Talk:Watchman Nee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watchman Nee article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Christianity in China work group. See also Portal:Christianity in China.

(with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] External Links

Rather than deleting valuable external links, I have revised the links for a NPOV. Please do the same in the future. Cokoli 22:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh?

[edit] 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)

Proof is in the puding

[edit] Added Asian Christians and Chinese Christians

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

[edit] Tone & Better sources

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)

[edit] Regarding Watchman Nee and this article and to the editors on NPOV

Seven Humble Requests to all the Editors editing this page and editing pages related to local church movement on Wikipedia:

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 at least his testimony -- "Watchman Nee's testimony" (all depending upon one's faith that whether these are really facts, neutral information, and truths or not) and few more of his writings (whichever you would like to read and know about him and his beliefs or whichever you would like to find fault with and criticise). All of his books has a lot of facts, information and truths. And all easily available, anywhere.

2. My request to all of you those who seems to be so much knowledgeable about Chinese mission fields and missionaries of past to china and the overall idea of protestantism is that -- you all have (some) POVs, unique to each one of you about Nee and 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 myself, an Indian, have seen enough 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 many of you 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 christinas 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HopeChrist (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above request. Its auto signed by now so let me say thanks again. 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)

[edit] 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)

KEY FACT: The local expression of the churches (city locales: local churches) is not the same between what Watchman Nee taught and what Witness Lee taught. Lee required a central-hub called The Local Church Living Stream Ministry, whereas Nee had no such designation or similar aspect, because the apostles worked regionally, which was the highest placement of workers directly chosen by God. Therefore, no such centrality was needed. Furthermore, Nee taught apostles are for today, whereas Witness Lee's scheme had no such apostles. Elders are not apostles. Apostles for a region of churches appoint Elders of a locality. Witness Lee had no such operation in his outlets to his central operations. For further understanding of Biblocality as taught by Watchman Nee (he never used this term, Biblocality, but yes, the teaching is the same), please studying his Biblical proofs for Scriptural locality. (~unsigned comment)