[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

What is the truth? A readily agreed-upon set of facts which has been tested by history...

Psalm 19:12 says, But who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults. (NIV)

Psalm 19 says that we cannot perceive our own errors; in this vein, perhaps, WL said that he and his church group were free from all taint of human culture, while yet still immersed in it. Subjective self-assessment, always partly flawed, needs the help of objective witness; we need outsiders to help us to see our own quirks, foibles, and biases. Our cultural presuppositions may cause uncritical acceptance, and promote things which others might not, and their rejection or modification of our message might not mean that they're "dark" or "twisted" but rather that God can use their different perspective to shine light on our own journey.

Back to Jesus the Nazarene, there is an interesting quote when they came down from the mountain transfiguration scene in Matthew 17. He speaks of His rising from the dead, and verse 10 says, The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” The teachers of the law were talking about God's Christ, or Messiah. They taught that Elijah would come first, making straight the paths and declaring the Great Day of the LORD, and then Messiah would appear in glory, and then the age would turn. So the expectation of Messianic rescue was already there in the community. Therefore we can say that Jesus didn't come into a spiritual or conceptual vacuum, but rather came into one in which conjectures of His person and role were already becoming established.

Thus, even if one may not believe into Jesus as God's Christ, and the Savior of the world, one can still accept as "truth" (established historical fact) that the Second Temple-era Jews were expecting divine deliverance in the person of a "Teacher of Righteousness", and from this cultural backdrop came our present written narrative of Jesus the Nazarene. Likewise, it might be instructive to look at the cultural milieu in early 20th century China which saw the emergence of the ministry of Watchman Nee, and his Little Flock movement. The recent Boxer rebellion was fresh on everyone's minds, and there was general and widespread resentment against Western (Barbarian) imperialism, i.e. the "foriegn devils". Lo and behold "God raised up" Watchman Nee to continue the narrative.

The Little Flock started out an indigenous Asian reaction to Western imperialist domination. Later, it became so successful that it was exported as an Asian imperialist venture itself, with both the pleasures ('new') and perils ('strange', even 'cultic') that such cultural crossovers entail. But there's no actual contradiction to the apparent reversal (a reaction to imperialism becoming imperialistic itself) if you realize that it was always in line with its cultural imperatives. Human culture possibly explains a lot here.