Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Interesting to see those concepts side by side: "supreme mastership" and "equality of all believers".
First of all, "equality of all believers" - Jesus taught that some had five talents, some had one, some had ten. Paul said that "star differed from star in glory" (1 Cor 15:41). But in the social(ist) engineering of Ni and Li, all are "small potatoes" except for the supreme master, who is deputy God. How normal is that? Ni set up his proposed "normal church" against the clergy-laity system, which argument made sense in Western-dominated China coming out of the 19th century, but it makes no sense in the 21st century where anyone can function in the community church. Those with more talents become evident by function. Nobody gets accused of being "ambitious" or "drawing others after them". People have differing gifts, and they function. Wow, what a concept!
Second, there's no actual equality of believers in the LSM/lc system, because it matters how you're positioned vis-a-vis the supreme master. Those who have him on speed-dial obviously can lord over the rest, and they do. "Don't you know we have lunch with WL" was the refrain of the FTT 'co-workers' to the rank-and-file who protested their overbearing ways.
|
The LCM goes to great lengths to convey the notion that their group is where all believers are equal. In attempt to contrast the LCM from other groups, Nee and Lee both pointed to ordinary groups and attacked their leadership structures, the visible 'positions', etc. Quite frankly, that kind of criticism must have resonated with a good number of people, because so many have joined the LC thinking that it offered something different and better than what traditional Christianity had to offer.
As far as I can tell, those in the LCM are absolutely convinced that they are part of a church that is "of the people, by the people and for the people." They are also absolutely convinced that their group doesn't have any underlying leadership structure or leadership-related problems, such as authoritarianism. Many times, I have considered as to why LCers are unable to admit the leadership issues within the LC, and I realize that for them to do so would involve making an admission that is completely contradictory to their perception of what kind of group they are a part of.
I personally feel that Nee and Lee had every intention of cultivating an environment that would allow for a supreme mastership. And what better way to do it than to get everyone thinking that they each had a special role and purpose within the group. Except what they forgot to mention is that you can only have 'purpose' within the confines of being a small potato. Somehow everyone in the LCM realizes in the back of their mind that they shouldn't overshadow, criticize or question the supreme master, yet they are convinced that the LCM doesn't have such a leadership structure.