| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nee was clearly influenced by the Plymouth Brethren and the Keswick, or "victorious life," form of teaching. He also read and admired Hudson Taylor, George Meuller, and Madam Guyon. These influences are evident from the time of "The Spiritual Man" (1923) up until "The Normal Christian Life."53 The appeal of his preaching, according to Kinnear's sources, was "his gift of making so plain the way to God that relies solely upon Christ's finished work. All too many Christians were striving after a salvation based on good works."54
Late in his career, Nee is said to have developed some doctrinal aberrations that went beyond his usual purism. These areas had to do with a heavy emphasis on authority and submission, and an increasing tendency to dichotomize the material and the spiritual, or the ideal and the real. Some of the literature published during the past ten years claiming to originate from the last 5 years of Nee's ministry are definitely deserving of criticism at many points.55 However, care must be exercised here because of an unusual feature in his writings. Only two books actually written by Nee's own hand are available in English. These are Concerning Our Missions, and The Spiritual Man. Ironically, Nee criticized both of these works.56 His other works are translated from notes taken from his lectures, and are therefore open to interpretive additions by the translators.57
Initially, Angus Kinnear translated notes to produce several titles, including his best known works, The Normal Christian Life, Love Not The World, Changed into His Likeness, and What Shall This Man Do?. Later, the Little Flock church under the leadership of Steven Kaung published a series of books that all have the distinctive plain colored covers of the "Christian Fellowship Publishers" in New York. These include Spiritual Authority, Spiritual Knowledge, and Gospel Dialogue, to name a few. It seems clear to this author and others58 that there is a more radical interpretation of Nee evident in the later books.
At the same time, it can not be denied that Nee was extreme in some areas, including spiritual authority and ecclesiology.
The emphasis on delegated human authority was in perfect harmony with Confucian ethics. Confucius taught that parents were never wrong, and that even when they were, one should obey them.
To understand Nee's extreme doctrine of "locality", one must remember that he had had a run-in with the exclusive brethren in England, and may have formed a rather one-sided picture of denominationalism in the west. He certainly did not want to see the western denominational divisions transplanted into China, let alone the unloving divisiveness of the exclusive brethren, and he can hardly be faulted for that.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Nee propounded an unworkable and unbiblical doctrine of locality and of under-qualified obedience to delegated authority which has resulted in extremism in modern America, China, and elsewhere.59
It is hard to tell how large the Little Flock movement was in China at the time of the revolution. One reason for this is the fact that Nee felt it was fleshly to consider numbers. Therefore there was no systematic effort made by Little Flock themselves to count their people. There was no formal membership in the group, since Nee believed membership in the body of Christ was determined by God, and there was no good reason for the church to try to draw up a list.
According to Cliff, in 1949 the Little Flock had over 70,000 members in 500 assemblies.60 However, according to the Ecumenical Press Service the "Little Flock" had at this time 362 places of worship and 39,000 members in the one province of Chekiang. These figures were interpreted as indicating that members of the "Little Flock" made up 15-20 per cent of the whole Protestant church in China, and that they may have been the largest single denomination.61 In other words, this estimate would show anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 members for the Little Flock. Cheung affirms that there were "thousands" of assemblies by 1956, and that the Little Flock was the largest Christian group in China.62
Nobody has even hazarded a guess as to how many of the millions of Christians meeting in house churches today may be the outgrowth of Little Flock groups. Two things are clear: There are many house churches that are directly derived from Little Flock churches, and there are many other groups that owe a substantial debt to Little Flock doctrine and practice for their survival.
The following characteristics detailed by Adeney demonstrate that God has certainly used the unique features of Little Flock to prepare Chinese Christians to live under the terrible social conditions of modern China.
When the organized churches were destroyed in the Cultural Revolution, traditional forms of Christian ministry were also done away with. The household churches have cast off the trappings of the West and have developed their own forms of ministry. . . The dynamics of house churches, therefore, flow partly from their freedom from institutional and traditional bondage.
and further,
Much that we associate with the Church is not found in Chinese house churches today. They have had to exist without buildings, set times of worship or a paid ministry. During the Cultural Revolution and even up to the present, the place of meeting is often changed form one home to another. Even the time is changed to suit the schedules of the Christians as they work at different hours. Thus, the house churches are extremely flexible.63
Cliff agrees that,
Many of the features of the 'post Denominational Church' in China Nee would warmly endorse, denominational labels have gone. . . as he advocated for many years. Most of the pastors are self-supporting and the laity plays a prominent role in church life-- features with which he would be in full agreement. The Church has been freed from the encumbrances of maintaining large premises and of running institutional work.64
It is obvious to this author that God was at work during the last years of freedom in China to establish an underground network of house churches that were ideally suited to survive and grow even in the appalling circumstances of the last 35 years. The groups have a distinct Chinese flavor in their doctrinal outlook and are entirely used to carrying on Christian witness on an underground basis.65
Finally, Cliff and Adeney report that in the past few years, some groups have split off from the regular Little Flock churches to follow the teachings of Witness Lee. These have been dubbed (no doubt by their enemies) the "screamers." The name derives from ecstatic prayers offered in unison in the meetings. The screamers have been the target of special persecution in the past five years.
According to Cliff,
Many China watchers feel that the Chinese government is making the fanatical behavior of 'the Screamers' an excuse for tightly controlling all unaffiliated groups.66
Read on to the next section of Nee and the House Church Movement
Ask Dennis a question or share a comment.
Go back to the Church History page
Go back to the Xenos home page
