[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I think the title is also interesting: "Globalization of Chinese Christianity" -- The Little Flock/Local Church assemblies grew and spread as an Asian reaction to Western globalist imperialism. The indigenous assemblies were indeed local, and were also Chinese, because the people living there were exclusively Chinese.

You have a good point here, and I can’t help but notice the underlying implications in these attempts to color the LC as a global movement of value. Of course, from a LC perspective, the concept of globalization is synonymous with the notion that there is a so-called ‘Recovery’ needing to be spread to the ends of the earth. The author of this paper obviously repeats certain propaganda that was created to support such a notion, and others like Chang are actively seeking to introduce and promote Nee/Lee as global figures in Christianity.

To those who are pro-LC, the concept of globalization is obviously something that is viewed positively. I wouldn’t go so far as to label globalization as distinctly positive or negative, it’s just highly ironic that it would be automatically viewed positively despite what's really going on within the movement. To start with, if the LCM is to be recognized as a movement that is relevant world-wide, then we must ask the question of how a displaced indigenous movement has adapted in order that it can function in all the various places that it exists. Otherwise, for all we know, it could just be a fish out of water. So if we attempt to answer this question, it brings relevancy into the equation. And if you look at certain places, such as the U.S., the picture is a bit bleak. There is limited acceptance and relevance, leading to the conclusion that the LCM is not a one-size-fits all deal. So with that in mind, I think that discussion of globalization leads to the opposite conclusions that these pro-LC scholars would have expected.

Even at a very general level, I do not see much evidence to suggest that a globalized movement is something positive or even worth pursuing. When you look at how churches/movements have formed and spread throughout history, there is a distinct pattern of growth in wake of schisms and splits. New groups form due to a common desire to hit the “reset button.” The battle has often been distinctly against globalization and external control. The Church of England formed because King Henry VIII didn’t like the RCC telling him that he couldn’t get a divorce. Out of so many better reasons, it was a silly thing to split with the RCC over, but it was symbolic of gaining independence from the RCC. That was the driving force behind it.

Fast-forward to when the colonists came to America, they naturally sought independence from the groups they had been a part of before, including the Church of England. Now instead of being the underdog, the Church of England was the ‘oppressor’. As British rule was called into question, so was the Church of England as well as other denominations there. But it wasn't so much a issue related to doctrine and practice, just as much the concern was related to control and the overseas influence. Thus, what replaced the Church of England and other groups were sometimes the same denominations, bearing striking similarities, but with an American 'face'. There arose Anglicans among others. Was American Anglicanism really that much different from the Church of England? Probably not. And this leads to the realization that simple independence was a goal as much as anything else.

Getting back to Nee, the principles upon which the LCM were founded were hopelessly intertwined with desires for freedom and autonomy. I’m not saying that the he used his teachings as simple ‘excuses’ to separate from others, however, I think it’s completely fair to identify concerns like autonomy as being factors in the equation. It’s been a driving force behind so many movements, and it only makes sense. As movements exceed the boundaries of nationality, they naturally take on a different form. Thus, the whole idea of a globalized movement seems questionable as to both its continual feasibility and applicability.