Is the Spiritual Man Pentecostal? Watchman Nee’s Perspective on the Charismatic Experiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This is a carefully argued piece and I believe the author has convincingly demonstrated the key differences between Watchman Nee’s pneumatology from Pentecostalist-Charismatic spiritual theology. Evidently, the author is very familiar with the pneumatology on both ends and has been able to tease out many fine nuances in order to explain the differences. In my view, that is a job very well done. Moreover, the analysis and argumentation that follows the author’s work for this paper is sound and logical, thus, there is no reason for me to oppose to core argument and specific sub-arguments of this paper. On the point of methodology, however, I would urge the author to spend at least a paragraph elaborating on the various sources that have been used, and how he/she has approached the the sources. It will also be good to briefly elaborate on the author’s approach to using and comparing the Chinese and English-language editions of Nee’s work.

2. The key reason for proposing minor revisions pertains to my assessment that the author has not sufficiently positioned his/her argument within Chinese theology. It seems to me that the author has prioritised engagement from the point of view of global Pentecostal studies (p. 2). That is valid, but given that the scope of the special issue relates to the history and theology of Chinese Christianity, and that Nee was one of the most prominent Chinese theologians in the twentieth century, my opinion is that the author should also give equal weight to analysing Nee’s spiritual theology in the context of Chinese theology. In that sense, I believe the author’s engagement with Alexander Chow’s work on “Heaven and humanity in unity” and Leung Ka Lun’s work can be shifted to the Introduction to become part of a framework which analyses the positioning of Nee’s pneumatology in Chinese theology (I leave flexibility for the author to decide how he/she should do this; this is more of a proposal of one way it could be done, drawing on what the author has already done in the paper). I believe this to be important because the author emphasises Nee’s assessment of charismatic experiences vis-a-vis his trichotomous anthropology and three-stage work of the Holy Spirit, and more broadly, the relationship between the mind and body. The author suggests that Nee’s assessment orientates his spiritual theology towards ‘elitism’ and highlights the usefulness of Chow’s comparison with Eastern Orthodox’s synergism and the Chinese concept of Tian ren he yi with Nee’s spiritual theology. Therefore, given the elite predilections (and perhaps, Confucian senses) of Nee’s spiritual theology, would it not make more sense to highlight and analyse this from the start, as a way to further distinguish the differences between the pneumatology of Nee and Pentecostal-Charismatism (especially in the Chinese context of Nee’s time)? In other words, if such a focus is incorporated at the start of your paper, would it not strengthen the argument of your paper, and also elevate the contributions of your paper to the sub-field of Chinese theology?

3. My comments in point 2 are not meant to be taken as a criticism of the author’s work, but rather, as genuine suggestions for how the author can improve the cogency of the study, as well as the value of this paper in the sub-field.

4. I conclude with some minor suggestions below:

-The author consistently capitalizes words like pneumatology (p. 2) or ‘Authentic Real’ (p. 8). This is not necessary, and can potentially confuse readers. I suggest that the author only retain capitalization for key terms like ‘Pentecostal’, ‘Christian’ etc. Theological or philosophical concepts like ‘pneumatology’ or ‘eschatology’ or ‘epistemology’ etc. do not need to be capitalized, unless they are direct quotations lifted off from the sources.

-Page 5: “Otherwise, “the release of the Holy Spirit’s power will result in an impure amalgam as it passes through that person’s undealt-with soul and body”.” [Comment: this is not clear to me. Is this related to the susceptibility of the soul to evil spirits?]

-Page 5: Please correct different font sizes for footnotes on that page.

-Page 11: End of first paragraph, at the terms ‘psychological sense’, there is an extra comma that should be removed.

-Page 11: second paragraph - please remind readers that the issue of ‘broken soul’ relates to what is discussed in 3.2.

-Page 11: “What Nee suggested was to reenchant the world and his whole thoughts were not different from those of the charismatic movement” (Leung 1999, p. 229).” [This quotation from Leung is unclear, please further elaborate]

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a clearly-written, well-researched analysis of Watchman Nee's Magnum Opus, the Spiritual Man. The aim of the article is well stated: to assess whether Watchman Nee, and by inference the group he founded, was/is 'Pentecostal'. The article makes a nice complement to Jiayin Hu's earlier article (2017) 'Spirituality and Spiritual Practice: Is the Local Church Pentecostal?'. The latter asks the same question as this article, but of the later following of Witness Lee's ministry, which itself was built upon Nee's teachings. Hu gives a similar answer to this article, i.e. 'no, Nee/the Local Church is not Pentecostal'. This article is interesting because it outlines the possible theological foundations of the non-Pentecostal character of Nee's and then Lee's followings. However, I would suggest that in order for this article to be appealing to more than just scholars focused on Watchman Nee and adherents to his teachings, the analytical side of the argument could be somewhat enhanced.

For example, why was it that Nee was so worried about the possibility of demonic influence while Chinese Pentecostals were not? Does this come down to the 'elite' nature of his Christianity noted in the article? There is a long historical divide in China between 'rational', elite spirituality (Confucianism, neo-Confucianism) which explains the cosmos in terms of impersonal forces and 'folk' religion which generally embraces the existence of deities and demons. Could the difference between Nee's and Pentecostal approaches to Christian worship be interpreted by reference to this longer history? Or does the difference simply arise from different theological sources- it is noted that much of Nee's anthropology is taken from Jesse Penn-Lewis for example- what were her reasonings for rejecting Pentecostalism? Were they interestingly different from Nee's?

Addressing these questions could expand both the potential interested readership- as this would be about the historical conditions under which Pentecostalism does or does not take root- and the originality of the argument. The conclusion to the article as it stands is especially lacking in strong analytical implications- it is suggested only that Nee's following might be becoming more Pentecostal without explaining clearly why. The points about Primitivism and synergism are interesting but are not properly integrated into a coherent conclusion going beyond a description of Nee's overall approach and a yes/no answer to the question of Nee's Pentecostalism. I would suggest a more ambitious end addressing questions such as why it is important whether we understand Nee as Pentecostal or not, what this tells us about Nee's place within the development of Chinese Christianity, and even the question of the relations between Christian conversion in Nee's time and the cultural, intellectual and/or demographic conditions which preceded conversion.

There is no problem with the quality of English. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf