Quote:
Originally Posted by formermember
I listened to the tape that Ohio and Terry referred to in the other thread, where Stephen Kuang discusses the history of the LC in China.
A phrase was used that I think was one of the most damaging concepts in the LC: when Nee was excommunicated, he "bore the cross." The implication is that Nee didn't respond to false accusations, and didn't try to vindicate himself. He suffered in silence, so that his "flesh could be dealt with."
I realize that "bearing the cross" is a Biblical concept. Jesus Himself said that we must bear the cross in order to follow him. But what does that really mean?
I know how I applied it in my own life, based on Nee's and Lee's perspective: If you are abused, if you are bullied, if you are falsely accused, if you are stressed out from too many demands being imposed on you, then don't react, don't be honest, don't try to change the situation. Instead, suffer the circumstances and "bear the cross." If you react to the authorities over you, or if you try to change the environment, that is the flesh, or the self. It can't possibly be the spirit.
Many saints in the LC thought this way. And I just don't think this can be a true application, because it enabled and legitimized so much abuse. If an older brother rebukes you improperly, then just bear the cross. If the elders make a decision that is unfair to the rest of the saints, they should just bear the cross. People's consciences became sensitized to repress any reaction, any opinion, any conflicting emotion, in the name of bearing the cross, dealing with the flesh, and just becoming more "spiritual."
Do others here have the same perspective? What does it mean to bear the cross, in a way that doesn't permit these kinds of abuses?
|
There are a number of problems with the "Watchman Nee bore the cross" idea. First, did Paul silently bear the cross before the Sanhedrin, Felix and Festus? Or did he speak up? Why did Nee "bear the cross" when his own hand-picked elders accused him of irregular business dealings and licentiousness? It makes him look unrighteous and guilty, not righteously innocent.
And, when Witness Lee argued with (ahem!)
co-worker Ruth Lee at his side, that Watchman Nee should be restored, what was his argument to the Shanghai elders? That they were in error, that WN hadn't actually sinned? No, they were apparently right, but "how did they feel" at deposing their long-time leader? Their sorrow was evidently due to God's displeasure in them, not in Watchman Nee! What a turn of events! Now
they had to "bear the cross" for Nee's sins. They were apparently "dead right" and had to be restored to "life" by allowing WN back into Deputy God status. Unbelievable.
And lastly, to what
formermember said above, if the Acting God or his family member or one of his loyal deputies sins, well just "bear the cross" and get on with things.
I think to bear the cross in NT context is what Paul repeatedly counseled. If you are a woman (he was writing when females had essentially no rights) deal with it. If you were called as a slave, be a slave. If you are a barbarian, scythian, Greek, whatever. It is not important. Bear it.
If you got saved and your husband is an unbeliever, that is God's arrangement. If your dad is an alcoholic or drug addict, if your teacher is unprofessional, just do your best. What you can't change, is God's arrangement.
Now, what you can change, you should change. If you see a crime, don't "bear the cross". Speak up. The NT and OT both make this point. Don't let unrighteousness go by, but call it out.