Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
But the Asian model needs a "Spritual Giant" (LSM term), a "super apostle" (Paul's term) to give it social cohesion. And the rest of the Body, the People or Party or Church or whatever they call it, are defined in how they prop up the Maximum Brother. So in the PRC you had Chairman Mao. How could you not support Chairman Mao? Even today, 40 years after his death, you cannot criticize Mao. Social cohesion demands that we uplift the center and head. So a person becomes the stand-in for the State.
And the LSM variant was that "the ministry" should be supported. They called it "the practicality of oneness". How could you say that you are one, if you don't support the ministry? So a fallen, fleshly man becomes the stand-in for the kingdom of heaven. To me it's a completely culturally-derived model. It's "normal" for Nee and Lee, because that's their culture. And they did an impressive job of selling it to the naiive Westerners. Some of us even held on through all the "storms" and "rebellions" and "turmoils" that such a model engendered.
|
Since we saw very similar dynamics with James/Jerusalem, pope/Rome, Darby/London, Nee/Shanghai, and Lee/Anaheim, how much was actually Chinese culture, and how much was fallen man, lusting for power, and mis-using Biblical principles like oneness for selfish gain?