I'll continue my previous thoughts here, because this thread pertains to the Word of God, and how it is received, and handled. My question has been: can our cultural concepts determine our handling Scripture, and if so, what's the effect on our spiritual walk? Here was my quote, recently posted on another thread:
Quote:
|
Now, however, mother Nee was saved.... she was deeply convicted by the Spirit of God that she must make an open confession to her son before she could worship publicly. To the utter surprise of the entire family she suddenly stood up, walked over to her son, wrapped her arms around Watchman, and cried out, “For the sake of the Lord Jesus, please forgive me for beating you unjustly and in anger.” This touched Watchman deeply. Never had he heard of a Chinese parent accepting such loss of face. (The Finest of the Wheat, CFP, p. 15).
|
The teenaged Nee had never heard of a Chinese parent accepting public loss of face like this. I want to stress how strongly ingrained such societal mores (shared values, expectations, behaviors) were. Now, fast-forward 50 years: Nee's replacement, Lee, was also unable to publicly lose face, due to similar cultural imperatives. And the viability of the whole church structure rested upon this unaccountability of its leader. Lee was the "father" figure in the LC movement, and thus was untouchable.
Now let's go back to the treatment of the Word of God. We know that "all Scripture is God-breathed"; we know that the Word of God is living and operative (Heb 4:12), and able to give life and to function within the human vessel. In Matthew 13, Jesus said that the seed sown was the Word of God, the ground was the human heart, etc. This living seed clearly gives eternal life. See also Psa 119:25 - "Give me life according to Your word". I could list another half-dozen verses: "The word that I have spoken to you is spirit and life", etc etc.
But what happens if the "father" figure in the LC movement tells us that the Word is merely the vain, fallen thinking of natural men? My question here becomes: does this Word still give life? Do only some Scriptures live and operate within, separating spirit from soul, or do they
all thus give life? And if the Word
does in fact live and operate "richly" (Col 3:16) within the human vessel, in separating soul from spirit, then what difference does it make if the psalmist was being natural, or operating prophetically in Spirit? The Divine Word gives divine life, yes or no? Can any present exegetical stance change this simple fact?
So I see three problems, here. First, that Lee forsook the NT pattern of receiving the Psalms. I've gone over this in detail already. There are literally dozens of NT examples holding forth the psalmic Word as a prophetic utterance pertaining to the present reality in Christ Jesus, with no commensurate warning to avoid any "natural" parts. So this dismissal, or minimizing, appears to be a Lee-manufactured addition, to square his "God's economy" notion with the text in front of him. And guess what lost: the text, not his hermeneutic. The text was rejected as "natural".
Second, does then this "natural" word lose its life-giving power? If it doesn't give life, but rather leads us astray, to vain law-keeping, this is a serious issue. I mean, either all scripture is God-breathed, or is not. But if it still gives life, and quickens people from the realm of the dead, then what difference does it make if it expressed David's concepts, as Lee said, or if rather David was in Spirit, as Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus all said, and speaking of the promises to come? It's still the Word of God; it's still clearly a word of Spirit and life.
Third, we have a culture in which "Lee is always right", and this may create cognitive dissonance when LC teachings are contrary to the plain words of Scripture in front of us, and the clear pattern of NT reception thereof.
We now have no way to redress this situation. We tacitly admit that the Word gives life, but have no chance to apply it, because it's been waved away by "God's present oracle"; large sections, he said, are actually vain, fallen, natural, and the concepts of men, not the dispensing of God. We now have no chance to explore this Word, and to find life. If we were to do this, it would challenge the Oracle. And our culture forbids that.
So we're stuck; we've painted ourselves into a corner. We can't access the lively oracles of God per the teachings of His present Deputy, and we can't admit that this Oracle of God is or was wrong, because that would cause an irredeemable social/cultural breach of face. The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse. In order for our social edifice (i.e. "the church life") to remain, we must reject the Word. If Lee deemed the Word to be natural and vain, then we must also, because Lee is always right. Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.