Search Results (6)

This article examines the theological trajectories of Watchman Nee (1903–1972) and Witness Lee (1905–1997) on sanctification, union with Christ, and deification, situating their contributions within recent reappraisals of the doctrine of theosis in the academy. Though deification was universally affirmed by the early church and retained in various forms in medieval and early Protestant theology, post-Reformation Western Christianity marginalized this theme in favor of juridical and forensic soteriological categories. Against this backdrop, Nee and Lee offer a theologically rich, biblically grounded, and experientially oriented articulation of deification that warrants greater scholarly attention. Drawing from the Keswick Holiness tradition, patristic sources, and Christian mysticism, Nee developed a soteriology that integrates justification, sanctification, and glorification within an organic model of progressive union with God. Though he does not explicitly use the term “deification”, the language he employs regarding union and participation closely mirrors classical expressions of Christian theosis. For Nee, sanctification is not merely moral improvement but the transformative increase of the divine life, culminating in conformity to Christ’s image. Lee builds upon and expands Nee’s participatory soteriology into a comprehensive theology of deification, explicitly referring to it as “the high peak of the divine revelation” in the Holy Scriptures. For Lee, humans become God “in life and nature but not in the Godhead”. By employing the phrase “not in the Godhead”, Lee upholds the Creator–creature distinction—i.e., humans never participate in the ontological Trinity or God’s incommunicable attributes. Yet, in the first portion of his description, he affirms that human beings undergo an organic, transformative process by which they become God in deeply significant ways. His framework structures sanctification as a seven-stage process, culminating in the believer’s transformation and incorporation into the Body of Christ to become a constituent of a corporate God-man. This corporate dimension—often overlooked in Western accounts—lies at the heart of Lee’s ecclesiology, which he sees as being consummated in the eschatological New Jerusalem. Ultimately, this study argues that Nee and Lee provide a coherent, non-speculative model of deification that integrates biblical exegesis, theological tradition, and practical spirituality, and thus, present a compelling alternative to individualistic and forensic soteriologies while also highlighting the need for deeper engagement across global theological discourse on sanctification, union with Christ, and the Triune God. Full article

The doctrine of deification (or theosis) has seen renewed interest in recent decades within lines of inquiry that extend beyond its traditional association with the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The ascendancy of Tuomo Mannermaa’s Finnish interpretation of Luther—a rereading of the mercurial monk linking his doctrine of justification to deification—was an important catalyst of this turn of events, as it prompted scholars to reexamine the presence of deification–imagery within the intellectual topography of significant Protestant figures. Initially regarded as absent from, alien to, or even contradictory with Western Protestantism, deification is increasingly being recognized as a core feature of biblical soteriology—particularly in relation to articulating the contours of what union with Christ and/or participation in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4) truly entails. Indeed, several biblical specialists—Michael Gorman, Ben Blackwell, Stephen Finlan, L. Ann Jervis, and others—following the lead of their theologian counterparts, have similarly proposed that deification best characterizes both Pauline and Johannine soteriologies. Although scholars are now exploring how deification operates within the theological frameworks of key Protestants, two significant issues persist within the ever-growing body of literature on the doctrine. The first issue concerns adequately defining deification, as its contours and content differ among individual thinkers and across theological, chronological, and geographic spectrums. Norman Russell aptly recognizes this problem due to his decades-long research tracing the evolution of the concept of deification and notes that the doctrine requires a clear working definition due to entering both mainstream theological traditions—manifesting in diverse forms—and popular spirituality. The lack of a clear definition is directly tied to a second issue—little attention has been given to articulating the doctrine’s practical disciplines and lived experience within theological frameworks external to Eastern Orthodoxy, and more recently, the Western academy. To fill this lacuna in scholarship, we introduce a portrayal of deification advanced by a significant Christian voice from the Global South, Witness Lee (1905–1997), whose theological vision presents a distinctive understanding of the practical experienced of deification called the “God-man living”. Full article

Watchman Nee’s anthropology has been widely debated and polarized in academic fields. However, Watchman Nee’s concept of human and the problem of ecclesiastical practices have often been overlooked in contemporary Chinese mainland churches. In the first three sections, this paper will start from different Chinese mainland denominations’ interpretation of Nee’s concept of human and their corresponding ecclesiastical practices. On the one hand, through the interpretive attitudes of different denominations toward the “concept of human” and their related ecclesiastical practices, we can see the situation of acceptance of Nee’s anthropology in different contemporary Chinese denominations. On the other hand, we can also provide feedback for the academic research on Nee’s anthropology from the reality of contemporary Chinese mainland churches. Then, this paper will make a comparison of anthropologies between Luther and Watchman Nee, referring to the current study of Martin Luther and the Third Enlightenment in China. The comparative study of these two men will not only open up new avenues for the study of their theologies but will also serve Chinese mainland churches by utilizing the results of the research on Nee’s thoughts and Martin Luther and the Third Enlightenment. Full article

Pentecostalism contributes significantly to Christian revivals as well as to the rise of indigenous churches in the non-Western world. This is due to its proximity to local religious traditions, such as the practices of dream interpretation, healing, and exorcism. However, Pentecostalism as a term also reflects an American-dominated narrative; it has proven incapable of covering the main traits of indigenous Christian movements, either in the Global South or in China. For instance, in the 19th century—far before the birth of Pentecostalism as a modern term—both the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (1851–1864) and the ministry of the legendary Pastor Hsi (Xi Shengmo 席胜魔, 1835–1896) expressed some Pentecostal characteristics. In the early 20th century, some indigenous churches, like the True Jesus Church and the Jesus Family, had clear connections with Pentecostal missionaries or organizations and showed obvious Pentecostal characteristics. However, leading evangelists such as Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng 倪柝声, 1903–1972) agreed with some practices of Pentecostalism and opposed others. Instead of claiming a Pentecostal identity (Ling’en pai 灵恩派), most Chinese Christians preferred to be defined as “spiritual” (Shuling 属灵). With the Spirit (Ling 灵) at the center, Chinese Christians went beyond the narrative of both Pentecostalism and indigenization; their exact aim was to seek the authentic Christianity of the apostolic age. “Spiritual Christian” (Shuling jidutu 属灵基督徒) would thus suggest a re-conception of part of the history of Christianity in China. Full article

Christian, especially Protestant, identity is often framed through the lens of belief, particularly belief understood as an interior orientation. Through an examination of the non-denominational Protestant group, the ‘Little Flock’, founded by Watchman Nee in the early 20th century, we trace enduring aspects of Little Flock theology in contemporary Chinese Protestant practice. In particular, we attend to conceptions of and debates surrounding belief and how to determine the quality of one’s faith—whether or not one might be considered not just a Christian, but a ‘good’ one. Full article

Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng, 1903–1972), one of the most prominent theologians in Republican China (1911–1949), developed a “spiritual theology” that is concentrated on the work of the Holy Spirit. This theological perspective shares parallels with Pentecostal-Charismatic theology. This paper examines Nee’s attitude toward Pentecostalism and the charismatic experience. First, based on his teaching of the three-stage work of the Holy Spirit, Nee argued that the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit was more important than any external manifestation and that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement was not a personal experience that Christians should pursue. Second, in terms of subjective experience, Nee’s trichotomous view of human nature as consisting of spirit, soul, and body suggested that many charismatic experiences originate in the soul and need to be overcome. Third, concerning the spiritual world, Nee regarded as the work of evil spirits those charismatic experiences that occur in irrational and unconscious situations. Nee’s negative stance towards Pentecostalism and the charismatic experience serves as a means of distinguishing his spiritual theology from Pentecostalist-Charismatic movements. Both Nee’s theology and his church practices reveal a strong elitist element, in stark contrast to Pentecostalism. Full article