Talk:Witness Lee

Discussion

Whatever "Administer"'s views might be about Witness Lee, please discuss factual (verifiable) issues in these pages. If you question the neutrality of the article, please state your reasons so we can discuss them. Cokoli 02:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The Arabic Speaking World and Africa has a redundancy. I may be better to say the Mid-East and Africa. Localchurch (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article lacks third-party reliable sources; it depends only on material from Living Stream Ministry and Lee. That creates a POV and validity problem.--Parkwells (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts

{unsigned comment removed}

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)

The Propriety of Determining Who is an Apostle

So deciding who is or is not an apostle is not for us to decide, but only for Witness and his fans to decide. You contradit your history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose deletion of "church leader" as it is contrary to Witness Lee's teaching and Biblical verses such as "Call no man your leader." Even below you say that Witness Lee taught the local church leaders are the elders in a locality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How does the reference to T. Austin Sparks and their differing views on the church add to the article on Witness Lee. There is no description of what Sparks taught on the church and so saying they differ is non-essential. I propose it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to tell others that it is not for them to decide who is and is not an apostle? No one will ask your permission. For those who believe that the apostles commissioned by Christ as His personal ambassadors, the determination of who is and is not an apostle of Christ is necessary. And, BTW, there are 3 classes of apostles in the NT: 1) apostles of Christ, 2) apostles of churches, 3) Christ Himself, the representative of God.

(EnochBethany (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

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)

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)

Yes this is true and so why are they trying to use what should be unbiased forum to express their propaganda and ligitimatize their perspective. They have their forum, the LSM. They should stick to that but being insecure they seek recognition from the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources – The article is flawed by relying only on material from Lee and Living Stream Ministries. That does not satisfy the WIKI requirement for third-party valid sources. Surely journalists and scholars have studied this sect. Their writings need to be included.--Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Research Journal in the issue We Were Wrong spoke about it. http://journal.equip.org/issues/we-were-wrong 60.48.248.196 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is nonsense in religion

There is simply no such thing as a NPOV in an article on religion, a church leader, a denomination, Christ, Christianity and the like. Telling others that they may not state that a person was "saved" at some point in their lives is hardly speaking from a NPOV. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Hey EnochBethany, welcome to the conversation. You may not have noticed, but some of these comments are very old, dating from 2007. We should probably be archiving this page more often... :) I think most people will acknowledge that despite our best efforts, simply because we are human beings each with our own perspective on life, we will never achieve a 100% truly neutral point of view on *any* article, let alone one that's about religion. That does not mean we should not try.

I agree that one should be able to describe conversion experiences. However, we need to do it in a way that makes sense to outside readers and relies on reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with saying that someone was saved, but one must realize "saved" is a rather Christianese term that needs definition for those who do not speak the lingo :)

Would welcome your opinions on how the article can be improved. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Joren. Pleased to make your acquaintance. "Being saved," is an expression that must been used in America since colonial times and on the Mayflower as the ship came across the Atlantic. As such, I think there is no necessity to get politically correct by the latest 21st century of what is acceptable humanistic speech standards. The expression is quite appropriate, and it is not understood, then the readers are invited to get educated.

There will be no NPOV on this subject or on Witness Lee. Neither is a secular humanistic POV neutral. IMO the best way to write this article is to break it up into presentations by those of admitted POV's. One would be "How Witness Lee's Disciples View Him," written by them. Another would be "How Witness Lee Is Viewed by persons of traditional orthodox theology." Then the Secular Humanists can put their two cents worth in also. But to post that the neutrality of the POV of this article is disputed, is to post that the sky is blue. The problem comes in suggesting that it could be written from a NPOV. LOL. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

Thank you! (Do I call you Enoch, or Bethany, or both?) I tend to be one of these frustrating people that has one foot in each worldview so I end up empathizing with both their problems – I like to think that means I can translate between them but sometimes it doesn't go so well. I tend to look out for people that would read an article and not be able to get it because it's written assuming the reader already knows everything. (try reading one of Wikipedia's articles about medicine to get a taste of what I'm talking about... you practically need to already be an MD to read some of those).

Wikipedia doesn't really fit into the secular humanist box terribly neatly, FYI -- Just get to know us before assigning us a box :) There are many of what you might call secular humanists that have gotten in trouble for trying to slant the article (what we call POV pushing), just like others would for pushing a religious, political, nationalist, etc point of view; nobody gets a free pass, and nobody gets to have their POV endorsed by Wikipedia. (Covered? Yes. Endorsed? No.)

I agree we must cover all major POVS, but this has to be done without the article endorsing any of them. The reason for the POV tag is concern that the article would appear to be endorsing one over another. You might be interested in reading WP:NPOV; it may not be what you think it is :) Here's the gist: we're not pretending POV doesn't exist, we're not giving each POV equal time either, but what we are doing is covering the POVs without endorsing them, and without overly focusing on one over another. What we usually end up with in controversial topics is a bunch of "This side says they did this (reference), but others accuse them of that (reference), and this person's response is this. (reference)" What we try to avoid is passing judgment one way or another; it is better to trust the reader to make up their own mind.

We also try to stay away from original research; we don't want a bunch of sectioned-off "soap boxes" or "POV forks" for people to shout from. People don't really come to Wikipedia to read some random editor's opinions (hey, that's what blogs are for, right?) Instead, we are an encyclopedia, so we want a comprehensive overview that acknowledges all significant info about the person, including any controversies. Whatever we cover needs to be referenced to a reliable source. That's one concern I have about this article; as it stands, we do not have nearly enough reliable sourcing to justify most of it (and some notable issues aren't even covered here yet). Anyway, just my two cents, and sorry for all that Wiki-speak. I would invite you to identify anything in the article that looks like it is making Wikipedia endorse one POV over another. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you.

-- Joren (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking Down and using "we" in the sense of including yourself with other elitists, hardly advances your POV, Joren. I didn't become acquainted with Wikipedia yesterday. So please come off your soap box. LOL.

(EnochBethany (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

So... do you have anything in reply to what I actually said?

-- Joren (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

My goodness! I don't think I would idolize a birthday unless I already idolized the person. The article mentions his date of death and you have no problem with that. Your same logic might lead someone to idolize that. What is wrong with Witness Lee followers. Maybe they already idolize Witness Lee as evidenced by their worry that others will idolize his birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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, HopeChrist (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

RELIGION

It seems virtually impossible for people to discuss anything with religious content from an objective point of view, or "NPOV." The other comments on this page seem to violate all the guidelines at the top of the page. It has turned into a forum, complete with personal attacks. What's wrong with the article is simply that it sounds like an official statement from the Living Stream Ministry, though as such I didn't find it offensive, just out of place in an encyclopedia. I believe it is probably even a copy-and-paste directly from a Recovery or LSM publication. As an example of how inappropriate this can be, I turned to this article simply to find out what group or movement Nee and Lee might be associated with (such as Baptist, Pentacostal, Jehova's witnesses,Latter Day Saints or whatever). My only conclusion thus far is that these two men apparently constituted their own independent movement, which in itself is neither good nor bad, just factual.

Typical of a forum, what I've found disappointing thus far on this page is that each participant is certain that she or he is right and offers little potential for others to share in this correctness. I reluctantly call my self a Christian only in knowing all the poltical baggage that the label carries today. I'd rather say that I love God and that I'm overwhlemed by his humility and love in becoming a human himself to try to guide us out of the mess we find ourselves in. But then I run the risk of sounding like a real radical. I have to do further reading to determine what the duce "modalism" is, but I know that most Christians who share my love of God would call themselves trinitarians while I personally believe the teaching of the trinity is a abstract doctrine developed by the medieval church to convince the common people that they are stupid. God is not a theologian, he is the king of the universe and he's involve in hot combat for the rescue of each of us in a "world system" that neither he nor we created. Some theology is necessary, but most of it is "puffed up" words and battles of academic egoes. 68.52.102.68 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Chris Selby, cuselby@gmail.com, 07/03/2008.

The above comment is a good and healthy criticism provided the author is also interested in improving the article and not only in pointing errors and human insufficiencies. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

----

Chris, I think that it is entirely possible for "people to discuss anything with religious content from an objective point of view." However, I think that might be impossible to find objective views on such a controversial topic. I, personally, feel completely capable of discussing Witness Lee and his ministry objectively, I am sure that there are times that I hold a personal perspective on something that may not be truly neutral, but I am open to criticism and critique which is what a neutral community work requires. I have begged for a community willing to improve this article, but most people come to this page with a pre-formed opinion, as Witness Lee is not a topic that unaffected people generally care anything about.

Also, Witness Lee's ministry is epic in scope. I don't know a single person who has a handle on it entirely. Nee has a much smaller body of work, but Lee was a prolific publisher... problem is, very few people care to read him exhaustively from an objective perspective. The funny thing about Lee is, many followers attribute ideas and teachings to him that they can't personally support with a specific reference (which sometimes don't actually exist in the first place, or are contradicted or diminished somewhere else). With exception of the parts of his ministry which rose the the level of becoming "slogans," some of what many LC members believe is only "roughly based" on what Lee actually taught. I believe that Witness Lee is as misquoted inside the LC as much as he is outside. Add to the equation that Lee was nowhere near systematic in his theology and you get a ministry ripe for cherry pickers who can form entirely unique theologies and opinions based on fragments of one man's total ministry.

Here's to hoping that one day this entry will actually become informative and contributors less biased... which I truly believe can happen (only unlikely to involve me, since I have reached burnout trying).

Gijones (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

inline external link

Putting external links inline is ugly. That arrow sign interrupt my reading. If that is intended as a reference, put it under reference section. I have fixed a few, but not all of them. SDiZ (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. Someone need to fix that. If I'm free soon, I'll fix them up. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! you got busted for too many external links--advertise for the local churches on Wikipedia. I told you you should use this site for advertising the church. Busted! Localchurch (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

All Unsourced and Subjective Matter

Hi all,

I see that the citation tag is still sitting on the top of this article (since April 2008). It has been long time and since no one has provided the valid sources, it is better to remove all the unsourced materials/statements (both objective and subjective & positive and negative) from the article and to put it here on the talk page (for discussion, NPOV, objectivity, and citation). I will go one by one without disrupting the flow and meaningfulness of the article.

If you find that your writing is removed/deleted and put into this section, please don't take it personally rather try to provide source(s) and cite it and put it back in the article at its appropriate place. Thank Y'll. HopeChrist (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "Beginning on January 1, 1943, the church met continuously for one hundred days. As a result, over 800 believers consecrated their all to the Lord, some even offering to migrate to remote northwestern China for the gospel. Toward the end of that time, in May 1943, Witness Lee was arrested by the Japanese army and was imprisoned for one month."

Does anyone have an independent source for the revival in Chefoo especially since it is referred to a a "great" revival? What does this mean? Is it related to Witness Lee or was it was the revival the result of other peoples work. It seems out of place here almost as if it is left over from some previous content? Appropo (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it is connected to its preceding paragraph. However, I think I've found the link and source: ::This is mentioned in the book "The History of the Church and the Local Churches by Witness Lee" and it is available on Living Stream's website and on Google as well link. I think, I'll quote this and put it back in the article some time soon.

The problem with this is that you have no independent verification of a "revival" in Chefoo other than from Witness Lee's writings. This is not an independent source, rather it is just a claim that is just as unreliable as if I had claimed a revival started in my home town in my church as a result of my effort. Unless independent verification can be found, this should be removed as it is clearly no a NPOV. Localchurch (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this revival is related to Witness Lee and other christian believers of Chefoo local church. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The time frame for "immediately under the influence of Watchman Nee" needs to be specifically sited. If not I suggest deletion of the word "immediately" as it is subject to differing interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the article

This article has a tone tag. I have read it several times and as it stand now, I believe, it's the right time for the discussion on the tone of this article. I will remove the "tag" after one week from today, unless I hear from at-least another editor of this article. If you are just a reader and feel that the tag should remain – please explain the reasons and give us some hint on it. Thank You. HopeChrist (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of witness lee

For this article to stand the test of quality (B-level), I think, it will require a free domain picture of Witness Lee. Does anyone have any idea on how to put a picture of him. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Under what I thought to be the Lord's leading I added a "personally taken" photo of Witness Lee to the Wikimedia free media repository on 3/14/09. If deemed appropriate by others, would someone please go ahead and utilize that photo [or a re-cropped version] on this page? Here is the direct link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WitnessLeeSpeakingOct1987TaipeiTaiwan.jpg Srsrnelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.60.56 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! HopeChrist (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Recovery

There is a problem with this quote from Witness Lee which is typical of a non-theologian trying to make a theology and that is this: Lee defines "the recovery", which is something that needs to be accomplished because something is lacking or corrupted in terms of things that have already taken place, i.e. "God becoming the flesh, the flesh becoming the life-giving Spirit, and the life-giving Spirit becoming the sevenfold intensified Spirit", and "the church that becomes the Body of Christ and that consummates the New Jerusalem." God becoming is not intended in the modalistic sense (see discussion above) and so it is a fact not an accomplishment or a future act. In similar fashion, the church is the Body of Christ and therefore is not "becoming". This is typical of Witness Lee's teachings and in fact is not what he meant by saying this. He most likely meant that we need to learn to enjoy and appropriate the fact of "God becoming the flesh, the flesh becoming the life-giving Spirit, and the life-giving Spirit becoming the sevenfold intensified Spirit", and "the church that becomes the Body of Christ and that consummates the New Jerusalem." Since Lee didn't actually write, but spoke things, it is virtually impossible to make a theology out of what he said since it was spoken in the moment and with a context using English as a second language and primarily spoken for the edification of the listeners. No one needs to "recover" God becoming the flesh" and so without explaination these types of quotes are unintelligible to those not familiar with Lee's speaking. This quote is also not consistent with Lee's other speaking on the recovery referring to the recovery of practices such as calling on the name of the Lord. Lee is not a theologian, but a practitioner. He rarely spoke of truths that were not already "recovered" by others, but instead emphasized their practice. It is my opinion that this quote is therefore inappropriate and should be replaced by a better explanation of what Lee meant by "the recovery". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee was both a practitioner and a theologian. He did preached much on how various Christian groups of past practiced their faith but he also did expounded the Bible and taught doctrines such as Believers as the New Jerusalem, God's Economy as God dispensing Himself into man to make the corporate man into the Body and Bride, etc...! Dear Localchurch, Please explain specifically your point on your above comments. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you will find that Witness Lee "recovered" the teaching that believers will make up the New Jerusalem. He may have borrowed from someone and elaborated on it. He may have changed the meaning of economy to mean dispensing and then emphasize the dispensing aspect. He was a preacher, not a Greek scholar. But my point is that Witness Lee is too loose with his terms as illustrated in the quote. Hence he is not a theologian because he is not precise and does not flow logically. He says things like the recovery is "becoming...becoming...becoming", but he has better defined the recovery elsewhere as bringing to light a truth that was lost. So although someone who has been under his ministry for years and years can infer what he means, those who have not cannot understand a quote like "the recovery" is "becoming....becoming...becoming" refering to things already accomplished and not needing recovery. 70.95.99.216 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Localchurch (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee's "recovery" can be traced back to the itemized Christians of the past "as well as themselves." I have a problem with this type of statement. The itemized Christians all have a body of work with defines them. The "themselves" has no body of work and is hence unknowable unless it means the local churches, Living Stream Ministry or Witness Lee. Just as much of the itemized Christians have beliefs and practices that are not part of what Lee would consider the recovery, "themselves" would also have not only beliefs and practices that are not part of the recovery, but other faults and incidents which they are not proud of. Hence 'themselves' is not appropriate nor part of the "recovery" unless it refers to something specific about themselves. So this entire paragraph becomes nondescript, saying nothing specific or helpful in the way of informing the general public of what the writers were thinking unless it is merely revealing a sectarian attitude saying, "Some of what previous Christians said was part of "the recovery" and everything we do and say is "the recovery". Localchurch (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I liked the idea that we should expand that paragraph and explain further or link how this is related to God's recovery in Lee's vision. It will serve the readers in a greater way. This article is about Witness Lee and his life and works. The itemized Christians and groups are the very notable and important aspect of Lee's life and ministry. HopeChrist (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than say "themselves", it would be clearer if it read "Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". Localchurch (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My point here is that "the recovery" in Witness Lee's non-theologian-speak refers to two things. First "the recovery" is defined by way of analogy to the recovered Jewish temple which was on much smaller scale than Solomon's temple. So many original Christian truths were lost along the way and are now being "recovered". So "the recovery" refers to the totality of the Christian truths and practices. So in an encyclopedic reference of the type you have presented here, one should not list names of recoverers and then end with "as well as themselves". Themselves does not have a theology or practice. Yet the verbage is consistent with the local church belief that "the recovery" R us. So consequently the local churches refer to themselves as "the recovery" which changes the meaning of the original term. Witness Lee is again not a theologian, but a preacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.99.216 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Localchurch (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In the most recent edit your lead in is vague and unclear. You might as well say, “Christ is Christ”. Why use the word "Recovery" then and refer to Lee’s movement as “the Recovery”? The article as currently written doesn’t make sense to anyone but those that have listened to lots of Witness Lee’s teachings and got confused and then had to be set back on track. Please read the above discussion and try again. I believe to explain The Recovery one has to explain how Lee came up with such a term by referencing the recovered temple or recovered truths and practices, then the fact that Lee believes truths and practices were lost and that he and the LC are now recovering them and are the only ones recovering them today. Hence they call themselves "the Recovery". It is hard to explain because one has to explain what was lost. If you like I will give it a try, but I prefer those of you that have access to Lee's writings and hence quotes to do it. This, of course, is in the absense of third party references. I have some which I could use, but they are 2nd party references and not as good as 3rd party, which is what is wrong with this whole article.Appropo (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are so many phony christians out there who presume to speak for god, yet are like feeble-minded infants in their refusal to accept responsibility for their words. If you wish to speak in the name of God, state your identity for the world. Stop being cowards. Stop hiding behind a bible which you barely understand, let alone negligently apply as a means of furthering your own hypocritical, self-serving views. Your hate-filled judgment will be upon your own head when the Lord comes back. You who lack mercy will beg for mercy and find none. If you wish to condemn anyone, put your own name on the line as well, COWARDS. If you cannot say anything without a clear conscience, you are not fit to judge anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.114.169 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wise Master Builder

HopeChrist, Please reference http://www.witnesslee.org/life-ministry.html and search for wise master builder.--Localchurch (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the reference mentions Lee as "certainly a wise master builder". However, the sentence as you have put into the God's economy paragraph, doesn't fit with it. May be a new section in the article would do the justice. The thing is -- we should not confuse the reader with the words. Tell the facts and then insert a reference. Putting something in the parenthesis in the middle of a running sentence is not at all encyclopedic. That's all, that's my only concern. If you want to put it, put it -- if that makes sense! To me "wise master builder" sentence without an explanation would be incomplete, vague, and with double meaning. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I believe it fits better in The Recovery section which mentions Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. This quote could serve to better explain how Watchman, Witness and his followers see the two of them in relation to The Recovery in this age: "Watchman Nee was indeed a seer of the divine revelation in the present age, and Witness Lee was just as certainly a wise master builder according to this same divine revelation in the present age." It may not need any explanation because the paragraph already refers to the building up of the church. However, if you think it needs explanation (any more than the previous quote about "the seven-fold intensified Spirit"), then perhaps the article should explain that a master builder in the Bible refers to Paul as the completer of the divine revelation through his epistles and that makes him a "master" builder. Then we can let the readers know that the followers of Witness Lee consider him as such, the unique builder with the master plan for God's building. Localchurch (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ad the reference as I don't know how to do that. Thanks, Mauruuru. Localchurch (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hymns

This is too detailed already. "First Witness brushed his teeth, then Witness made a change to hymn # 1158," etc. Readers are going to begin to think the writers idolize his every move. Localchurch (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of books

A list of books written by the subject was deleted with this edit summary:

• List is not exhaustive and therefore can't be NPOV and appears as advertising not encyclopedic.[1]

I don't understand the point. How is a partial list not NPOV? Many articles on people who've written books have partial lists. Could the editor explain the deletion more fully?   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

LSM books are not widely read outside of the local church followers who already have this information. Witness Lee has written many controversial things. If you allow a partial list then it may be construed by some as being not NPOV and an advertisement or may be turned into not NPOV by adding controversial books to the list (e.g., Elders Training Books 4 and 5). It is best to just leave the discription objective. If people are interested they can contact the LSM. They already have learned what his ministry is about. I suppose a list of the most "popular" books, or those necessary to support the Recovery, God's Economy and The Church Ground would be acceptable to give the readers a flavor of what has been discussed above. Localchurch (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that little about this person is studied outside of local church followers. How do we know which books are popular and which are controversial? Better to just add them all.   Will Beback  talk  18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know which are popular or controversial. LSM might since I would imagine they keep track of sales. If one wants to add them all, LSM would have to do it since only they have the official list; there are over 200 English titles as stated in the article! Or just do as I have already done, list the publisher who exclusively publishes Witness Lee. Adding all the titles of an exclusive publisher would be like adding all the books published by Random House on the Wikipedia page which has not been done and would be overkill in this case. I suggest just listing the exclusive publisher and let them go to their site to find the books that they publish and/or recommend. Localchurch (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do they have a list?   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone claimed there are over 200 books with English titles. Localchurch (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a list here, http://ministrybooks.org/witness-lee-books.cfm But even then, it isn't complete and books are still being published. And the collected works of witness lee, http://www.livingstream.com/collected-works-wl.html, is still on its way. 60.48.248.196 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WL Quotations – 1932 and WL Handwritten Journal Page – 1997

I would like to make available a couple more graphics that may add depth and value to this page about Witness Lee. [I am the same person who made the photo of WL available]

First picture is of a wall plaque which my wife and I received as a wedding gift in 1975. It contains 12 quotations by Witness Lee and it is dated 1932 at the bottom.

• 150dpi image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/wwhw_wl_150dpi.jpg
• 200dpi image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/wwhw_wl_200dpi.jpg

Second image is a negative rendering [my idea to make it look like chalk on a blackboard] of two actual pages [merged] from Witness Lee's journal in 1997. This was handed out as an 8.5X11" photocopy during an Elders Training in 2006. We were told that this was Witness Lee's actual handwriting:

• Image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_Acts20/WL_neg_ab3_50pct.gif
• Translation: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_Acts20/sacrificeX8merged.txt

Anyway, I am hopeful that you all might feel these should be incorporated into this page about Witness Lee.

Thanks!

I agree to release my contributions under the GFDL Srsrnelson (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll look for my authentic WL toe-nail clippings from his 1976 visit to Chicago. 70.95.99.216 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Way

In the 1980's Lee developed what he called the new way. It inlcuded having home meetings, going door to door to preach the gospel, the coming together of all the saints for 5(or7) annual feasts or conferences and the training of full-time cowokers . This was the final vision of Witness Lee toward which he labored until his death. I propose that this be added with a discussion of the impact of this change on the local churches. Appropo (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is not descriptive of the effect such an action has on those involved given that their only "sin" was to leave the Local Churches and follow their conscience. If leaving is viewed as the sin of division then all former attendees must be quarantined. It is written presumptively that the leaving elders were in fact divisive and the messages by Lee infer that they instigated a rebellion. That no such rebellion occurred goes to Lee's character and viewpoint. Appropo (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say this: I could be an atheist or impartial observer, and recognize that IF you believe that the local chuch is God's way, then yes, leaving it is a "sin" in their perspective. But to go further and suggest that "all former attendees must be quarantined" is simply paranoid ranting. Anyone is free to leave, forever if they choose, and many have done so. However, being free to leave does NOT give one a free license to spread lies and false rumors. The other side of "freedom of speech" is to not be libelous or slanderous in that speech.Ryoung122 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just have a word to say, that if anyone has read and listened to what Witness Lee has written and spoken, he will realise that Witness Lee never had any inclination to consider himself as the "wise master builder", or the "local churches" (which he never capitalizes) as the only true Body of Christ, or that those and only those in the "local churches" are overcomers, among other things as suggested explicitly or implicitly by the current version. I had previously added references to Witness Lee's writings in his footnotes for the New Testament Recovery Version, primary sources which gives a different picture of what he truly believes in and works for. If there is any contention, perhaps it is better to leave certain things unmentioned rather than to level unsupported allegations through an encyclopediac article, and providing instead direct links to specific online publications of Witness Lee. It is easy for anyone to even quote a part of what Witness Lee says that can be taken to mean exactly the opposite of what he intended. For example, he can sometimes say, "With regards to whether [something] is scriptural, I would say: Yes... and no..." Drop the last two words and you have a false accusation. I would, therefore, that the editors of this article do not misquote or misrepresent Witness Lee, and if anyone has reason to dispute my edits, please include references to uncropped direct citations of Witness Lee or books by Witness Lee. Lim Wei Quan (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lord's Recovery

From Wiki: "The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with orthodox Christianity in the following ways:

"The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in orthodox Christianity at the time and since. The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church. A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage. Some of the Montanists were also "Quartodeciman" ("fourteeners"), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. The orthodoxy held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)"

The reference to Montanism in the article is vague. Does Witness believe in all of Montanism or certain parts? If this is part of the recovery did Lee advocate speaking as God, "Thus saith the Lord..."? Does the speaking of Lee supersede the doctirnes proclaimed by the Apostles? Did Lee teach that Chritians who fell from grace can not be redeemed? Does Lee forbid remarriage? These are just examples that show that trying to tie Lee and Nee to Montanism is not helpful in this article. However, if there are specific things of the Montanists that are crucial to Lee's teachings then maybe they should just be stated rather than a claimed lineage from the Montanists. Maybe it is better to leave this reference out rather than spend the time to justify it. Maybe the same can be said of all the other references. We will have to see. Appropo (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The teachings of the Priscillianists from Wiki reference:

"The foundation of the doctrines of the Priscillianists was Gnostic-Manichaean dualism, a belief in the existence of two kingdoms, one of Light and one of Darkness. Angels and the souls of men were said to be severed from the substance of the Deity. Human souls were intended to conquer the Kingdom of Darkness, but fell and were imprisoned in material bodies. Thus both kingdoms were represented in man, and hence a conflict symbolized on the side of Light by the Twelve Patriarchs, heavenly spirits, who corresponded to certain of man's powers, and on the side of Darkness by the Signs of the Zodiac, the symbols of matter and the lower kingdom. The salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter. The twelve heavenly spirits having failed to accomplish their release, the Saviour came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of earthly matter. These doctrines could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture only by a complex system of exegesis, rejecting conventional interpretations and relying on personal inspiration. The Priscillians respected most of the Old Testament but rejected the creation story. Several of the apocryphal Scriptures were acknowledged to be genuine and inspired. Because the Priscillians believe that matter and nature were evil, they became ascetics and fasted on Sundays and Christmas Day. Because their doctrines were esoteric and exoteric, and because it was believed that men in general could not understand the higher paths, the Priscillianists, or at least those of them who were enlightened, were permitted to tell lies for the sake of a holy end. Augustine wrote his famous work, "De mendacio" ("Of lies") in reaction to this doctrine."

Does Witness Lee teach that "salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter" and more specifically that "the Savior came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of earthly matter"? Does Witness "reject the creation story", believe that matter and nature were evil"? Does Witness advocate asceticism or does he permit "lies for the sake of a holy end"? In what way does the writer of this article believe Witness Lee and Watchman Nee are part of the recovery that went back to the Priscillianists? Maybe it is better to leave this reference out rather than spend the time to justify it. Appropo (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the issues with Paulicians (A.D. 625-800), Bogomils (A.D. 950-1463), Albigenses (A.D. 1150–1300), Waldenses (A.D. 1160-present), etc., or should we just delete the reference to all of these names and stick to what Witness Lee taught was the recovery based on then history of the Church and typologically of the return of the remnant of Israel for the rebuilding of the temple? Appropo (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate to replace the discussion of so many questionable connections with:

"According to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, the Lord's recovery can be traced back at least to God's raising up of Martin Luther and the reformers, and continued in recovering lost biblical truths through others such as Madame Guyon, Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian Brethren, John Nelson Darby, the Plymouth Brethren, Watchman Nee, and himself. He believed that one of the primary items that God used him and Watchman Nee to recover was the oneness of all believers in Christ, and the practical expression of this oneness in the practice of the local churches."

This previous description of Lee's stand seems accurate and NPOV. It is supported by the references in the Relationship with Christianity. Maybe some of it should be worked into the current article in some way or another. Appropo (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee's View of Christianity

This section primarily concerns how Lee saw Christianity. It makes no attempt to accuse Lee of heretical stances. It, as seen by the quotes, expresses how Lee saw Christianity and the relationship of his work to it. The added paragraph appears a reaction to accusations made elsewhere by some who formerly saw Lee as heretical and evidently no longer do so. It is an apology on the nature of Lee's Christian faith which was in doubt by some but is not even referred to in this section. On the contrary, this section begins with a description of the common faith and then goes on to describe how Lee attempted to set himself apart from Christianity. The writers of the deleted portion appear to be sensitive to the criticisms not mentioned here. I suggest their writing might belong more appropriately elsewhere. It especially does not belong in an article about Witness Lee and his teachings. It may belong in an article about criticisms of Witness Lee's teachings, but not here. Appropo (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I deleted any references to other Christians thoughts about Lee. Otherwise one will endlessly present differing points of view. This may be appropriate in an article on Local Church Controversies, but it is not appropriate here. The article is concerning Witness Lee, his life, teachings and work, not the opinions of others about him. Appropo (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be split, however, I am sure you know that most of the non-objective statements made about Witness Lee are indeed opinions of some people about him, and do not merely serve the purpose of introducing Witness Lee and his views, but instead have severe negative connotations. If you do a proper study of Witness Lee's teachings, you will find that nearly all are on the matter of life, not on denominations. His main focus was that Christ is the Son of God who was incarnated, had a genuine human living, went to be crucified, passed through death, was raised in resurrection, ascended to the Father, and came again as the Holy Spirit, not just accomplishing redemption but also having become the life-giving Spirit for man to enjoy the Triune God and become one with Him in life and nature (but not in the Godhead). Since only a narrow subset of his views have been presented here, other Christian thoughts should also be included, as they are broader view-points regarding him and his teachings. Lim Wei Quan (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"non-objective" is from your POV. "opinions" is a word frequently used by Witness Lee with negative connotations. "Proper" is as POV as is gets. Since the wages of sin are death and denominations are sinful, then keeping believers from denominations IS a matter of life. The article focuses on his defining teachings including God's economy...adding all your words will make it non-encyclopedic and WL propoganda. I tried to avoid going into all the controvesies here and let Lee explain why he is not part of what he calls "Christianity" and "Christendom". The article already explains the common faith to which you refer. Appropo (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I may not agree with everything that Witness Lee said, I just do not understand why you think the content which I re-instated (it did not originate from me) is "propaganda". Both sides of the controversy concerning Witness Lee are presented. For example: "Although Lee saw the Local Churches as holding the same faith ... sought to be viewed as an integral part in the recovery ... , the result was to be separate from the same" and "not all evangelicals agree that his teachings are a departure from the orthodox Christian faith"; "Lee distanced himself" and "I stand shoulder to shoulder ... when it comes to the essentials that define biblical orthodoxy"; "he followed his own unique theology" and "essential doctrines of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, the local churches, and Living Stream Ministry are fully within orthodoxy". The Life-Studies form a large part of his writings, and they focus on God's economy in a very different way than is portrayed here.

of course they are. But the work is separate. This article is not outside of Christianity--that is merely what Lee said about his own views.Appropo (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I really do not understand what you mean. Does the fact that the Life-Studies is his major work not warrant at least a section on it? Given time I can add it in but if you are not agreeable there is no point for me to do so. Anyway the section "Witness Lee's View of Christianity" is a point of view, but it is not quite his, since it is only one small facet of his views.

The Life-Studies are refered to in the article as are some of his major defining teachings. This is an encyclopedia. Just because there is a large chapter in a famous book does not mean in an encyclopedia article about the book that we have to summarize it. The question is does it define Lee and his work. The section on God's Economy, the Ground of the Church and the Recovery all do. My guess from all the words you put in to define the faith is that your writing would tend to be extensive, repetitive, and hence excessive. But whether I would agree to it before seeing it is like the LSM's training requirement, to agree not to disagree before one has heard what you're saying. The article as originally written sounded like hero worship. I know you love everything he ever said and consider it the only Christian writing "that has no poison in it", but that doesn't mean it is necessary here. Doesn't including the LSM as a reference or link give you all that anyway?Appropo (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am amused that you can hypothesize on my writing without having seen any, anyway frankly you are wrong in many of your assertions regarding me. To make it clear, I hate "hero worship" (which is idolatry) as much as you do. The rest of my position you can glean from what I have said so far.

I also know that he did make it clear that in talking about "denominations" or "sectarian groups" he was merely referring to the clergy-laity or pastoral systems, and religious customs or practices, even different manners of worship, that can all divide the Body of Christ if they became ordinances, including such things among the local churches. In simply putting out selected statements of his, few will understand him the way he means them. In fact, both he and Watchman Nee also wrote that we should accept all true believers in Christ according to Christ, even if they meet with sectarian or divisive groups, as long as they do not emphasize divisive teachings or cause division, therefore there is no requirement for believers to stop meeting in denominations before they can be builded together with other saints to be Body of Christ as the corporate expression of Christ.

Accept them into the Local Churches "as long as they do not emphasize divisive teachings or cause division"--that being defined by whom? Please don't try to open that can of worms here.Appropo (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Many, even some in the "local churches", mis-understand or mis-represent his teachings. I was indeed trying to put across the fact that he was vague, and was as precise as he needed to be, uncompromising only concerning essential articles of faith, otherwise others would take what he said and make it divisive. The truth is that many have done just that, emphasizing certain things that he said above other things. He did not say "accept into the local churches", because the local churches are not defined by man's acceptance, but he said "to receive into our midst" (to meet together) according to whom God has received (whom Christ has died for). The local churches that he spoke of include all true believers in Christ without exception who meet in mutuality with other true believers. If what others refer to as the "local churches" deviate from this and say that only they in only their meetings are the local church, they automatically become a sect.

We covered all this under The Ground of the Church or whatever the section is now called. If you think something misrepresents Lee then make a change and see if others agree. The following is original research and not allowed under Wiki policy in an article, so it is not included. However, I will mention it here because it pertains to your previous paragraph. Does "receive into our midst" include not publically stating that a believer is "one with Satan"? I ask because this is one of many accusations that Lee and others used concerning me while I was faithfully attending and participating in all the local church activities for 18 years. There are books that document this type of activity from which one could quote. There are people with other perspectives that will disagree with your perspective if it is not a NPOV. If we were to not emphasize "certain things that he said above other things" we would have to write everything Lee said right here. So I suggest you not be so concerned that others get the balance of Lee's thought precisely right. There is no precisely right.Appropo (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to comment on what you have said. For me, I go according to the Word of God. I have found that Witness Lee's writings do concur with the Scriptures very much, nothing else.

I also edited the phrases "outside his movement" and "his own unique theology", since Witness Lee never said that his teachings were for a movement or according to his own theology, and instead was against promoting a movement or holding to any practices as a necessary part of the Christian faith. The latter includes baptism by immersion, having an eldership, not abstaining from meat, taking wine or grape juice, using a particular Bible version, among other things. The only conditions for partaking of the one bread and cup of the Lord's table is that one believes that Jesus Christ is truly God yet also a genuine man, that He was incarnated, crucified and resurrected, as Lord and Saviour who shed His blood to redeem us and reconcile us back to God, and that Christ is now the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.

Lim Wei Quan (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So put that in the article quoting Lee with reference. All of that you added occured after Lee's death and references other battles not referenced here.Appropo (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you then allow me to insert what he said concerning all the things discussed above?

Lim Wei Quan (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if I and the other editors of this article agree with what you have said, how you have said it, and whether it meets Wikipedia standards.Appropo (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have included the relevant portions in the appropriate sections.

Lim Wei Quan (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Marriages, Children

Like other biographies, this one probably should include the name of Witness Lee's wife, her maiden name, the date or year of their marriage, and the names of all children (living and deceased), and the year of their birth. This should especially be the case for children who held a significant role in Lee's ministry or who inherited special careers or vocations.

A good biography will also indicate whether the person was widowed, divorced, separated, married more than once, and other facts pertinent to marriage and family. Was Lee's marriage arranged by his family? Any other details pertinent to his genealogy should be included. 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Pement (talk • contribs)

Witness Lee's given name

For the sake of accuracy, is "Witness" (Chángshòu) the given name of Mr Li? According to Angus Kinnear, Watchman Nee's given name was Shu-tsu which he later changed to Tuòshēng (gong-ringer, or Watchman) later in life. Is it possible that Witness Lee followed a similar path, and that he was given a different name at birth, but adopted the new name of Chángshòu following a conversion or spiritual experience? Are there any reliable sources or biographies on this point? EricP (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Apology

“Despite Witness Lee's controversial statements, not all evangelicals agree that his teachings are a departure from the orthodox Christian faith.” Witness Lee’s controversial statements have nothing to do with departure from orthodox Christian faith. The statements in the section on Witness Lee's view of Christianity are regarding Witness Lee’s belief that his work is separate from Christianity and Christendom, not the Christian faith. Whereas Gretchen Passantino, Hank Hanegraaff and Fuller Theological Seminary are responding to allegations that Witness Lee’s teachings not discussed in this article are heretical. The quotes from Witness Lee are criticism against the Roman Catholic Church and all the Protestant Churches. Witness Lee’s stance on “the essentials that define biblical orthodoxy” are not disputed in the entire article. This added paragraph is an attempt to fight “windmills” that do not exist here. This article does not quote any of the above writers nor anyone affiliated with them. Consequently, until and unless this article were to include Witness Lee’s controversies, these paragraphs are inappropriate here.Appropo (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Lee a modalist?

That is why I am here reading this article. I got a pamphlet from his people where Lee identifies Christ with the Spirit in such a way that seems to demand a modal trinity. However, the doctrinal statement at the end of the pamphlet endorses the Trinity. As a Trinitarian Christian, I am uncomfortable with Lee's statements. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Hey, unfortunately this article doesn't seem to have much information about his understanding of the Trinity. Neither Witness Lee, Local churches (affiliation), Local Church controversies, nor Living Stream Ministry covers this topic in much theological detail at all. I'd still recommend reading those articles to get a fuller understanding of the movement and the issues involved. As to modalism specifically, the closest you might be able to find on the topic would be the Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the "Local Churches", which was written by 70 evangelical figures concerned about the movement. You will also find other resources on the left navigation bar of that website, which includes a critique by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes that does get theologically detailed. The movement also has issued responses, which you may find on their Testimony of the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry website. On topics like this, especially when it concerns an accusation made against a group of people that deny it, Wikipedia can't really decide for the reader and say "yes" or "no"; it is best to let the reader judge for themselves (which is the essence of NPOV). Thanks, and I hope these links are of some use to you in your research. Look forward to your continued participation here.

-- Joren (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

Does anyone know why there's a {POV} tag on the article? It's been here since June 2009.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just take a look at this discussion board. Granted most of the activity here is at least a year old, but the issues apparently remain outstanding. I'm hoping one of these days I or someone else will get enough energy to take another crack at resolving things, getting better sources, and re-writing to describe things from a non-involved perspective. That's not to say that hasn't happened, but there needs to be more of it.

Perhaps we should sign this board up for archiving?

-- Joren (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything bad enough that we should just stub it? Or can we do more selective surgery? It's better to be silent than to say the wrong thing.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think selective surgery is an option, though I have given thought to simply deleting the unsourced biographical errata (not that it's particularly objectionable, just that it isn't sourced). The other stuff ought to be rewritable from an outside view, provided it can be sourced and also assuming I can figure out what it means (e.g. "The Living Stream Ministry teaches that the local churches are the issue of the recovery of the reality of Christ and the Church." issue as in topic? or literally as in offspring? or something else? "of the reality"? Needs explanation).

-- Joren (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the surgery you think necessary for cutting out the POV, and let's resolve this.   Will Beback  talk  07:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another concern I have are the sources; they seem to be primarily movement-based. To some extent, this is natural; they are the ones with the most reason to want to write about Witness Lee's life. However, they should be balanced (or perhaps replaced) with outside-movement sources as well. I don't suppose you have any good idea where to start finding other sources...? It's hard to find sources without an agenda one way or the other.

-- Joren (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to take a while. I scrapped and rewrote the "Early Years" section of the biography because after reading the source I realized it was being plagiarized. It *is* based on an in-movement source (another section of the same website, published by Living Stream Ministry), and I tried to note that in the article so the reader would know this. Wish we had a more neutral source. Tried to make sure events were being described dispassionately. Areas still to work on: "Later Years", and the rest of the article beginning with "Ministry and Teachings".

-- Joren (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Finished the biography section, not going to touch the theology for now :)

-- Joren (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My experience for the past 22 years living with my father in law, who is an elder for the "Local Church" in my town (I will omit the towns name)is that this movement is/tends to be cultish. Phlosophical mumbo-jumbo alongside a strict not-to-do things list has caused havoc in this family. Members, especially males, tend to be arrogant and they are profoundly anti-catholics. They detest anyone bringing forward any questioning of the church's history or being called a cult, although they use severe terms towards other denominations. They have forbidden watching tv, reading books, higher education is down-played, drinking, smoking,Christmas, birthdays, etc. They are a mixture of evangelicalism and sociopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augie50 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the ground of oneness in the local churches

I was in the "Local Church" movement for over 10 years. As so many people in the movement know, but are loathe to admit,there is a large constituent of people who have experienced the "cultish" nature of the group and have left. Upon initial examination their doctrines may appear sound, but all one must do is delve deeper into the more meaty teachings to discover some very questionable ideas. I have experienced first hand "calling on the name of the Lord" and "pray reading", both of which have no basis in scripture. I have had heard from the mouth of Witness Lee himself many many derisive and divisive comments about poor pitiful Christianity. I heard the stories in the summer and winter trainings about people who left the movement only to meet with untimely death or a total decay of their moral condition. I was there when Witness Lee was alive. The local church for our city met in our house. We were sold out – not on the fringe by any means – for the group. The teachings that are the most like all other cults are the ones that stress that the Recovery is God's move on the earth today. Funny thing, this is taught by all cults out there. There are many many other teachings that take the truth and tweak it just enough to make it rotten. Just like rat poison is only 1% strictnine so the local church doctrine though almost right is just enough off to be deadly. After almost having a nervous breakdown under the relentless pressure of performance, I took a break and visited a poor pitiful Christian church only to find that what I was taught by the local church about all of Christianity being degraded and empty was blatantly untrue. I have grown and matured immensely as a believer since leaving this movement and hope and pray that others will find their freedom too. I think one of the last straws was in one winter training when Witness Lee had re-written the beloved hymn, Hark the Herald Angels Sing to fit his own theology. The line that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up was "baby Gods and soon we'll fly" – sounds pretty reminiscent of other cult teachings of today. And when people would stand up in these meetings and shout, I am becoming God, I knew it was time to leave. I know that the folks in this group will never admit that it functions like a cult, because that is how all people in a cult think, but I hope this posting can help at least one poor confused soul find their way out. I am sure glad I did – I am a born again, growing into maturity believer and am so thankful to be free from the false teaching and oppression found in that group and to be a member of the living body of Christ. You know, Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. This includes all of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulagles (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi my Name is Henry J Smith Sr. and i have 2 of the the Lords Prayer 1905 James Lee. I am trying 2 find out what they wiuld be worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.105.46 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate

Where did the birthdate in this article come from? The source cited does NOT provide a birthdate. Is this just an example of people making up data when the answer is not known?Ryoung122 21:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Denomination

_________________________

'local church' in this article is not a description, but rather a noun signifying the wide group of churches who submit to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teachings. These teachings are unique, often encompassing Keswick and Higher Life Movement theology. The Local church page even has a set of beliefs not held by other denominations. This makes it, by definition, a denomination regardless of any member's allergy to the word.Chuckd83 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I respectfully beg to differ. Neither the theological derivation of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teaching nor its uniqueness is the issue, much less any allergy on the part of the local church membership. The basic issue is whether or not the typical member of this group claims a special name. It is trivially evident that the teachings of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, to which typical members of the local churches cleave, eschew denominationalism and exhort followers to claim no special name. Consequently, in the absence of such a name, the typical member identifies him or herself as belonging to the church in a given city or as belonging to 'the local churches' collectively, with the clear understanding that 'the local churches' is indeed merely a description and not a special name. To insist on using the term "denomination" to describe this group will introduce much unneeded confusion as even a cursory read of the article makes plain that a most striking characteristic of this group and its teachings is the outright rejection of denominationalism. Abishai 300 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It seems fitting not to label the local churches as a denomination when in so much of their teaching they speak against denominationalism. Having a statement of faith doesn't necessarily qualify a group as a denomination, even if there are some doctrinal distinctives. Many groups have statements of faith that do not speak to their denominational affiliation but rather to the larger Christian community and prospective members who are thinking about joining that group or church. --Theophilus144 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

Abishai and Theophilus144, we must not fall into equivocation here. Speak about 'local church' (those who agree with Witness Lee's teachings) or 'local church' (the entire visible church within Christendom). You both describe non-denominationalism which consists of completely autonomous churches. This is not the case of 'local church (affiliation)'. They are unified under the teaching of Witness Lee, no? If one of these churches decided to renounce Witness Lee, we would say they are not part of the 'local church (affiliation)'. If equivocation is not utilized as Abishai did, then they do "claim a special name" – 'local church'. How else does it have its own wikipedia page? See wikipedia's definition of denomination below and please answer if they are one or not.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I absolutely agree with the above statements and I do not need to repeat them. Calling the group a denomination would not only be misleading but also completely erroneous. Further, any knowledgable scholar would agree that the local church's statement of beliefs are not only just the tenants of the common faith held by all Christians but also do not include any "special" items which would have indeed included them within the category of "denomination." With the lack of any distinguishing items, the use of denomination is inaccurate. Any differences that may be found between any two groups is due to the simple fact that there will always be differences between groups. What is important is whether or not a group emphasizes those differences as "core" to the group's practice or doctrine. In this case, the local churches do not emphasize anything apart from the canonical tenants of the Christian faith as rigorously studied by several Christian groups, some of which are referenced directly on the pages in question. The use of the word "denomination" as a descriptor of this group is inaccurate and should not be used. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

_________________________

The above comments are confusing. Are the churches who follow Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teachings THE local church? Any new denomination, of course, claims to be the TRUE church, but we all know there are differences between them. Unity within Christianity (or "canonical tenants of the Christian faith") are upon creeds which they seem to ascribe (in their own words). However, distinctions within Christianity are upon confessions and catechisms. Nee and Lee may have taught against denominationalism, so did they return to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy and reform it? Or to Judaism and do the same? No, they started their own denomination with their own teaching.

At the very least, if 'denomination' does not want to be used because it would beg the question of their teaching, the local churches link should go to the disambiguation page or even local church. As the link currently falls upon Local churches (affiliation), it should reflect the very first sentence of that link:

Local churches (affiliation): The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Christian denomination: A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.

Let's be a little consistent here. This whole page seems to be a snippet out of a Living Stream Ministry website, not an encyclopedia. Some major editing needs to be done to have a little more "neutral point of view."Chuckd83 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

This page seems to be very well researched and any scholar who has done thorough research about this group will know that the local churches group does NOT claim to be the only true church. This has been eloquently confirmed by several reliable institutions. Also, anyone who does any amount of research would know that they do not call themselves "THE" local church in that they are the only local church or the only church. They simply follow the nomenclature they see in the Bible itself. They do not claim to be the only real or true church and that nobody else is. That cannot be further from what they believe or teach. Their teachings are orthodox as confirmed by many well known Christian figures throughout the United States as is cited in this and other related pages and so does not place them in the category of creating a new denomination. Furthermore, the local churches link has been discussed in the past among editors and administrators and we settled on linking it to "local churches (affiliation)" since it is understood that "affiliation" refers to the affiliation to Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 02:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

_________________________

"Their teachings are orthodox as confirmed by many well known Christian figures throughout the United States as is cited in this and other related pages and so does not place them in the category of creating a new denomination." Can you explain this further? RC, EO, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. are all orthodox. i.e. they affirm the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Wherein are they distinguished? By their confessions. Does Lee agree with all RC theology? EO? Methodist? No, he has distinct beliefs with distinct doctrine. Please read wikipedia's own definition of denomination above and answer if Lee's local church is one or not. Equivocation is being utilized here. Are they 'local church' affiliated with Lee's teachings or 'THE local church'? If the former, then they are "an identifiable religious body under a common name, etc." If the latter, then your comments above are misguided.Chuckd83 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I, for one, would like to address this without delving too much into local church theology. I don't think that this would be profitable in this situation because we could easily end up in a heated debate over the distinctness and orthodoxy of LC doctrine in which no ultimate concession will be reached. Our unique goal here should be to give the reader the clearest understanding of this group that we can. I do not believe classifying them as a denomination, something that their teaching wholly condemns, does that.

If we are to make a judgement strictly according to Wikipedia's definition of a denomination, something that Chuckd83 seems to be advocating, I would like to make a couple of points:

Here is said definition: "A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity."

First, it does not seem valid to me to say that because all denominations are identifiable religious bodies under a common name, structure, and doctrine, all identifiable religious bodies under a common name, structure, and doctrine are denominations. This would commit the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. Are unnamed free groups and house churches, for instance, denominations? What about cults and sects, except in, perhaps, the strictest sense? I'm not sure.

More importantly, according to this definition's criterion, a denomination has all three of these characteristics, that is, a common name, structure, and doctrine. Clearly, the local churches that follow Lee and Nee's teaching (not all of them do), for the most part, have a common doctrine. But to say they have a common name, I would have to ask you, what is it? There is no such thing (that I'm aware of) as a "Local Church Association" or a "Local Church Board of Directors." If you were to say that "Living Stream Ministry", the primary publisher of Lee and Nee, is that common name, I would have to disagree because LSM is merely a publisher and many members of the local churches, particularly those in China where LSM material is banned, do not have direct ties to LSM. Additionally, I have yet to see a local church meeting hall with the words "Living Stream Ministry Church" emblazoned on its door. What about a common structure? Where is it, and what is it called? Who belongs to it and what are their official positions? Unless we can definitively answer these questions, as would be easily accomplished with, for instance, the Roman Catholics or Presbyterians, the designation 'denomination' does not fit adequately for me. As inconvenient as it is, 'local churches' must, for me, remain merely a descriptor for this group. I do not think trying to force this has being the name of a denomination properly represents the real situation with this group. Abishai 300 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see how the word denomination is fitting in this context. To use it is to stretch it beyond it's usual application. I think that in the main our consideration should be given to the reader and to that end I agree with the observation made by Abishai 300.

Our unique goal here should be to give the reader the clearest understanding of this group that we can. I do not believe classifying them as a denomination, something that their teaching wholly condemns, does that.

I think using denomination has the potential to confuse the reader. Some movements are admittedly not easy to characterize. If my understanding is correct members of the local church don't even like to be called The Local Churches in a formal sense. It's a title that has been given to them and in order to make public defense from time to time they use it because that's what most people know them by. I'm not aware of a formal organization or a hierarchy that exists among them. --Theophilus144 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

"Are unnamed free groups and house churches, for instance, denominations?"

No, BECAUSE they are all completely autonomous churches with NO affiliation with one another. This goes for all non-denominational churches. Is this the case here? Hardly. All 'local churches' teach the same material – that of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. They are united by a particular teaching and doctrine and a particular name – 'local church'. This makes them a denomination. What if I walk into a Presbyterian church who says Witness Lee is a heretic? Would they still be considered a "local church (affiliation)"? No, because they are a different DENOMINATION.

"But to say they have a common name, I would have to ask you, what is it?"

All churches within this group go by 'local church.' Again, my original comment and purpose of starting this section is to point out that THIS is their name. This is their denomination. It is not a description. All further comments use equivocation to object to calling them a denominiation.

"There is no such thing (that I'm aware of) as a "Local Church Association""

Then why does the link for 'local church' land upon Local churches (affiliation). <-Adding "affiliation" on the end proves my point further that they are united in name, form, and doctrine. Using "affiliation" instead of "denomination" is simply to accomodate the fact that they teach against the very thing they practice. Further, they DO have a Bible college in Anaheim that formally teaches their congregants from ALL of the churches within their "affiliation." And the required reading is not a variety of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. literature, but ALL Witness Lee literature. This unites them if not for Witness Lee himself.

"As inconvenient as it is, 'local churches' must, for me, remain merely a descriptor for this group."

That's fine. Then the definite article "the" should be removed in "the local churches", the link to 'local church' should land on this local church page, or simply delete the entire sentence. Using equivocation is dishonest and allowing it on this page is one of the many things about this article that is NOT neutral and rather a LSM proselytization.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

"No, BECAUSE they are all completely autonomous churches with NO affiliation with one another. This goes for all non-denominational churches. Is this the case here? Hardly. All 'local churches' teach the same material – that of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. They are united by a particular teaching and doctrine and a particular name – 'local church'. This makes them a denomination. What if I walk into a Presbyterian church who says Witness Lee is a heretic? Would they still be considered a "local church (affiliation)"? No, because they are a different DENOMINATION."

I already made the point that not all local churches follow Nee and Lee and I feel that it is a critical one. A local church is simply one that takes no other name and no other ground but that of its locality. In other words, they attempt to follow the Biblical pattern of one city, one church. That the majority of local churches on the earth owe their understanding of this principle to the propagation of Lee and Nee's ministry on this particular point, does not give license to say that all local churches follow Lee and Nee. Actually, what they follow is this Biblical pattern:

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers... -Acts 13:1 (NIV)

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: -1 Corinthians 1:2 (NIV)

"All churches within this group go by 'local church.' Again, my original comment and purpose of starting this section is to point out that THIS is their name. This is their denomination. It is not a description. All further comments use equivocation to object to calling them a denominiation."

I hope that my comment above adequately addresses this point. All churches within this group, if they are clear on the Biblical principle demonstrated above and emphasized (but not owned) by Nee and Lee's teaching, identify themselves as the church in their respective city or as "the local churches" collectively, with the understanding that they are following said principle and not an ecclesiastical system invented by Watchman Nee.

"Then why does the link for 'local church' land upon Local churches (affiliation). <-Adding "affiliation" on the end proves my point further that they are united in name, form, and doctrine. Using "affiliation" instead of "denomination" is simply to accomodate the fact that they teach against the very thing they practice. Further, they DO have a Bible college in Anaheim that formally teaches their congregants from ALL of the churches within their "affiliation." And the required reading is not a variety of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. literature, but ALL Witness Lee literature. This unites them if not for Witness Lee himself."

Others before me involved with the maintenance of this page have questioned the use of 'affiliation' as this very talk page shows, probably because neither Nee nor Lee's teaching use this term and do not contain such a concept as 'affiliation', according to my study. Therefore, I also do not agree with the use of this term and welcome its removal. However 'denomination' is not a proper alternative in my mind.

"That's fine. Then the definite article "the" should be removed in "the local churches", the link to 'local church' should land on this local church page, or simply delete the entire sentence. Using equivocation is dishonest and allowing it on this page is one of the many things about this article that is NOT neutral and rather a LSM proselytization.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)"

I agree that the article "the" should probably be removed. I personally think your solution here is a good one but would be interested to hear what others think. Abishai 300 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

Abishai, please edit your post WITHOUT using equivocation. The term 'local church' has two definitions:

1. local church – A local church is a Christian religious organization that meets in a particular location.

2. Local churches (affiliation) – The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

The sentence in question is "Witness Lee (李常受, pinyin Lǐ Chángshòu) (1905 – June 9, 1997) was a Chinese Christian preacher associated with the local churches and the founder of Living Stream Ministry."

It is clear that 'local church' in this sentence is using the latter definition. Please use this definition when discussing this matter. You are utilizing both and it's not clear which one you are using at any particular moment.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

dictionary: denomination (n) – a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect

Local churches (affiliation) – The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Chuckd83 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your definitions for "local church" and "denomination" strike me as being somewhat arbitrary and overly simplistic. Even if I were to accept them, I still do not agree with your accusation of equivocation, as I understand it, because it is quite clear to me that the local churches are not an entity originating exclusively from the teachings of Watchman Nee and, subsequently, Witness Lee although the contemporary existence of local churches in today's heavily denominated Christianity is very much related to the propagation of books such as Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life. Though I have repeatedly tried to make this point in one form or another, it seems you are not prepared to concede it and so we are at an impasse.

However, if your objections are based primarily on the present wording in the LCA article to which we are linking, specifically the use of the word "affiliation", we have a way to go forward. As there has, historically, been controversy surrounding this word, I intend to remove it and also to address wording in the LCA article that obscures the fact that meeting on the basis of locality is a Biblical precedent, not an invention of Watchman Nee. I think this is an important distinction that needs to be made. I hope this community will find my changes satisfactory. Abishai 300 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not my definitions. The only definitions I have proposed are wikipedia's and the dictionary's. This is in keeping with NPOV, something this article lacks.

These two sentences belong to local church:

"it is quite clear to me that the local churches are not an entity originating exclusively from the teachings of Watchman Nee"

"the fact that meeting on the basis of locality is a Biblical precedent"

This sentence belongs to Local churches (affiliation):

Witness Lee although the contemporary existence of local churches in today's heavily denominated Christianity is very much related to the propagation of books such as Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life.

You are using them interchangeably, and it is unclear which one is which. This is utilizing equivocation and makes it confusing to the reader. One is any church that meets locally. The other is a group of churches who follow Witness Lee.Chuckd83 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Section on "The Basis for the Believers’ Oneness in the Church"

As the section heading is stated "the basis for the believers' oneness", it needs to be made more clear what is the basis. It's never stated.

"The church as the Body of Christ has two aspects, universal and local."

The distinction made between the universal and local church is never made. Just language on the local.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Section on "Church Practice"

Actual church practices are not stated.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

false statement about Southern Baptists needs deleting

Article says: "Lee’s mother studied in an American Southern Baptist mission school and was baptized as a teenager into the Southern Baptist Church." There is no such thing as "the Southern Baptist Church"! There are independent Baptist churches, local congregations. Some of these send representatives to the Southern Baptist Convention (not "Church"). You don't get baptized into the Southern Baptist Convention. Spirit baptism puts anyone into the Body of Christ, the Church universal & catholic, not some denomination. Water baptism is an obedience to the command of Christ indicating that one believes Christ died and rose again. Water baptism is a prerequisite in many local churches for local church membership, but in such a local church one is not "baptized into a church." Whatever is said requires a reliable source. If you have a reliable source for it, just say, "was baptized as a teenager and became a member of a baptist church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention." (EnochBethany (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Witness Lee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Sorry, I don't speak very well english, if somebody who speak french want to contact me it'i possible. I was in the local church from 1983 to 1991. So I know a part of history of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. All this article seem be wrote by this Living Stream Ministry who have all the copyright of writting's of Witness Lee. This artcile needs to be more critic, but i can't make it because of my poor english... This article is good build-up on Witness Lee's life and ministry. The length and the quality of its content is very appropriate. I'll put it on "Mid" importance level, as there are a lot of useful informations in this article. Any reader reading this page will come to learn a lot of facts and will get enough useful information in his detailed study. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On Secularizing Language in Article

To Back to Walvis Bay: I am not 'complaining about secularization.' Let us please avoid straw men while giving each others' viewpoints the careful and objective consideration that successful collaboration requires. I actually think that the article's language should be secularized as much as possible and it is obvious that it is not to be a vehicle for 'religious promotion.' However, this should not come at the cost of conveying the intended meaning.

What is the 'intended meaning' you ask? It is simply an inference drawn from what the writer wrote with the citation they provided. Again, to revise the language is one thing. To change the meaning of what is being conveyed is another. For example:

The article originally stated that Nee and his co-workers decided to send Witness Lee to Taiwan to preserve Nee's ministry and which was cited, in part, with Laurent. That statement is exactly what Laurent, who is being cited, recounts. It was changed to "Witness Lee moved to Taiwan" and the portion about preservation removed (but the citation left). For Lee to be "sent" to Taiwan by Nee and his co-workers and for Lee to "move" to Taiwan are not the same thing. The revision, therefore, does not simply secularize the article. It removes important facts and changes the meaning of what is being conveyed. Do you see now why I disagree with some of the changes?

Concerning the wholesale revision of changes (which must refer to my activity in Local churches (affiliation) because I did not do that for this article) I respectfully disagree that it is my responsibility to check each of the changes to cited material to ensure corroboration. I feel it would be better if the one instituting the changes did this themselves. However, I am willing to do this if the end result is that the article is improved.

In the end, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this and will refrain from doing another full revert. But I do hope that we can work together to secularize the language of this and the related article (where necessary) but also try to preserve language that best conveys any unique or salient characteristics of this person/group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishai 300 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I went back and reverted to the edits that I made previously and plugged your preferred wording back in to that particular sentence. Back to Walvis Bay (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations in this article and the warning template.

@Abishai 300 Of 19 sources in this article most are 17 non-academic, and most are WP:PRIMARY and and not WP:INDEPENDENT. To run down the list:

• A Memorial Biography of Brother Witness Lee. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1998). non-academic, published by the religious organisation itself therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The History of the Church and the Local Churches. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1993) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Living a Life According to the High Peak of God's Revelation. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1994) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Congressional Record, April 29, 2014 - Issue: Vol. 160, No. 62 — Daily Edition non-academic, WP:PRIMARY literally just a transcript that's being synthesised, hence a violation of WP:NOR

• Reetzke, James. Biographical Sketches: A Brief History of the Lord’s Recovery. Chicago: Chicago Bibles & Books (2003) non-academic, literally a hagiographic work therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1991)non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Kinnear, Angus. Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee. Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade (1997) non-academic, hagiographic, in all likelihood not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Laurent, Bob. Watchman Nee: Man of Suffering.Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing (1998) non-academic, hagiographic, in all likelihood not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Swanson, Allen J. Taiwan: Mainline Versus Independent Church Growth: A Study in Contrasts. Pasadena: William Carey Library (1973) non-academic, William Carey Library now known as William Carey Publishing focuses exclusively on "mission resources" hence their domain www.missionbooks.org this is WP:PRIMARY as this can at best only serve to illustrate what mission materials look like. But as the goal of the texts published here are in direct conflict with WP:NPOV it's unfit for the kind of citation made here.

• Various brothers and editorial section (25 May 2013). "Open Letter". Living Stream Ministries non-academic, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Paul, William (May 2009). English Language Bible Translators. McFarland. pp. 140–141' non-academic, Paul has a bachelor's degree in theology and a master's degree in Law "he is now a retired minister, having served as an evangelist among churches of Christ in located ministries in Florida, Nebraska, Colorado and Washington" from the back of his New Testament translation

• Lee, Witness. Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1998) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The Lord's New Way and His Ministry Today. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1986) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Lessons on the God-Ordained Way. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (2002) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1984) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• http://www.witnesslee.org/ I mean obviously WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT

• LIVING STREAM MINISTRY: Life-study of the Bible Radio Broadcast WP:PRIMARY maybe decent to prove the thing exists but completely inadequate to source the summary which in any case violates WP:NOR

• http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/ WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT, unfit to source anything but the last sentence

Unproblematic sources:

• Stark, Rodney (2015). A Star in the East: The Rise of Christianity in China. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press. p. 40 academic, unproblematic

• Lee, Joseph Tse-Hei. "Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China." Church History 74:1 (2005), 84 peer-reviewed, academic, unproblematic

You cannot get most of this article from the two unproblematic sources. The rest thereof is in violation of Wikipedia's policies both with regards to original research and logically WP:NPOV as most of the sources used do not confirm to Wikipedia's standards. Hence the disclaimer, when most of the sources are peer-reviewed, every claim in the article is properly cited, and WP:NOR is applied to article I'll be glad to remove the warning. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say you are applying WP:NPOV as a blunt instrument; not in the way it is intended. There are countless subjects for which a large body of "unproblematic sources" (which is obviously a subjective determination) do not exist or do not yet exist. The point is that an article "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." How about you identify portions of this article that you deem biased or "hagiographic"? It seems to me that would be far more helpful in aiding discussion than simply throwing out a list of sources that don't attain to the your particular interpretation [which I don't necessary disagree with en toto] of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. -Abishai 300 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

If a given area of a subject lacks reliable sources Wikipedia might not be the right place to write about it. My objection lies with essentially everything that wikivoices (possibly contentious) things but cites non-academic works or even ones written by the religious group in question itself without clarifying in some way "hey, the source for this isn't what wikipedia's policies consider reliable" or "according to the religious group itself this is what happened" and the entirely uncited sections, stuff like

"For over a month they spoke together and helped bring about a revival in the church in Hong Kong. Nee charged Lee to instruct, teach, and lead the elders and to make arrangements concerning the church services, as well as the purchase of land for the building of a new meeting place. Nee then returned to mainland China where, in 1952, he was imprisoned for the remaining twenty years of his life by the CCP. The two were never able to communicate again."

I don't want to delete all the poorly cited sections and I don't want to add a disclaimer to every sentence which has questionable sources because the article would be unreadable.

My assessment of hagiography may be best explained with the "Early years" section: of the three sources cited two are written by himself or his ministry and one is a hagiography. I can't confirm any of the information given in the section and have no access to critical examinations of the claims when looking at the citations, but I can observe that this would be the internally agreed upon content for a hagiography by his religious group without needing to speculate because that's what's actually cited.

The hagiographic source is phrased like this

"Co-worker of Watchman Nee; born in Chefoo, China; succeeded Nee in his ministry and further developed what Nee had received from the Lord..."

It treats information about his place of birth as equally factual as divine revelation being given to Watchman Nee. How can one without violating NOR determine if the former information is sourced in any novel way or simply a religious reception of what the religious group itself has said about his life already? Given that the hagiography lists the exact same primary religious source as the article in the bibliography the latter seems more likely but I don't know and I don't want to have to weigh the factual reliability of religious texts to write a biography, because even in the best of cases using the most restrained and reasonable editing away from supernatural claims etc. I can in essence be sure that critical or possibly controversial content has been removed by my source already making me write little more than a slightly more agnostic hagiography of the subject. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)