Talk:Witness Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Witness Lee article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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]

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 part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Facts

I think it is important we stick the 6 major teachings of The Local Church, so we can hold those in Lee camp accountable instead of continually letting them off the hook by their not addressing these problems (i.e. always skirting around the facts): calvinism (pride in believing in being premade for salvation), suing for faith, modalism (saying the Father is the Son and the Godhead is a Person), altering Watchman Nee's writings (e.g. limiting affection to love and desire only to hate in LSM TSM), calling oneself God (in any way shape or form), and violent screaming mantra (which is neither prayer nor reading to yell 2 or 3 words aggressively).

Also, can we please stick to why it is wrong to have a central-hub command and control centre of LSM for filthy lucre, and no Aposles (which is rejecting Eph. 4.11). If the outlets of the lsm/lc system are without Apostles, then their outlets are taken care of by false Elders since those Elders are not and never will be appointed by Apostles. All this seems like quite a reasonable assessment stated succinctly. If only we could maintain the focus on these specific problems instead of always filling the pages with other matters, perhaps you will help this organization to find the way of the Dodo bird which is God's will. Sincerely. The editor of the article said to "discuss factual (verifiable) issues in these pages." Please do not write libelous material. (unsigned comment)~

Notably, the above comment is UNSIGNED...typical of false accusations. So, you've gotten your "Witness Lee accusation list" down pat. First of all, this is an encyclopedia, not an apologetic board. Many Calvinists would be offended by you. Second, the accusation of modalism is complete, utter bunk (and you don't even understand the concept, either...modalism says that God existed in three modes, first as the Father, then became the Son (and the Father ceased to exist), then the Son became the Spirit (and the Son ceased to exist). That's was modalism teaches, and certainly you've never heard such a teaching from the local church. Third, the King James version itself (John 10:34) says that Jesus himself said "Ye are gods." So, are you opposing the King James version, or the word of Jesus himself? Fourth, accusations of "filthy lucre" are POV and can be made against any church system, which gathers donations. Unlike most church services, the local churches do NOT gather money in full view of everyone--donation boxes are on the wall, so there's no pressure to donate. Fifth, the word "Apostle" literally means "sent one." It is NOT for you to decide who is or is not an apostle, or to dictate an anti-LSM strategy on what is intended to be a neutral, factual discussion of an encyclopedia article.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let the truth be told (no matter how hard you try to conceal the truth by saying this is not an apologetics board to skirt the sins of your cult), the evidence is given in the six major teachings of Witness Lee, quotes supplied and that modalism is wrong, both the consecutive and the simultaneous kind, such that the Father is never the Son, nor is the Godhead a Person, but 3 Persons. Quotes are supplied of both kinds of modalism given by Witness Lee and other leeists. It is unmistakable. Calvinsts say that man is totally deprave so he could never choose the cross, but Christians say man is not totally deprave, though fallen; that we are still made in God's image to be able to come to the cross to be drawn by God. The calvinist god says you can't choose the cross, so you would have to be premade like a robot to be turned on by God and not afforded real authentic choice.

In the Bible when it says ye are gods, it is not saying you are "God" as Witness Lee and followers teach. The context which is being spoken of is that there are leaders of the people. That is the context. It is unmistakable. Nor are you a god, for there are no gods; but they are just idols.

A central hub of The Local Church is worse than any denomination that collects money because adherents of The Local Church ought to know such central distribution of its products to its outlets violates the practice of Scriptural locality, because the Bible says don't say, "I of Cephas" or "I of Apollos" which is like saying "I of The Local Church" started up by one man, the unregenerate Witness Lee.

Since those in the Witness Lee system admit there are no apostles in their structure, I agree, there is none, and because the Apostles would not associate with such a system of the 6 major false teachings of Witness Lee. As the Bible says, we shall know them by their fruit. Do I specifically know who is an apostle? If someone says they are an apostle, I can not say they are not if they don't violate what the Bible indicates they ought to know. God says test all things. Apostles as well. Rev. 2.1-7: "hast tried them which say they are apostles" (v.2); commend not to seek power of "Nicolaitans" (v.6 - those who conquer the people); "thou hast left thy first love" (v.4) of Scriptural locality, for this is the way it was in the first century church period of Ephesus.

You are living a lie as a member of The Local Church. May you give your life to Christ. And, yes, I am anti-Satan and anti-things of the Devil such as The Local Church.

(unsigned comment)~

I suspect the author of these unsigned comments is non other than Troy Brooks the author or the website quoted in the comment. He has been attempting to promote his website here for some time. Go read it, and judge for yourself whether this man is founded in the truth and whether his venomous words are reasonable. Witness Lee's ministry is widely published and freely available on the Internet. Anyone wanting to actually know what Witness Lee wholly believed or taught is free to research it for themselves. I don't have any problem with disagreement or debate; actually, a healthy discussion of the truth helps us all. I don't suggest that I am perfect or accurate and without criticisim for what I believe and I don't believe that Witness Lee's ministry is above scrutiny. In fact, I believe that is is our right and our responsibility to test the spirits to discern if they are of God (1 John 4:1).

Posting whiny, repetitive, childish comments is not productive in this forum. If you feel you need to respond to a comment, do so, but stay on topic and present your argument--rambling on about the oh-so-ignorant "6 Sins of Leeism" is tired and trite.

--Gijones (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

This article fails to explain such basic aspects as Mr. Lee's title, i.e. "Witness". In fact it sounds like an article written by people so familiar with the subjects that they are not aware something might have been assumed.

Re: title

It is a common practice among Chinese people to take a new name upon arrival in the United States. "Witness" is not a title (e.g. "Guardian Lee", "Elder Lee") but simply an English word he chose to be his name.

There are no assumptions about the evidences given for the 6 major sins of Leeism. All is proven, quote by quote.

To me the only thing that is proven by your "6 Sins.." thing is that your are off in some theological la-la-land. Your presentation is not an "evidence" but a "rant." You fail to ever establish the criteria for your own beliefs, assuming that the reader simply believes whatever you say is true. You help support the argument that the main opposition to Lee's ministry is simply a collection of angry bitter people. What ever happened to speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15)? I honestly believe that serious people with some theological opposition to their understanding of Lee's ministry would also have a problem with your broken Neeistic theology. While I might think you are way-off theologically, I would never assert that you are not a genuine believer or a real Christian if you confess Jesus as Christ. As the guy from Mythbusters says, "I reject your reality and substitute my own." ;)

--Gijones (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Needed

The statement that Witness Lee "experienced salvation" is of course not NPOV.Did he convert to Christianity at this point,or (already a nominal Christian) have a "born-again experience"?Either would be preferable.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to have any sources and, in all honesty, lacks a neutral point of view in many places. It reads like a prosecution letter rather than an informative, unbiased, and honest encyclopedia article.

I read the quote "He was unbending in his conviction that God's goal is not narrow sectarianism but the Body of Christ." and thought, is there a single Christian out there that thinks God's "goal" is "narrow sectarianism?" Probably a more accurate statement would be,"He was unbending in his conviction that God's goal can only be carried out through a deliberate practice of oneness as the Body of Christ and not through any form of sectarianism." It is clear that the original statement was crafted either by a member with a skewed view of the Witness Lee's beliefs, or a critic that is trying to incite people by making readers think that Witness Lee walked around thinking that the rest of Christianity believes God's goal is "narrow sectarianism." I seriously have to resist the urge to gut half this stuff and rewrite it. I think that the largest problem, in being encyclopedic with Witness Lee, is that he did not create a systematic theology, so almost everything published under his name is contextual. Just trying to find a single source quote for the statement above might be very difficult, simply because there might be other statements elsewhere that seem to make such a definitive statement less valid. Witness Lee often said something like, "If you were to ask me if X was true, I would say yes... and no." Can we try to keep the information here restricted to things that can be supported with references? Trying to characterize what Lee believed definitively can be sometimes difficult; while many of his followers might be able to accurate characterize what he believed, few are likely to be able to support it with attributable quotes. Certainly, if Lee was "unbending in his conviction" than you should be able to wrangle a few sources to support that. Let's just stay with the facts that can be stated definitively (and supported) and focus on making this more authoritative, encyclopedic and from a NPOV. With the voluminous amount of Lee publications, certainly everything stated, as to his beliefs, should be referenced; I know that means more work for those that already think they know what he believed, but that is the nature of creating an encyclopedic work. --Gijones 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I've reverted the addition of extensive criticisms because they are not sourced. Particlularly when we are making allegation of sexual and financial improprieties we need to have verifiable sources that we can attribute the allegations to. I can't find them in the listed sources. -Willmcw 22:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modalist nonsense

- Given that the local church readily admits that Witness Lee taught that "God became man that man may become God" in life and nature (and Jesus himself said "ye are gods"--King James Version, John 10:34), how is it that one can continue with the false accusation of modalism? Those in the local church have had no qualms about admitting positions that some find may be controversial. However, the modalist accusation is complete, utter bunk. Any secret agent wanting to attend services for an entire year would come to realize that such ideas are false and are heard only by accusers, and never in actual local church services.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RYoung, you might be confusing deification with modalisim, as man becoming God has nothing to do with any form of modalisim that I am aware of. But assuming that you were talking about modalisim--you know what you believe, and whether or not it is modalistic, but others don't; they have to go on what they read, and often the language that is used, tends to be modalistic. Simply by saying that the Son is the Father (of which there are plenty of attributable quotes from Lee's ministry), you can be put in the modalism camp. There is plenty that has been published to define what the Local Churches teach, but unless someone admits that the language they use can appear modalistic there is no place to start with the presentation of the facts. I have researched modalisim extensively and from most Christian perspectives, simply saying that the Son is the Father makes the statement modalistic.

Lee used common Christian rhetoric, similarly, to suggest that many Christians secretly hold to tritheisim... which might seem true if you only use simple language to discern the truth and not actual confessions. While many Christians may hold to a view that keeps each of the three of the Trinity separate, nearly all would oppose the idea that they believe in tritheism. Many Christians might hold more closely to the "three" in the trinity while Local Church members hold more closely to the "one." When you compare the Local Churches teaching to that of actual modalists (like the Oneness Pentecostals) it makes the accusation much weaker. You can find just as much standard trinitarian doctrine in Lee's ministry as you can find potential modalist doctrine. The fact that the Local Church's hymnals contain a large number of traditional trinitarian hymns would indicate that their doctrine is probably misunderstood.

Regardless of how absolute you may be that you are not a modalist, you can not tell others that their interpretation of Lee's teachings are simply wrong. It is genuine controversy and the language that Lee uses, from time to time, when discussing the nature of the Trinity makes his teachings unique enough for it to be notated as non-catholic doctrine and recorded as such--that is, as long as it can be presented comprehensively and in a NPOV. Certainly, no entry under Witness Lee can emphatically state that Lee taught modalisim. You can state accurately that some of Lee's teaching have been seen by some Christians to be modalistic, but if someone says that, they should be able to discuss what statements are modalistic and why. I think it better to record that in the Local Church Controversies section and simply note that some of Lee's teaching have sparked controversy. --Gijones 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

GI Jones, I think you are giving the Lee opposers FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT. Many themselves spout words like this pejoratively, but have little or no ability to define what they think it means. Let me state this simply, then: modalism teaches that God the Father became God the Son (and ceased to exist as God the Father) and then God the Son became God the Spirit (or Holy Ghost) and ceased to exist as God the Son. Yes, that borders on a God that exists in three 'Modes'.

I completely disagree 100% to admit that Lee's writings "appear" modalistic. It's like being called a 'child molester' when you've never touched a child. Do you know what 'simply not true' means? It means that an accusation is simply not true, and has no ground of reality at all. We should not give credit to those that cannot even explain their own juxtaposed and dissembled meanings, much less what others may believe. To say that the "Son is the Father" agrees with Jesus himself: "I and the Father are One." If the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son, then to suggest that the Father existed at one point and became the Son at a later point has no ground to stand on. I'd prefer inventing another word, "functionalism", to explain Lee's teachings. That means that functionally, God operates as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, with different missions, expressions, and dispensations in each. But even when the Son was baptized, we also see God the Father and God the Spirit there. Thus, to say that God's different functions equates to different 'modes' is incorrect. Further, to give credit because something may 'appear' modalistic is to merely say that since some people don't know what modalism is and because some may believe the anti-Lee propaganda, that we should give ground to them. I say no. Wikipedia is not "Living Stream Ministry" but its purpose is to be as factual, accurate, and verifiable as possible. And since the 'modalist' accusation is based on a web of lies, innuendo, and misperception, the best thing to do is to address it as a controversy but explain why it has no ground in reality.Ryoung122 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you, and I think that your example of "functionalism" can easily be misconstrued as modalism as well. While some adherents to modalistic beliefs (like the Jesus Only sect) do not believe in co-existence, many modalists believe that the Three, or at least the Father and Son, exist at the same time in the same Person. One of the main modalistic beliefs called Sabellianism believes that only the Father exists as a Person--it is this same classical heresy that is referred to as "Patripassianism" which basically means "father suffered", a reference to the Father suffering the death of the cross as Jesus. This traditional well-known historical example has no hint of the "God the Father became God the Son (and ceased to exist as God the Father)" definition that you use (which is an errant interpretation of successive modalism). Certainly if the Father ceased being, he couldn't have suffered.

Modal Monarchianism asserts that God is one Person who appears in different "modes" as the Father, the Son and the Spirit... never stating that the other modes cease to exist when another appears. If you compare your description of "functionalism" to that of modal monarchianism the two appear strikingly similar. There is nothing in modal monarchianism that says that a mode's appearance is mutually exclusive and cannot appear simultaneously. Sabellius, the name sake for Sabellianism never denied the pre-existence of the Son and so could have only believed that the modal manifestations of God were not sequentially exclusive. It is important to note that modalistic doctrine isn't really focused on the "modes" as much as it is focused on the singleness of the Person of God. The beliefs of the Oneness Pentecostals embrace something known as "static modalism" which explicitly holds to the simultaneous existence of the "modes".

After years of personal research on this subject, I have to disagree with your assertion that such a singularly simple definition of modalisim exists. I am not saying that you or anyone else believes in any form of modalism, I simply suggesting that the subject of modalism is not as cut-and-dry as you present it to be. --Gijones 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Might you be my ex-roommate, Paul Jones, who went by the moniker "GI Jones"? Small world, isn't it?Ryoung122 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you have correctly discerned the identity behind the moniker... and for the record, we were never roommates, only housemates ;) --Gijones 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we 'drive on the parkway and park on the driveway.' So I didn't mean 'roommate' literally. But for a more appropriate discussion, I'd like to talk to you again. See your 'talk' page for more.Ryoung122 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, most Leeists are unsaved for through that unsalvation they admit they think the Father is the Son and do not know the Trinity of the Godhead who is 3 Persons, not one Person. Leeists worship a false deity, so they can never accept the Father and the Son are NOT the same Persons in the Godhead. Watchman Nee's words (Way of the Lord) show he did not agree with Witness Lee.

What is happening is Satan through the Leeist system wants you to confuse the Father for the Son, but in God's Word, never is the Son the Father, though they agree; and neither is the Spirit the Son, nor is the Spirit the Father. It takes humility to accept the Trinity of God being uncreated, distinct, of one substance and not seperate in the 3 Persons. A leeist can't accept this about our Creator. So be it. That is what hell is for.

Firstly, let me state that posting unsigned is cowardly and unproductive. If you want to make an open declaration that Local Church members are not saved, you should at least give your name so others might know who is making such statements. You declare things so absolutely-are you a theologian? Under what authority do you make such a vicious assumption about believers in Jesus Christ? Your presentation isn't the least bit scholarly or educated--it is simply bitter and angry.

I would like to quote for you directly from Witness Lee's ministry, so that you might be able to understand that you are probably confused about with Witness Lee taught concerning the Trinity. I find it funny that those people who accuse the Witness Lee of non-trinitarian teaching fail to address places in his ministry where he clearly uses traditional trinitarian language to teach concerning the Trinity. The following excerpts are from a booklet entitled 'Concerning the Triune God -- the Father, the Son, and the Spirit' by Witness Lee

The Lord says in Matthew 28:19 (Gk.) "Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here the Lord speaks clearly of the three Persons--the Father, Son, and Spirit. But when he speaks here of the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the name which is used is in the singular number in the original text. This means that though the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three, yet the name is one. It is really mysterious--one name for three Persons. This, of course, is what is meant by the expression, three-in-one or triune. (pp. 6-7) emphasis added

What? Witness Lee speaking about three Persons? Such a thing can not be--could it? Perhaps, those critics out there don't take the time to read and understand what Witness Lee taught before making sweeping statements. I have both heard and read where Lee mentions the "three Persons" of the Trinity plenty of times. The central teaching in Lee's ministry was not a doctrine about the threeness or oneness of God, but God being triune for our experience and enjoyment. When Lee spoke doctrinally on the matter, he always prefaced what he said by explaining that the Trinity/Triune God is a mystery and cannot be fully understood by our limited human understanding. He explained that what we know about the threeness or oneness of God, we can only know from both the Bible and our personal experience of God within us.

With that said, Lee realizes that using the term "Persons" to describe the Three in the Godhead is a really weak and potentially errant term. Later in the same book he explains:

The term "three Persons" does not exist in the Scriptures, but is added by men in their interpretation. Since they cannot say that the Three--Father, Son, and Spirit are three Gods, what else can they say? So the designation "three Persons" is used. Actually, to use the designation "three Persons" to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory, because "three Persons" really means three persons. Therefore, Griffith Thomas (famous for his exposition on the Book of Romans) in his book "The Principles of Theology" wrote in this work concerning the Trinity of the Godhead: "The term Person is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism...While we are compelled to use terms like 'substance' and 'Person,' we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance and personality... The truth and experience of the Trinity is not dependent on theological terminology." Therefore, concerning the "three Persons" we can only say this much. We should not "press too far," or it will lead to Tritheism. (p. 10)

A reasonable person would have to accept Lee at his words. In this, he is not casting away the "three Persons" of the Trinity, he is simply explaining that it should not be pressed "too far" as to approach Tritheism. Granted, the majority of Lee's doctrine on the Trinity, or "Triune God"--as it appears most often in Lee's ministry, focuses on the oneness of God. A reasonable person might see fit to understand the context of Lee's ministry. Speaking to many believers who unwittingly hold to tritheistic beliefs, he leans heavily in the opposite direction in attempts to correct it. However, that same reasonable person might also warn that Lee's ministry might occasionally "press to far" in the opposite direction.

One thing I liked about Lee's quote of Griffith Thomas was the use of the term "positive error." This would imply that one can be going in the correct direction, but go too far. Much errant Christian theology is in this category. People aren't inventing new things, they are discovering truthful divine things, but taking them too far to the state of error. Instead of simply rejecting what Lee has to say out-of-hand, why not seek the truth in what he has to say. He may go too far at times, but it is very likely he is heading in the correct direction. Theologians have know that the term "Person" is an inaccurate term, heck, the early Christian counsels wrestled with the same exact issue. If you accept the Bible as it is, you will never make the Trinity a systematic theology, doing so is probably one of those positive errors.

Witness Lee never said that if you don't believe his teaching that you are going to hell. I think that your insistence on some strict (or not so strict) doctrine of the Trinity making others hell-bound puts you strongly in the camp of error... even if it could be positive error.

--Gijones (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: * Why Do Christians rebuke Witness and reject The Local Church Living Stream Ministry? Christians don't say the phrase "3 Persons" is found in the Bible, so you can't accuse of saying that. What we do say is that this phrase is used to most aptly to describe the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit in the Godhead. He is a relational Being. And never do we find the Father is the Son, the Son is the Spirit or the Spirit is the Father. And never do we find the Godhead is referred to as a "Person". We reject Witness Lee's modalism and The Local Church Living Stream Ministry. God will destroy this little harlot no later than when He destroys The Roman Church.

Because the leeist rejects the Trinity in which the Father is not the Son, nor is the Spirit the Father, we can be confident the leeist is not a Christian, for they worship another, the god of modalism who is just some evil spirit masquerading as God. The leeist, in order to be saved, must give up control of himself and his tight grip on calling himself God, clinging to this false god of modalism, suing for faith, altering Nee's writings, shouting mantra, false locality (i.e. central-hub of LCLSM), and calvinism (false teaching of total depravity requiring you be a premade robot for salvation without regard first for your choice).

When God says to a leeist repent, come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Lord Jesus as your Savior, that repentance involves forsaking the 6 major sins of leeism: calvinism, calling yourself God, modalism, suing for faith, bearing false witness, shouting mantra and false locality.

[edit] Birthdate

Witness Lee was against letting anyone know his birthdate, lest someone try to idolize it. However, he was reported to be born in 1905 and died June 9, 1997, aged 91, so he must have been born between June 10 and Dec 31, 1905.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvest House controversy

The Harvest House controversy occurred well after Witness Lee passed away, and so I question whether this is relevant. Also, Harvest House attacked first, launching a lawsuit and libelous accusations. Rulings in Harvest House's favor have centered on "free speech" rulings, rather than whether what they said was true or not.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FACT. Harvest House sued the local churches and LSM FIRST. FACT. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/HHpersists.html R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life-Study of the Bible

The Life-Study of the Bible is not a "word for word expositional commentary" on the Bible. It is not even a "chapter by chapter" exposition, as there are often big sections of books that are not covered. However, the Life-Study of the Bible is one of the few expository commentaries that includes every book of the Bible. At the time of its completion, it was touted as the only commentary to include every book of the Bible, however, today there is no mention of that in any of the online promotional material. Perhaps the phrase "word for word" should be changed to "book by book?" --Gijones 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A major change to this entry (a proposal)

How is it that "the Lord' recovery" and "oneness" is mentioned but no one has seen fit to include Lee's clearly most central doctrine "God's Economy"? I think the lack of its inclusion is evidence that this article originated mostly in light of controversy surrounding Lee and not in attempts to present an encyclopedic entry on the man. I compared this article to a number of others Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Jr. and L. Ron Hubbard an found Lee's entry extremely deficient. Why have so many Local Church members found the energy to edit this article, but so few actually contribute to make it informative? Certainly no critic is going to advocate the removal of real information.

I think the pattern has been set with Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard to separate their religious movements into separate articles as well as controversy detail... but certainly there is more about Witness Lee's life that is not included in this entry--not just specific teachings, but his life. I think that this entry would best be served by a solid presentation of Lee's life and work, here is the outline I propose based on my understanding or Lee's life and ministry:

1 Early life (pre-U.S)
  1.1 Birth/childhood
  1.2 Christian conversion and early ministry
  1.3 Joining with Watchaman Nee
  1.4 Exit from China/Lee's continuation of Nee's ministry in Asia 
2 Later life (in the U.S.)
  2.1 Lee's move to the U.S.
  2.2 Raising up local churches
  2.3 Establishing of the Living Stream Ministry
  2.4 Early Controversy/SCP Lawsuit
  2.5 Return to Taiwan/Development of the New Way
  2.6 Establishing the Full Time Training
  2.7 The High Peak of the Divine Revelation
  2.8 Entrusting his work to a coordinated group of co-workers
  2.9 His death and memorial
3 Major teachings
  3.1 The Ground of Oneness
  3.2 God's Economy
  3.3 The High Peak Truths
4 Writings/Published Works
  4.1 The Publication of Spoken Messages
  4.2 The Life-Study of the Bible
  4.3 The Recovery Version of the Bible
  4.4 Watchman Nee--A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age
  4.5 The Crystallization Study of the Bible
  4.6 Hymns
5 Legacy
  5.1 The Local Churches
  5.2 The Living Stream Ministry
6 Footnotes
7 External Links

I think that the above outline would provide a solid framework for presenting the life and work of Witness Lee. There may be key things that I left out so, I encourage feedback and suggestions. I think that critics, supporters and those who don't know anything about Witness Lee will be well served by a more encyclopedic entry. Please offer some feed back and suggest any resources for information. I would love to know when Lee began to publish his own works in addition to those of Watchman Nee. I have always associated Lee's move to the U.S. with the establishment of his own ministry, can anyone offer some information on that? When did Lee publish his first work under his own moniker?

--Gijones 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been edited quite a bit and it may be that "God's economy" was included prior but was deleted along the way.Ryoung122 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly think that this entry should focus entirely on Witness Lee, and any info on the LSM, the Local Churches or The Lord's Recovery should be limited in scope to their direct relation to Lee. Major teachings should be presented plainly and should not be presented as either truth or error. I think that it can be said, that a major teaching is controversial, but the points of controversy don't have to be elaborated; if it is something that deserves a point-by-point presentation of controversy, then it should live in a new entry and be linked. The subjects "the Lord's recovery" and "one in Christ" are nearly disjointed from a proper and complete context in their relation to Lee. The Lord's recovery section goes way too deeply into information on a concept and looses the focus of the subject--Witness Lee. Something like "the Lord's recovery" is substantial enough to warrant its own entry. How does one go about making such significant changes without upsetting the community involved in this entry? I guess I can slowly add information to the entry and then re-organize it later... thoughts from anyone? --Gijones 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the changes or modification is possible without any significant dispute only when we focus mainly on Witness Lee and on his life and work. For controversy and related stuff there is now already a new page on wiki (controversy- local- churches). All doctrinal issues can be put there without ruining this entry. -HopeChrist

Also I disagree that on the basis of strange doctrine of God's Economy, one can not compare Witness Lee with Mr. Joseph Smith or Mr. L. Ron Hubbard. This is far too off-track, second guessing or judging. -HC

[edit] Regarding "One in Christ"

I think that saying that the ground of oneness is based on a single eldership is wrong. I have never encountered such a teaching in Lee's ministry. Now, there may be some practice like this among some churches, but I don't believe that this is in any way associated with what Lee believed and taught on this matter. Please provide some reference to support this if it is true.

Lee published a book on this very subject called The Genuine Ground of Oneness in which seems to contradict the idea that eldership is the bases for the ground of oneness. I am including a few quotes for consideration. You can read the book in its entirety online.

It is crucial for us to see that the oneness among God's children is preserved by life and light. It is not maintained through doctrine, organization, or maneuvering.

The ground of oneness is not simply a matter of one city, one church. The ground of oneness is deeper, richer, higher, and fuller than this...simply be in the church life enjoying Christ as the riches of the good land. As we enjoy Him with God, we shall be planted in the house of the Lord, we shall grow, and we shall flourish. This is the proper way to have the Christian life and the church life. This is the ground of oneness.

I am going to post a request for a citation, if no one can post a citation, I will remove the reference to eldership and replace is with something from The Genuine Ground of Oneness which can be directly cited. I think that it is abundantly clear that "oneness" in Lee's ministry is simply the opposite of "division" and not any kind of system or organization of any type.

--Gijones 00:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I put the inappropriate tone template on the top of this article only after removing a lot of purely point-of-view commentary on Lee'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.Brian0324 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

	Witness Lee is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Talk:Witness Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Facts

[edit] Title

[edit] NPOV Needed

[edit] Sources

[edit] Modalist nonsense

[edit] Birthdate

[edit] Harvest House controversy

[edit] Life-Study of the Bible

[edit] A major change to this entry (a proposal)

[edit] Regarding "One in Christ"

[edit] Tone

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search