Reformedville

    When I first read this, it sent chills down my spine.  In our spiritually abusive group, Watchman Nee was required reading.  Nee’s influence had been exceptionally pervasive in the last half of the 20th century, but I didn’t realize how dangerous it could be until I was indoctrinated in it. 

    I can testify that Ken Blue very accurately represents Nee’s teaching on this topic.  Our leader was so enthusiastic about Nee’s teachings that he scanned Nee’s chapter on “delegated authority” into his computer and printed it out for our entire group to read.  I’m pretty familiar with Nee’s concepts.  It is obvious to me now that we neglected to weigh all of his teachings against the Scriptures, and since our leader was already highly authoritarian, we were actively discouraged from doing so.  Since Nee had been a very popular author among many Christians whom we had previously known, and his titles were sold in most Christian bookstores — I had even once heard him cited at length as a trustworthy authority on our local Moody Bible Institute radio station! — we assumed that his books must be alright. 

And for the most part, perhaps it could be that many of Nee’s books basically are alright.  After all, spiritual authority was not the only subject he wrote about.  But Nee’s approach to Christianity was highly mystical, and there’s an old saying: “A mystic is never far from a mistake.”  This is because, by definition, the teachings of mysticism tend to be very ambiguous, obscure and enigmatic.  This makes them capable of more than one interpretation — very often an erroneous one. 

     Mysticism also tends toward the legalistic notion that we are rewarded with a relationship with God on the basis of our works.  Webster’s defines “mysticism” as “the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation” (p. 898, emphasis mine).  Christianity, on the other hand, is the doctrine that it is possible to receive communion with God through simple faith in Jesus Christ.  In mysticism, the individual is required to somehow spiritually “ascend” in order to achieve a mystical union with God.  In Christianity, God Himself descends through the person of Christ, effectively bringing us true spiritual union with Himself.  The ultimate ideal of most mystical systems is an impossible one, for Jesus said:
 

Mysticism requires something of us that we cannot do.  Christianity presents that very thing to us as a gift: intimate, spiritual communion with God. 

    But this leads to another irony: while on the negative side, mysticism tends to lead toward legalism, on the positive side, it tends to lead away from authoritarianism, rather than toward it.  This is because mysticism emphasizes the individual’s ability to have a subjectively experienced personal relationship with God.  If I can go to God directly, I shouldn’t need an authority figure over me in order to make it happen.  So how did Nee’s mysticism become so authoritarian? 

The answer lies in the fact that Nee’s special brand of mysticism derived from his background in what is called “the Higher Life Movement” (or “Victorious Christian Life Movement;” or “Keswick Movement”).  Like other forms of mysticism, it has its own built-in legalistic element: it has tended to teach its own brand of “perfectionism” — the notion that Christians can somehow be sinless in this life.  Many Christians are not aware of this when they read Nee. 

    But Higher Life mysticism also had a teaching that lent itself to authoritarian abuse.  It taught that before Christians could lead a holy life they needed to be “broken.”  This “brokenness” had to be accomplished in the area of the human will.  So far, most Christians would agree with this, but with huge qualifications.  For one thing, most biblically-informed Christians would quickly add that any “breaking” that takes place is something God does, not something we do.  Mysticism, on the other hand, is based on what we do, and the Higher Life movement was essentially mystical.  So it was natural for Higher Life teachers to emphasize what we must do, and in doing so, they fell into a grave error: the idea that Christian sanctification is essentially a process of “breaking” ourselves.  But Christian sanctification is not essentially a process of “being broken,” let alone “breaking ourselves.”  Rather, it is a process of being renewed by God’s Holy Spirit.  Any “breaking” that takes place is primarily the breaking of the power of sin, not the breaking of ourselves.  But Nee, following his Higher Life mentors, made this “breaking” of one’s self a major part of his ministry. 

    It is only a small step from teaching that we must “break” ourselves, to the notion that others must help in “breaking” us.  This small step leads to the worst forms of authoritarianism.  And even though mysticism does not usually lend itself to authoritarianism, it almost always lends itself to a “guru mentality” — i.e., the notion that we need someone more experienced than us to act as our guide, because mysticism’s concepts are so far beyond the knowledge or understanding of most people.  Nee simply took the inherent logic of the Higher Life Movement to its next natural step, and in the process he also blended it with principles that every Chinese person learned from birth, and which westerners have always found fascinating: the teachings of Confucianism. 

    Confucius had taught that the loyalty of a child to a parent should be so strong, that if necessary, the child should cover up his parent’s misconduct.  While not actually teaching that children should turn a blind eye to their parents’ sins, he did teach things that came close to blind obedience: 
 

    This concept of authority has been deeply embedded in Chinese culture for over two millennia, and Nee did not escape its influence, despite the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Christ.  Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to Nee to conclude that he would approve of the authoritarianism that spiritual abusers practice in his name.  Ken Blue was probably right to say that Nee “unwittingly” contributed to the problem, even though Nee’s teachings on spiritual authority are difficult to misinterpret

Watchman Nee’s concept of “spiritual authority” gained a foothold in the church-at-large through three primary avenues: 

• The successful publication of Nee’s books.
• The popularity of Bill Gothard seminars.
• The introduction of the “covering” teaching among charismatic Christians.

The primary book in which Nee propagated his teaching was entitled Spiritual Authority.  All of Nee’s books have sold remarkably well in western countries, and establishing a direct link between Nee and those who borrowed his concepts is not difficult, because they frequently list him as one of their sources. 

    One individual in particular who listed Nee as a source in his unpublished master’s thesis has a concept of spiritual authority so strikingly similar to Nee’s, and has been so successful in promoting it, that he deserves special attention.  His name is Bill Gothard. 

    Bill Gothard is the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, USA.  Since the mid-1960s he has popularized his concept of “Umbrellas of Authority” through an immensely successful seminar ministry which claims more than 2.5 million “alumni.” 

    Gothard insists that every Christians must be under the authority of another Christian — someone “higher up” in a spiritual “Chain of Command,” and to make this idea more palatable, he writes: 
 

The problem here is that the text of 1 Samuel 15:23 does not have anything to do with Gothard’s point.  It does not say anything about authority acting like an “umbrella of protection.”  Instead of providing us with a Scripture verse that does prove that point, Gothard diverts our attention to another issue entirely: he smoothly glides into a comparison of rebellion to witchcraft. 

    If this was the only example of Gothard trying to use the Bible to prove an unbiblical point, that would be one thing.  But it seems that Gothard does this habitually.  On the same page in which Gothard cites 1 Samuel 15:23, he also misused two other Bible passages in much the same way.  As Ronald B. Allen wrote (when he was Professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon), 
 

    Gothard’s view of authority is foundational to his view of the Christian life.  He considers it “The Basis of Achieving Great Faith.”  “The size of our God,” he says, “is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us” (Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 19), and yet he does not even attempt to provide a Bible verse to back up that statement!  These words have a nice sound to many people, but one should pause and ask: “If this concept of authority is so basic, why isn’t it taught in the Bible?”  Gothard never provides a biblical foundation for his “umbrella” teaching.  He simply assumes it, and expects us to do the same. 

    Again we should note that Gothard does not credit Watchman Nee with any of his ideas.  Nevertheless, both Gothard’s and Nee’s teachings on authority appear so remarkably similar that it is reasonable to assume that Nee influenced Gothard. 

    On the other hand, those in the charismatic who hold to the “Covering” teaching do sometimes credit Nee with influencing them on the subject of authority, and it is quite interesting to note the parallels between Gothard’s “Umbrellas of Authority” and the charismatic “Covering” doctrine. 

    Gothard teaches that by getting under an “Umbrella of Authority” we accomplish the following purposes: 

1. We grow in wisdom and character.
2. We gain protection from destructive temptations.
3. We receive clear direction for life decisions.  [see Gothard’s Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 20]

These three things sound nice, and no one can argue with the fact that they are worthy goals.  The only problem is, the Bible does not teach that these are the primary purposes for authority, nor do the Bible verses Gothard quotes support this idea. 

    And notice the parallels between this and the charismatic “Covering” teaching: 
 

But the charismatic “Covering” doctrine has the same basic weakness as Gothard’s “Umbrella of Authority” concept: 
 

    The leader of the abusive group to which my wife and I belonged simply assumed that the teachings of Watchman Nee and Bill Gothard (and hence, the “Covering” charismatics) were biblical on the issue of authority.  I have spoken with many people, and I have ready the writings of many others who belonged to intensely spiritually abusive groups that were based on these principles.  I can testify, along with countless others, that the implications and tendencies that Moriarty describes here are amazingly accurate, and — thanks to Nee’s books, Gothard’s seminars, and the charismatic “Covering” teaching — amazingly pervasive. 

    But the Bible does not teach that spiritual authority consists of some “Chain of Command” that we must follow, or some “Umbrella of Authority” that we must be under.  In fact, the Bible teaches precisely the opposite: 
 

Keeping The Baby While Throwing Out the Bathwater

    In all fairness we should point out that there was another side to Nee, one which Stephen Brown notes (I’ll quote Brown’s entire passage, because all of it is good):
 

    Based on Brown’s quote from Nee, it’s very possible that if he ever witnessed firsthand what today’s spiritual abusers practice, Nee would have disapproved of it.  But we’ll never really know in this lifetime.   After all: he promoted their authoritarianism so forcefully in principle.  And anyway, the damage has been done.  The negative impact of Nee’s teachings has far outweighed any good intentions he might have had, and the scarred spiritual lives of countless Christians bear ample testimony to that. 

    As Christians, our first duty is to obey God’s word.  The writings of other people may help us do that, if they first help us to correctly understand God’s word.  But no matter how good they are, they can never replace God’s word.  And yet if we find ourselves turning to books by human authors before turning to the Bible, then we have effectively replaced the Bible with those books.