View Single Post
Old 07-18-2018, 07:40 AM   #227
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
Default Re: Poor poor Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Nee and Lee would grow up hearing that Western missionaries were Christian Imperialists. So to them it's likely that they considered Christianity poor even before their conversion.
In what sense did they convert? Both Nee and Lee came from Christian families. Nee's parents were Methodists; Lee's parents were Southern Baptist like yours. Nevertheless the general culture in which they grew up was not Western culture. Anyway Aaron et al has addressed this issue at great length on the main forum http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...?t=5150&page=2 so we need not belabor the point here.

Christianity was born of the clash between Judaic and Greco-Roman societies. This clash can be illustrated pointedly in the conflict regarding the meaning of Divine Law. Yale Professor Christine Hayes discusses this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-sv09t15hg&app=desktop

The characterization of Divine Law as utterly rational and in harmony with nature was widespread throughout the Hellenistic world of late antiquity. This created a cognitive dissonance for the Jews who's Divine Law didn't look like the Greco-Roman definition of Divine Law but rather more like human law grounded in the will of a sovereign that doesn't necessarily conform to truth and has irrational aspects. This was particularly true of the impurity laws, the dietary laws and the laws concerning circumcision which became an embarrassment to the Jews.

Philo bridged the divide by equating Mosaic law with divine natural law and transferring to it the characteristic attributes of divine natural law which were that it was rational, true, universal, immutable, and unwritten. To accomplish this task he used the allegorical method extensively.

Paul accepted the basic Greco-Roman dichotomy between divine natural law on the one hand and human positive law on the other hand. However his response to the incongruity between biblical and classical conceptions of Divine Law was the opposite of Philo's.

Paul represented the Mosaic law as particular temporary, non-rational and not conducive to virtue. Hayes argues that Paul's representation of the Mosaic law in positive law terms was a strategic accommodation to his gentile audience. Particularizing the Mosaic law enabled Paul to argue that it did not obligate Gentiles, who's entry into "God's community" was required if the end-time visions of the prophets were to be fulfilled, was affected through faith.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote