Talk:Witness Lee

Denomination

_________________________

'local church' in this article is not a description, but rather a noun signifying the wide group of churches who submit to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teachings. These teachings are unique, often encompassing Keswick and Higher Life Movement theology. The Local church page even has a set of beliefs not held by other denominations. This makes it, by definition, a denomination regardless of any member's allergy to the word.Chuckd83 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I respectfully beg to differ. Neither the theological derivation of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teaching nor its uniqueness is the issue, much less any allergy on the part of the local church membership. The basic issue is whether or not the typical member of this group claims a special name. It is trivially evident that the teachings of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, to which typical members of the local churches cleave, eschew denominationalism and exhort followers to claim no special name. Consequently, in the absence of such a name, the typical member identifies him or herself as belonging to the church in a given city or as belonging to 'the local churches' collectively, with the clear understanding that 'the local churches' is indeed merely a description and not a special name. To insist on using the term "denomination" to describe this group will introduce much unneeded confusion as even a cursory read of the article makes plain that a most striking characteristic of this group and its teachings is the outright rejection of denominationalism. Abishai 300 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It seems fitting not to label the local churches as a denomination when in so much of their teaching they speak against denominationalism. Having a statement of faith doesn't necessarily qualify a group as a denomination, even if there are some doctrinal distinctives. Many groups have statements of faith that do not speak to their denominational affiliation but rather to the larger Christian community and prospective members who are thinking about joining that group or church. --Theophilus144 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

Abishai and Theophilus144, we must not fall into equivocation here. Speak about 'local church' (those who agree with Witness Lee's teachings) or 'local church' (the entire visible church within Christendom). You both describe non-denominationalism which consists of completely autonomous churches. This is not the case of 'local church (affiliation)'. They are unified under the teaching of Witness Lee, no? If one of these churches decided to renounce Witness Lee, we would say they are not part of the 'local church (affiliation)'. If equivocation is not utilized as Abishai did, then they do "claim a special name" – 'local church'. How else does it have its own wikipedia page? See wikipedia's definition of denomination below and please answer if they are one or not.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I absolutely agree with the above statements and I do not need to repeat them. Calling the group a denomination would not only be misleading but also completely erroneous. Further, any knowledgable scholar would agree that the local church's statement of beliefs are not only just the tenants of the common faith held by all Christians but also do not include any "special" items which would have indeed included them within the category of "denomination." With the lack of any distinguishing items, the use of denomination is inaccurate. Any differences that may be found between any two groups is due to the simple fact that there will always be differences between groups. What is important is whether or not a group emphasizes those differences as "core" to the group's practice or doctrine. In this case, the local churches do not emphasize anything apart from the canonical tenants of the Christian faith as rigorously studied by several Christian groups, some of which are referenced directly on the pages in question. The use of the word "denomination" as a descriptor of this group is inaccurate and should not be used. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

_________________________

The above comments are confusing. Are the churches who follow Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's teachings THE local church? Any new denomination, of course, claims to be the TRUE church, but we all know there are differences between them. Unity within Christianity (or "canonical tenants of the Christian faith") are upon creeds which they seem to ascribe (in their own words). However, distinctions within Christianity are upon confessions and catechisms. Nee and Lee may have taught against denominationalism, so did they return to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy and reform it? Or to Judaism and do the same? No, they started their own denomination with their own teaching.

At the very least, if 'denomination' does not want to be used because it would beg the question of their teaching, the local churches link should go to the disambiguation page or even local church. As the link currently falls upon Local churches (affiliation), it should reflect the very first sentence of that link:

Local churches (affiliation): The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Christian denomination: A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.

Let's be a little consistent here. This whole page seems to be a snippet out of a Living Stream Ministry website, not an encyclopedia. Some major editing needs to be done to have a little more "neutral point of view."Chuckd83 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

This page seems to be very well researched and any scholar who has done thorough research about this group will know that the local churches group does NOT claim to be the only true church. This has been eloquently confirmed by several reliable institutions. Also, anyone who does any amount of research would know that they do not call themselves "THE" local church in that they are the only local church or the only church. They simply follow the nomenclature they see in the Bible itself. They do not claim to be the only real or true church and that nobody else is. That cannot be further from what they believe or teach. Their teachings are orthodox as confirmed by many well known Christian figures throughout the United States as is cited in this and other related pages and so does not place them in the category of creating a new denomination. Furthermore, the local churches link has been discussed in the past among editors and administrators and we settled on linking it to "local churches (affiliation)" since it is understood that "affiliation" refers to the affiliation to Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 02:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

_________________________

"Their teachings are orthodox as confirmed by many well known Christian figures throughout the United States as is cited in this and other related pages and so does not place them in the category of creating a new denomination." Can you explain this further? RC, EO, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. are all orthodox. i.e. they affirm the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Wherein are they distinguished? By their confessions. Does Lee agree with all RC theology? EO? Methodist? No, he has distinct beliefs with distinct doctrine. Please read wikipedia's own definition of denomination above and answer if Lee's local church is one or not. Equivocation is being utilized here. Are they 'local church' affiliated with Lee's teachings or 'THE local church'? If the former, then they are "an identifiable religious body under a common name, etc." If the latter, then your comments above are misguided.Chuckd83 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

I, for one, would like to address this without delving too much into local church theology. I don't think that this would be profitable in this situation because we could easily end up in a heated debate over the distinctness and orthodoxy of LC doctrine in which no ultimate concession will be reached. Our unique goal here should be to give the reader the clearest understanding of this group that we can. I do not believe classifying them as a denomination, something that their teaching wholly condemns, does that.

If we are to make a judgement strictly according to Wikipedia's definition of a denomination, something that Chuckd83 seems to be advocating, I would like to make a couple of points:

Here is said definition: "A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity."

First, it does not seem valid to me to say that because all denominations are identifiable religious bodies under a common name, structure, and doctrine, all identifiable religious bodies under a common name, structure, and doctrine are denominations. This would commit the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. Are unnamed free groups and house churches, for instance, denominations? What about cults and sects, except in, perhaps, the strictest sense? I'm not sure.

More importantly, according to this definition's criterion, a denomination has all three of these characteristics, that is, a common name, structure, and doctrine. Clearly, the local churches that follow Lee and Nee's teaching (not all of them do), for the most part, have a common doctrine. But to say they have a common name, I would have to ask you, what is it? There is no such thing (that I'm aware of) as a "Local Church Association" or a "Local Church Board of Directors." If you were to say that "Living Stream Ministry", the primary publisher of Lee and Nee, is that common name, I would have to disagree because LSM is merely a publisher and many members of the local churches, particularly those in China where LSM material is banned, do not have direct ties to LSM. Additionally, I have yet to see a local church meeting hall with the words "Living Stream Ministry Church" emblazoned on its door. What about a common structure? Where is it, and what is it called? Who belongs to it and what are their official positions? Unless we can definitively answer these questions, as would be easily accomplished with, for instance, the Roman Catholics or Presbyterians, the designation 'denomination' does not fit adequately for me. As inconvenient as it is, 'local churches' must, for me, remain merely a descriptor for this group. I do not think trying to force this has being the name of a denomination properly represents the real situation with this group. Abishai 300 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see how the word denomination is fitting in this context. To use it is to stretch it beyond it's usual application. I think that in the main our consideration should be given to the reader and to that end I agree with the observation made by Abishai 300.

Our unique goal here should be to give the reader the clearest understanding of this group that we can. I do not believe classifying them as a denomination, something that their teaching wholly condemns, does that.

I think using denomination has the potential to confuse the reader. Some movements are admittedly not easy to characterize. If my understanding is correct members of the local church don't even like to be called The Local Churches in a formal sense. It's a title that has been given to them and in order to make public defense from time to time they use it because that's what most people know them by. I'm not aware of a formal organization or a hierarchy that exists among them. --Theophilus144 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

"Are unnamed free groups and house churches, for instance, denominations?"

No, BECAUSE they are all completely autonomous churches with NO affiliation with one another. This goes for all non-denominational churches. Is this the case here? Hardly. All 'local churches' teach the same material – that of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. They are united by a particular teaching and doctrine and a particular name – 'local church'. This makes them a denomination. What if I walk into a Presbyterian church who says Witness Lee is a heretic? Would they still be considered a "local church (affiliation)"? No, because they are a different DENOMINATION.

"But to say they have a common name, I would have to ask you, what is it?"

All churches within this group go by 'local church.' Again, my original comment and purpose of starting this section is to point out that THIS is their name. This is their denomination. It is not a description. All further comments use equivocation to object to calling them a denominiation.

"There is no such thing (that I'm aware of) as a "Local Church Association""

Then why does the link for 'local church' land upon Local churches (affiliation). <-Adding "affiliation" on the end proves my point further that they are united in name, form, and doctrine. Using "affiliation" instead of "denomination" is simply to accomodate the fact that they teach against the very thing they practice. Further, they DO have a Bible college in Anaheim that formally teaches their congregants from ALL of the churches within their "affiliation." And the required reading is not a variety of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. literature, but ALL Witness Lee literature. This unites them if not for Witness Lee himself.

"As inconvenient as it is, 'local churches' must, for me, remain merely a descriptor for this group."

That's fine. Then the definite article "the" should be removed in "the local churches", the link to 'local church' should land on this local church page, or simply delete the entire sentence. Using equivocation is dishonest and allowing it on this page is one of the many things about this article that is NOT neutral and rather a LSM proselytization.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

"No, BECAUSE they are all completely autonomous churches with NO affiliation with one another. This goes for all non-denominational churches. Is this the case here? Hardly. All 'local churches' teach the same material – that of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. They are united by a particular teaching and doctrine and a particular name – 'local church'. This makes them a denomination. What if I walk into a Presbyterian church who says Witness Lee is a heretic? Would they still be considered a "local church (affiliation)"? No, because they are a different DENOMINATION."

I already made the point that not all local churches follow Nee and Lee and I feel that it is a critical one. A local church is simply one that takes no other name and no other ground but that of its locality. In other words, they attempt to follow the Biblical pattern of one city, one church. That the majority of local churches on the earth owe their understanding of this principle to the propagation of Lee and Nee's ministry on this particular point, does not give license to say that all local churches follow Lee and Nee. Actually, what they follow is this Biblical pattern:

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers... -Acts 13:1 (NIV)

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: -1 Corinthians 1:2 (NIV)

"All churches within this group go by 'local church.' Again, my original comment and purpose of starting this section is to point out that THIS is their name. This is their denomination. It is not a description. All further comments use equivocation to object to calling them a denominiation."

I hope that my comment above adequately addresses this point. All churches within this group, if they are clear on the Biblical principle demonstrated above and emphasized (but not owned) by Nee and Lee's teaching, identify themselves as the church in their respective city or as "the local churches" collectively, with the understanding that they are following said principle and not an ecclesiastical system invented by Watchman Nee.

"Then why does the link for 'local church' land upon Local churches (affiliation). <-Adding "affiliation" on the end proves my point further that they are united in name, form, and doctrine. Using "affiliation" instead of "denomination" is simply to accomodate the fact that they teach against the very thing they practice. Further, they DO have a Bible college in Anaheim that formally teaches their congregants from ALL of the churches within their "affiliation." And the required reading is not a variety of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. literature, but ALL Witness Lee literature. This unites them if not for Witness Lee himself."

Others before me involved with the maintenance of this page have questioned the use of 'affiliation' as this very talk page shows, probably because neither Nee nor Lee's teaching use this term and do not contain such a concept as 'affiliation', according to my study. Therefore, I also do not agree with the use of this term and welcome its removal. However 'denomination' is not a proper alternative in my mind.

"That's fine. Then the definite article "the" should be removed in "the local churches", the link to 'local church' should land on this local church page, or simply delete the entire sentence. Using equivocation is dishonest and allowing it on this page is one of the many things about this article that is NOT neutral and rather a LSM proselytization.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)"

I agree that the article "the" should probably be removed. I personally think your solution here is a good one but would be interested to hear what others think. Abishai 300 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

Abishai, please edit your post WITHOUT using equivocation. The term 'local church' has two definitions:

1. local church – A local church is a Christian religious organization that meets in a particular location.

2. Local churches (affiliation) – The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

The sentence in question is "Witness Lee (李常受, pinyin Lǐ Chángshòu) (1905 – June 9, 1997) was a Chinese Christian preacher associated with the local churches and the founder of Living Stream Ministry."

It is clear that 'local church' in this sentence is using the latter definition. Please use this definition when discussing this matter. You are utilizing both and it's not clear which one you are using at any particular moment.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

_________________________

dictionary: denomination (n) – a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect

Local churches (affiliation) – The local churches is a Christian group whose beliefs and practice are based upon the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Chuckd83 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your definitions for "local church" and "denomination" strike me as being somewhat arbitrary and overly simplistic. Even if I were to accept them, I still do not agree with your accusation of equivocation, as I understand it, because it is quite clear to me that the local churches are not an entity originating exclusively from the teachings of Watchman Nee and, subsequently, Witness Lee although the contemporary existence of local churches in today's heavily denominated Christianity is very much related to the propagation of books such as Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life. Though I have repeatedly tried to make this point in one form or another, it seems you are not prepared to concede it and so we are at an impasse.

However, if your objections are based primarily on the present wording in the LCA article to which we are linking, specifically the use of the word "affiliation", we have a way to go forward. As there has, historically, been controversy surrounding this word, I intend to remove it and also to address wording in the LCA article that obscures the fact that meeting on the basis of locality is a Biblical precedent, not an invention of Watchman Nee. I think this is an important distinction that needs to be made. I hope this community will find my changes satisfactory. Abishai 300 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not my definitions. The only definitions I have proposed are wikipedia's and the dictionary's. This is in keeping with NPOV, something this article lacks.

These two sentences belong to local church:

"it is quite clear to me that the local churches are not an entity originating exclusively from the teachings of Watchman Nee"

"the fact that meeting on the basis of locality is a Biblical precedent"

This sentence belongs to Local churches (affiliation):

Witness Lee although the contemporary existence of local churches in today's heavily denominated Christianity is very much related to the propagation of books such as Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life.

You are using them interchangeably, and it is unclear which one is which. This is utilizing equivocation and makes it confusing to the reader. One is any church that meets locally. The other is a group of churches who follow Witness Lee.Chuckd83 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

false statement about Southern Baptists needs deleting

Article says: "Lee’s mother studied in an American Southern Baptist mission school and was baptized as a teenager into the Southern Baptist Church." There is no such thing as "the Southern Baptist Church"! There are independent Baptist churches, local congregations. Some of these send representatives to the Southern Baptist Convention (not "Church"). You don't get baptized into the Southern Baptist Convention. Spirit baptism puts anyone into the Body of Christ, the Church universal & catholic, not some denomination. Water baptism is an obedience to the command of Christ indicating that one believes Christ died and rose again. Water baptism is a prerequisite in many local churches for local church membership, but in such a local church one is not "baptized into a church." Whatever is said requires a reliable source. If you have a reliable source for it, just say, "was baptized as a teenager and became a member of a baptist church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention." (EnochBethany (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Witness Lee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Sorry, I don't speak very well english, if somebody who speak french want to contact me it'i possible. I was in the local church from 1983 to 1991. So I know a part of history of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. All this article seem be wrote by this Living Stream Ministry who have all the copyright of writting's of Witness Lee. This artcile needs to be more critic, but i can't make it because of my poor english... This article is good build-up on Witness Lee's life and ministry. The length and the quality of its content is very appropriate. I'll put it on "Mid" importance level, as there are a lot of useful informations in this article. Any reader reading this page will come to learn a lot of facts and will get enough useful information in his detailed study. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On Secularizing Language in Article

To Back to Walvis Bay: I am not 'complaining about secularization.' Let us please avoid straw men while giving each others' viewpoints the careful and objective consideration that successful collaboration requires. I actually think that the article's language should be secularized as much as possible and it is obvious that it is not to be a vehicle for 'religious promotion.' However, this should not come at the cost of conveying the intended meaning.

What is the 'intended meaning' you ask? It is simply an inference drawn from what the writer wrote with the citation they provided. Again, to revise the language is one thing. To change the meaning of what is being conveyed is another. For example:

The article originally stated that Nee and his co-workers decided to send Witness Lee to Taiwan to preserve Nee's ministry and which was cited, in part, with Laurent. That statement is exactly what Laurent, who is being cited, recounts. It was changed to "Witness Lee moved to Taiwan" and the portion about preservation removed (but the citation left). For Lee to be "sent" to Taiwan by Nee and his co-workers and for Lee to "move" to Taiwan are not the same thing. The revision, therefore, does not simply secularize the article. It removes important facts and changes the meaning of what is being conveyed. Do you see now why I disagree with some of the changes?

Concerning the wholesale revision of changes (which must refer to my activity in Local churches (affiliation) because I did not do that for this article) I respectfully disagree that it is my responsibility to check each of the changes to cited material to ensure corroboration. I feel it would be better if the one instituting the changes did this themselves. However, I am willing to do this if the end result is that the article is improved.

In the end, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this and will refrain from doing another full revert. But I do hope that we can work together to secularize the language of this and the related article (where necessary) but also try to preserve language that best conveys any unique or salient characteristics of this person/group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishai 300 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I went back and reverted to the edits that I made previously and plugged your preferred wording back in to that particular sentence. Back to Walvis Bay (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations in this article and the warning template.

@Abishai 300 Of 19 sources in this article most are 17 non-academic, and most are WP:PRIMARY and and not WP:INDEPENDENT. To run down the list:

• A Memorial Biography of Brother Witness Lee. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1998). non-academic, published by the religious organisation itself therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The History of the Church and the Local Churches. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1993) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Living a Life According to the High Peak of God's Revelation. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1994) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Congressional Record, April 29, 2014 - Issue: Vol. 160, No. 62 — Daily Edition non-academic, WP:PRIMARY literally just a transcript that's being synthesised, hence a violation of WP:NOR

• Reetzke, James. Biographical Sketches: A Brief History of the Lord’s Recovery. Chicago: Chicago Bibles & Books (2003) non-academic, literally a hagiographic work therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1991)non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Kinnear, Angus. Against the Tide: The Story of Watchman Nee. Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade (1997) non-academic, hagiographic, in all likelihood not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Laurent, Bob. Watchman Nee: Man of Suffering.Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing (1998) non-academic, hagiographic, in all likelihood not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Swanson, Allen J. Taiwan: Mainline Versus Independent Church Growth: A Study in Contrasts. Pasadena: William Carey Library (1973) non-academic, William Carey Library now known as William Carey Publishing focuses exclusively on "mission resources" hence their domain www.missionbooks.org this is WP:PRIMARY as this can at best only serve to illustrate what mission materials look like. But as the goal of the texts published here are in direct conflict with WP:NPOV it's unfit for the kind of citation made here.

• Various brothers and editorial section (25 May 2013). "Open Letter". Living Stream Ministries non-academic, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT

• Paul, William (May 2009). English Language Bible Translators. McFarland. pp. 140–141' non-academic, Paul has a bachelor's degree in theology and a master's degree in Law "he is now a retired minister, having served as an evangelist among churches of Christ in located ministries in Florida, Nebraska, Colorado and Washington" from the back of his New Testament translation

• Lee, Witness. Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1998) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The Lord's New Way and His Ministry Today. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1986) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. Lessons on the God-Ordained Way. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (2002) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• Lee, Witness. The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry (1984) non-academic, written by the subject of the article, published by the religious organisation itself therefore WP:PRIMARY

• http://www.witnesslee.org/ I mean obviously WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT

• LIVING STREAM MINISTRY: Life-study of the Bible Radio Broadcast WP:PRIMARY maybe decent to prove the thing exists but completely inadequate to source the summary which in any case violates WP:NOR

• http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/ WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT, unfit to source anything but the last sentence

Unproblematic sources:

• Stark, Rodney (2015). A Star in the East: The Rise of Christianity in China. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press. p. 40 academic, unproblematic

• Lee, Joseph Tse-Hei. "Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China." Church History 74:1 (2005), 84 peer-reviewed, academic, unproblematic

You cannot get most of this article from the two unproblematic sources. The rest thereof is in violation of Wikipedia's policies both with regards to original research and logically WP:NPOV as most of the sources used do not confirm to Wikipedia's standards. Hence the disclaimer, when most of the sources are peer-reviewed, every claim in the article is properly cited, and WP:NOR is applied to article I'll be glad to remove the warning. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say you are applying WP:NPOV as a blunt instrument; not in the way it is intended. There are countless subjects for which a large body of "unproblematic sources" (which is obviously a subjective determination) do not exist or do not yet exist. The point is that an article "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." How about you identify portions of this article that you deem biased or "hagiographic"? It seems to me that would be far more helpful in aiding discussion than simply throwing out a list of sources that don't attain to the your particular interpretation [which I don't necessary disagree with en toto] of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. -Abishai 300 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

If a given area of a subject lacks reliable sources Wikipedia might not be the right place to write about it. My objection lies with essentially everything that wikivoices (possibly contentious) things but cites non-academic works or even ones written by the religious group in question itself without clarifying in some way "hey, the source for this isn't what wikipedia's policies consider reliable" or "according to the religious group itself this is what happened" and the entirely uncited sections, stuff like

"For over a month they spoke together and helped bring about a revival in the church in Hong Kong. Nee charged Lee to instruct, teach, and lead the elders and to make arrangements concerning the church services, as well as the purchase of land for the building of a new meeting place. Nee then returned to mainland China where, in 1952, he was imprisoned for the remaining twenty years of his life by the CCP. The two were never able to communicate again."

I don't want to delete all the poorly cited sections and I don't want to add a disclaimer to every sentence which has questionable sources because the article would be unreadable.

My assessment of hagiography may be best explained with the "Early years" section: of the three sources cited two are written by himself or his ministry and one is a hagiography. I can't confirm any of the information given in the section and have no access to critical examinations of the claims when looking at the citations, but I can observe that this would be the internally agreed upon content for a hagiography by his religious group without needing to speculate because that's what's actually cited.

The hagiographic source is phrased like this

"Co-worker of Watchman Nee; born in Chefoo, China; succeeded Nee in his ministry and further developed what Nee had received from the Lord..."

It treats information about his place of birth as equally factual as divine revelation being given to Watchman Nee. How can one without violating NOR determine if the former information is sourced in any novel way or simply a religious reception of what the religious group itself has said about his life already? Given that the hagiography lists the exact same primary religious source as the article in the bibliography the latter seems more likely but I don't know and I don't want to have to weigh the factual reliability of religious texts to write a biography, because even in the best of cases using the most restrained and reasonable editing away from supernatural claims etc. I can in essence be sure that critical or possibly controversial content has been removed by my source already making me write little more than a slightly more agnostic hagiography of the subject. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)