The Asian Mind/The Western Mind

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Hope

Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story.

Thinking about how many experienced the "early Lee" in the U. S. A., I read a story on Watchman Nee and the influence of neo-Confucianism, noting a similar "early Nee - later Nee" phenomenon. Here is a quote below from the article.

Confucian political philosophy has two opposite characteristics. It can be used by a person without authority to challenge the person in the position, requiring his/her virtue to match the position. It can also to be used by the people in the position to reinforce their authority by asking people to submit, because the emperor represents Heaven. In the same way, when Nee has not had authority in the church, he challenge existing authorities, including denominations, institutions and liturgy, by criticising them from the perspectives of the legitimacy of power and purity.

When Nee has been in the leadership of the Little Flock Movement, he has asked the follower to submit to his deputy authority, because he has disclosed God’s will. Being in the leadership, Nee was “worshipped” by his followers, as an emperor was described as a sage. From this perspective, this perfectly explains the reason Nee has two opposite models of ecclesiology: the Antioch Model challenged the existing power in the church, while the Jerusalem Model emphasised submission to the authority.

You saw this dichotomy, of the initially humble bondslave, so gentle, but once in power you saw the autocratic despot. Witness Lee told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Holy Spirit to move, but he was incorrect. It was fallen and corrupted human soil, like any other. Same polluted soil, just a different flavor.

[aron]

Following post #592, more from the same source:

Neo-Confucianism as a syncretic product of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. Neo-Confucianism is a diffused religion, and its values will have impacts on people who live in the culture. Nee received traditional Chinese education and was influenced by Neo-Confucianism as the common people at his time.

Nee’s ecclesiology is very similar to Neo-Confucian political philosophy in the following ways: (1) focusing on the legitimacy of authority; (2) demanding restoring golden age order; (3) emphasising “reality corresponding to the name” and “unity”; (4) maintaining the idea that the metaphysical principle presenting in human community; (5) believing human beings knowing the higher principle through intuition; (6) having the same ideas on transforming community through self-negation and personal influence; and (7) maintaining the idea that morality/spirituality determining the authority.

From the analysis in this chapter, Neo-Confucianism has had a great impact on Nee’s ecclesiology, and the paradox of its political ideology explains the existing of Nee’s two opposite models of ecclesiology. The Antioch Model challenged the existing authority through demanding the purity of the church and of the clergy, while the Jerusalem Model emphasises submission to the Nee’s authority because he was the deputy authority, revealing God’s will.

Tien, H. E. (2020). Spirituality and Authority of the Corporate Christ: An analysis and critique of Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology (Doctoral dissertation).

It probably cannot be overstressed that Nee was converted to Christianity and began immediately to write and publish, unconsciously drawing on previous exposures and experiences to make sense of Christianity and to diffuse it outward. He literally made it up as he went along. Is it any wonder, then, that he seized upon Paul's "Spiritual Man" as his initial manifesto, overlapping so closely with the Confucian ideal?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

Following post #592, more from the same source:



Tien, H. E. (2020). Spirituality and Authority of the Corporate Christ: An analysis and critique of Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology (Doctoral dissertation).

It probably cannot be overstressed that Nee was converted to Christianity and began immediately to write and publish, unconsciously drawing on previous exposures and experiences to make sense of Christianity and to diffuse it outward. He literally made it up as he went along. Is it any wonder, then, that he seized upon Paul's "Spiritual Man" as his initial manifesto, overlapping so closely with the Confucian ideal?

Wow... a lot of the references are going over my head, haha! While I may not know much about Confucianism myself, what you are saying about how Nee and Lee operated seems to fit the bill with what I've seen in a multitude of ministry publications from The Lord's Recovery. I feel like I'm definitely out of my league on this particular topic, but I am fascinated nonetheless.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Thinking about how many experienced the "early Lee" in the U. S. A., I read a story on Watchman Nee and the influence of neo-Confucianism, noting a similar "early Nee - later Nee" phenomenon. Here is a quote below from the article.

You saw this dichotomy, of the initially humble bondslave, so gentle, but once in power you saw the autocratic despot. Witness Lee told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Holy Spirit to move, but he was incorrect. It was fallen and corrupted human soil, like any other. Same polluted soil, just a different flavor.

Fascinating. Reference?

Witness Lee himself admitted that he learned more from Chinese philosophers that from any missionaries:

- CHRISTIANITY NOT RELEASING THE PROFOUND REVELATION IN THE BIBLE—Some of you may wonder what my intention is in speaking to you concerning these particular and profound words. ……My intention is to release the profound revelation in the Bible. It is a pity that Christianity releases only ordinary doctrines to people instead of the fundamental and profound revelation and truth in the Bible….. I felt that the teachings of the Chinese philosophers were more profound than the preaching of the Western missionaries. During those few years, I stayed away from Christianity and did not attend any of their meetings.

CWWL, 1985, vol. 2, "The Fullness of God," ch. 1: The Meaning of the Fullness of God—the Creation of Man Being for the Fullness of God

Here is one publication regarding Nee, that will help to understand this concepts.

https://docslib.org/doc/777556/the-s...an-perspective

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Aron,

I have been classifing the Biblical teachings into two categories - first, cluture-agnostic teachings that we should follow regardless of specific time/space context, and second, cluture-influenced teachings like "greeting with a holy kiss" or "playing piano or not during church service" etc.
In the past, I regareded "one locality-one church doctrine" as being a culture-agnostic teaching, but thesedays, I think this is a kind of cluture-influenced theaching, becuase unlike ancient times when a "city" was well defined by physical stone wall and churches were in the embryonic stage with so small number of believers meaning naturally there is only one church in one city, moderen times have seen a lot of churches mushrooming with so many Christians. It is a bit impossible to stick to the one locality-one church doctrine as a culture-agnostic teaching. Admittely, WN really wanted to see churches are under good order without division, so he elaborated on his teaching on one locality-one church, but even we have long had this teaching, in reality, have we achieved real oneness among Christians? My answer is NO. Even among LCs, my observation is seeminly they always claim so, but I doubt our God really recognizes them being so, because the ground of oneness is not one locality-one city doctrine itself, but the sprit of oneness which LCs seems not to want to apply to other Christians out of LC members.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Aron,

I have been classifing the Biblical teachings into two categories - first, cluture-agnostic teachings that we should follow regardless of specific time/space context, and second, cluture-influenced teachings like "greeting with a holy kiss" or "playing piano or not during church service" etc.
In the past, I regareded "one locality-one church doctrine" as being a culture-agnostic teaching, but thesedays, I think this is a kind of cluture-influenced theaching, becuase unlike ancient times when a "city" was well defined by physical stone wall and churches were in the embryonic stage with so small number of believers meaning naturally there is only one church in one city, moderen times have seen a lot of churches mushrooming with so many Christians.

Actually, either position presumes that "one locality-one church" is actually a doctrine supported by scripture. As I can find no real support for it, it seems to not be available to categorize into your agnostic/influenced dicotomy.

[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).

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

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.

Hi, WitnessAlot,

To avoid any possible being off the track, one should continually interact with other people. Theologians are not exceptions. That's why there is such thing as academic societies and their journals, in which theologians present their opinions and others support or academically criticize for better result.

To my best knowledge, WL has not involved in any formal discussions with other theologians. Partly, that was due to his lack of English fluency. Ironically, he stressed the importance of taking off any glasses which keep us from seeing straight from the divine revelation, but he himself has not been officially tested by others, especially Western scholars. He might have believed he himself is totally apart from any errors. When we review his attitude towards his co-workers when they present dissenting opinions(aka, "rebellion"), I would say his "inner composition of an Asian man" has popped up. Unlike western people who are accustomed to dissenting opinions and reasonable compromise by discussions, WL seem not to have had those kind of experience.

There was a chance to correct this sad situation when WL passed away, but his successors took the path of "putting him on the highest place" (semi-deification?) and his teachings have become untouchable among them.

Everyone has his/her own "brew" in understanding the Bible and its truths, but usually they do not say theirs are the only one genuine pure God-given food, and their restaurant is "THE" restaurant. As soon as one claims so, that is the advent of "personality cult."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Gubei

To my best knowledge, WL has not involved in any formal discussions with other theologians. Partly, that was due to his lack of English fluency. Ironically, he stressed the importance of taking off any glasses which keep us from seeing straight from the divine revelation, but he himself has not been officially tested by others, especially Western scholars. He might have believed he himself is totally apart from any errors. When we review his attitude towards his co-workers when they present dissenting opinions(aka, "rebellion"), I would say his "inner composition of an Asian man" has popped up. Unlike western people who are accustomed to dissenting opinions and reasonable compromise by discussions, WL seem not to have had those kind of experience.

Walter Martin was one who comes to mind, but that was not long lasting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

Walter Martin was one who comes to mind, but that was not long lasting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

Thanks for the link. I will listen to it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Gubei

There was a chance to correct this sad situation when WL passed away, but his successors took the path of "putting him on the highest place" (semi-deification?) and his teachings have become untouchable among them.

Yes, they had opportunity to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Late 1990's following Witness Lee's passing, the brothers deified Witness Lee. He was perfected. "Mistakes other men would make, Brother Lee wouldn't make." That's paraphrasing one brother I knew.
I could understand why the co-workers have done what they do. Witness Lee's ministry is their employment. It would not be prudent for them to begin scrutinizing where Witness Lee was off compared to scripture. That's why Witness Lee's ministry is considered on par with scripture by those meeting with the Local Churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gubei

There was a chance to correct this sad situation when WL passed away, but his successors took the path of "putting him on the highest place" (semi-deification?) and his teachings have become untouchable among them.

Nigel Tomes wrote a great article after the Midwest quarantines.

He compared the Exclusive Brethren Taylorites with the successors of the 18th Moravian Zinzendorf. The Blendeds like the Taylorites have refused to address any of the excesses and failures, whereas those after Zinzendorf did correct some teaching errors and brought further blessing to that move of the Lord.

Those who are proud refuse to learn, but the humble will learn, grow, change, and be blessed by the Lord.

[Gubei]

Yes, they had opportunity to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Late 1990's following Witness Lee's passing, the brothers deified Witness Lee. He was perfected. "Mistakes other men would make, Brother Lee wouldn't make." That's paraphrasing one brother I knew.
I could understand why the co-workers have done what they do. Witness Lee's ministry is their employment. It would not be prudent for them to begin scrutinizing where Witness Lee was off compared to scripture. That's why Witness Lee's ministry is considered on par with scripture by those meeting with the Local Churches.

Nigel Tomes wrote a great article after the Midwest quarantines.

He compared the Exclusive Brethren Taylorites with the successors of the 18th Moravian Zinzendorf. The Blendeds like the Taylorites have refused to address any of the excesses and failures, whereas those after Zinzendorf did correct some teaching errors and brought further blessing to that move of the Lord.

Those who are proud refuse to learn, but the humble will learn, grow, change, and be blessed by the Lord.
__________________

I remember Witness Lee lamanted his wrong doings towards other christians in a meeting not long before his passing away. He spoke in Chinese, and when I listened to his speaking, I felt his confessions were quite genuine. But later, after his passing away, his successors claimed that WL's confessions was not apology something like that. Which means that was the watershed event that shaped what had come to us afterwards.
In a sense, WL was not so lucky because his last confessions were interpreted in a way of kind of "distortion" by his successors, but... that was also a harvest of what he planted in the past. I'm so sorry about that.