Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Watchman Nee first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model.
Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?
And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately cooperated? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There's no contradiction..
|
Here is a quote on Wikipedia about the Empire of Japan:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
After two centuries, the seclusion policy, or Sakoku, under the shoguns of the Edo period came to an end when the country was forced open to trade by the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854.
The following years saw increased foreign trade and interaction; commercial treaties between the Tokugawa Shogunate and Western countries were signed. In large part due to the humiliating terms of these Unequal Treaties, the Shogunate soon faced internal hostility, which materialized into a radical, xenophobic movement, the sonnō jōi (literally "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians").
In March 1863, the "Order to expel barbarians" was issued. Although the Shogunate had no intention of enforcing the order, it nevertheless inspired attacks against the Shogunate itself and against foreigners in Japan.
..
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan
The reaction to Western technological and cultural hegemony, and unfair trade practices, was summed in "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians". Likewise, Watchman Nee's indigenous alternative to Western spiritual imperialism found a ready audience in the Chinese Christian community, where xenophobic (anti-foreigner) sentiments were widespread.
Now here's where I find two striking parallels: first is that just as the Japanese saw no contradiction between "expelling the barbarians" and themselves becoming the invaders in Manchuria, China and WWII (because both actions furthered the interests of Greater Japan), so also did the quite different philosophies of "local autonomy" and "centralization" make sense in Nee's conceptual world. Both autonomy (from the foreigners) as an initial step, and centralization and handing over as a later step, were to further the interests of Nee's church organization.
Secondly, both the Japanese Empire and Witness Lee's Local Church, like Mao's China or Nee's Little Flock, had no room for democracy, and no time to entertain the opinions of the people. Discourse among peers to collectively solve problems was/is discouraged: in Nee's words you must "figure out who's in charge and get in line". Obey without question. As the Japanese put it so succinctly: revere the Emperor. Reverence to central authority was the social glue that gave everything shared meaning, purpose, and cohesion.
I remember Lee saying that the LC is an army, not a democracy. But if he'd read American history he'd know that George Washington's Continental army had a consensual, democratic aspect: when Washington wanted to figure out what to do next, he'd often call his generals into a tent and they'd hash it out in front of him. This is how they decided to continue the advance, after the brilliant surprise victory at Trenton, and press the attack against the British at Princeton. The Continentals were bloody, weak, and cold: what to do - forward, or go back to safety? Washington was a true leader (in the Western mold) in that he didn't worry about strong, opinionated, vocal underlings. In the Asian model, allowing such open debate would be seen as weakness, loss of control, and the precursor of social collapse.
Western civilization isn't inherently superior to Eastern; obviously Asian armies and navies have had much success over the years, as have their governments, cultures and societies. Look at Singapore! A very successful society on many levels. But the Nee/Lee church set-up is an Asian one, and was created from and disseminated through fallen human culture just as surely as were the Methodists who brought Christianity to China. Once you see the influence of human culture, values, thinking and practices in the LC operation it becomes more understandable. Like seeing Watchman Nee's complete 180 degree reversal from the 1920s to the 1940s; what was once contradictory and baffling to my eyes suddenly became sensible. I don't have to agree, or follow, but can start to understand what happened.