Yes and No: Six Times Witness Lee Contradicted Himself

Witness Lee did not present himself as one Bible teacher among many. “The Lord has commissioned me with this ministry,” he told the churches. “The vision that I have brought to you today is God’s vision for this age.” Outside that vision, he said, “you could even be a Peter, who served as the leading apostle. However, you would not be in the vision” (The Vision of the Age, ch. 2 ↗). His co-workers still call him and Watchman Nee “the ministers of the age” (The Minister of the Age, Not Infallibility ↗).

A man who claims to carry God’s vision for the age should at least agree with himself. Paul held himself to that test: “But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us… was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes” (2 Corinthians 1:18–19).

Lee’s word was Yes and No. On each of the six questions below, his own published books and Recovery Version notes give opposite answers. These are not side issues. They are whether believers are God, whether a person must believe to be saved, whether a believer can live in sin, whether the New Testament is God’s word, who leads the church, and whether the churches may differ. Every quote is linked to the page where it appears, and where Lee qualified himself, the qualification is quoted too.

1. Are believers God?

In his Life-Study of 1 John, Lee makes the argument from birth. “Whoever is begotten of a human being automatically becomes a human being. In the same principle, whatever is begotten of a dog is a dog.” Then he stops short, and he says why: “I would not say that because we have been begotten of God, we are God. However, according to the Scriptures, we can say that because we have been begotten of God, we are children of God with the divine life and nature” (Life-Study of 1 John, msg. 1 ↗). What the Scriptures allow us to say, he wrote there, is “children of God.”

In A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, explaining John 1:12–13, he makes the same argument and says the sentence: “What is begotten of man is man, and what is begotten of God must be God. We are born of God; hence, in this sense we are God.” He adds that “we do not share God’s person and cannot be worshipped by others” (A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, ch. 3 ↗). The qualification is real. But the sentence he once declined to say, because the Scriptures let him say only “children of God,” he now says, and he says the Bible contains it: “Although the Bible contains this truth, those in Christianity have not been able to see it.”

It then became the center of his late ministry. “God became man so that man may become God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead,” he said. “This is my unique burden, my unique message” (The Practical Way to Live a Life according to the High Peak, ch. 2 ↗). Nowhere in these passages does he mention that he had once refused to say it. The full case is in God Became Man to Make Man God?

2. Must a person believe to be saved?

In his Life-Study of Romans ↗, Lee is plain: “In this age of grace, God has given us one, unique commandment — to believe in Jesus. God does not require us to keep any commandment other than this… Whoever believes in Christ shall be saved, and whoever will not believe in Christ has been condemned already because of his unbelief” (Life-Study of Romans, msg. 2 ↗). His Recovery Version note on Romans 10:10 says the same: believing in the heart and confessing with the mouth, “Both are conditions for our being justified and saved” (Recovery Version, Romans 10:10, note 1 ↗).

In The Seven Spirits for the Local Churches, faith drops out: “We have seen that to reach the unbelievers, no preaching is necessary. If we help them to say ‘O Lord’ three times, they will be saved… Even if they have no intention of believing, still they will be caught. Regardless of whether they have the intention or not, as long as they open the window, the air will get in” (The Seven Spirits for the Local Churches, ch. 5 ↗). It comes after a story about a young man who came to a meeting determined not to respond. His defenders call it exhortation, but the sentence before “caught” is “they will be saved,” and the people he is talking about are “the unbelievers.”

In one book the one thing God requires is to believe. In the other an unbeliever is saved by saying two words, with no intention of believing and no one preaching to him. Paul answers that directly. “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” he writes, and then: “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13–14). The gospel itself is at stake here, and Lee gave both answers.

3. Practicing sin: an unbeliever, or a believer who loses a reward?

Lee was careful in 1 John. He separated occasional sins from a life of sin: “No one who is a child of God practices sin habitually. We may sin occasionally, but we do not practice sin habitually. For instance, if someone has the practice of lying continually, this is a sign that he probably has not been born of God.” To practice sin, he wrote, “is not merely to commit sin as occasional acts, but to live in sin.” One who practices sin “has not seen Him or known Him… This is the condition of an unbeliever.” And the line is visible in how a person lives: “Whether one is a child of God or a child of the Devil is manifested by what he practices, righteousness or sin” (Life-Study of 1 John, msg. 26 ↗). An occasional sin, he says, is “outward behavior, not their outward living.” A life of sin is the outward living, and it shows what a person is.

By that standard, Paul’s list in Galatians 5:19–21 describes people who live in sin: fornication, idolatry, sorcery, drunkenness, “and the like… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Here Lee calls them believers: “It is not related to a believer’s salvation. Those believers who practice the works of the flesh listed in these verses will not inherit the coming kingdom as a reward” (Life-Study of Galatians, msg. 27 ↗). In 1 John a life of sin shows a person is a child of the Devil. In Galatians the people living that way are believers.

He does the same with Jesus’ parable of the evil servant who “begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards” (Matthew 24:49). Lee counts him among “the defeated believers,” and says his weeping and gnashing of teeth “does not refer to eternal perdition, but to dispensational punishment” (Life-Study of Matthew, msg. 66 ↗). Paul warned about exactly this reassurance: “Do not be deceived… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:21). The full case is in Witness Lee’s Millennial-Exclusion Doctrine.

4. Every word of the New Testament is God’s speaking, except James

In The Ministry of the New Testament and the Teaching and Fellowship of the Apostles, Lee sets out what “the apostles’ teaching” includes. The twenty-two Epistles, “from Romans through Revelation,” are “the divine speaking concerning God’s mysteries in His economy.” Then: “we need to consider all the words in the entire New Testament, from the first word of Matthew to the last word of Revelation, as God’s speaking through the different mouths and different hands of the apostles. This is the apostles’ teaching.” He grounds it in John’s warning against anyone who “takes away from the words” of the book (Revelation 22:18–19) (The Ministry of the New Testament…, ch. 2 ↗).

In his Life-Study of James, he says the opposite, by name. “In the New Testament we also find words that are not the word of God.” James taught visiting widows and orphans, keeping oneself unspotted from the world, the perfect law of freedom, saying “If the Lord wills,” and praying like Elijah. “James’ word regarding these things may be godly, but it is not God’s word.” “Certain words in the Epistle of James are the words of James and not the words of God” (Life-Study of James, msg. 14 ↗). His defense in that message is that the Bible also records the serpent’s words and the high priest’s. But James is not being quoted by anyone. He is one of the twenty-two Epistles that Lee called “the divine speaking.”

The same chapter that calls every New Testament word “God’s speaking” ends with a charge against the brothers who disagreed with him. They taught, he says, that “the teaching in the Epistles after the Acts should not be considered the apostles’ teaching. Their intention in saying this is to put me aside… Their aim is to poison the saints so that they will give up anything that Witness Lee teaches.” When others set aside part of the New Testament, Lee called it poison. He had set aside the words of James himself. The full case is in Witness Lee, James, and Paul.

5. Follow the leader, but don’t call it following a man

Lee taught that the Lord hates the Nicolaitans of Revelation 2:6 because of “a hierarchy among the saints in which some set themselves to rule over others… a group of people who esteem themselves higher than the common believers.” “In the proper church life,” he said, “there should be neither clergy nor laity” (Life-Study of Revelation, msg. 10 ↗).

In The Vision of the Age, under the heading “Serving by Following the Leadership of Those Who Have the Vision,” he teaches that being in God’s vision means following the one who has it. Aquila and Priscilla’s service “followed after Paul. Hence, their service was a service under the vision.” When Barnabas parted from Paul in their quarrel over Mark, “though Barnabas was still serving, his service was no longer governed by the vision” (The Vision of the Age, ch. 1 ↗). Nothing is said of Barnabas changing his teaching. What changed was whom he followed.

Then he applies it to himself: “Today Brother Nee has passed away… the Lord has commissioned me with this ministry. I can only take the lead willingly and obediently. The vision that I have brought to you today is God’s vision for this age.” Outside it, “you could still be an Apollos, expounding the Scriptures in a powerful way; you could still be a Barnabas, visiting the churches; you could still be a James, serving piously; and you could even be a Peter, who served as the leading apostle. However, you would not be in the vision.” And those who “take the way of the Lord’s recovery for a while and then leave do not come to a proper ending.” In the same chapter he writes, “It is grossly wrong to say that we are following a certain person” (The Vision of the Age, ch. 2 ↗).

He calls it following a vision, not a man. But by his own examples, a man can teach the Scriptures like Apollos and lead like Peter and still be outside the vision. The only thing that puts him inside is following the one who brought it. That is a group of one esteeming himself higher than the common believers. Jesus said, “Do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matthew 23:8). Paul said, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed?” (1 Corinthians 3:5).

6. Give every church its freedom, or condemn every difference

In The Practical Expression of the Church, Lee pleaded for room between the churches: “Why must we always attempt to convince others? Why must we make them the same as we? As long as we all believe in the same Lord and are on the ground of oneness, any kind of practice which is not sinful is tolerable. We must learn to give others the freedom to do things in their way. We should never make anything a basis of fellowship. We must respect every local church, realizing that it has its own jurisdiction. San Francisco may prefer to use wine at the Lord’s table, but another place may prefer grape juice. We must give them the freedom to use whatever they choose” (The Practical Expression of the Church, ch. 12 ↗).

At his 1986 elders’ training he said the opposite: “We have seen in chapter 4 that all the churches should be identical. There is no excuse whatsoever for a church to be different in any positive thing or in any positive way from the other churches. Any kind of difference should be condemned… There is no ground for anyone among us, especially in the Lord’s recovery, to say that any difference in the positive things among the churches can be justified.” A few lines later he asks, “What is the factor that decides who the leading one is in a certain period of time that all the believers have to follow?” (Elders’ Training, Book 7, ch. 5 ↗).

His defenders say the 1986 rule covers only “positive things,” and that details like wine or grape juice are a local matter. But the freedom he once granted covered “any kind of practice which is not sinful,” which is every positive thing there is. In one book a church that differs is to be given freedom, and pressing it to conform is the problem: “Why must we make them the same as we?” In the other, the difference itself is to be condemned, and every church is to be identical and follow the leading one. That second rule is how a fellowship of local churches became one movement under one ministry, as Witness Lee Condemned Denominations While Building One of His Own shows. Paul gave the churches the first rule: “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls… Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:4–5).

Not Yes and No

Any teacher can be wrong, and an honest one can change his mind and say so. Lee never said he had changed his mind about any of these. None of these passages mentions the other, and in each pair both sides are taught as the truth. His defenders can point to different audiences and emphases, but they cannot make the two halves of any pair agree.

Look at what is at stake. Whether a person must believe to be saved is the gospel. Whether a believer can live in sin and still be saved is the gospel’s warning. Whether every word of the New Testament is God’s speaking is the authority of Scripture. Whether believers are God is the line between Creator and creature. On each one, Lee taught both sides. And he cited John’s warning against anyone who “takes away from the words” of the book, then took away the words of James.

A man who says the vision he brought is “God’s vision for this age,” and that even a Peter outside it “would not be in the vision,” is asking to be trusted above every other teacher. His own words show why he cannot be. Paul held himself to a different rule: “our word to you was not Yes and No” (2 Corinthians 1:18). The Bereans were commended because they did not take even Paul on his word. They “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). John said, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Lee’s books fail that test against each other before they ever reach the Bible.