This is what I consider the heart of Nigel's paper ...
Quote:
|
Asian Cultural Concept ‘baptized’ as an Eternal Trinitarian Principle
“China is famously Confucian.” Jackson Wu explains, “Confucianism...is socially hierarchical...All social interactions are regulated by the principle of the subordinate deferring to the superior. Thus, authority is central to ethics, values, and identity.” Hence, Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma resonates with Chinese Confucian values. Dennis McCallum astutely observes that “Late in his career, [Watchman] Nee... developed some doctrinal aberrations...These areas had to do with a heavy emphasis on authority & submission ...The emphasis on delegated human authority was in perfect harmony with Confucian ethics.” Dr. G. Wright Doyle concludes that the Chinese culture encourages authoritarian leadership. He alleges “All observers have noted the authoritarian nature of Chinese leadership, from Imperial times to the present.” Jackson Wu agrees that Chinese “culture encourages authoritarian leadership and an unwillingness to show weakness...”
These observations raise the spectre that Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma was the result of “human projection misidentified with divine revelation.” Via Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma the Asian cultural concept of an authority hierarchy was ‘baptized’ as an eternal “principle” of the Triune God. Teresa Zimmerman-Liu has argued that Watchman “Nee contextualized the message of Western missionaries to China.” W. Nee’s authority/submission dogma represents a further example of this process. Yet, there is a significant difference; styles of worship can be contextualized, producing an Asian style of worship. But the Triune God cannot be contextualized; there is neither an Oriental Trinity, nor an Occidental Trinity. There’s simply the ontological Trinity. W. Nee projected authority onto the Triune God, resulting in an Asian Trinity.
|
An Asian Trinity? Is it really true that the LC's have an Asian flavor, not just because of an abundance of Asians, but because the God presented to the LC's is an "Asian-flavored" God. Not a God of love, but a God of authority. Not a God who blesses brotherly love, but a God who blesses blind submission.
Moses could not enter the Good Land because he misrepresented God by striking the rock twice. (Numbers 20.11-12) W. Nee's authority-submission dogma has also grossly mischaracterized our God. What many typical American Christians initially interpreted as spiritual and revelatory teachings, was actually W. Nee projecting Chinese cultural norms of authority and submission into his own version of the Trinity. It took time to see the fruit of this error in action.
This, I believe, strikes at the root of LC error. Out from this faulty self-serving portrayal of an authoritarian God comes the promotion of papal-like leaders in the Recovery titled the "Minister of the Age" and the "acting god." These human leaders rob us of the Headship of Christ by becoming mediators in place of Christ. They have ruled the Recovery as the Gentiles rule the nations with an iron hand, lording it over the people of God.