The Asian Mind/The Western Mind

[aron]

I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, so I'll put them here. Admin can move them if needed. This largely is in response to amrkelly's point about Asian subterfuge (relating to Dana Roberts going to the PRC to investigate WN), how the Chinese will nod and smile and feed you a load of baloney.

So I wanted to relate an experience that I had that gave me some insight to the Asian culture. I trained in martial arts for years, and once I was doing tai chi in a small room with a bunch of Chinese. We all were moving together through the forms, and if you made a bad move you would bump into the other person. You would violate their space.

If you can imagine a flock of birds flying together, and each bird has to watch out for the one in front and on the side. Each bird instinctively processes all that to keep in the space allotted, even though that space is changing, because the flock is moving. Or think of a school of fish swimming together; you get my point, I hope. At that time I really saw something of the Asian preference for "order". If everybody is free to move about in an unconstrained way, then they will bump into each other.

This is completely different from my upbringing. I grew up in the Western U.S. where there are wide open spaces and everybody has to be independent. You have to figure it out, and do it. You are not flying in a flock, but solo. The rugged individual is sort of the cultural model.

So Nee's model, and Lee's model, is a kind of Asian-leaning model, "that we would all have the same mind, and speak the same thing." The proper, orderly, harmonized church life is the conceptual vehicle that guides everything. So "Witness Lee is always right, even when he's wrong" is not so much a self-aggrandizement (though he bought into it, to some degree) but rather a central organizing principle for an orderly functioning religious body. The Big Boss speaks and we all say "Amen". So if WL says that Solomon with all his foreign wives is a type of Christ and his bride, we say "Amen". Then, if in the next breath WL says that David is not a type of Christ because he was a sinner (he numbered Israel in his pride, he dallied with Bathsheba, had Uriah the Hittite killed, he -"gasp"- threw a stone at Goliath instead of forgiving him!) we still say "Amen". Because good order in the church requires us to say "Amen" whenever WL speaks. So all of this is perfectly reasonable, even essential, in the Asian-created mind. So the "truth", or reality, of "good order in the church" is greater than the requirement for consistency when interpreting the Bible, for example.

But in my rugged individualistic "cowboy" mind, I see the verse that says, "As the wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but nobody knows where it comes from and where it goes, so is it with everyone who's born of the Spirit." So I see the "freedom of the Spirit" calling me. I don't want to wait for Headquarters to tell me how to function. In fact, I get a resentment when HQ shows up and tells me who are my "vital group" members. And I want to be free to see what I see when I read the Bible. I want to use my reason, and function in my inspired spirit.

I read the Bible and see Philip going down the south road out of Jerusalem, and running up to a chariot. Then afterward the newly saved Ethiopian went down to his home country, and Philip never told him to report to HQ for vital group assignment or full-time training. And 2,000 years later Ethiopia is still a christian nation! Who told Philip to go down to the south road? An angel! Who told him to run up to the chariot? The Holy Spirit! Deal with it. That is how God moves.

Actually, the "rugged individual" and the "harmonious coordination" aren't necessarily contradictions. They are just cultural predispositions. And I have to get over mine, and try to understand the other. Which is what I am doing here, typing this.

My point is that perhaps WL wasn't necessarily a snake oil salesman, as much as he was trying to fulfill his "church" mandate. The Living Stream Ministry, the full-time training, all of that came out of the requirements for the collective. WL's cultural predisposition wasn't the individual looking for the Spirit to guide him home. Instead his primary "vision" was the collective, and so he worked for the collective, and was willing to lie, to cover-up, to manipulate people, and to lift himself above the flock. Because he felt that was what the collective needed to go forward. All this was required for "good order in the church." So that was where the Deputy God teaching came from, and the idea of unquestioning obedience to the one in front of you.

To me this is the Hive Mind, and it has produced a lot of crazy stuff over the years, not limited to the Local Churches of Lee. I remember reading one testimony of a "rebellion", where the LSM representative angrily told the questioning Local Church elder, "We do what we are told." To some degree this is effective, but eventually it totally quenches the Spirit.

But on the other hand my cultural mindset can fixate on "freedom" and end up being wild, uncoordinated, and not caring for anyone else. Then I'm useless to God. So I'm not saying that my cultural metaphor is superior, just trying to understand how others think. Does anyone else have any insight to the "Asian mind", as I've tried to relate to it?

[zeek]

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance lest we simply confirm our prejudices to ourselves. Or is there some value in comparing and contrasting prejudices in a discussion such as is possible here? Or rather I should say that is what I would like to avoid if possible.

[zeek]

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

Do you have any evidence to support this proposition? Do all Chinese lack creativity? If only some or even most, than how much less creative are they than whom? Americans? How do you put a meter on creativity?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Do you have any evidence to support this proposition? Do all Chinese lack creativity? If only some or even most, than how much less creative are they than whom? Americans? How do you put a meter on creativity?

I put a meter on Chinese creativity but the original products and new technologies that the whole world buys from China. What are they?..

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance...

http://www.asanet.org/images/members...hart_Baker.pdf

From American Sociological Review, 2000.

Turns out Asians are much more rational... "I do this because it's the best thing to do" versus Americans who are more traditional... "I do this because my daddy did it."

But Asians are more oriented toward social coherence and conformity... "I do this because that's what the group wants me to do" versus Americans who are more independent... "I do this because I want to do it."

Zeek is right, though: I should have titled this thread something less inflammatory and provocative, like "Shared cultural norms and values: East vs West"

I've been tooting this horn about the dichotomy between Eastern and Western cultures being at the root of the problems in the Recovery for years. Waking up to the realization that I had grown up in, and given my life to propagate, an incognito Chinese church was deeply disturbing, but the conviction only gets clearer as the years go by.

I stumbled in here today by chance. Wasn't even aware this forum existed. Reading this thread almost gave me goosebumps, to finally hear some traction for this understanding. In a discussion that I didn't personally initiate, no less. Actually, most of what I've had are monologues, not discussions. Nice to see that someone else can connect the dots.

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door, or a requiring a profession of doctrinal faith that one must sign in order to be fully received into the circle of fellowship. Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

On the one hand, I believe this is the glaringly obvious "elephant in the room" that even the current leaders in the Recovery acknowledge has been wreaking havoc and hemorrhaging the life-blood of what, by all rights, should be a thriving organism. Whether they see the elephant for what it truly is or not is not for me to say, but I've been encouraged just to hear they acknowledge the problems it causes for them. And that encouragement is not rooted in cynicism toward them.

On the other hand, though, there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it. I bumped into it daily, got trampled by it with bothersome frequency, and wrestled with it on and off for over a decade before all the loose threads of my chronic frustrations got tied together by the common thread of Asian culture, at which point the resultant tapestry finally came together. It was a relief in the small sense that the puzzle finally got solved and yielded a coherent picture. But it was devastating at the same time -- my faith got rocked and my Christian life got shipwrecked by the disappointment. Blindness is not always willful, and the more painful the picture, the more innate subconscious defense mechanisms there are to prevent you from seeing it.

Plus, it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing. I blame no one for not being able to connect the dots without help. It took me about 30 pages even just to put my thoughts on the topic together when a brother asked me to connect the dots for him by giving detailed explanations rather than generalizations. It's like walking someone through calculus, when you can jump 5 steps at a time, but they need each little one spelled out for them separately in order to see the connections at first. I'll probably share pieces of that effort here as the discussion progresses, but I'm leery of becoming one more disgruntled bozo with an angry manifesto. (Sorry if that that offends anyone here; I trust most of you here, like me, have been there for a time, even if you've moved past that phase.)

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them. Some of you here, I feel, have some issues with bitterness that you would do well to seek help dealing with. God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones. I have no interest in participating in that or providing ammunition for those who are just looking for rocks to throw rather than to build something with.

If there have been moral or ethical wrongdoings that set some of you off, I can't speak to that, as I never noticed such things in greater frequency or severity than are common to any institution, sacred or secular. I'm just talking about the personal offenses and reactionary cynicism that rise up when a person finds out they don't fit in to something they had hoped to be a part of at some point. I still struggle with disappointment that there seems to be no place for me among what those dear folks are doing. But I'm dealing with it, and staying positive is part of how that is best done.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

Of course not, on both accounts. On the 2nd account she was my wife. What do you think?

But I was shaped by it, and have views based upon it ... that certainly doesn't speak for all Chinese.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

. that certainly doesn't speak for all Chinese.

Nor was I, nor any of us. But it does show how Titus Chu could stand in front of WL in public and declare how "ashamed" he was that Cleveland was not fully implemented in the new way. It does show how the majority could sit there and think, "Oh, this is good. This is a well-regulated church life." In another society that might be a sign of despotism.

People do polls all the time. It's not some secret science. What does the population think about this value, versus that value? Then they know what to title the next Hollywood movie or fragrance or utility vehicle.

Generalizations are merely generalizations. I am not afraid to make them. I don't pretend they are some absolute truth for all people at all times. If anyone is offended by my making a generalization, well I will go look at the poll numbers and see if I can back it up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

It's hard to well nigh impossible to separate certain teachings like Nee and Lee's Deputy Authority from several millennia of Chinese dynasties.

Even the British mindset, with centuries of the ruling monarchy, differs from the pioneering mindset of the US.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

To my best knowledge, Professor Hofstede’s extensive research is quite famous. For example, China is low in score, vs. US in terms of individualism. (China 20 vs US 91). Most of top MBAs are teaching this to their students for mulinational biz operation. check here -> https://www.hofstede-insights.com/co...Cunited+states


I don’t know how much this result influenced WL’s putting together his teaching on “being identical” of the LCs, but I can say that some portion was operative.

FYI, I’m a native born Korean who speak Korean, English, Chinese, and Japanese with a lot of experience of living or traveling Asia, plus extensive study of ancient and middle-age Chinese philosopies.

[WitnessALot]

Originally Posted by Gubei

To my best knowledge, Professor Hofstede’s extensive research is quite famous. For example, China is low in score, vs. US in terms of individualism. (China 20 vs US 91). Most of top MBAs are teaching this to their students for mulinational biz operation. check here -> https://www.hofstede-insights.com/co...Cunited+states


I don’t know how much this result influenced WL’s putting together his teaching on “being identical” of the LCs, but I can say that some portion was operative.

FYI, I’m a native born Korean who speak Korean, English, Chinese, and Japanese with a lot of experience of living or traveling Asia, plus extensive study of ancient and middle-age Chinese philosopies.

I remember that Lee would sometimes say that other Christians had accused him of mixing Buddhist "flavor" in with his Christian teachings, or something like that. Of course, he strongly rejected that notion. Gubei, do you think there are elements of Chinese philosophy in Nee's or Lee's teachings?

One possible example that comes to my mind is when Nee said that a younger brother should always follow and respect an older brother -- even if the age difference was only a few months. As I remember it, he asserted this with no Biblical basis, but acted like it was so important.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

Gubei, do you think there are elements of Chinese philosophy in Nee's or Lee's teachings?

WitnessAlot,

1) Buddhist flavor of WL’s teachings

WL doesn’t seem to have been exposed to the doctrines of Buddhist philosophies. I’ve read/listened to most of his works, and he sometimes talked about the Confucian teachings but not Buddhist teachings. The reason someone criticizes him of the similarity of his teaching with Buddhist is that Buddhist teachings, especially those of Mahayana Buddhism, are quite similar to some aspects of the NT teachings. Some new religions’ leaders or Theosophy leaders have claimed that Jesus was under the teachings of ancient India or Buddhism, but to my best knowledge, on the contrary, the Greek philosophies and/or Christian teachings might have been brought to Asia through the conquest activities of Alexander the Great. Currently, many people believe that the canons of Mahayana Buddhism were initiated in Bactria, a central Asia city, where Alexander the Great established his base for East conquest.
In addition, Taoist teachings are also very similar to the organic aspect of growth of divine life within us. Xingmingguizhi(性命圭旨) is a very famous ancient Taoist book, where the author claims that we should learn and practice how to raise up/breed the embryo of truth or little Buddha within us.

And calling upon the name of the Lord is seen in the OT and NT. BTW, one of middle age Mahayana Buddhist Oder said calling upon the name of Buddha is crucial, in this case Amita Buddha, and doing it will deliver you from this sinful world to the paradise, and that teaching has spread extensively in Asia. Now, you can see many Asian films, especially martial arts film, where Buddhist monks always recites Amita Buddha (sounds like AMITABU or AMITAFO or AMITAFA). In Japan, middle age Buddhist Monk Shinran said our salvation is not through our own good works but from Buddha himself something like that. So western theologians dubbed him as, kind of, the Luther of Asia.

Anyway, the three Asian philosophies (Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism) all to some extent claims that human beings should be one with the divine entity or God. But, just because they claim this doesn’t necessarily mean the NT teachings or WL’s teachings are from the ancient Asian thoughts. If we delve into the details, there are so many discrepancies.

2) Social acceptance

I guess we can use social acceptance exchangeably with culture. It is very of course that we should follow the culture of a specific time and place, like When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
According to a newspaper article in 2022, Rev. John Piper, a famous Bible teacher and writer in US said that regardless of time and space, all the Christians should practice the holy kiss as a greeting in Church. You can check here https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...y-affectionate

Really? In Asian culture, it is absolutely impossible to use kiss as a greeting, socially unacceptable.

3) Ancestor worship and seniority rule in the Church

Ancestor worship is the hallmark of Confucianism. We know respecting our parents are one of commandment of the OT’s Ten Commandments. However, I guess Confucian teachings went too far in this matter. Not only parents, so many ancestors should be respected by way of strict Confucian rituals by descendants. This means they put too much emphasis on the big family collectively rather than individuals. In Confucianism, this filial obligation is extended to King-servant relationship, where servant should be perfectly obedient to King. That’s why ancient Chinese feudal leaders accepted Confucianism as their governing principle.

"One publication" remindes me of the Emperor's edicts of ancient Chinese feudal system. This is not acceptable to most of modern Asian countries.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Ancestor worship and seniority rule in the Church

Ancestor worship is the hallmark of Confucianism. We know respecting our parents are one of commandment of the OT’s Ten Commandments. However, I guess Confucian teachings went too far in this matter. Not only parents, so many ancestors should be respected by way of strict Confucian rituals by descendants. This means they put too much emphasis on the big family collectively rather than individuals. In Confucianism, this filial obligation is extended to King-servant relationship, where servant should be perfectly obedient to King. That’s why ancient Chinese feudal leaders accepted Confucianism as their governing principle.

This reminds me of what I noticed in the LC in the U. S. - the Caucasians would abandon their non-believing family - "The church is my family now" - whilst the Chinese 'saints' would keep unbelieving family members close by. Also your point about Asians not kissing one another is an example of why I started this thread. Culture determines how we interpret the Bible, and arrange our collective expressions. "Greet one another with a holy kiss" would be ignored in Asia, but would be literally enacted elsewhere.

[WitnessALot]

Originally Posted by Gubei

WitnessAlot,

1) Buddhist flavor of WL’s teachings

WL doesn’t seem to have been exposed to the doctrines of Buddhist philosophies. I’ve read/listened to most of his works, and he sometimes talked about the Confucian teachings but not Buddhist teachings. The reason someone criticizes him of the similarity of his teaching with Buddhist is that Buddhist teachings, especially those of Mahayana Buddhism, are quite similar to some aspects of the NT teachings. Some new religions’ leaders or Theosophy leaders have claimed that Jesus was under the teachings of ancient India or Buddhism, but to my best knowledge, on the contrary, the Greek philosophies and/or Christian teachings might have been brought to Asia through the conquest activities of Alexander the Great. Currently, many people believe that the canons of Mahayana Buddhism were initiated in Bactria, a central Asia city, where Alexander the Great established his base for East conquest.

Hi Gubei, thanks for clarifying the difference between Buddhism and Confucianism. I think it's fair to say that Witness Lee drew on a lot of different sources -- so many that he himself may have lost track of it -- but also added many of his nuances. The result is the "Witness Lee strange brew" that we all spent years/decades marinating in. And it evolved and morphed over time based on Lee's little whims.

As to number 2, personally, I think that religion and culture are usually inextricable to some degree or another. So the history of missionaries (and armies) carrying religions around the world throughout history is filled with this dynamic of cultural elements from one place attempting to supplant cultural elements in other places. The two things go hand-in-hand (i.e., the religious supplanting and the cultural supplanting).

[InChristAlone]

Good observation, Aron.

I'm neither Western nor Asian but I live in a Chinese community. I like these people. Though I believe I'll be always an outsider for them. Anyway, in three words, I'd describe the Chinese mentality as:

1) Subordination;
2) Collectiveness;
3) “Us” versus “Them” mentality. (Well, that is slightly more than one word )

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

BTW, can you guess whose quote is this: "The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

Actually that's quite perceptive. In the U.S. you'd never get away with subordinating the individual. Our country is founded on the rights of the individual coming first.

Of course the state has been encroaching steadily but it is telling that no politician could make that kind of statement in the U.S. today but they can, and have, in China. That's exactly what I was alluding to in starting this thread.

If you look back at the Local Church established in the U.S. by Witness Lee as a product of someone who came from a society where a Mao Tse Tung could make that statement, then what we experienced there suddenly doesn't seem so weird after all. It almost makes perfect sense.

"The individual is subordinate to the collective" in spiritual terms became morphed into "Christ and the church" which of course is directed by Christ's bondslave Witness Lee who just happens to have the ministry of the age. So if you don't subordinate yourself utterly (being "one") to the ministry of the age, which is actually fronted by a book publishing house (and now a multimedia company) then you are not cooperating with God on the earth today.

The collective thus becomes the lens through which reality itself is perceived. God is pushed off, somewhere beyond the collective, waiting for us to approach Him through the "church life".

[zeek]

Mao Tse-tung was a self-described Marxist-Leninist. The principles of the collective that he refers to, he got from them. Marx and Lenin were Europeans. So, in what sense are these ideas "Asian"? Also, isn't subordinating oneself to a collective the opposite of subordinating oneself to one man like the MOTA?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mao Tse-tung was a self-described Marxist-Leninist. The principles of the collective that he refers to, he got from them. Marx and Lenin were Europeans. So, in what sense are these ideas "Asian"? Also, isn't subordinating oneself to a collective the opposite of subordinating oneself to one man like the MOTA?

Do you believe it was an accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political and economic theory?

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist Party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist Party of China (LRC).

BTW, in the USSR, they used a similar formula for one of the Party slogans: “We say 'Lenin' and mean the Party. We say 'the Party' and mean Lenin.” All sects, cults, and totalitarian regimes have similar characteristics. They just need a breeding ground.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It was no accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political theory.

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist party of China (LRC).

And "The lower level is [not] subordinate to the higher level"

And like the CPC, in the LRC your are OUTTA THERE ... ELIMINATED.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you believe it was an accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political and economic theory?

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist Party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist Party of China (LRC).

BTW, in the USSR, they used a similar formula for one of the Party slogans: “We say 'Lenin' and mean the Party. We say 'the Party' and mean Lenin.” All sects, cults, and totalitarian regimes have similar characteristics. They just need a breeding ground.

I don't know. "Breeding ground" is a nebulous term. Anywhere that communism took over may be supposed to be a breeding ground. It's a truism. But then, the LRC took hold among some indigenous Americans. Was there something Asian about us as compared with those that rejected the LRC?

I did find some support for the OP thesis in this article, http://www.develop-top-talent.com/ta...or-styles-asia that states "This research showed that cultural difference do indeed show up in self-expressed behavioral preferences by leaders. However, within each culture there is still room for a diversity of styles and approaches even where one or a cluster of styles is preferred more often than others." But, whether a leadership style is a matter of cultural difference or individual difference is going to be a judgment call in every case, isn't it?

[caveman]

OK, I'm registered now. Post #14 is mine. Upon re-reading it I wish I could go back and edit some things. Sounds arrogant the way that came out. I'll dodge the light and claim I wasn't my usual charming self only due to lack of sleep.

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, the "rugged individual" and the "harmonious coordination" aren't necessarily contradictions. They are just cultural predispositions. And I have to get over mine, and try to understand the other. Which is what I am doing here, typing this. ... my cultural mindset can fixate on "freedom" and end up being wild, uncoordinated, and not caring for anyone else. Then I'm useless to God. So I'm not saying that my cultural metaphor is superior, just trying to understand how others think. Does anyone else have any insight to the "Asian mind", as I've tried to relate to it?

At the risk of sounding arrogant again, I think I've got some insights into this that I'll try to share as time allows. I think your own insights are fully in line with the reality of the situation, though, and it's nice to see you are honest enough to apply the same critical standards to your own culture.

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

Easy. "Ethnic" is spelled e-t-h-n-i-c, and "cultural" is spelled c-u-l-t-u-r-a-l. When someone speaks about cultural matters, don't assumr they're talking about racial ones. It's that simple. To suggest that it is somehow difficult to discuss the two separately without being racist is extremely PC, and stifles legitimate & respectful discussion. Keep in mind that cultural stereotypes are not the same thing as ethnic stereotypes, and that the former, unlike the latter, tend to be descriptive rather than vicious, and are quite often rooted in reality. Everyone knows that when it comes to complex systems like people, generalizations don't fit all situations, and that there are exceptions to every rule. But that doesn't mean the generalizations and rules don't still do a good job of accurately describing things most of the time.

Originally Posted by aron

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

The East/West divide alluded to in the OP is a very well-established and universally accepted dichotomy in academia. It is one of the most obvious and most striking phenomena in global cultural studies.

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance lest we simply confirm our prejudices to ourselves. Or is there some value in comparing and contrasting prejudices in a discussion such as is possible here? Or rather I should say that is what I would like to avoid if possible.

I'm guessing that you have felt victimized by prejudice at some point in life. Please forgive if I'm being too presumptuous. I'm not trying to patronize you. But I don't understand your repeated suggestions that cultural differences can't be discussed respectfully outside the realm of racial stereotypes and prejudice, both of which imply open bigotry. Especially considering the tone of the OP, which I felt was a perfect example of someone's respectful insight into cultural differences. He was every bit as appreciative of Eastern cultural values as he was of his own Western ones, and offered just as much criticism of his Western ones as he did about their Eastern ones. That's called a respectful, balanced discussion, with no hint of the racial or bigoted stereotypes and prejudices that you seem to be afraid of. Where's the problem? Are folks just supposed to consider cultural differences taboo for fear that someone might say they're racist for noticing that such things exist?

Originally Posted by zeek

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

Does anecdotal evidence have any place at all in your universe? If he gives you quantifiable evidence, will you then question the statistical validity of those numbers? The guy is just trying to have a discussion.

Originally Posted by aron

Zeek is right, though: I should have titled this thread something less inflammatory and provocative, like "Shared cultural norms and values: East vs West"

Nothing against Zeek personally, but I disagree. I fail to see how either title is less inflammatory or provocative than the other. Am I just blind and insensitive? Both seem perfectly fine. What I feel is provocative and inflammatory is to suggest that generalizations about cultural differences are inherently racist, bigoted, or critical, and that they shouldn't be discussed without first issuing a full-page disclaimer before each and every sentence that someone can potentially misinterpret in a manner that wasn't intended.

Sorry. Maybe I just need to get some more sleep again. I know I'm new here so I hope I'm not crossing the line.

[love4truth]

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

My experience in the Local Church was much like yours. It appears that the experience is fresh for you. I encourage you to free yourself from the Local Church culture if you can and you haven't already.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

Welcome to the forum!

The ONLY holiday which the church endorced was the celebration of Chinese New Year. Supposedly it was celebrated as a means to introduce Chinese guests to the gospel. But why then didn't we use Christmas to introduce American guests to the gospel?

Friendships in the LC's are discouraged. The members are convinced that friendships spoil their spiritual sacrifice much like honey spoiled the OT offerings. The teaching is extremely manipulative, forcing member loyalties to only adhere to LSM leadership, and no others.

[aron]

From Don Rutledge

Ray Graver was strongly bent toward the teaching of “Deputy Authority.” He believed that in every activity of the church deputy authority should be manifested. Before the consolidation in Houston a few brothers in Waco and Lubbock were given copies of the “Eldership Papers.” These were messages given by Witness Lee in Taiwan. One of the main points was that there was an order in the eldership and in all manifestations of God’s work. There was a number one elder, a number two elder, a number three elder, and so forth. The same was true in the practical service in the church, such as cleaning the meeting hall, serving in the children’s meeting, and preparing food for a love feast. Until the number one person made a decision, there would be discussion (fellowship) regarding a matter, but once the “number one” gave his judgment all fellowship was over on that matter and any desire for further discussion was considered to be dissension and against God’s authority.

Ray Graver had come up with a teaching and a principle from the listings of the names of the twelve apostles in the New Testament. He discovered that the various listings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts could be divided into three groups of four and that the first name in each grouping was always the same. Therefore, one might infer that here was a clue regarding divine deputy authority. While the order of number two, three and four could shift, the number one was always the same.

This was introduced about the same time that the elders set up the practical service with various service groups. The elders used a model that Witness Lee had used in China and Taiwan. All the members of the church were organized into various service groups: children’s meetings, cleaning, yard work, visitation etc. They also appointed four deacons including myself four deacons, one of which was myself. Ray met with me personally to go over the entire service list. He emphasized that I was the number one deacon and should communicate with each service group through the number one person listed under each group. I was specifically charged to draw up a procedural manual for the deacons called “the common way.” This was a term and practice lifted directly from Witness Lee’s practice in China and Taiwan. The elders charged each service group leadership to develop a “common way” and to submit it to the deacons.

I never complied and never developed a “common way.” I was the youngest brother and newest Christian among the deacons (Don Looper, Herman Massey and Jim Coleman being the other three), and for me to have some kind of official leadership or authority was a little silly.

When I moved to Dallas, the “number one” concept and “common way” practice were left behind in Houston with Ray Graver. We did have service groups with leadership and oversight, but did not carry out Ray Graver’s concept.

Ray was very gifted in the area of organizing activities and projects. He worked hard to push for one project after another. Over time, his projects became more important than his participation in church meetings, shepherding, fellowship and gospel work. The more he dedicated himself to the projects coming from Witness Lee or Benson Phillips, the more he became suspicious of individual saints and different churches. Eventually he saw a competition between the spiritual work of an individual saint and an LSM project. He seemed to always think that the worst motives were motivating an individual saint, and especially those of a local leadership.

Witness Lee had an illustration regarding how “the self” is expressed and how to apply the cross to “the self.” He often declared that your opinion is the expression of the self. Thus, when someone offered a different perspective from that of a “number one,” they may be exhorted to deny their self by denying their opinion even if they are “right.” Ray Graver and a few others ran with this notion. They applied it widely. It seemed that there were a number of West Texans who latched onto this idea: Francis Ball, James Barber, Benson Phillips, Ben McPherson and others. Though Ray was originally from Virginia, he went to college at Wayland and adopted the West Texas code. I believe that the cultural background of the leadership was a big factor in the development of the local churches in the USA.(My italics)

The men from West Texas brought a male-dominated and male-centric culture into the local churches that melded well with the male-dominated culture of China, the place where Witness Lee and other leaders were from. These West Texans were anything but weak. Several came from the oil fields and working ranches. They could sacrifice comfort and self interest and expected the same from others. The West Texas culture promoted strong leaders and fierce loyalty to the leader. The followers of the leader were expected to lay aside their own feelings and follow the leader fearlessly into whatever situation they may face.

Lest the reader ask “where does Don Rutledge get off talking about West Texas culture?”, let me mention that Baylor University, my school, has the Texas Library and Texas Ranger Museum. It is the center for the study of Texas history. While in Waco, I developed an interest in Western history and particularly Texas history. This has been a hobby of mine for forty-plus years. I have read scores of books on this subject including many on the character of the early and later Texans.

In contrast to West Texas, I come from the poorest section of the USA, the lower Mississippi River valley. I did appreciated the West Texans’ rugged character, as I myself had slept in the rain, had friends who needed to hunt and fish for food and who worked “can till can’t” in the hot southern sun. (“Can till can’t” means this: you start working when there is enough daylight so that one “can” see and you do not stop until it is so dark that one “can’t” see.) There was no lunch break. You ate whatever you had while you worked. You were not paid by the hour but by the day, provided the boss thought you had worked hard enough. I did see young teenage boys sent home without any pay because they had not pulled their share of the load. As a result, they faced a beating at home. But the next day, they did “jump up and turn around” and carry their share of the work. Thus, I appreciated the West Texan toughness, but I did not come from a culture which honored a leader as did the West Texans did. In fact, we in Arkansas had plenty of resentment toward the exploiting “planter class” which oppressed the peasants. It was sports that provided us a level ground with the sons of the planters. During pre-season, our high school football team had live scrimmages and hitting drills every day. The hitting and contact was ferocious. Not one son of a planter ever survived pre-season. They all would quit rather than continue to take the beating the peasants handed them.

We peasants had sympathy toward the weaker members of our society, and especially for ones oppressed. I believe the Lord Jesus puts into his believers a strong desire to bestow more abundant honor on the less comely and to protect the weak. One of the main reasons I eventually left the local churches was the rough treatment received by weaker ones and ones whose opinions did not match the leaders’ ideas. I recognize in some ways my reaction to the “lording it over” that came in later days may have been partly due to my culture. (My italics) Ransford Ackah of Ghana once told me, “Don, you always favor the poor.” I had to confess to him that his statement was true. Regardless of our background, culture, disposition, or how our mother raised us, we all need to be transformed and conformed to Christ. As this book develops, I ask the reader to allow me to comment on the personalities and background of different leading figures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

From Don Rutledge

Ray Graver had come up with a teaching and a principle from the listings of the names of the twelve apostles in the New Testament. He discovered that the various listings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts could be divided into three groups of four and that the first name in each grouping was always the same. Therefore, one might infer that here was a clue regarding divine deputy authority. While the order of number two, three and four could shift, the number one was always the same.

I have three questions: do you really think for a minute that Paul rebuking Peter in front of the rest, in the account of Galatians chapter 2, meant that Paul was now possessor of the "ministry of the age"? How about maybe that Paul simply felt that Peter was wrong?

#2 If the apostle John and Paul were in the same room, do you think that John would really listen to Watchman Nee's idea that he should know who was over him (i.e. Paul)? John would laugh in Nee's face if he told him to be submissive to Paul. Nor, importantly, did John ever attempt to boss Paul.

#3. Did John then get restored to the "mantle" once Paul exited the scene, to write his memoirs (Gospel, epistles, Apocalypse)? Now that he was the Big Kahuna he got the Spirit to write?

This "God can only move through one servant; all others must line up" idea is looney tunes. It was from Jump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This "God can only move through one servant; all others must line up" idea is looney tunes.

It is just incredible to think that we truly believed that the God of the universe, Who upholds all things by the word of His power, Who alone knows the hearts of some 7 billion people, not to mention all the creation we no nothing about, would limit Himself to the speaking of one fallen, limited, mortal man.

Like aron said, that was akin to looney tunes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

Welcome love4truth.

Take heart. I have bunches of friends from the local church. But they are all exLCers. In fact, my most dearest and precious friends are from the local church. And I love them to death.

But we weren't suppose to be friends while in the LC.

What a funny and unnatural rule and practice not having friends is. Of course the supposed reason is that, our hearts are suppose to be wholly for Christ, and nothing else. They seem to forget about "the least of these."

My advice is to run, run, run, from the LC. If your LC friend cuts contact with you after leaving, she wasn't a real friend in the first place ; she's just pretending to be a friend, while hoping you get captured in the LC.

Go find a church where they've never heard of such a silly rule. That's not a cult.

If you stay, not being friends is just one aspect of your humanity that will be condemned and stripped away. It's a cult. You won't be allowed to even be your self, if you stay. You'll have to take Witness Lee's personally as your own.

Run Forest run.

[aron]

More from Don Rutledge's testimony on Local Church leadership

Originally Posted by Hope

We occasionally visited the small church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In late 1973 while visiting there, we were joined for a day by Max Rapaport of San Diego. It seemed like an audition. He spent a long time, two to three hours, telling us how well San Diego was doing because of his leadership and “his” gift in the gospel and shepherding. He told us Witness Lee wanted him to be president of Daystar. According to Max, the business was about to go under and needed him to rescue it. He said he was willing to give up his very successful insurance business in order to serve Witness Lee. He declared that he did not want Witness Lee occupied with business but rather to give his full attention to the ministry of the word. He also stressed that Witness Lee was very concerned for the lack of gospel work and increase in the churches and was looking to Max to help all the churches. Finally, Max stated that many of the elders were not qualified to care for the churches.

As soon as Max finished with his report, he left to return to San Diego. He seemed to have no interest in what was happening in Albuquerque or in Dallas. Bob Bynum told me I looked like the RCA dog staring into the phonograph as I listened to Max. The next day, on the way home, I asked Benson Phillips regarding what had transpired. He said that if Witness Lee was going with Max, he was going with Max. Things would never be the same again

I find that statement from Benson very telling: "He said that if Witness Lee was going with Max, he was going with Max." And as soon as WL dumped MR, so did BP & the WL loyalists.

One of my Local Church elders was very similar: if Elder #1 said to jump off a bridge, we all were to jump. So your conscience and following the Spirit and discerning the word all got telescoped to a very narrow range, that of supporting the one over you. "Follow the one in front of you." In some cultures this may be more normative but I find it very anathematic, yet I tried, "for the church life".

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

(Opening Post) I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, so I'll put them here. Admin can move them if needed. This largely is in response to amrkelly's point about Asian subterfuge (relating to Dana Roberts going to the PRC to investigate WN), how the Chinese will nod and smile and feed you a load of baloney...

It is a very complex issue because it involves both historical and cultural aspects. I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him. But somehow I came up with that idea--to look to an authority, a deputy, someone tangible, like a quanyin goddess. So it came, don't defy, don't question, just follow.

"The Eastern Mind" might explain the prosperity of the local church in Taiwan and China, but not in America (other than Chinese Americans). Did you weep over one of American presidents' death? I bet not. Did I and the majority of Chinese and Taiwanese weep over Mao's and Chiang's death? I bet we did. Why so stupid? Don't know. I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church. (Maybe not Western minds, please correct me.)

Chinese were oppressed by Western powers and Taiwanese were colonized by Western powers and Japan in the past. You might see that long term effects on the people. Then, the Lord came to rescue us and deliver us. The gospel was good and the church life was sweet, then, some things went south. When I became the weak one, when I can't fly in sync, when I can't swim accordingly, I left on my own. I don't blame them. I prayed that I will stay alive, not hit by a car or die instantly, to take care of my family. It is quite a sad story.

[awareness]

Great to hear from you Eph ...

Originally Posted by Eph

I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him.

Just yesterday another brother and I were laughing at the idea of being a mini-mota, or a wannabe mini-mota.

Originally Posted by Eph

But somehow I came up with that idea--to look to an authority, a deputy, someone tangible, like a quanyin goddess. So it came, don't defy, don't question, just follow.

Do you think this is where Nee came up with Deputy/Delegated Authority? Was it a cultural source/cause?

Originally Posted by Eph

I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church. (Maybe not Western minds, please correct me.)

WITNESS LEE, CHRISTIAN TEACHER - not scholar, not theologian ... just teacher ... got that:
http://www.lcinfo.org/?page=writings/media/obituary

[Eph]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great to hear from you Eph ...
Do you think this is where Nee came up with Deputy/Delegated Authority? Was it a cultural source/cause?

I am not familiar with Nee's work. I received teachings that Nee is a very spiritual man, full of God's life and presence. God listens to his prayers and I wish I can be like Nee. And I am not supposed to read his writings "Spiritual Man?" because it is too deep that I as a young believer will get confused. I am out of his league. So I never did. I read the Normal Christian Life though, but forgot what it is about.

Maybe Aron can answer this question for us?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Eph

And I am not supposed to read his writings "Spiritual Man?" because it is too deep that I as a young believer will get confused. I am out of his league.

That's a good one. Long ago, prolly before you were born, I was told not to read The Spiritual Man because it could cause me to become demon possessed.

I read it anyway. Actually, I ran to it faster than Eve ran to the forbidden tree. And yes, there's a serpent in that paradise.

I feel I should tell you. Watchman Nee was a man, a human, just like you & me. And yes, he was deified in Shanghai. Like Lee was deified here in America.

Why we have to deify men is beyond me. I guess we don't like who we are, so we hope that if other men can be deified, so can we.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by awareness

I read it anyway. Actually, I ran to it faster than Eve ran to the forbidden tree.

This is a good one.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

It is quite a sad story.

Don't buy the lie.

The LSM loves all the "sad stories" of those who perish outside their flock. They want you to go down, because that lifts them and their gospel up. Don't believe the lie.

This system is built on the concept of "other" which is actually a biological phenomenon but has been well-honed in Asian society. The system requires a "sad story" periodically to make it work. To do this someone needs to be designated as the "other"; it could be Max Rappoport, Jane Anderson, John Ingalls, or yourself. Or Titus Chu, Dong Yu Lan, Steve Isitt, Bill Mallon, John So, The Bible Answer Man... can I stop now? Can we see the pattern?

Then the bad sheep, the newly-discovered and announced "scapegoats", are publicly "flogged and executed", to keep the other sheep inside the pen. So their narrative needs you to #1 be pushed out, and #2 to come to a bad end. They don't want you to be saved. Their institutionally-biased narrative forgets the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, and so they tell one another, "It is necessary for one man(or woman) to perish, that the group is saved." So they pick on yet another scapegoat. Their system of "social harmony" needs it.

That's the opposite of Jesus' way. In the Jesus system, the Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes to find the lost sheep. Then the other 99 celebrate when their brother is returned to them. But in the LSM system, occasionally one sheep has to be publicly whipped (metaphorically speaking) and turned into a "the other" to keep the remaining 99 well-behaved and compliant. So their narrative structure, of "Us" versus "Them", wants you as the "other" to suffer and eventually to be destroyed. Don't buy into the lie. Don't offer yourself on their altar.

Actually, if you want to look at it that way, everybody has a sad story: you, me, and Witness Lee. All of us, I cannot overstress this, all of us, were bad sheep who went astray. Only Jesus made it back to the Father. Christ is the victor. There is only one name by which we may be saved. Keep your eyes on Jesus, and keep your heart fully engaged in pursuing Him. Don't be distracted by anything or anyone else. Everything else is a trap. Jesus presents you with the way home to our Father in heaven. This earth is not your home. "In My Father's house are many, many mansions". There is one waiting for you. That is why you wrote your comments. That is why you are going on. Because you believe it. As Jesus said, "Where I am going, you know the way." This is the gospel story.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him..

In my meetings, we were told to be "Brother Lee tape machines" and repeat what we heard. And the trainings, even the Local Churches, were called "Witness Lee duplication centers". I don't know how much these ideas and phrases originated with him, but I suppose that they came from his inner ring of "cheerleaders" and he heard this kind of talk.

Originally Posted by Eph

"The Eastern Mind" might explain the prosperity of the local church in Taiwan and China, but not in America (other than Chinese Americans). Did you weep over one of American presidents' death? I bet not. Did I and the majority of Chinese and Taiwanese weep over Mao's and Chiang's death? I bet we did. Why so stupid? Don't know. I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church.

In America, we took the "Normal Christian Church" idea of Nee as from God, not as a product of the "Eastern Mind". So even though "Submission" seemed strange to our culture, we tried to copy it because we thought it was from heaven.

But I noticed certain warning signs that Nee's "Normal Church" life was merely human culture.

1. The exaltation of one person. I was at the Anaheim meeting hall and saw Chinese visitors posing next to Witness Lee's leather chair. Like it was a shrine.

2. Despising the poor. Of course the poor are despised everywhere but at least we in the West pretend to care. Jesus certainly cared. The Local Church way was, "Too bad for you." This, to me, is very Asian.

3. The Group triumphs fully over the Individual. Again, this has inroads everywhere but in the West we have the idea of individual human rights, even though we can't always follow it.

4. Order over freedom. Very similar to number 3, except this is in behavior. In the Lord's Recovery, you have complete freedom, as long as everything that you do is for the building up of the Group. And the Maximum Brother has told us what is for the building up of the Group.

5. Constant fighting, with "us" versus "them". This is a basic principle of much social organization. Without a "them" there is no "us". And the two are usually antagonistic. This is clearly fallen, and not exclusive to Asian culture, but in the Lord's Recovery it was filtered through Asian social expression.

Originally Posted by Eph

Chinese were oppressed by Western powers and Taiwanese were colonized by Western powers and Japan in the past. You might see that long term effects on the people. Then, the Lord came to rescue us and deliver us. The gospel was good and the church life was sweet, then, some things went south.

I understand the idea of foreign oppression, and tried to address this in my posts. Western colonialism and imperialism gave fertile ground for the "native" church movement of the early 20th century. But once Watchman Nee got a flock of thousands, he tried to control it. Nee went from being the "oppressed" to the "oppressor"... now his "vision" was no longer "local" but "the Jerusalem principle", the consolidation of power. So Nee showed that he was merely a human being. Likewise the Asian culture is not a stranger to imperialism, political, economic, or cultural. Asian culture knows how to be both "dominant" and "submissive"; in the 19th century the West dominated, and in the early- to mid- 20th century the pendulum of power began to swing back. The rise of the Little Flock, and its export to the U.S. in the Lord's Recovery, is an example of that.

My main point of starting the thread was that a lot of what we thought was a biblically- and scripturally-based "Normal Church Life" was really filtered through a human culture. But we didn't see it, so we took it as if it came from heaven. Yet all of the "storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions" show us otherwise. "By its fruit a tree is fully manifested."

For example, the idea of "losing face" was clearly and repeatedly manifested. When Max Rappoport found Philip Lee misbehaving, Witness Lee couldn't be allowed to lose face. That would undermine the whole social order. Likewise Titus Chu could not lose face to Benson Philips. So yet another "storm" would break out. So a "natural" force is really controlling what we are told is the "divine order".

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

2. Despising the poor. Of course the poor are despised everywhere but at least we in the West pretend to care. Jesus certainly cared. The Local Church way was, "Too bad for you." This, to me, is very Asian.

My observation is that the West is acculturated with the Christian values so you geniunely care for the poor. Then, you have the Gates Foundation with Buffet's full support to help the poor around the world. In the East, people usually leave their wealth to the heirs, not the charity. However, some charity groups such as Tzu Chi, a buddism in nature charity organiation, did a great job in helping the poor and needed. It really turns me off when the local church christians despised Tzu Chi and said that it is not a work of Christ.

4. Order over freedom. Very similar to number 3, except this is in behavior. In the Lord's Recovery, you have complete freedom, as long as everything that you do is for the building up of the Group. And the Maximum Brother has told us what is for the building up of the Group.

Gradually, I tell myself that if I work for a company I have to obey the rules and follow orders. When I can't handle it anymore, I quit. Is it a common practice both in the West and the East?

Originally Posted by awareness

And "The lower level is [not] subordinate to the higher level"

And like the CPC, in the LRC your are OUTTA THERE ... ELIMINATED.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

Gradually, I tell myself that if I work for a company I have to obey the rules and follow orders. When I can't handle it anymore, I quit. Is it a common practice both in the West and the East?

Yes it is a common practice. And the Boss tells the Workers what to do and how to do it. Obeying rules and following orders is in a hierarchical structure. But in the kingdom of the Father, Jesus told us, "These things should not be so."

Matt 10:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,…"

See also

1 Peter 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

The social order of the Local Church is a human order, with an Asian flavor. But we were told it was a divine flavor so we ate it as if it were manna from heaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

My observation is that the West is acculturated with the Christian values so you genuinely care for the poor. Then, you have the Gates Foundation with Buffet's full support to help the poor around the world. In the East, people usually leave their wealth to the heirs, not the charity. However, some charity groups such as Tzu Chi, a Buddhism in nature charity organization, did a great job in helping the poor and needy. It really turns me off when the local church Christians despised Tzu Chi and said that it is not a work of Christ.

Thank you for your observation. This is the first time I've seen a report like this from Asia.

As I wrote earlier, Western culture is not necessarily better, or superior, to Eastern. But the Lord's Recovery's disregard for the poor clearly displays its Asian cultural origins, and thereby subordinates both its Christian heritage and the words of scripture, to its organization-building scheme.

"Don't waste your time" on the poor, was what we were told in the FTTA.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

My main point of starting the thread was that a lot of what we thought was a biblically- and scripturally-based "Normal Church Life" was really filtered through a human culture. But we didn't see it, so we took it as if it came from heaven. Yet all of the "storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions" show us otherwise. "By its fruit a tree is fully manifested."

It took years for me to learn that not every doctrine nor practice of the local church is biblical. Why do the West follow the East? Now I get a better picture from your insight. The filters attract some of the WASP who then become poster boys to us during 1986 migration to Taipei. You have no idea how encouraging it was how you guys came to Taipei under brother Lee's calling. Then, things started falling apart, rumors and gossips, etc. After 28 years, cultural factor still plays a part in the movement. In the predominating East culture, no matter which country you are in, the local church movement is prospering, way ahead of that in the West.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

It took years for me to learn that not every doctrine nor practice of the local church is biblical. Why do the West follow the East? Now I get a better picture from your insight. The filters attract some of the WASP who then become poster boys to us during 1986 migration to Taipei. You have no idea how encouraging it was how you guys came to Taipei under brother Lee's calling.

When I was in the group, the focus of the "Lord's move", and the prime directive, was to get Caucasian males. Now it clearly seems to be the college freshman. But in the 1980s Lee used to talk a lot about Mid-Western males who grew up on beef and corn and were big and strong. Like that was his doppelganger, his “id”, his ideational “other” who needed to be harnessed and/or conquered. Suddenly, “Authority and Submission” had arrived in the U.S.A., the erstwhile "land of the free and home of the brave."

Maybe there was an inward, subconscious desire to show up the West, who had oppressed the East during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The ancient cultures wanted to demonstrate their validity, if not superiority, and Nee et al were supposedly the chosen vessels. Naturally Nee & Lee would never say this, but like I said look how quickly the Little Flock morphed from an indigenous, “local” movement, to one which was consolidated, centralized, and exported abroad. The imperialist, or "dominant" pendulum began to swing from the West back to the East.

Originally Posted by Eph

After 28 years, cultural factor still plays a part in the movement. In the predominating East culture, no matter which country you are in, the local church movement is prospering, way ahead of that in the West..

No matter how they disguise it, the “alien” factor of the Lord's Recovery is still pretty strong in the West. I spent some time in the churches in the S. California area, and the Chinese seemed to have a “caste” system. The educated ones led, and the uneducated ones unobtrusively mowed the grass and wiped the windows. In the West, you have truck drivers and plumbers and college professors all mixed together (of course I am generalizing, and there are always exceptions).

James 2:2-4 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?

This may explain why the Little Flock movement and organizational/social structure has resonated more strongly within Eastern societies than in the West. Because to Western culture it is peculiar and unfamiliar, and to the Eastern mind it is comfortable, and familiar.

Number One, don't waste your time on those who have no means to repay you. Ignore them; forget about them. Number Two, focus on those who are "good building material", who will make our society (i.e. the Lord's Recovery) prosperous and strong. Number Three, obey without question; this is essential to effective and harmonious social functioning. These kinds of ideas echo their source, or parent, Asian social/cultural systems.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

James 2:2-4 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?

Number One, don't waste your time on those who have no means to repay you. Ignore them; forget about them. Number Two, focus on those who are "good building material", who will make our society (i.e. the Lord's Recovery) prosperous and strong. Number Three, obey without question; this is essential to effective and harmonious social functioning. These kinds of ideas echo their source, or parent, Asian social/cultural systems.

Some of the local churches bypass our Lord's major mission on saving the poor and the sick, ignore James's teaching on equality. I can't generaize, but I had experiences in one or two local churches. (Aron, your posts speak my heart.) We should start a new thread about "money" and "power" on the local church movement to well document their influence.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe there was an inward, subconscious desire to show up the West, who had oppressed the East during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The ancient cultures wanted to demonstrate their validity, if not superiority, and Nee et al were supposedly the chosen vessels...

I spent some time in the S. Cal. meetings, when the declared focus was to get Caucasian males. Every time someone brought in a young Charlton Heston or Gregory Peck or Kirk Douglas, all the Chinese would crane their necks to see them "Submit" to the "Authority". Was there something cultural behind that? I suspect.

Now, this may seem like pretty flaky conjecture, but I still find it more satisfying than Tomes' work, which merely demonstrates stuff like Lee's plagiarizing, and his crude and amateurish etymology, but never addresses the elephant in the room: why did so many of us completely give our lives over to this man's ideas, and allow our consciousnesses to be totally subsumed by his? What is behind that?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If you can imagine a flock of birds flying together, and each bird has to watch out for the one in front and on the side. Each bird instinctively processes all that to keep in the space allotted, even though that space is changing, because the flock is moving. Or think of a school of fish swimming together; you get my point, I hope. At that time I really saw something of the Asian preference for "order". If everybody is free to move about in an unconstrained way, then they will bump into each other.

This is completely different from my upbringing. I grew up in the Western U.S. where there are wide open spaces and everybody has to be independent. You have to figure it out, and do it. You are not flying in a flock, but solo. The rugged individual is sort of the cultural model.

So Nee's model, and Lee's model, is a kind of Asian-leaning model, "that we would all have the same mind, and speak the same thing." The proper, orderly, harmonized church life is the conceptual vehicle that guides everything. So "Witness Lee is always right, even when he's wrong" is not so much a self-aggrandizement (though he bought into it, to some degree) but rather a central organizing principle for an orderly functioning religious body. The Big Boss speaks and we all say "Amen". So if WL says that Solomon with all his foreign wives is a type of Christ and his bride, we say "Amen". Then, if in the next breath WL says that David is not a type of Christ because he was a sinner (he numbered Israel in his pride, he dallied with Bathsheba, had Uriah the Hittite killed, he -"gasp"- threw a stone at Goliath instead of forgiving him!) we still say "Amen". Because good order in the church requires us to say "Amen" whenever WL speaks. So all of this is perfectly reasonable, even essential, in the Asian-created mind. So the "truth", or reality, of "good order in the church" is greater than the requirement for consistency when interpreting the Bible, for example.

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

Culture is as human as sex, and just as sex can be used illicitly so can culture. (Note to Awareness: I'm not saying sex is bad, I personally am in favor of it!)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

So Lee used the body of Christ and "ye are the branches I am the vine" to export Chinese hive culture to America.

Makes sense to me. The New Testament can be very communistic. And Lee used it that way.

It amazes me that Americans fell for it. But how could they not? Lee used the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee used the body of Christ and "ye are the branches I am the vine" to export Chinese hive culture to America.

Makes sense to me. The New Testament can be very communistic. And Lee used it that way.

It amazes me that Americans fell for it. But how could they not? Lee used the Bible.

I think you've summarized my argument in a nutshell. I would merely add that we're social creatures, prone to hives and flocks and schools and churches and whatever we want to call ourselves collectively. But Witness Lee packaged and sold a Chinese variant, pure and simple.

So the idea common in the Occidental West, since at least the Enlightenment Era of Jefferson and Madison and Locke, of give-and-take, with checks and balances, had no place with the Apostle of the Age. The "Authority and Submission" stuff had a veneer of Biblicality but it was culture-driven, sure 'nuff. And stuff like "We must all be absolutely identical, with no differences" and "Everybody should know who is in front of them and get in line" are pure Orientalisms. No Bible involved. Pure, raw human culture. Not even a pretense of spirituality. But we were mesmerized and followed along, anyway. It is amazing, what a con job. And we fell for it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think you've summarized my argument in a nutshell. I would merely add that we're social creatures, prone to hives and flocks and schools and churches and whatever we want to call ourselves collectively. But Witness Lee packaged and sold a Chinese variant, pure and simple.

So the idea common in the Occidental West, since at least the Enlightenment Era of Jefferson and Madison and Locke, of give-and-take, with checks and balances, had no place with the Apostle of the Age. The "Authority and Submission" stuff had a veneer of Biblicality but it was culture-driven, sure 'nuff. And stuff like "We must all be absolutely identical, with no differences" and "Everybody should know who is in front of them and get in line" are pure Orientalisms. No Bible involved. Pure, raw human culture. Not even a pretense of spirituality. But we were mesmerized and followed along, anyway. It is amazing, what a con job. And we fell for it.

I fell so hard for the Oriental that I married one in the LC. That pretty much lasted until we left the LC.

But I remain spellbound by it. For example, I read Joseph Campbell's Masks of God series. It's a four book series:

1. Primitive Mythology
2. Oriental Mythology
3. Occidental Mythology
4. Creative Mythology

I read all of them but Oriental. I saved that last because I knew it would be his best work. I left that hanging for over a decade. Then around 3 yrs ago I decided to finally read it. By that time I had a Kindle reader (thanks to the sister that helped me marry in the LC long long ago).

But Masks of God wasn't offered in digital format. So I sent an email to the Joseph Campbell Foundation about it. I'm a member. I was told they were working on it, and lo and behold they had Oriental Mythology finished. And a digital copy was sent to me.

I spent days binge reading it. It's a great book. I'm still spellbound by the Orientals. But I see it thru Occidental eyes, or thru Campbell's Creative Mythology, the culmination of Western thought.

And that's why I'm amazed that us westerners fell for Lee's Oriental mythology.

I think the reason for that is because it's so framed by the Bible that Lee's Oriental mythology is not easily recognized. The Bible masks it.

In short, the Occident took the Bible to the Orient, Nee and Lee picked up on it, and Lee brought the Oriental version of the Bible to the Occident.

And we westerners found the Oriental version of the Bible new and attractive ... and ... AND ... fell for Lee's Oriental hive culture and mentality.

It's like Lee slipped us a mickey -- a date raped drug, so to speak -- in his Bible Kool-Aid, took our virginity, and screwed us ... like his son did to the married sisters in LSM, metaphorically speaking.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's why I'm amazed that us westerners fell for Lee's Oriental mythology.

I think the reason for that is because it's so framed by the Bible that Lee's Oriental mythology is not easily recognized. The Bible masks it.

You don't get to see the "real Lee" until you are waaaaay into the forest. That's the problem. It all seems so Bible-based, because it's carefully presented to hide the "rest of the story". Then at some point they tell you something that is totally at variance with the Bible, and by then you have a hook in your mouth.

Even the stuff that's directly from the Bible is way unbalanced. It's like they obsess on 10% of the text, use 20 or 30% to prop up their obsession, distort another 20 or 30% to pretend to complete the picture, and ignore the rest. If you quote them a verse that's not covered by "the ministry", they just stare blankly at you as if you're speaking Swedish.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

This is not unity, but uniformity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Watchman Nee first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately cooperated? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There's no contradiction..

Here is a quote on Wikipedia about the Empire of Japan:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

After two centuries, the seclusion policy, or Sakoku, under the shoguns of the Edo period came to an end when the country was forced open to trade by the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854.

The following years saw increased foreign trade and interaction; commercial treaties between the Tokugawa Shogunate and Western countries were signed. In large part due to the humiliating terms of these Unequal Treaties, the Shogunate soon faced internal hostility, which materialized into a radical, xenophobic movement, the sonnō jōi (literally "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians").

In March 1863, the "Order to expel barbarians" was issued. Although the Shogunate had no intention of enforcing the order, it nevertheless inspired attacks against the Shogunate itself and against foreigners in Japan.
..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan

The reaction to Western technological and cultural hegemony, and unfair trade practices, was summed in "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians". Likewise, Watchman Nee's indigenous alternative to Western spiritual imperialism found a ready audience in the Chinese Christian community, where xenophobic (anti-foreigner) sentiments were widespread.

Now here's where I find two striking parallels: first is that just as the Japanese saw no contradiction between "expelling the barbarians" and themselves becoming the invaders in Manchuria, China and WWII (because both actions furthered the interests of Greater Japan), so also did the quite different philosophies of "local autonomy" and "centralization" make sense in Nee's conceptual world. Both autonomy (from the foreigners) as an initial step, and centralization and handing over as a later step, were to further the interests of Nee's church organization.

Secondly, both the Japanese Empire and Witness Lee's Local Church, like Mao's China or Nee's Little Flock, had no room for democracy, and no time to entertain the opinions of the people. Discourse among peers to collectively solve problems was/is discouraged: in Nee's words you must "figure out who's in charge and get in line". Obey without question. As the Japanese put it so succinctly: revere the Emperor. Reverence to central authority was the social glue that gave everything shared meaning, purpose, and cohesion.

I remember Lee saying that the LC is an army, not a democracy. But if he'd read American history he'd know that George Washington's Continental army had a consensual, democratic aspect: when Washington wanted to figure out what to do next, he'd often call his generals into a tent and they'd hash it out in front of him. This is how they decided to continue the advance, after the brilliant surprise victory at Trenton, and press the attack against the British at Princeton. The Continentals were bloody, weak, and cold: what to do - forward, or go back to safety? Washington was a true leader (in the Western mold) in that he didn't worry about strong, opinionated, vocal underlings. In the Asian model, allowing such open debate would be seen as weakness, loss of control, and the precursor of social collapse.

Western civilization isn't inherently superior to Eastern; obviously Asian armies and navies have had much success over the years, as have their governments, cultures and societies. Look at Singapore! A very successful society on many levels. But the Nee/Lee church set-up is an Asian one, and was created from and disseminated through fallen human culture just as surely as were the Methodists who brought Christianity to China. Once you see the influence of human culture, values, thinking and practices in the LC operation it becomes more understandable. Like seeing Watchman Nee's complete 180 degree reversal from the 1920s to the 1940s; what was once contradictory and baffling to my eyes suddenly became sensible. I don't have to agree, or follow, but can start to understand what happened.

[aron]

"As a perceived foreign menace the Christian community became the target of the bloody rampage by famished North China peasants known as the Boxers. Before the revolt was quelled by the expedition forces, it had visited death on more than 200 Westerners and untold thousands of native converts.

As the culmination of nineteenth-century anti-foreign and anti-Christian agitation, the Boxer Uprising drove home the point to Chinese Christians that, in the popular mind, their profession of the foreign faith and their membership in churches dominated by the Westerners had turned them into disciples of the 'foreign devils' and collaborators in a Western assault on Chinese tradition. In the decades that followed, a chief test of Chinese Christian leadership would be the ability to shake off the foreignness of their religion, to take control of the churches, and to fashion a viable indigenous Christianity that would respond to the needs of the country and its people."
"The Search for Chinese Christianity in the Republican Period", by Lian Xi. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct 2004), pp. 851-898.

If I remember, Lee's family suffered in the persecutions of the Boxer Rebellion. So Nee's proposal of a biblically-based "normal" Christian church was obviously appealing to many, many Chinese Christians, Lee included. But it was a solution from the Bible being read through the lens of human culture and meeting immediate human need, i.e. expediency. To sell it as the solution for all Christian people at all times is short-sighted, to put it mildly.

[aron]

An excerpt from Life Study of Genesis, chapter 114:

"After the Boxer Rebellion, many saints in England prayed desperately for the vast country of China. The Lord answered their prayers by coming in and doing a marvelous work in the colleges throughout the country. Thousands of students, including a good number of brilliant ones, were captured by the Lord, and many of them saw a vision. I was one of these students, and I was very familiar with the situation. Brother Nee was not the only one to see something concerning the church. Many others did also. However, they were afraid to speak of their dream concerning the church. These students were afraid of the missionaries, whose goal was to advance their mission work, their mission church. They were fearful that if they spoke something different from what the missionaries were doing, they would get into trouble. Because of his bold speaking, Brother Nee was betrayed. In the middle 1920s he published twenty issues of a paper called The Christian. In the articles in this paper Brother Nee spoke according to his dream. As a result, people laughed at him, and he got into trouble. The missionaries, teachers, and theologians, all of whom were older than he, disregarded him and opposed him. Brother Nee had seen a vision of local churches in every city throughout China. A quarter century later, his dream was fulfilled. By 1948 there were about five hundred local churches in the provinces of China.

Before Brother Nee's dream was fulfilled, however, he suffered a great deal, not only from outsiders, but even from turmoil stirred up by insiders. Due to this turmoil, his ministry was set aside for a number of years. Brother Nee once told a certain brother that there was no possibility to ever resume his ministry. This is an indication of the severity of Brother Nee's sufferings. He suffered so intensely that he felt that it was impossible for him ever to resume his ministry. But, much to his surprise, the Lord did something in 1948 to restore his ministry. In the forthcoming biography of Brother Nee now in preparation all this will be made clear. As a result of the restoration of Brother Nee's ministry, hundreds of churches were raised up in the cities of China. This was due to Brother Nee's speaking, to his sounding of the trumpet, and to that of a few co-workers who were faithful to him."

Elsewhere, Lee talks about the 'persecution' of Christians in China causing the local churches to come forth. But Lee doesn't mention that this persecution is due to foreign affiliation. The incentive for the native Chinese to dissociate with European churches was very strong. They probably followed Nee not because he was right, but like Constantine before him, he offered a way for the widespread suffering to cease. And once you see everybody else is going, you go too. It's like a hit movie - eventually it gets its own momentum and people go see it because it is popular, not because it's any good.

What follows is an excerpt from The Meaning of the Church, Book 1. pp. 94,95:

"In 1900 thousands of Christians were killed in the Boxer Rebellion. From the human perspective, the church suffered a great deal. But from God's perspective, the church in China was able to travel a long distance in a glorious way. The Boxer Rebellion can be compared to a large camel that was unclean in the eyes of God, yet it functioned as a means of transportation for the church... The reason the churches in China are in their present condition is due to the persecution of Christians in the Boxer Rebellion. Since that time there has been the continual increase of the Lord's testimony in China."

None of the Chinese xenophobia as a backdrop to the rise of the Little Flock (i.e. 'the Lord's testimony') is mentioned by Lee. It isn't helpful to the story of Nee. Plus, the glaring disconnect of an indigenous, nativist movement arising as a reaction to foreign cultural imperialism, but later becoming an imperialist movement itself, and being exported and imposed on people in other lands, might at some point become too big not to notice.

[awareness]

Nee? No great leader is great until the mythmakers are finished ; in this case Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Blendeds have the attitude that if they abuse and mistreat you, then you will become more compliant. WL got away with that, but the Blendeds could not.

I saw the way WL and TC interacted in public and believe this is true. It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations. Nothing wrong with that per se, except it was fraudulently sold to us as divine.

Originally Posted by aron

The Full Time Training says that the biblical truth is, Women Can't Teach. Yet this position ignores that the movement itself was founded by Margaret Barber teaching Watchman Nee. She had no "head covering". . . not to mention Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, Mary MacDonald, and so forth - "close co-workers" and "fellow builders" all. This ministry of the Kingdom of Self teaches out of both sides of its mouth, and we're supposed to ignore these glaring discrepancies?

There's an interesting story about Watchman Nee and a Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher. She was promoting Pentacostal and Charismatic behaviours and Nee went to see her. Later they traveled together to the Keswick Convention in England, and she transcribed some of Nee's talks. Some were published by CFP.

Question: if women can't teach with authority, then why did Nee traffic with them?

Answer: they were useful on the path to power - temporal, earthly, human power. They were used and then discarded. Today in the LC there are no women as senior or "blended co-workers" when Nee's own initial church experience had many.

The only "truth" this Church is founded on is that of personal expediency. Look at the whole Jerusalem Principle thing. First it was all about localism, because that was the way to be shed of the Western control. Then suddenly Nee "recovered" the idea of centralized control. A blatant reversal.

Same with Witness Lee. There's even a thread on this forum titled Early Lee vs Later Lee. The only constant was the pursuit, acquisition, and maintenance of personal power at others' expense. Why would anyone want to be enrolled in a Training Programme run by this group? It's manipulation and mind control, and entirely for someone else's benefit, not yours.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations.

Aron,

Cite a credible source for your outrageous statement about Asian culture.

Drake.

[aron]

Although some scholars have discussed the concept of the “interaction ritual”, the question of how interaction rituals operate within differential closeness levels of guanxi in China has not yet been thoroughly explored. This study aims to fill this gap. It draws its data from two ethnographic studies of school place allocation in two Chinese cities during 2012 and 2013, and additional post-fieldwork in 2014. The research finds that the use of interaction rituals in la guanxi could be a profitable social investment, and that the interaction ritual chain is usually more powerful than a single instance of ritual. Instrumental li is the shared value behind this type of ritual practice, which has the function of exaggerating the actors’ moral obligation and emotional attachment, and masking rational calculation, in order to justify the practice. Expressive ritual is less valued, and occurs less frequently, with distance. Instrumental ritual is more workable and occurs more frequently in moderate guanxi (a relationship neither close nor distant) than in close and distant guanxi, thus following a “weak-strong-weak” pattern. These findings suggest that instrumental ritual plays a more important role than expressive ritual in building strong social capital, due to “the strength of weak ties”.

The phenomenon of using guanxi is pervasive, embedded in every aspect of Chinese social life, and reported on by domestic and international media. Guanxi refers to personal relationships, connections or networks based on Chinese culture, which can be utilised to acquire resources in informal and interpersonal forms (Jacobs, 1979 Jacobs, J. B. (1979). A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: KanCh’ing and kuanhsi in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly, 78, 237–273.
King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press). Guanxi practice is the use, development and maintenance of guanxi relationships, defined by Kipnis as the “practice of guanxi production” (Kipnis, 1996 Kipnis, A. (1996). The language of gifts: Managing guanxi in a north China village. Modern China, 22(3), 285–31, pp. 6–7). La guanxi, or instrumental guanxi practice, refers to those guanxi practices that have a clear instrumental purpose, such as making exchanges, manufacturing indebtedness or accomplishing tasks (Guthrie, 1998 Guthrie, D. (1998). The declining significance of guanxi in China’s economic transition. The China Quarterly, 154, 254–282., p. 266). Some other guanxi practices, such as visiting siblings with gifts at weekends without any instrumental purpose, are not regarded as la guanxi but as expressive guanxi practice, although it has been noted that such guanxi relationships can also be used instrumentally.

Some argue that guanxi is a “special form”, or “variant form”, of social capital (Gold et al., 2002 Gold, T., Guthrie, D., & Wank, D. (Eds.). (2002). Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., p. 7; Fan, 2002 Fan, Y. (2002). Questioning guanxi: Definition, classification and implications. International Business Review, 11, 543–561.
, p. 549; Qi, 2013 Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308–324., p. 308; Wu, 2013 Wu, X. (2013). The power of social capital in school choice in a Chinese city. Australian Journal of Education, 57(1), 48–59., p. 49). Social capital pertains to the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures (Portes, 1998 Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24., p. 6), and has three components – social networks, norms (such as obligation and reciprocity) and sanctions (Halpern, 2005 Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity. pp. 9–11). Guanxi, as a network, therefore seems to be one of the components of social capital rather than social capital itself. If we were to describe social capital based on a guanxi network, we would need to adopt a new term – “guanxi capital”. Bian (2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
, p. 227) defines “guanxi capital” as the capacity to mobilise social resources from guanxi networks: for example, “having face means having guanxi capital” (Bian, 2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, p. 227).

In recent years, the Chinese media has frequently reported on the phenomenon of parents using guanxi to acquire school places for their children. In order to determine how and why people use guanxi in this context, two case studies of two small cities were carried out during 2012 and 2013, and additional post-fieldwork was conducted in 2014. Ethnographic case studies based on participant observation, interviews and documentation provided most of the data.

In the two researched cities (“A” and “B”), the local government had established key schools, which offered a relatively better quality of education than the average school. Parents need to use guanxi, violating many rules, to obtain a place in key schools, if their children fail the entrance exam or lottery allocation and are not qualified for admission to these schools. Those who cannot use guanxi have to accept a lower-quality education. Forty-nine people (27 in City A and 22 in City B) were interviewed, and some relevant organisations (schools, training centres, and “cigarette and wine shops” that buy back expensive gifts) and activities (entrance exams, lottery activities and school places, gift giving, banqueting) were observed. The sampling criteria for participants cover people who are involved in guanxi practice for school places and relevant observers. Consequently, I utilised different categories of people, and divided the interview guides into seven categories in both cities: parents, teachers, students, head teachers, officials, shopkeepers, and other insiders. Those with different roles in la guanxi, including gift givers, gift recipients and middle-men, were observed and interviewed. Some of these were involved in the same case, allowing the researcher to capture both sides of the story. The documents collected included educational policies, student recruitment information, and local news items. I have coded all names, cities, places and schools in order to protect the anonymity of informants, and pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.

Unlike Guthrie’s claim (1998 Guthrie, D. (1998). The declining significance of guanxi in China’s economic transition. The China Quarterly, 154, 254–282.) that the use of guanxi is declining, utilisation of guanxi to gain school places was found to be prevalent and on the increase in the two cities in this case study from 1998–2012. Due to Xi’s anti-corruption drive, which began in 2012, the use of guanxi to obtain places in key schools is restricted, but it still commonly occurs, with the emphasis shifting from key schools to key classes in regular schools where the rules are less strict. The use of guanxi in school selection has generally declined since 2012, but the use of guanxi to secure official positions, better treatment in hospital and other advantages is still prevalent.

A substantial body of research has shown that many people use ritual to influence others when engaging in la guanxi, such as gift giving, banqueting, embodying concern, face giving and ritual struggle (Jacobs, 1979 Jacobs, J. B. (1979). A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: KanCh’ing and kuanhsi in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly, 78, 237–273.; King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). The investment in ritual can have a profitable return, such as a place in an elite school, a job, a professional rank, or better services in hospital. The use of ritual improves one’s ability to acquire resources in one’s guanxi network, raising one’s level of guanxi capital.

In common parlance, a ritual is a formal ceremony, going through a set of stereotyped actions. Interaction rituals are both local and ubiquitous, operating in every daily interaction (Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.), and form the processes by which participants develop a mutual focus of attention and become engrained in each other’s bodily micro-rhythms and emotions (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67). Ritual produces a momentarily shared reality that generates solidarity and symbols of group membership (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 27). Traditionally, the interaction rituals of philosophers have attempted to produce truth, which function as Durkheim’s ([1912] 1965 Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.) sacred objects: that is, as collective symbols that appear to transcend individuals, constrain behaviour and demand respect. The particular truth represents the solidarity of the group and energises those who participate in its production. Following the work of Durkheim ([1912] 1965 Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.) and Goffman (1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
), Collins argues that rituals are constructed from a combination of ingredients that grow to differing levels of intensity, and result in the ritual outcomes of solidarity, symbolism and individual emotional energy (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67). According to Collins, what is significant about these interaction rituals is not the manifest subject, but the fact that the rituals serve as a focus for attention and emotional involvement. Through the practice of ritual, people can improve their “mutually focused emotion and attention” and “emotional energy” – also expressed by the Chinese concepts of ganqing and/or renqing (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67).

Ganqing is translated as “affection” or “emotional feeling”, and represents emotional commitment in longstanding and intimate bonds, which always comes with material obligation (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.). Renqing is simply reciprocal obligation and indebtedness, making guanxi more than just the social embeddedness and social connections identified in Western societies (Qi, 2013 Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308–324.; Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). In fact, the concept of renqing has at least four implications: 1) human feelings; 2) a resource as a gift or favour; 3) reciprocal obligation and indebtedness (known as renqing debt, or social debt); and 4) social norms in Chinese society, or the so-called renqing ethic (Gabrenya Jr. & Hwang, 1996 Gabrenya Jr., W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
; Hwang, 1987 Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.; King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Li, 2001; Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press) mostly takes renqing to mean social norms – the fourth implication listed above. Yan calls this the “renqing ethic”, and draws out three dimensions – rational calculation, moral obligation, and emotional attachment – as the principles of guanxi networks (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 46).

Interaction rituals such as gift giving, banqueting and face giving are common in guanxi, and are in fact expressions and forms of renqing and face (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., pp. 121–134; Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., pp. 329–337). In the research discussed in this paper, all guanxi cases observed involve interaction rituals, and gift giving and banqueting are the two most popular methods of ritual practice. Gift exchanges in City A and City B form part of people’s daily practice, and people always bring gifts when they visit their friends or relatives. Some gift giving has a clearly rational intention. For instance, many people bring gifts to head teachers or officials when they ask for a place at a school. In my frequent visits to Xie and Lee, head teachers in City A, I noted that their apartments were full of guests and gifts during the summer – the time of year when parents seek to gain school places for their children.

It is noteworthy that the ritual of home visits with gifts to head teachers or officials is a ritual that tends to support traditional forms of social hierarchy and authority (Bell, 1997 Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.). Traditionally, rural society in China is characterised by “rule by ritual”, or “rule by li” (lizi), as opposed to societies that are ruled mainly by law (Fei, 2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992].
[1947]). Lee, a head teacher in City A, told me a story that supports this claim. A friend told him that during a meeting an official had said: “Lee is arrogant. In his eyes, there are no others”. The friend asked Lee if he had offended the official, which Lee denied. The friend then asked if Lee had ever visited the official’s home with gifts. Lee demurred, because the official was not directly in charge of his school; in response, the friend told Lee that although the official was not directly in charge of Lee’s school, he still had some influence over it. The official was therefore upset because Lee had not shown him respect. Lee’s friend advised him to visit the official’s home to show his respect. Lee subsequently visited the official, taking some gifts, and since then, the official has not criticised Lee – indeed, he has praised his character.

What the official was seeking from Lee was not only the material value of the gifts but also respect and personal loyalty. Rituals honour what is socially valued: so-called sacred objects. In modern societies, the foremost of these is the individual self, treated as if it were a little god in the minor presentational and avoidance rituals of everyday life (Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
, p. 232). Many head teachers who participated in this research claimed that they needed to visit relevant officials with gifts regularly to maintain good guanxi, and similarly, many teachers visited their head teachers with gifts. The ritual of visiting with gifts is widely practised by those who work with officials, in order to show the official’s power on one hand and the personal loyalty of the subordinate on the other.

Banqueting is another popular form of la guanxi. Traditionally, banqueting has been a ritual for showing respect and appreciation for one’s guests, or to celebrate certain events. Nowadays, banqueting is one of the most important forms of la guanxi. It becomes very instrumental and can provide the means to ask for a favour, creating renqing (indebtedness). Parents in the two cities studied here often wine and dine head teachers or officials in order to acquire a school place, and after obtaining the place, they may entertain their benefactors again in order to thank them.

Banqueting is full of ritual – etiquette, politeness, propriety, and so on. Proper rituals are important during each stage of the process: for example, during the dinner, people lower down the hierarchy should serve others with food, soup and tea. If one practises ritual improperly at a banquet, one will get a bad reputation.

Along with gift giving and banqueting, people give face to others when they la guanxi. Face (mianzi or lian) is a combination of a sense of moral imperatives, social honour and self-respect (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press., p. 141). Doing face work includes showing off one’s power, networks and resources to attract others, and giving face in order to maintain good relationships and receive favours (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 141). As Hwang (1987 Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974., p. 962) writes, “Face work is also a method of manipulating the allocator’s choices of allocating resources to one’s benefit. Thus, doing face work is a power game frequently played by the Chinese people”. To practise ritual properly is important, since people may consider it as a way to gain face; and a failure to perform a ritual successfully may lead to a loss of face. It is vital to practise ritual properly in la guanxi, since “face work is about guanxi capital accumulation” (Bian, 2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
, p. 227).

People give face to others in many ways. They accept others’ requests for favours, agree with each other in meetings, give others support at work, avoid making others embarrassed, give “flattery gifts”, and so on. In some situations, even to entertain someone, to accept a dinner or party invitation, or to visit someone’s home can be a form of giving face. Mai, a teacher in City A, had to accept his colleague’s invitation to his father’s birthday party, even though Mai was extremely busy at the time. He considered that his attendance at the party gave face to his colleague, who would then support him at work and vote for him in Excellent Teacher selections. This ritual practice with face giving produces “mutually focused emotion and attention”, and results in the ritual outcomes of solidarity, symbolism and individual emotional energy (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
, p. 67).

If one engages in improper ritual in la guanxi, one may fail to gain social resources, and acquire a bad relationship or reputation. For example, gift giving requires much ritual and etiquette, in terms of the content, packaging, and the number or value of gifts, which should be carefully prepared and carried out – otherwise the gift recipient might be offended. Liu, a head teacher in City A, told me that a teacher at his school visited his home with a flattery gift of six apples in order to show respect and maintain good guanxi. Liu was very unsatisfied with the gifts, saying, “Eight is a lucky number; why didn’t she just buy two more apples? Ridiculous!” We can see here the possible consequences of unsuccessful gift giving: Liu was unhappy and might not be willing to do the teacher a favour next time. Although the value of gifts also matters in la guanxi, the ritual aspects of the gift, such as the quality and quantity, the colour and the packaging, are vital.

The proper use of ritual largely improves the quality of guanxi and can be a productive social investment. The use of ritual to gain social resources seems to be one of the unique properties of la guanxi. Interestingly, when people use ritual to gain desired resources, they stress to their benefactors that their ritual practice is underpinned by Confucian ethical ideals, such as ren, yi and li; and they make every effort to show this moral and emotional intention when doing la guanxi.

Ren refers to the ethical ideal, and li to certain traditional norms that govern human conduct (Liang, 2010 Liang, J. R. (2010). Ren verses Li: Reinterpretation and re-evaluation of Confucianism. [Chinese text.] Beijing: Peking University Press., pp. 29–46; Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59). The concept of “li” is the rule of proper conduct, including etiquette and religious and moral rules (Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59). Ren refers to inner spiritual development, which is the innate character of li. Li is the outer expression of ren, the instrument in the cultivation of ren, and can even be the measurement of ren (Liang, 2010 Liang, J. R. (2010). Ren verses Li: Reinterpretation and re-evaluation of Confucianism. [Chinese text.] Beijing: Peking University Press., pp. 29–46; Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59; Tu, 1985 Tu, W.-M. (1985). Confucian thought. Albany: State University of New York Press., pp. 67–78). In simple terms, if one acts with propriety and proper rituals in order to achieve ren, one’s behaviour can be li – for example, giving gifts to parents in order to achieve xiao (filial piety), entertaining a friend from far away to achieve yi (righteousness), or bowing to supervisors to show zhong (loyalty).

King (1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84., p. 74) explains that “renqing, in part, can be equated with the content of the Confucian li”. If a Chinese person is accused of “knowing no renqing”, this means that he/she is lacking li and is incapable of managing interpersonal relationships (King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84., p. 74). La guanxi, as well as its norm – renqing ethic – is not true Confucian li because true li should come with the goal of achieving ren. With la guanxi, the so-called “Confucian li” is self-serving and not true li, since li should incorporate ren (Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., p. 318).

Although the practice of li is usually observed in daily interaction rituals, some of these rituals, such as gift giving or banqueting to influence others to gain resources, may be driven by self-interest; thus, these social rituals should not be regarded as true li but as “fake li “ or “instrumental li”. That is to say, when doing la guanxi, people simply copy the forms of li in their ritual practice without the motivation of achieving ren but with self-interest in mind: they claim to be acting with li to justify their practice (Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., p. 318).

Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.) has argued that renqing is the ethic or norm of guanxi, which combines moral obligation, emotional attachment and rational calculation. Instrumental li seems to exaggerate the actors’ moral obligation and emotional attachment, and to mask their rational calculation. For example, in the context of la guanxi for school places in the two cities observed for this paper, gift donors and recipients both claim that their gift giving is a ritual that follows Confucian li, and that they practise lishang wanglai (courtesy demands reciprocity). Using the excuse of Confucian li, parents give gifts to head teachers or officials to obtain school places, which is actually instrumental li, or fake li, designed to cover their rational calculation.

Ritual practice with instrumental li also frequently occurs when people give a payment to a friend or relative. Mai, a teacher, often gives extra tuition to his guanxis’ children, and his guanxis usually hide an envelope containing money in a bag of tea and give him tea as a gift. So, why do the guanxis not give money directly to Mai as payment for tuition? Fei (2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992].
[1947], p. 148) explains: Commerce cannot exist in an intimate consanguineous society. Although exchanges do take place in such a society, people exchange with renqing, by giving gifts to each other [showing the moral and emotional part of renqing].

If one does not practise these rituals properly, one may not only fail to achieve the desired outcome, but may also cause offence.
From the perspective of interaction ritual theory, ritual produces shared emotion and awareness, solidarity, symbolism, individual emotional energy and social trust (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.; Durkheim, 1965 [1912] Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.; Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.). It follows from this that the investment of ritual can produce social capital. That is why people invest in ritual for school places in the two cities studied for this paper.

Ritual is employed not only to get something done or acquire social resources, but also to improve ganqing, renqing and trust among actors, accumulating guanxi capital for further use. True guanxi cannot be established merely through one-off ritual practice or the one-time payment of a coarse bribe; the individuals must interact, exchange favours, and work over time to establish and maintain the relationship (Dunfee & Warren, 2001 Dunfee, T. W., & Warren, D. E. (2001). Is guanxi ethical? A normative analysis of doing business in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 191–204., p. 192). In other words, a good guanxi relationship is built, not by independent rituals, but by “interaction ritual chains”, which represent the personal histories generated as individuals go through various ritual encounters within networks (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.). Interaction rituals may reaffirm previous truths or create new ones – they always create a chain connecting previous interaction rituals to future ones (Collins, 1998 Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.). New collective truths require a knowledge of previous collective symbols and the relationships through which they were created and distributed. These interaction ritual chains represent the personal histories generated as individuals go through various ritual encounters within networks. Without the personal histories of encounters, a stranger will not be able to obtain a school place from a head teacher just by visiting their home with gifts or even money. People need to go through their rituals and rites of passage, and they acquire a repertoire of symbols that are loaded with emotional energy and membership significance (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67).

Network ties, including guanxi networks, are a particular kind of interaction ritual chain, in which similar symbols and emotions are recycled and sometimes augmented. Positions in networks are created and sustained on the micro-level by the degree of success of interaction rituals (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., pp. 185–188). In guanxi networks, renqing, ganqing and the quality of guanxi are not built by a single instance of ritual or by independent rituals, but by many instances of ritual, continuously connected. The case described below illustrates how an interaction ritual chain builds renqing, ganqing and trust between a teacher and an intermediary.

Mai, a teacher at a senior high school in City A, told me that he used guanxi to gain a place in a key primary school for his nephew in 2010. Mai’s wife told him that an official, Jin, was her former classmate, and a good friend of the head teacher of the key school. Mai’s wife had not seen Jin for 20 years; however, they had many friends in common. So Mai and his wife invited Jin to dinner with a few other former classmates, and Mai sat close to Jin and got to know him. They are both smokers and like French brandy, and these common rituals of drinking and smoking brought them closer. Mai and Jin next met at Jin’s office, and then at Jin’s home, with Mai and his wife bringing some gifts. The fourth time they met was at Jin’s home, with Mai again bringing gifts – this time, Mai asked Jin to use his influence with the head teacher of the key school, and implied that he would give the head teacher an envelope containing money. By this time, Jin knew that Mai was a person who “knows renqing”, so he phoned the head teacher. Later, Mai and Jin visited the head teacher’s home taking gifts; a few weeks later, at Jin’s advice, Mai took an envelope containing some money to Jin’s office to meet the head teacher. When the head teacher came in, Jin excused himself to go to the toilet, allowing Mai to give the envelope to the head teacher without anyone else in the room. In the end, Mai secured a school place for his nephew. Jin, like Mai, was interviewed for this research. Jin told me he had helped Mai with a school place, and seemed proud of his ability to do so. He revealed that he had observed Mai’s ritual practice to see if he followed the expected renqing ethic. By deciding to help Mai, Jin could gain renqing for future use, which enhances his social capital. If Mai had not followed the renqing ethic, Jin would not have gained social capital by doing Mai a favour: in that case, Mai might have upset both Jin and the head teacher, and worse, run the risk of bribery accusations against the head teacher. In this case, however, every time Mai met Jin, he improved his guanxi capital because the collective symbols they both value facilitated subsequent interaction rituals. The interaction ritual chain consists of the process of la guanxi and social capital development. Before asking for a favour, Mai had been interacting with Jin for a month; afterwards, he maintained a long-term relationship with Jin and the head teacher by visiting them regularly with gifts. Their guanxi relationship can be more effectively used in the future due to their history of interaction ritual chains.

Zhang, a teacher in City B, provided a further example:

One of my colleagues was thinking of asking me to pay more attention to one of the students in my class who is her friend’s child, so she tried to talk to me more frequently, then gave me some compliments, gave me some small gifts, did me some small favours and tried to get closer to me. After taking these steps, finally, she told me that her friend’s child was in my class and asked me to pay more attention to him.

Although Zhang clearly knows that the kindness demonstrated by her colleague is not pure, she feels indebted and is willing to do her colleague this favour: Zhang considers this a renqing exchange, and she may need her colleague to return the favour in the future. The rituals here make this exchange work, since they follow instrumental li and the renqing ethic, which both actors recognise and share. An interaction ritual used to ask for a favour will be more effective if previous rituals have been observed properly. In the cases reported above, both Mai and Zhang’s colleague clearly recognised that they did not have long-term guanxi with their expected benefactors before asking for the favour, so endeavoured to build interaction chains, thus preventing their practice from becoming a one-off transaction. Although a relationship may be cultivated with instrumental goals foremost in mind, the forms of renqing (mostly interaction ritual) must be followed if the goals are to be achieved, and the moral and emotional element of the relationship must be presented as primary with the exchanges treated as secondary. If it becomes apparent that the relationship involves only material interest, it may be characterised as bribery (Yang, 1989 Yang, M. M.-H. (1989). The gift economy and state power in China. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31(1), 25–54., p. 48).

“The More Distant the Less Significant” – The Pattern of Expressive Ritual It is necessary to distinguish between expressive and instrumental ritual. Expressive ritual is usually observed to express one’s real emotion and concern without much rational calculation, while instrumental ritual is usually performed for instrumental purposes (la guanxi) (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., p. 130). Many informants in the two cities give gifts to their friends and relatives, or invite them to dinner, as part of everyday life and without instrumental intention. Moreover, attending a friend’s birthday party, wedding or even funeral is usually expressive ritual. This type of guanxi practice is different from parents practising guanxi to gain school places, where they give gifts and/or invite their benefactor to dinner with a very clear instrumental purpose.

This expressive ritual can also improve one’s ability to acquire resources. Sometimes an instrumental ritual used to ask a favour will become more effective if previous expressive rituals have been observed. Less instrumentally, people’s happiest and most rewarding hours are spent talking with neighbours, sharing meals with friends, participating in religious gatherings, attending celebration dinners for friends’ or relatives’ birthdays, weddings, or the birth of a new baby, or giving gifts and “good luck money” to friends and relatives on special occasions. In these activities, the practice of expressive ritual rather than instrumental ritual gradually improves the quality of guanxi.

Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.) examined both the dynamic process of cultivation of guanxi networks and their functions in everyday rural life. He states that “the closer to the centre in a given guanxi network, the more gift-giving relations are involved” (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 101). Moreover, he argues that “all instrumental gift-giving relations go beyond the village boundary”, which means that the gift giving of “the closer the more involved” is mainly expressive gift giving (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 102).

Many expressive rituals observed in this ethnographic study are consistent with Yan’s findings, and follow the pattern of “the more distant the less significant”. With the increase in social distance, people are less likely to be involved in, value and invest money and time on expressive ritual with their guanxi members. These expressive rituals include expressive gift giving, red packet giving, expressive banqueting, visiting a patient, and attending occasions such as weddings, childbirth celebrations and funerals. When Liu, a head teacher, was ill, all of his relatives visited him in hospital with red packets. He found that the closer the guanxi were, the more likely they were to visit him; and the closer the guanxi were, the more money they gave him. One parent, John, recalled his wedding and noted that closer guanxi gave more gifts and larger red packets. At the dinner celebrating the birth of John’s son, the closer guanxi were more likely to attend with red packets.

“The more distant the less significant” pattern of expressive ritual practice seems to be a principle of renqing ethic familiar to everyone in the two researched cities. This pattern corresponds to Fei’s (2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992]. [1947]) identification of chauxgeju – the differential mode of association. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between expressive and instrumental ritual, just as it is difficult to distinguish between expressive guanxi practice and la guanxi (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., p. 131). The motivation of people attending their supervisors’ weddings, birthday parties, or funerals for the supervisors’ parents could be expressive, or instrumental, or a combination of the two. Smart practitioners of guanxi are generally good at using expressive ritual activities, such as weddings and birthday parties, to develop ganqing (informants call this “ganqing investment”), so that they can ask for a favour in the future: this seems to be a more effective way of la guanxi. These rituals look like expressive rituals but are, in fact, instrumental ones. Nevertheless, whether expressive or instrumental, ritual practice can enhance one’s social capital if performed in the proper way.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...63?src=recsys&

[Ohio]

I was thinking that it might not be a good idea for Drake to challenge aron for "credible sources."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Cite a credible source for your outrageous statement about Asian culture.

Drake.

The public interface between Titus Chu and Witness Lee was ritualistic. I saw it. One clearly 'lost face', prefacing his statement with the words, "I am ashamed. . . " Guess which one that was?

[aron]

The other thing to keep in mind is, once one breaks the guanxi network, the reciprocal web of mutual obligations, there is no going back. There is no "ministry of reconciliation" that can repair the breach of etiquette. Thus it's holding power.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The other thing to keep in mind is, once one breaks the guanxi network, the reciprocal web of mutual obligations, there is no going back. There is no "ministry of reconciliation" that can repair the breach of etiquette. Thus it's holding power.

aron,

In the encyclopedia Britannica wannabe of guanxi that you posted in this thread there is nothing that validates your claim. Yet, perhaps I missed it buried in all the text.

So, please provide the actual text that supports your claim.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The public interface between Titus Chu and Witness Lee was ritualistic. I saw it. One clearly 'lost face', prefacing his statement with the words, "I am ashamed. . . " Guess which one that was?

Kind of helps to explain Asian ancestry worship too.

Asian "guanxi" culture at LSM has expunged all leadership accountability in the LC's.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

My point is that perhaps WL wasn't necessarily a snake oil salesman, as much as he was trying to fulfill his "church" mandate. The Living Stream Ministry, the full-time training, all of that came out of the requirements for the collective. WL's cultural predisposition wasn't the individual looking for the Spirit to guide him home. Instead his primary "vision" was the collective, and so he worked for the collective, and was willing to lie, to cover-up, to manipulate people, and to lift himself above the flock. Because he felt that was what the collective needed to go forward. All this was required for "good order in the church." So that was where the Deputy God teaching came from, and the idea of unquestioning obedience to the one in front of you.

The Body of Christ is a kind of symbol or metaphor (or illustration, type etc...) in the Bible, meaning the expression is not a statement describing Church as an physical entity. We can pay attentin to the fact that the seven gold lampstands in Rev. is a kind of symbol of churches. WL has made this point clear by saying that "The churches, sygnified by the seven golden lampstands,..." in his footnote of Rev. 1:20
But, when we comes to the matter of the Body of Christ, WL's teaching on it gives us the impression that he is describing the Body of Christ not as a symbol but as a physical entity. In the footnote of Eph 1:23, he says the Body of Christ is.... an organism. If I had been in the position of him in the matter of putting together footnotes of the bible, I would have said like this... "the Body of Christ is a symbolic expression of an organism, putting emphasis on the functioning of church members for the expression of Chris...", but interestingly, WL seems to stick to the direct statements by just using the copula "is".
Additionally, even though WL says the head of the Body of Christ is Christ, sometimes he also says there is such members as a Seer (Watchman Nee), deputy authority, promient apostles..., which leads us to the conjecture that the Head, the Christ, can be seen through this "special" brothers. We know the resultant outcome. "Just follow those brothers, not asking back or suspecting" etc.
To my best knowledge, this kind of sad predecament has been warned by a famous theoloian. Søren Kierkegaard. He emphasized the single individual before God. You can check his teaching here -> http://sorenkierkegaard.org/single-individual.html
I opine that "Being collective" has been over-praised among the LCs, and part of it was due to Asian mind of WL and other Asian brothers, I do not know how much they contribute to this result, though.

There is many misconceptions and outright contradictions in the Local church movement and the ministry of Lee. In my personal experience, I believe that the leadership of this group, and those that created these concepts out of thin air, have more to do with trying to reinvent the control mechanisms of the church in the book of Acts, and not anything that that church practiced or portrayed. This is on display every single day by those who are at the top of the food chain, and even those who blindly follow those men.

I wish I had time to write up a rebuttal to every single thing that I was taught in LC regarding this matter, but I don’t have billionaires funding my existence and daily life operation, or convinced thousands of people that only my writings are legit and they should be only reading my books. Opps, who would want that anyway! It would totally “inflate myself” and be divisive to even consider. Time to go to work and make a living somehow, and leave some things to the Lord to expose, or I will probably “be a person subject to being misled into serious errors.” It also might be my western concepts that I’ve developed that get in a way of proper understanding and special enlightenments that were only available to “superior bros”. One must always remember that Nee has diagnosed and issued a final cause and affect regarding us mortal beings trying to make sense of anything, by saying,

”….the Christian has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think. He cannot create, deduce or recollect, nor can he compare, judge and apprehend. Therefore he cannot think. And should he attempt to do so he experiences a kind of dazed sensation which stifles any productive thought.”

https://shepherdingwords.com/reading...blical-notion/

[WitnessALot]

Originally Posted by Gubei

The Body of Christ is a kind of symbol or metaphor (or illustration, type etc...) in the Bible, meaning the expression is not a statement describing Church as an physical entity. We can pay attentin to the fact that the seven gold lampstands in Rev. is a kind of symbol of churches. WL has made this point clear by saying that "The churches, sygnified by the seven golden lampstands,..." in his footnote of Rev. 1:20
But, when we comes to the matter of the Body of Christ, WL's teaching on it gives us the impression that he is describing the Body of Christ not as a symbol but as a physical entity. In the footnote of Eph 1:23, he says the Body of Christ is.... an organism. If I had been in the position of him in the matter of putting together footnotes of the bible, I would have said like this... "the Body of Christ is a symbolic expression of an organism, putting emphasis on the functioning of church members for the expression of Chris...", but interestingly, WL seems to stick to the direct statements by just using the copula "is".
Additionally, even though WL says the head of the Body of Christ is Christ, sometimes he also says there is such members as a Seer (Watchman Nee), deputy authority, promient apostles..., which leads us to the conjecture that the Head, the Christ, can be seen through this "special" brothers. We know the resultant outcome. "Just follow those brothers, not asking back or suspecting" etc.
To my best knowledge, this kind of sad predecament has been warned by a famous theoloian. Søren Kierkegaard. He emphasized the single individual before God. You can check his teaching here -> http://sorenkierkegaard.org/single-individual.html
I opine that "Being collective" has been over-praised among the LCs, and part of it was due to Asian mind of WL and other Asian brothers, I do not know how much they contribute to this result, though.

So the truth competes with the need for social acceptance (i.e., approval from the crowd). When we were following Witness Lee, hanging on his every word, it wasn't really about a search for the truth; rather, it was about social acceptance within a highly particular social context. It was about holding on to all the benefits (community, belonging, purpose, etc.) that we derived from such social acceptance.

[WitnessALot]

P.S. This may have been addressed elsewhere in this thread, but I think ancestor worship is another aspect of Asian culture that was brought into LC culture. I remember listening to older brothers speaking in a training about what they will "say to Witness Lee" when they "see him again in that day." It was really like they were talking about God, yet they were talking about Witness Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

The Body of Christ is a kind of symbol or metaphor (or illustration, type etc...) in the Bible, meaning the expression is not a statement describing Church as an physical entity.

There may have been a number of different levels of thought which were already competing (or running in tandem) by the NT era. The clearest sign of a number of interpretive grids in the 1st century CE is found in the NT itself, where the Sadducees don't believe in resurrection (neither angel nor spirit) but the Pharisees do. Also, the desert groups like Essenes/Theraputae/Qumran were antagonistically apart from both Jerusalem sects. Many scholars see Qumran influence on the Baptist, and several of Jesus' Galilean disciples were first with John (John 1:35)

So "the church which is the Body of Christ" may not have had a monolithic and universal mental construct behind it, either in penning or in its initial reception. At the very least, "the church which is in his/their house" was one common interpretation, which we'd today call a "meeting" or "gathering" or "assembly", versus a permanent standing body which superseded space and time. See, e. g., Philemon 1:2; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:5.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Additionally, even though WL says the head of the Body of Christ is Christ, sometimes he also says there is such members as a Seer (Watchman Nee), deputy authority, prominent apostles..., which leads us to the conjecture that the Head, the Christ, can be seen through this "special" brothers. We know the resultant outcome.

Gubei,

I appreciated your reference to Kirkegaard. Lost in the oft-misplaced fixation on "church" is the individual. I especially appreciated the line, "The God-relationship is worked out in the inner man." And I'd argue that nearly the entire NT scriptural use of OT referents has this singular point, that the individual in question is Jesus Christ. He is the Last Adam. He is the Lamb of God. He is the Good Shepherd, who lays down His life. He is the Son of David. He said, "All these things were concerning me". In this context the "ekklesia" is in some very real sense an extension of that One Individual, his obedience, his suffering, his glory. And for anyone in the collective to see anything other than that One Individual is to take one's eyes off of Salvation itself. The NT usage of OT text established this. The "I" of scripture is Christ. No Nee, Lee, Darby, Luther, or Paul can be ever conflated with the Head. I never see Paul setting up Timothy (or anyone else) to be his continuation.

No, to me the text is clear: "I (Christ) will sing praises to You (the Father) in the midst of the 'ekklesia'". As soon as we think of "deputy" God we're already taken from safety. The collective has been taken over by the wrong individual. The 'leader' is no more Christ but a usurper.

Now, lest our readers think that I'm some radical bomb-throwing anarchist wanting to burn down 2,000 year of Christian history, I remind them of Jesus' words: love one another. The individual is freed from self by 1) taking Jesus Christ as his/her person, and 2) by loving the individual next to you. Notice that Christ never teaches, "Love God with your whole soul and strength, and love the church". No, he teaches, "love the individual person next to you." This is the balance that frees one from loving some mythical pie-in-the-sky "Christ" while despising all else.

Much more to say (of course), but my posts are too long, anyway. Also, they're too confident in 'tone' or 'voice'. Please understand that I'm just thinking aloud. Nothing is "truth" to be argued over.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Notice that Christ never teaches, "Love God with your whole soul and strength, and love the church". No, he says, "love the individual person next to you." This is the balance that frees one from loving some mythical pie-in-the-sky "Christ" while despising all else.

I'm going to continue this, using another referent as my touchpoint.

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

So the truth competes with the need for social acceptance (i.e., approval from the crowd). When we were following Witness Lee, hanging on his every word, it wasn't really about a search for the truth; rather, it was about social acceptance within a highly particular social context. It was about holding on to all the benefits (community, belonging, purpose, etc.) that we derived from such social acceptance.

In my case, I grew up on the frontier. We wrestled with the land to survive. Nobody was there to save you, it was you and that fencepost (and then the next, and the next). My parents faced the frontier, mostly alone, they survived and their survival meant that I got to wrestle with a fencepost, too. But the collective was always there - I speak English because I'm an extension of the English-speaking family. Same with culture, including religion - I got brought into a Baptist church at a young and impressionable age, and was told that the flames of hell were licking at my feet, unless I repented and believed. That fire was not my rugged individual creation, quite the contrary.

Kierkegaard's quote shows that this individual/collective issue isn't limited to the Asian Mind, but I'd argue that in the Little Flock/LC it took a decidedly Asian cast. Watchman Nee took the Western "individualistic" aspect as his fulcrum to reject the West on its own terms. He, like Luther rejecting the Catholics, was free to reject the Lutherans (and Baptists and Methodists), and create a local assembly more to his own tastes. He's thus widely attributed to the rise of indigenous Christianity in China. But the irony is that 100 years later, his exported variants are nothing resembling indigenous or 'local' Christianity - they're Chinese-flavored assemblies! The one who threw off the imperialist yoke became the imperialist.

As an example, to publicly criticize Mao Zedong in PRC today is to court complete social, political, and economic isolation and ostracism. It's socially unthinkable, even 50 years after Mao's death. Likewise, criticizing the "deputy God" in the LC was (and remains) akin to "rebellion against God". Even, I stress, when the "deputy God" had children who were molesting church members and taking their money. But in a western-flavored personality cult, it's not necessarily so. The International (nee Boston) Churches of Christ, formed by evangelist Kip McKean, had similar evidences of Lee-ish mind-control, except when the McKean children strayed from the group, the leader was removed, per the idea that "all scripture is to be applied to all members", even (!!) the Group Leader.

And that, to circle back to Kirkegaard, and WitnessALot above, is the danger: the "truth" of the collective can be entirely against the purposes of God, but we rush pell-mell forward, anyways. The only real difference between the ICOC and the LC is that the first strayed from God in a Western-leaning individualist manner, but the latter took on a decidedly Asian turn.

[WitnessALot]

Originally Posted by aron

Kierkegaard's quote shows that this individual/collective issue isn't limited to the Asian Mind, but I'd argue that in the Little Flock/LC it took a decidedly Asian cast. Watchman Nee took the Western "individualistic" aspect as his fulcrum to reject the West on its own terms. He, like Luther rejecting the Catholics, was free to reject the Lutherans (and Baptists and Methodists), and create a local assembly more to his own tastes. He's thus widely attributed to the rise of indigenous Christianity in China. But the irony is that 100 years later, his exported variants are nothing resembling indigenous or 'local' Christianity - they're Chinese-flavored assemblies! The one who threw off the imperialist yoke became the imperialist.

The above paragraph really encapsulates it, aron. It's just Animal Farm all over again, isn't it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

No, to me the text is clear: "I (Christ) will sing praises to You (the Father) in the midst of the 'ekklesia'". As soon as we think of "deputy" God we're already taken from safety. The collective has been taken over by the wrong individual. The 'leader' is no more Christ but a usurper.

Now, lest our readers think that I'm some radical bomb-throwing anarchist wanting to burn down 2,000 year of Christian history, I remind them of Jesus' words: love one another. The individual is freed from self by 1) taking Jesus Christ as his/her person, and 2) by loving the individual next to you. Notice that Christ never teaches, "Love God with your whole soul and strength, and love the church". No, he teaches, "love the individual person next to you." This is the balance that frees one from loving some mythical pie-in-the-sky "Christ" while despising all else.

Great Points! And I'll add that whenever the Bible speaks of "one body with many members," (See e.g. Paul's letter First Corinthians) it's all about respecting the local gathering and loving the member next to you. Read the Bible! It was never about "being one with the ministry" or some global collective of LC's sans the rest of God's children.

And just the very thought of some intermediate "Deputy God" takes us back to the Babylonian Nimrod of Genesis 10 and his church age reincarnation as "The Pope," the supposed "Vicar" of Christ. That fake title can be changed, rebranded, and marketed to the Christian public as "new and improved," but the corrupted reality behind the curtain never changes. The Recovery MOTA in principle is no different from the Roman Pope, the Exclusive Brethren Oracle, the Mormon Prophet, etc.

Apostle Paul made it perfectly clear in Acts 20.30 that there will always be those who lust to be first, speaking distorted things, and drawing God's children, not to His Son, but to themselves. Their perverted teachings must never be construed as God's Word.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apostle Paul made it perfectly clear in Acts 20.30 that there will always be those who lust to be first, speaking distorted things, and drawing God's children, not to His Son, but to themselves. Their perverted teachings must never be construed as God's Word.

And here's what's really weird, to me. The gospels highlight this issue repeatedly. "They all argued, over which was greatest." Then we fell for the Ministry of the Age nonsense. Mea culpa.