrality for this article as in all other articles. This kind of personal opinion has no place in a Wikipedia article, whether I agree with it or not - unless it is a direct quote from a reliable source. This talk page is not intended to be a forum to discuss whether or not the Local Church movement is a cult or not. As it stands, this article doesn't even deal with such controversy. Nor is this talk page the place to make a defense of a certain editor's theology or advocate others to edit according to a set of particular principles, as valid as they may be. I am afraid that the above "request" seems to me to be just an appeal to consider Watchman Nee in a positive light so that this article will show him in an entirely favorable way. Again, Wikipedia isn't the place for this. Blogs are better.Brian0324 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article on Mr. Nee is not about showing him in a good light or favourable light but about presenting the things (facts) in as clear way as it is possible. I believe any true unbiased wiki editor (especially a Christian) will not throw any unsourced personal opinions if there is no valid resources/quotations available to cite for. I agree to removal of any such content according to wiki policy. Also I again request to everyone to check for the site/source quoted (whether internal or third party) to check for the validity of any content.


 * Also, as not many third party quality and trustworthy resources are available on internet and press on Nee and his life and ministry other than the books he has written and talks he gave during his life. I believe, published books (of him and about him) from LSM or any other publisher should be considered as neutral, valuable, and trustworthy resource (for citations and quotes).


 * I have no intention whatsoever (as stated above in the previous reply by my friend) to make anyone think/consider Mr. Nee in a certain favourable way. All I am requesting is to be truthful and balanced in our approach to find the facts and then when presenting it. Thats what the encyclopaedic article is all about (in my personal opinion). Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Watchman Nee rejected the the six major sins of Witness Lee. The Local Church is a cult; Watchman Nee, imprisoned for life, would have rejected Witness Lee's cult. Don't pay much attention to most of these posts, for they are just leeists trying to marry Watchman Nee to Witness Lee. The same thing has been going on for the past 50 years as they tried to alter his writings at LSM, but they have been preserved at CFP and CLC.
 * (Unsigned comment by TR Brooks, this time User talk:204.191.74.229)

After five years, this article still reads like a bunch of hero-worship (and I say this as a Christian). I'm going to put Template:Tone back in it. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Theology
I think it would be good to include a section on Nee's theology. He has been considered by many Christians to be heterodox in his teachings (for example in his views of church authority and having only one church per area instead of many). I have read some about him and am convinced that much of people's objections to his teachings are misunderstandings or ideas that got "lost in translation" - having been translated into English from Chinese, and also coming from an Eastern worldview into the West. I also think that much of his teaching was distorted by Witness Lee into what the "local church" has become today. Anyways, I think it would be helpful to sort through some of the material about Nee's teachings and have a section about it. Kristamaranatha (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Sister, thanks for the noble idea. I also believe that it would be good to expand this article as the rating of it is start-class. Also a section on theology would be very nice.
 * Secondly, I would like to address few topics which might be useful in expanding this article on Mr. Nee. I believe, we see and hear, primarily what we want, and What we are, and with whom we associate with. If I live with only mango lovers, I will think all the people in this world love mangoes. Similarly, some think that Watchman Nee is misunderstood (or criticized) by many but then that could be an illustration of a frog in the well. This world is like a ocean and there are millions of faithful Christians (faithful to salvation and faithful to the Lord) around this globe (both in denominations and the local churches and in the other churches). I have seen a part of this world and I can assure you that Watchman Nee is understood and read by far more people than we can guess. Witness Lee did not mis-represented or ill-represented Mr. Nee or his teaching or writings. Mr. Lee only expanded the vision seen by Mr. Nee. And there are hundreds of others those who have a big contribution in the local churches and their practices today. (For exmp. J N Darby (Brethren and first Church restorinist (in a sense anti-denomination)), St. Iraneous (an Apostolic Father), Madam Gyone (a Catholic), Miss Barber (an Anglican), John Calvin (hated by so many Christians, for what??, I don't understand) (for pre-destination doctrine), Faith mission (Ireland), Holiness movement (Scotland, UK, Ireland), Early true church Christians (Montanist, Anabaptists, Moravians of past, etc) and others, and others ...


 * Thirdly, anyone true to the Bible (especially a lover of the complete Word of GOD) could see that a church, Christ, or biblical living has nothing to do with EAST or WEST. If that would happen then that will be marrying to the world. Remember there is no JEW, no GREEK, No Eastern Way (or philosophy: Confusious, Md. Rumi, Buddha, etc) or Western Way (or philosophy: Plato or Aristotle, K. Marks, and others). So what Watchman Nee preached or wrote was from the Universal God inspired Bible (God's breathe and own Word and revelation) and not from eastern influence or way of thoughts and living. There is absolute no doubt on that if one is true to God then she or he is a virgin and pure and universally Christ-like and under divine growth and work.
 * I hope this will clear some of the things I found saggy. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Witness Lee actually did distort some of Nee's teachings. He took some of Nee's teachings and stretched them a bit too far. I have all the works of Nee (translated by Stephen Kaung), and I have also many works (life-studies) by Witness Lee and other works by Lee. I have translated about 16 books by Nee into Dutch. As far as I know, Stephen Kaung (also a former co-worker of Nee) doesn't want to have anything to do with the movement of Lee. Representatives of Living Stream Ministries in my country have threatened my publisher, claiming that LSM had all the copyrights of the Basic Lesson Series published by CFP, which was an outright lie. A letter from a CFP board member confirmed that. The movement has caused a lot of trouble, and tries to link Nee with Lee, in order to gain more acceptance. I remember clearly how brother Nee once said to a woman who wanted to leave the Baptist Church upon hearing his teaching about church locality, that she should not leave on his account, but only if the life in that church was not present. Nee did not drive people out of the denominations. And Mr. Kaung works with denominations as well. Not that denominations are approved of mind you, but you cannot change the denominations, and since there are brothers and sisters in them, you cannot shun them. And it certainly isn't appropriate to walk around with printed t-shirts carrying texts like "God hates christianity." It doesn't help a lot when on the one hand we reject the denominations, and on the other hand practically start a new denomination ourselves and call it the "local church." This was not the way Nee worked. Wat ch - W i k i  Talk 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For an online encyclopedia, how do we define and neutralize what is "distortion" and what is "further expansion"? I mean, in the light of facts and general user centered, user-contributed wikipedia, how do we represent the truth!?!


 * I'm afraid that people are (and will) fight like inhuman beings on the name of God and on the nature of theology, translations, and doctrines. Well, I believe, atleast on Wiki, let us put only those things which are well sourced and verifiable (for the sake of human civility).


 * To some, Lee distorted the teaching and visions of Nee, and Paul for example did that to Peter and James!! Well, just in similar ways, Nee too have gone far away from the orthodox Biblical truths according to many theologians. Well, who is then right about the things of the invisible, unheard, incomprehensible, and unimaginable God!?! Let's not be overtly religious, self protecting, and too knowledgeable (beyond normal common sense), but we should try to "love and respect one another" and write the facts. As far as Wiki is concerned, it is all about "informations, facts, and sources". Another thing is "weight of the argument" and "the general consensus among the editors". Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been advised not to use the talk page for debating the content matter, so if you like, you can discuss this further on my talk-page. I will copy the discussion to my talk-page for convenience sake. Wat ch - W i k i  Talk 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, but first of all my arguments are not over the content matter but regarding the differentiation between the "factual, quoted NPOV" vs. "personal experiences in (or of) some religion"; well, I found, some of the arguments given above by my colleague to be more of a one person's (or group's) POV rather than arguments about the further improvement of the article in terms of who Mr Nee was, what he believed, his biography, his theology, and beliefs, and his contribution to the Christian population and so in general.


 * Secondly, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss about the content matter of the article (in our case, Watchman Nee) and not over the interpretation of his writings and preachings. Please see, Talk page and Talk page guidelines. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies?
I am quite surprised; the book Watchman Nee: His Glory and Dishonor (Chinese) is listed under the "Books about Watchman Nee" section, yet none of its views and contents are addressed on this page. Despite being Chinese, it is one of the most complete and rigorous historical studies of the arrest of Watchman Nee in 1952 and also the surprising similarities between his theological beliefs and Gnosticism.

The book Watchman Nee: His Glory and Dishonor discusses the main reasons for Watchman Nee's arrest (mainly that of financial scandal and assistance of the Nationalist Party), the authenticity of the rumors about Watchman Nee's moral life, and the truth behind his abolishment from church leadership in the early 1940s (which is also not addressed by this article).

For this article to stay neutral in perspective, we need to at least address the controversies surrounding Watchman Nee. --Pkerichang (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read a book like Christianity in Communist China, by journalist George Patterson, then you will come to realize how full of communist propaganda and slander the work mentioned by you really is. If it is anything like Dana Roberts' book, it isn't worth much. Wat ch - W i k i   Talk

Current controversies
The current senior members of the Shanghai Local Church, who are still alive and living in Shanghai, would disagree with laudatory elements of the wiki article. They were there at the trial in 1956. They were there when the Shanghai Church investigated allegations of Nee's immorality. Many were angry at Nee. Peace Wang gave up her faith because of Nee's behavior. In 2006, I went to Shanghai to confirm the information given to me by Dr. Lily Hsu. Dr. Hsu was there at the trial. On behalf of the Shanghai Local Church she interviewed one of the women Nee had an affair with. She confessed to church leaders. Nee was then removed from the church rolls. Thereupon the church left Three-Self even though Nee had encouraged them to join and follow "The People's Viewpoint." Nee's final public sermon defending the Three Self was recently published in Chinese and translated into English Dr. Lily Hsu's new book, My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church. The book is a wakeup call for people to recognize the difference between a spiritual 'dramatus personae' and the real thing. Like all of us Nee had to deal with weaknesses and temptations every day. Instead of turning for help and strenghth he preferred to perform a very public 'spiritual' life while living a different, private life.

--Dana Roberts, M.A., M.T.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.34.222 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello dr. Roberts. It has been a while since I visited the English Watchman Nee wiki, and I saw your message just now. Perhaps you remember me from my review of your book on Amazon about Watchman Nee (comment). Since to my mind, I have already rebutted some of the conclusions you came to in your book about Watchman Nee on Amazon, I hope you don't mind if I take your conclusions in this current matter with a grain of salt. I'll contact a few people who most assuredly are 'in the know' about this and get back to you. That being said, if you want to base the validity of a person's teachings on his life, you might as well throw your Bible out of the window and reject the christian faith as a whole, for what christian in history has never sinned? Paul called Peter a hypocrite at one time. Does that mean we have to doubt what Peter wrote? God Himself made sure his letters landed in the Bible! Why don't you try preventing people from becoming Lutheran, based on the gross antisemetic teachings of the great Reformer Martin Luther? I guess I am simply wondering why you are bringing this up in the first place. By the way, saying 'Peace Wang gave up her faith because of Nee's behavior' (of which I have no proof), doesn't mean a thing. If this is true, which I doubt, it only means her faith was not based on the Bible but on a man's behaviour. Such a faith is not faith at all. Now I'd like to add that we all know how the Communist Party in those days fabricated a lot of 'evidence' against strong christian leaders, and I therefore am inclined to side with the reviews of the above mentioned book you seem to recommend: My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church posted here and here. If you have ever read Christianity in Communist China by journalist George Patterson, you know how the Communist Party tried to destroy the testimony of christian leaders, and it seems they did a very good job with the author of the book you endorse. Wat ch - W i k i   Talk 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just wrote a review on Dengshong John Wu's latest book Understanding Watchman Nee, and I'm afraid I have some issues with that book as well: review. - Wat ch - W i k i   Talk 08:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Trinity
When I read here that Watchman Nee believed that 'the Father became the Son', it becomes clear to me that this article is being hijacked by Leeists. Nee never taught such a thing, but Lee, who drifted away from Nee's biblical teaching, has caused quite a stir with his cultic teachings. I suggest that Wikipedia moderators take a good look at this article and prevent the followers of Witness Lee to modify this article in order to make it compatible with Lee's teachings.

Actually, this whole article looks more like a rehash of the Living Stream Ministries biography of Watchman Nee. I recognize many catchphrases from that biography. I find it very strange that not ONCE in this article Christian Fellowship Publisers is mentioned, which published more than 50 titles of Nee, translated by Stephen Kaung. That really is a red flag to me. Wat ch - W i k i  Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)