Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And the real problem is ... We are busy pushing conclusions rather than finding solutions. We want to tell them that they are wrong rather than show them how they are wrong. Or how we are right.
|
I am not sure that I can adequately treat this point, but would like to try. I am in some ways firmly in the "postmodern" camp, or at least the "relativistic" aspect of it. You know, the one that says, "Your truth is just as real to you as mine is to me". Because I see my positions change, over time. I realize that others see what I do not. I am not omniscient, and thus accept "reality" outside my ken (Ken = 'the range of what I can know').
But I do know this: I have a story in front of me. It is the story of God's love. God is holy, and because of our sin we were lost. We were so lost we didn't know we were lost. We didn't know what love was. How could we? We had no reference point. But then, in the gospel of the Son, Jesus Christ, we sensed God's love and we repented and turned back (yes, I got that from WL: 'repentance' as not only being sorry, or regretful, but changing one's course).
We have the written narrative in front of us, in all the details, of Jesus Christ. All the ancient writings pointed to the coming One, and one day Jesus was here; seemingly the son of a Nazarene carpenter, whose brothers argued with him (see e.g. John ch. 7). We have the four gospels, fulfilling the OT prophecies to the 'jot and tittle'. We have the rest of the NT, which is arguably all of apace.
Now, here the discussion turns to the 'church life'... I cannot say with the conviction of a Nee or Lee that some organizational model is right, or true. But I can say that no discussion that distracts me from the story of God's love will gain much traction. And if the church, the collective witness of the saints, tells these church-occupied people that they are missing the mark, that we
as the church should rather be occupied with our Christ, and with receiving one another, than with building better organizational mousetraps, then even if they don't agree, at least they'll know that they've been spoken to. Then if they want to reject that and pursue another reality, fine. That is their journey. What more can we say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
How did Americans get fooled by such a thing? They were searching for "different" and they found it.
|
The Oriental culture certainly has a lot to offer. There is a lot of accumulated, hard won wisdom in those societies. It is not coincidental that the Beatles went off to some eastern guru for help. They were coming from a society that had recently "won the war" against fascism, and was on some levels returning to prosperity, but remained deeply troubled.
Certainly the U.S. in the 1950s into the early 1960s was a dominant cultural, military, and economic power. But we had: #1 the race issue. Big problem. Not only African-Americans, but Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. A lot of marginalized and repressed people that were tired of it, and were talking. #2 The environmental issue. 'Prosperity', arguably merely shallow materialism, meant ruining the environment. Very discouraging, even frightening. #3 The whole nuclear annihilation thing. Armageddon was one red button away, with some 22-year old sergeant in a bunker in North Dakota staring at the thing all day long, waiting to be told to push it. #4 Political unrest; JFK shot, then his brother RFK, then MLK shot, etc, etc. #5 Vietnam came along; our friends, brothers, and cousins were going off to get blown up in some jungle, for what? For Monsanto? For Dow Chemical Corp? #6 There is more (the women's rights issue, for example), but you get my point. A society that by all rights should be peaceful and contented, but hardly. Actually a very alienated and restless society.
So the "eastern way" offered Americans a sophisticated alternative. I don't see much coming out of Africa except Rastafarianism. South America? Central America? I don't see anything significant, which can compete. The European, Protestant-dominated model was tired and exposed. So the Asian model certainly had some traction. "Model" meaning "way of doing things". Like what I wrote earlier about Philip Lee and the idea of 'face'. That was an Asian thing, largely, and we unwittingly let it in when we let in WL. Asian culture isn't superior or inferior to Western, but we pretended it didn't exist, in our new and shiny "Normal Christian Church Life". So it became the proverbial elephant in the room, to a significant degree.
http://www.livingstreambooks.com/ser...h-Life,/Detail
"The Normal Christian Church Life is a record of messages given during conferences held in Shanghai and Hankow. Watchman Nee spoke to his fellow workers on the principles in the New Testament concerning the practical arrangement of the churches, the ministry, and the work. In his speaking, he honestly examined his own work before the Lord in the light of these principles, provided adjustment and encouragement to his co-workers, and confirmed through personal testimony that the practice of the normal Christian church life revealed in the New Testament can be recovered."
So my question is, in the "practical recovery" of the supposedly normal Christian church experience, as presented by Nee, how much is a culturally-conditioned response to imperialism? And how much of that became the new imperialism, as we experienced it, in the American Local Churches of Lee? Go back and read the testimonies of those who went through Lee's "recovered" Local Churches, and if you keep these questions in mind as you read, you may be surprised.