Wright Doyle's Biography of Nee

[Cal]

Amen, amen, amen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Amen, amen, amen.

Igzy, I really like your latest signature line: "If you revere some people, you will inevitably abuse others." Looking back at the Recovery, this was so true. In order for Nee and then Lee and now Chu to maintain their elevated status in the LC's, others must be abused. It was inevitable! The only way to stop the abuse, is to "dethrone" the leaders.

The Apostle Paul knew this all too well in Corinth, so he wrote, "But God has put the body [of Christ] together, giving greater honor to the members that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care one for another." The other inevitable side-effect of overly revering leaders, is that there will always be divisions in the body. This is guaranteed, because God will always have some faithful ones who will not bow-down to these leaders, and thus conflicts will arise because some fallen man is exalted in the church.

As a former Catholic, with my namesake an ordained Franciscan OFM, growing up in parochial education, with such extracurriculars as choir and altar boy, I studied papal history after joining the Recovery. There is little redeeming value, for the most part, delving into their personal histories. It's so truly sad to learn that Recovery history so closely parallels papal history.

This also means that what we were told about Nee's marriage (that some relative took out an ad against him) was false.

[Ohio]

Wright Doyle's version of events:

When [Watchman] married Zhang Pinhui in 1934, there was an expose in the media about his alleged romantic involvement with other women, which damaged his reputation, so he stepped down as leader of the movement, handing it over to elders whom he had previously appointed. He resumed his position the next year.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This also means that what we were told about Nee's marriage (that some relative took out an ad against him) was false.

In his biography of Nee, Seer..., Witness Lee writes on page 97,

"Eventually the Lord brought [Charity] back to Watchman Nee. Charity's aunt, however, strongly opposed the marriage. She looked upon Watchman Nee as simply a poor preacher. On the one hand this caused Watchman to hesitate in going ahead with the wedding; but on the other hand, his mother was very much concerned for his marriage, since he was thirty years of age. In 1934, during his fourth overcomer conference held in Hangchow, all the co-workers were present. His mother grasped this opportunity to speed up the wedding. As a result, immediately after the conference, the wedding took place.

Charity's aunt was extremely unhappy about her niece's marriage. She made a threat that if Watchman Nee would not pay her the customary courtesy call she would cause him trouble. He would have surely paid her such a visit if she had not made such a threat. However, her threats caused him not to do so. He felt he could not comply with her desire under such duress. People would think that he was playing politics to please her. For this reason he refused to do what she asked. Through this conflict, a great turmoil burst out in Shanghai caused by Charity's opposing aunt. This caused Watchman a great deal of suffering."

Does anyone else have trouble with this account by Lee? It makes no sense to me. How in the world could Charity's crazy aunt cause so much trouble? Why didn't Nee just go and visit her? How much "duress" could that simple visit have caused him? What kind of church people would consider that he was playing politics? Would not Witness himself have silenced any criticism from the church, if there really was any surrounding this supposed "courtesy call?"

Once again, in order to accept Lee's version of events, one must believe that Nee was super spiritual, void of normal humanity, and every other person around him was an immature imbecile out to make him suffer.

[Truth]

Wow, Ohio. Where do you find these things? It is good to have more sources. It confirms our findings.

I have finished the book by Dr Hsu. I am very saddened by the book, but not surprised. I believe Nee was a genuine believer and apostle. But one who fell into serious sins because he was unprotected. He should have surrounded himself by others and work with those who were his peers. Instead, he lived an isolated life and took all the matters of the church in his own hands. He became exceedingly uplifted and extremely fallen in his sins. His peers would have been his protection and help in his weakness. Though he preached this, he did not practice this. As a result, his ending was tragic. This a lessson for us all to learn.

Another point I want to make is this: I don't think Watchman Nee's early publications on Christ and life are invalid just because he fell into sin (his later publications are questionable). We are all sinners. God uses all kinds of people to spread the truth, to spread His word, to spread encouragement and inspiration. Watchman Nee was definitely one of them. But Nee was far from perfect as portrayed by Lee. Even though many received the Lord because of Nee, many also left the Lord because they were stumbled by him. The Lord has been speaking to me lately. Is my faith based on a person other than Christ? That was the lesson Hsu had to learn. She fell apart because her faith (unknowingly) was based on Nee, rather than Christ alone. The Lord was merciful to her and brought her back to Himself. This memoir serves as a help to others who are going through similar experiences. My faith was tested too when I discovered the true history of Lee, and now Nee...

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

The truth is still the truth no matter who repeats it or how many times it is repeated, you do realize this don't you?
-
-

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

I didn't know he used Hsu's book as his source. If that is the case, you are right - it doesn't confirm anything. However it is interesting that as an experienced researcher in the field, he *decided* to use Hsu's source rather than Lee's source.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

For years in the Recovery I heard many brothers tell the old stories, but they all were repeating Lee, and no one ever questioned the veracity of these reports.

Since we have multiple eye-witness sources who have confirmed that Witness Lee was a false witness concerning Ingalls, Mallon, So, et. al., it is pretty hard to take his word on anything these days.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

Doyle is a scholar and expert on Chinese culture, religion, and history. Check out his credentials. Such a person knows how to do research and knows the standard of scholarly acceptance. Why would he "simply repeat" anything? What possible motive would he have to want to take down Nee?

Lee and the BBs, on the other hand, have no credentials, and a history of lies, bombast and conspiracies to take down whomever got in their way, not to mention expecting everyone to "simply repeat" what they say!

My question is why would you choose to believe and simply repeat them?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The source of Doyle's account is the same book by Lily Hsu. How does that prove or confirm anything? He is simply repeating Hsu.

I haven't read it. I would be surprised if Doyle based his account on Lily Hsu's book. It would not be scholarly to write a book (see A Response to Recent Accusations) without doing the research.
If Doyle had other credible sources to substantiate what Hsu wrote about, Doyle is doing his due diligence.

[Ohio]

Living Stream has a website promoting Witness Lee's biography of Watchman Nee. Here is an excerpt from it ...

"But to write a biography of a certain person is not an easy and simple matter. Could what is written about that person be a genuine picture of him? Is the motive for writing proper? Is the writing accurate? What will the influence be? What will the issue be? After much consideration, my solution to all these points is this: Since I have been under Brother Nee's teaching, edifying, and perfecting, and since he was a brother I respected, observed, and weighed for a quarter of a century, the accuracy of my writing about him should be guaranteed. As to the motive, the heart-searching God is the Judge! As to the influence and issue, the merciful Lord is the blessing. Much endeavor has been exercised to avoid flattery, exaggerations, and the exaltation of men, and the Holy Spirit has been the Guide and Controller of this writing. Thus, I desire to see this writing accomplished unto the good pleasure of the Triune God for His rich blessing."

It's amazing how much spiritual rhetoric goes into LSM's publications in order for them to do just the opposite of their stated intentions.

For example, one of Nee's definitive works was The Normal Christian Churchlife. History shows us that both Nee in the 1920-30's and later Lee in the 1960-70's espoused these principles and were fruitful. History also shows us that both men in their later lives abandoned these principles, and their ministries (aka "the work") usurped control of all the LC's.

After the death of Witness Lee in 1997, the battle between Anaheim and Cleveland, which resulted in quarantines, divisions, and lawsuits, could be summarized by the question "who was the real Witness Lee?" Was it Anaheim's version of "later-Lee," or was it Cleveland's version of "early-Lee?" Reading the accounts of Watchman Nee and the extreme changes which he instituted during his "resumption," I could ask the same question about him.

The stark discrepancies and contradictions which I have witnessed in Lee, were also there in China. Who was the real Watchman Nee? Witness Lee provides me with little "guarantee."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Wow, Ohio. Where do you find these things? It is good to have more sources. It confirms our findings.

I have finished the book by Dr Hsu. I am very saddened by the book, but not surprised. I believe Nee was a genuine believer and apostle. But one who fell into serious sins because he was unprotected. He should have surrounded himself by others and work with those who were his peers. Instead, he lived an isolated life and took all the matters of the church in his own hands. He became exceedingly uplifted and extremely fallen in his sins. His peers would have been his protection and help in his weakness. Though he preached this, he did not practice this. As a result, his ending was tragic. This a lesson for us all to learn.

Another point I want to make is this: I don't think Watchman Nee's early publications on Christ and life are invalid just because he fell into sin (his later publications are questionable). We are all sinners. God uses all kinds of people to spread the truth, to spread His word, to spread encouragement and inspiration. Watchman Nee was definitely one of them. But Nee was far from perfect as portrayed by Lee. Even though many received the Lord because of Nee, many also left the Lord because they were stumbled by him. The Lord has been speaking to me lately. Is my faith based on a person other than Christ? That was the lesson Hsu had to learn. She fell apart because her faith (unknowingly) was based on Nee, rather than Christ alone. The Lord was merciful to her and brought her back to Himself. This memoir serves as a help to others who are going through similar experiences. My faith was tested too when I discovered the true history of Lee, and now Nee...

Great post, Truth. I agree with your points. I don't throw out the Psalms because David sinned, neither should we discredit all the positives which Nee accomplished for the Lord in China.

Your post helps to explain the Blended Brother mindset at LSM. They must continue to promote their own mythology about Nee and Lee because their faith is based on these men and not on Christ alone, the only perfect man.

[Ohio]

This LSM website comments on the many biographies of Watchman Nee ...

Recognition

The material presented in the previous five sections of this website was drawn principally from information about Watchman Nee provided by those who intimately knew him and worked with him. These were also very familiar with his ministry and closely followed it. The material presented in this final section was collected from others who did not personally know him (excepting the entries marked with an asterisk * ), and who are therefore likely to possess less knowledge and understanding of his ministry. In a few cases their understanding and assessment is even inaccurate and misleading. Nevertheless, their material has been included because, on the whole, they recognize Watchman Nee’s tremendously positive contribution along with the fact that the Lord greatly used him.

A third category of material related to Watchman Nee is excluded from this website because the materials are full of slander intended to bias readers against Watchman Nee and his ministry. At least six of these books have been retracted by their American publishers; in fact, one was condemned in court as libelous and defamatory. Nevertheless, some of those opposing Watchman Nee’s ministry and persecuting the believers meeting in the local churches still promote and circulate photocopies of these disproven and retracted books.

Obviously LSM is willing to sue, not only to preserve their mythological image of Witness Lee, but also of Watchman Nee.

[OBW]

I believe Nee was a genuine believer and apostle.

I agree on the first part (without the need for superlatives), but not the second, other than to the extent that we argue that we are all "sent ones."

I'm concerned that our talk still creates tiers of believers. Someone either is or is not a believer. If they are a believer, it is genuine. If it is not genuine, then they are not a believer.

We spend so much of our verbiage quantifying the faith of others. But based on what? The ability to write spiritual-sounding words and phrases?

As for all the "good" stuff that Nee wrote earlier (how much earlier? earlier than when he was charged with these sins in 1934?) is it really so sound? Or does it have a sound that is appealing? I keep reading the introduction to The Spiritual Man (written between 1925 and 1927) and see the incredible way that he sees himself as something special. Something that it would seem God could not do without.

So how much further back do I have to go to find the pure Nee? By 1934 he already had a history of these sins. And a history of thinking very highly of himself.

Maybe he hadn't yet been called-out. But there is evidence of his propensity for spiritual error and spiritual arrogance.

There are too many solid writers of all kinds. If, as has been suggested, he mainly repackaged the writings of so many others, then read the others. Maybe they will not be tainted with error.

Are we pining for the leeks and garlic of the LRC? At least the Early LRC. Or the Early Lee, or the Early Nee.


I know that some here are tired of me harping on this. Always saying to just dump Nee and Lee altogether. With such a wealth of Christian writings from every aspect and angle, including inner-life writings, (and without considering Nee and Lee), why are some of us so hopelessly drawn to them? Are we caught in their error? Do we want their writings because no one else will say the things Nee and Lee did?

That may be a good thing. It may be that those words are no more special than all those banners at the trainings. Overly adjectivized phrases that are so appealing but do nothing but make us feel better about our lexicon.

I think that all that stuff is too often the LRC's version sacrifice — being offered in the place of obedience.

And since they say "Christ" so often, how can it be wrong? Because some of it is just words. Words that they want to magically make everything right. To make the unrighteousness into righteousness without actually being righteous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we pining for the leeks and garlic of the LRC? At least the Early LRC. Or the Early Lee, or the Early Nee.

OBW, I never got that impression from your posts.

[Ohio]

In Mark 10, after the Lord mentioned His pending passion, the two sons of thunder hatched a marvelous plan ...

"James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.”

This sounded like a legitimate request, since Jesus had taught them, "ask anything in my name, and I will grant it." I'm sure the brothers had no malice in their hearts towards others, but who wouldn't want a few company perks, being the Boss's cousins, and all that. Now Jesus was being extra nice to them, since their time together was short, but He had to be a little perturbed about their ignoring his comments about what was about to happen "in Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”

But let's look at the result of these two brothers becoming the first MOTA's: "Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John." Imagine that, the other disciples getting upset about their neat idea.

Jesus then thought it wise to step in with some sober fellowship for the brothers, so "Calling them to Himself, said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Igzy's signature line caused me to remember this gospel story, and it's message for today. Once a minister desires special perks for his service, then the rest of the body feels slighted. That's the obvious part, but Jesus takes this one step further. Special accolades for any minister result in him lording it over the flock of God. He gets lifted up, and the others get put down. He becomes a bully, and they get abused. This is absolutely contrary to the heart of God.

Jesus emphatically said to all, "But it is not this way among you!" Obviously brothers Nee, Lee, We, and Chu never got this memo from Jesus.