Chapter 2 Watchman Nee’s Theology and Interpretation of Scripture
4. Chinese Philosophy and Chinese Context
Virtually all Nee scholars agree that Nee is more concerned with practical Christian living than with doctrinal speculation.70 Given his lack of formal theological training, the influence of pietism, and the anti-intellectual tendency of quietist mysticism, Nee’s practical approach to Christianity seems natural and does not need any explanation. Some scholars, however, offer an interesting alternative theory: Nee’s Chinese upbringing and context is also a significant factor for his practical Christianity. Ang Lee, for instance, observes that one basic characteristic trait of the Chinese mind is its pragmatism combined with a strong ethical concern.71 He calls it “Chinese ethico-pragmatism” and argues that it helps to explain much of Nee’s theology: “[Nee’s] soteriology is called applied soteriology; his Christology is centered
69 Robert K. Wetmore, “An Analysis of Watchman Nee’s Doctrine of Dying and Rising with Christ as It Relates to Sanctification” (Th.M. Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1983), 12. Cited in Liao,
“Watchman Nee’s Theology of Victory,” 39. Regarding the theme of self-abandonment, May observes that Penn-Lewis was heavily influenced by Guyon, thus suggesting that Nee perhaps read Guyon through Penn-Penn-Lewis’s eyes.
May notes, “While at the vicarage at Richmond, Surrey, Lewis read Madame Guyon’s Life, where Penn-Lewis initially encountered the challenge to die to self. In 1896, Penn-Penn-Lewis wrote a summary of Madame Guyon’s ‘Spiritual Torrents’ entitled ‘Life Out of Death.’ In brief, the pamphlet outlined the journey from estrangement to God to distrust of self to loss of self to complete abandonment to God. Challenged by Guyon’s writings, Penn-Lewis consciously and willingly exchanged her joyful experience of faith for an experience of
‘darkness’ in which she felt utterly alienated from God. When, however, she eventually passed through the period of darkness, she came upon the realization ‘that it was “dying” and not “doing,” that produced spiritual fruit.’ The depths of the experience left Penn-Lewis convinced that the extent to which Christians poured out their lives for others was the extent to which they could lead spiritually fruitful and fulfilled lives.” May, “Watchman Nee and the Breaking of Bread,” 230–231. May’s reference to Penn-Lewis’ work is from Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Centrality of the Cross (London: The Overcomer Book Room, n.d.), 33, 53.
70 See Ang Lee, “Watchman Nee,” 182–183. Lee quotes several observations from different authors to back up this conclusion, such as: “Nee’s concern is to emphasize Christian experience and life rather than mere doctrine” (Carl F. H. Henry, “Sharper Focus on Watchman Nee,” Christianity Today, May 9, 1975, 31); “Doctrine without holiness was worse than plain ignorance—it was sin. Thus, practical Christian living occupies a high place in Nee, and doctrinal discussions are valuable only as they encourage piety” (Wetmore, “An Analysis of
Watchman Nee’s Doctrine of Dying and Rising with Christ as It Relates to Sanctification,” 83–84).
71 See Ang Lee, “Watchman Nee,” 184–85 for the list of observations he gathered from several sources.
around the question ‘what I ought to be,’ based on and in response to ‘what Christ has accomplished’; and his teachings on Christian spirituality provide practical guidelines and instructions on how the spiritual man’s life is to be conducted.”72
Another scholar, Seung Gon Lee, offers another possible Chinese influence, particularly on Nee’s scriptural hermeneutics. Gon Lee posits that Nee may have been influenced by
traditional methods for textual interpretation in Eastern Asia, especially by the tradition of the School of Mind (Xin Xue).73 The tradition of the School of Mind is part of the hermeneutic system of neo-Confucianism, which was developed in the era of the Song (960-1289) and Ming (1368-1644) dynasties in China.74 In contrast to the other schools of thought within
neo-Confucianism, the School of Mind tradition is not preoccupied with methods of interpretation or the meaning of the words. Rather, its concern lies with the hermeneutic of the construction of the human being itself.75 The order of priority, in other words, is always moral formation first,
72 Ibid., 187. Ang Lee also notes, “[T]here are many areas of theology thought to be of essential
importance by Western theologians that are either totally left out or only mentioned in passing in Nee’s theology.
For instance, the entire area of the nature of God and the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Trinity, and the doctrine of election are not dealt with in his theology. Even in topics he chooses to include in his theology, speculative areas are not discussed. What Nee keeps in silence, we think, speaks loudly to his methodological approach, which is pragmatic, rather than speculative” (187-188).
73 Gon Lee, “Exploring the Possibility of an Asian Way of Doing Theology: An Examination of Watchman Nee’s Life and His Theological Thoughts as a Model,” 89.
74 Ibid., 95. Confucianism belongs to a text-centered tradition, just as Judaism and Christianity do.
Confucianists also regard their scripture as the words of the sage, and as such, it is regarded as true and sacred.
Zheng Zhi-ming explains, “The Chinese tradition to the religious scriptures has constantly sustained a mystical and [sacred] attitude. In general, Asian people admitted that the religious scriptures come from god’s revelation, so they thought that it cannot be criticized with human cognitive standard. Rather it is a taboo to deal with it by using human hermeneutic. As a result, rational translation of the sacred scripture has not been developed; instead, the mystic inspiration has become a better method of hermeneutic of religious scripture.” Zheng Zhi-ming, Zhong Jiao Yu Wen Hua (Religion and Culture): Research for Taiwan Folk Religion (Taiwan: Student Press, 1990), 84-87.
Cited in Ibid., 113.
75 Gon Lee, “Exploring the Possibility of an Asian Way of Doing Theology: An Examination of Watchman Nee’s Life and His Theological Thoughts as a Model,” 95. Gon Lee explains that Eastern methods of scripture reading, especially those centered in China, can be divided into two main streams of textual
hermeneutics. The first stream is the tradition of the School of Scripture (Jing-xue), sometimes also called School of Classical Studies, or simply classical Confucianism. This tradition is represented by the interpretation method (Zhu su xue) in the Tang dynasty and the exegetical method (Xun hao xue) in the Qing dynasty and emphasizes the objectivity of language and word written in the text and its historicity. In general, this tradition takes a serious view of arrangement, reconstruction, and reinterpretation of a text. The other stream is the tradition of the School of Mind (Xin Xue), which is concerned with realizing and embodying the word of sages and practicing it in real life.
The Xin Xue tradition is represented by the School of Cheng and Zhu (Cheng-zhu xue) and the School of
Yang-and only secondarily the knowledge through study.76 As Gon Lee cryptically puts it, “the purpose of reading is not to produce [something] I [do not know]… but to restore the a priori being. That is, the purpose of reading is not a process [to make] a new creation but… to restore something which has already been created or formed.”77 Like a mirror, the text reveals to the readers that they are yet to live according to the standard of the sage.78 The whole
hermeneutical enterprise thus centers on realizing and embodying the Tao (the way, or the truth) of the text in the life of the readers.79 In short, Gon Lee suggests that Nee’s approach to Scripture emphasizes morality, practicality, and experience in ways that echo the hermeneutical tradition of the neo-Confucianist School of Mind.
It is the recent work of Paul Chang on Nee’s intellectual biography, however, that perhaps best illuminates the complex relationship between Nee and his Chinese context.
Arguing against the common simplistic account of Nee’s life and theology that too easily dismissed him as an oriental copycat of the Western fusion of Brethren fundamentalists and Keswick-Holiness teachers,80 Chang offers a more sophisticated reading that takes Nee’s Chinese context more seriously.
Nee’s Chinese context and heritage can be seen more clearly in implicit assumptions than in open declarations. His ideas mirrored broad thematic currents in both
contemporary and classical China, even when he was not purposefully echoing them.
ming (Yang-ming xue) in the form of neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties. This tradition, in general, emphasizes the fusion of horizons between the reader’s and the writer’s subjective understanding of life. See Ibid., 90–91.
76 Gon Lee, “Exploring the Possibility of an Asian Way of Doing Theology: An Examination of Watchman Nee’s Life and His Theological Thoughts as a Model,” 114.
77 Ibid., 113. Emphasis in original.
78 Ibid., 114.
79 See Ibid., 90, 97.
80 In addition to Chloë Starr who is quoted at the beginning of this chapter, Grace May locates Nee’s theology within the Holiness tradition and American Fundamentalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
“While indebted to American Fundamentalists for his doctrinal positions, especially with regard to Scripture, Nee and the Assembly adhered to a form of spirituality that pulsated with the life engendered by the holiness
movement…. The interesting mix of Fundamentalist teaching and holiness spirituality gave rise to a strong
commitment in Nee to correct doctrine and conduct” (May, “Watchman Nee and the Breaking of Bread,” 183–84).
The legacy of his teachings, practices, followers, and institutions is shaped by Chinese history in ways that the participants themselves may not have realized.81
Chang provides several pieces of evidence for this claim, but one of his most interesting examples is Nee’s connection with the Western theological traditions alluded to above. While he was profoundly influenced by the Brethren and the Keswick teachings, this does not mean that Nee disregarded specifically Chinese influences in his life. Chang notes that Nee’s
attraction to both traditions follows a logical pattern. Both Plymouth Brethren ecclesiology and Keswick Convention spirituality were deeply pessimistic. “The Brethren indicted virtually all Western Christian churches, denominations, and associations (even, to some extent, their own) for their divisiveness, artificiality, connections to local governments and politics, lack of holiness, and independence from God.” Similarly, despite its warm and ecumenical tone,
“Keswick teachers assumed that very few Christians were actually living up to the biblical standard of holiness. Instead, these holiness writers supposed that most Christians were generally defeated in their Christian lives, beholden to sin, fleshly desires, their own egos, and the vanities of the world.”82 In short, Nee consciously (and critically?) drew from two of the most self-critical strands of Western Christianity. Chang now explains the Chinese connection:
Much of Nee’s active ministry took place in Republican China, when the prevailing sentiment was fiercely patriotic and anti-Western. Chinese Christians had to fight off bitter accusations that they were foreign lapdogs, collaborating with imperialists. In such a context, it may seem odd that Nee chose to learn from Westerners at all. Nee’s choice of these particular Western influences, however, gave him access to some of the most subtle and scathing critiques that Western Christians had lodged against each other. If Nee had to be associated with Western Christian thought, the Brethren and Keswick theologies had the potential to gain him significantly more interest than almost any others.
Because of their unfavorable judgements of other Christians, both the Brethren and the Keswick teachers were embroiled in controversies in the West, and these controversies would follow Nee throughout his career. In China, however, to be controversial among
81 Chang, “‘The Spiritual Human Is Discerned By No One’: An Intellectual Biography of Watchman Nee,” 3–4. Emphases added.
82 Ibid., 4.
Westerners, was, if anything, a sign that one had maintained one’s nationalistic integrity. Although Nee could have easily traded on this anti-Western reputation, he took a more careful route. By taking many of his cues from the West’s own critics, Nee claimed to be following a more universal, pure version of Christianity than that
practiced by the vast majority of Western Christians.83
For this reason (along with the others), Chang believes that Nee “made for an ideal exemplification of Chinese theology.”84 Throughout the rest of his work, Chang suggests some of the confluences that restore Nee to his Chinese context. Just as in the above example, however, these confluences work in a subtle and even paradoxical way. As Chang puts it,
“Nee’s system only made sense and retained its vibrancy inasmuch as Nee was not seen to be particularly beholden either to Chinese society or to Chinese thought. Paradoxically, it seemed that Nee could only be a viable representative of a living tradition of Chinese thought to the extent that he shunned the specifically Chinese character of that thought.”85 This is one reason, according to Chang, why neither Nee nor his followers would have acknowledged Nee’s teaching as particularly “Chinese” in any way. This is also why many Nee scholars and Asian/Chinese theologians too readily discount the “Chineseness” of his thought. For our purposes, suffice it to say that Chang’s analysis is paramount in substantiating the hybrid character of Watchman Nee as both a universal Christian and at the same time an indigenous one.
83 Ibid., 4–5. His further commentary on this is worth quoting in full: “Instead of being a simple champion of China, Nee was a champion of the idea that Chinese could engage in some of the most demanding forms that the Christian tradition had to offer. They could live rigorous lives of self-denial, forsaking their natural inclinations, preferences, and human affections, representing God in unified, holy congregations that pointed toward the truth of the mystical body of Christ. If Nee believed that this testimony was rather lacking in the West, he was confident that it could be vibrantly represented in China. By positioning himself in this way, Nee opened up a significant space for Chinese to become serious, devoted Christians, while escaping the ignominy of association with the West. Those Chinese who followed Nee maintained especially strong links to certain parts of the Western tradition.
They prided themselves, however, on taking these rather elevated claims of the Christian tradition more seriously and following them more exactly than most of the Westerners themselves. In so doing, they understood themselves to be returning to the unadulterated practice of New Testament simplicity. They had become more Biblical than the Western fundamentalists and more spiritual than the Western mystics” (Ibid., 5-6; emphasis mine).
84 Ibid., 6.
85 Ibid.