[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron has a free reign in this forum to leverage stereotypes about Asian culture because Brother Lee was Chinese by birth.

I'm not against Chinese culture, and apologize for occasionally being too caustic in my remarks. I'm rather trying to note the abject failure of taking Chinese (descriptive) culture and making it a universal (prescriptive) culture. If this culture gave a one-for-one analog of heaven that would be one thing, but it doesn't. . . it's a product of the fall, same as any other. And the issue, in the case of the LC, is tragically clear. Earlier I used the word "nutty" to describe what I see. I don't mean Chinese culture is nutty, but that universal imposition of Chinese cultural norms is nutty. The results speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

For instance, how do they feel when reading about Ruth Lee in the LSM tome on Nee ("A Seer of the Divine Revelation"), that she exercised considerable editorial power in Nee's publication work for decades, while knowing that they'd be denied the same opportunity today simply because they're female? How do they feel about this glaring discrepancy with teaching and actual practice? Or have their feelings been conditioned or programmed away (i.e. 'training')? And what happens to your walk with the Lord when your conscience is so compromised?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding Chinese customs, there is a reason that Chinese dynasties went back 5 millennia. No other culture on earth has the ingredients which would allow this to happen. We could make a case for the "Nee dynasty" in China, and the "Lee dynasty" in Taiwan and the US. This whole MOTA characterization is both a guise and a proof of this.

In the Nee dynasty, Ruth Lee could exercise strong editorial duties because her skill set served Nee's purpose. In the Lee dynasty, Ruth Lee (or any other woman) could never do this because "women can't teach - the Bible says so". And we all pretend not to notice the glaring discrepancy between Lee's teaching and Nee's experience. Same goes for Barber, Guyon, Penn-Lewis, MacDonough, Fischbacher, etc. . . my point has been, who would want to be conditioned or programmed (e.g., "Full-Time Training") by such a group?