[aron]

I've been on this forum a while, and have interacted with many other posters. So I have some observational data to draw on.

I've repeatedly noted the discrepancy between the official LC "women can't teach in the Church" policy and Watchman Nee's actual experience. The founder of the group that won't let women teach got a major part of his teaching, experience and practice directly from women! And not merely one or two but nearly a bakers dozen over a couple decades.

Now, doesn't this strike anyone as odd? It does to me. I have given several active and opinionated posters ample opportunity to square this issue up. Not only do they not do so, but one seems to go to lengths not to pay attention to what I'm writing.

Now what gives? Did these women who Nee sourced get some special dispensation? Or, did Nee get a special dispensation to draw upon otherwise forbidden sources? Should we say, "Women can't teach unless they teach the apostle of the age?" My question here has been, Who would want to be trained by such a nutty group? Who would want any of their codes, up to and including their dress code?

Back to culture - let me contrast the LC experience with an American group, otherwise quite similar. The International Churches of Christ. Another aggressive, insular group. But the leader's daughter went atheist and they kicked out the leader, because Paul said the leader must have believing children. So, too bad.

Now, that's the way Americans treat their leaders. But not the Chinese, and not the Chinese-flavored Americans. If Ron Kangas ever critiqued Nee for receiving help from "spiritual sisters" the whole edifice would collapse. It's simply unthinkable to publicly criticize the Top Leader. So they invent non-Christian terms, like today's Moses and today's Paul . This tries to cover their fallen human culture.