"Globalization of Chinese Christianity: A Study of Watchman Nee and..."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Safe, reasoned theology of thousands of years' precedent became cookie-cutter catch-phrases, some of it turned disastrous. At best it missed the beauty and depth of the revelation of Jesus Christ. At worst it brought ruin.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this little part, or if you maybe didn't quite say what you intended. I would say that even as cookie-cutter phrases, assuming they are underpinned with the reasoned theology of the thousands of years, it can't be too bad.

I think that wanting everyone to appreciate the "depth and beauty" of the revelation of Jesus Christ may be misinterpreting the real meaning of "beauty." Sort of like misunderstanding "joy" in the face of extreme hardship or love in the context of Lord of the universe and created being. I am not belittling these as irrelevant, but the past 200 or so years has seen love become more and more something romantic rather than solid and stable. Romantic is neither. It is subject to flights of fancy and voids when you just "can't get that feeling" again.

Like those guys said in their marriage seminars years ago. Love is a choice. Not a feeling or an experience. That is how arranged marriages work. They choose. We think we are choosing from long before marriage, but then continue to choose all the way to the divorce court because our choice is based on feelings and whimsy. Not on commitment to the choice made.

[aron]

Globalization of Christianity via sloganeering and catch-phrases becomes an invitation (to me) to shallowness at best, and error at worst. "God loved us and sent His Son" and "God is light" are arguably summations by their authors, and can be profitably unpacked in scripture (and experience) over a lifetime.

But scripture is scripture, and theology is theology. "The Father is the Son" and "God became man to make man God" are examples of the latter. "The Age of the Word is over; it is now the Age of the Spirit" as well. In my mind, crude and over simplistic at very best, and an invitation to deviation in actual practice as it spreads into the world. And that's what I contend happened, on the mainland China as the Shouters morphed away from LCM control. The slogans took on a horrific life (or, anti-life) of their own.

Good theology brings us to appreciate what Paul meant when he wrote of the height, the depth, the breadth of the kingdom of God's Christ. One may hold forth simple theology, and perhaps one should, but it carries it recipient into inexhaustible beauty as they subsequently traverse scripture. The danger of Lee's sloganeering is that it carried one away from scripture, and into Lee's ministry. The focus shifted from scripture to ministry to minister. And I think it was deliberate. The disaster that followed wasn't anticipated (who ever could have?) but it followed hard upon.

[OBW]

But . . .

The Age of the Word is over; it is now the Age of the Spirit

is not scripture or theology. It is misdirection wearing the mask of the Spirit to fool people. The same can be said for the nonsense about "the Father is the Son," "Christ is now the Spirit," and that nonsense about making man God.

It is not just poor theology. It is not correctly theology as it does not arise from the study of God, but the ignoring of what is available with which to study God and instead using the whimsy of (a) man.

Quit allowing such nonsense to continue to wear the mask of legitimacy. It is not legitimate. It is fully illegitimate. It is evidence of spiritual fornication. They use enough scripture in their speaking to hide their lack of actual legitimate use of it from the masses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But . . .
is not scripture or theology. It is misdirection wearing the mask of the Spirit to fool people. The same can be said for the nonsense about "the Father is the Son," "Christ is now the Spirit," and that nonsense about making man God.

It is not just poor theology. It is not correctly theology as it does not arise from the study of God, but the ignoring of what is available with which to study God and instead using the whimsy of (a) man.

Quit allowing such nonsense to continue to wear the mask of legitimacy. It is not legitimate. It is fully illegitimate. It is evidence of spiritual fornication. They use enough scripture in their speaking to hide their lack of actual legitimate use of it from the masses.

The New Testament actually did not come from theology, yet it is legitimate. Not everything legitimate must come from Scripture or theology. For example, in the New Testament, Jude and Paul cited things not found in the Old Testament - the "book of Enoch", "the Assumption Of Moses", not Scripture but nonetheless truthful.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The New Testament actually did not come from theology, yet it is legitimate. Not everything legitimate must come from Scripture or theology. For example, in the New Testament, Jude and Paul cited things not found in the Old Testament - the "book of Enoch", "the Assumption Of Moses", not Scripture but nonetheless truthful.

Interesting statements. But not responsive to what I posted.

This in no way explains the taking of something like one of those to create theological musts that stand in opposition to what is in scripture. Neither Jude's nor Paul's quotes of non-scriptural sources negate existing scripture so they are not somehow to be understood as having weight equal to or above that of scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Neither Jude's nor Paul's quotes of non-scriptural sources negate existing scripture.

And nowhere did Paul or Jude or any of the speakers and writers of the NT say that some scripture wasn't written according to the spirit but according to the fall, i.e. according to the poisonous tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere.

Yes the law brought death but not because the law (or the psalms, or the prophets) was tainted by the fall. The law and the prophets and psalms rather: 1) temporarily shepherded and guided humanity until the light could come; 2) was continually held in the NT as itself prophetically pointing to the coming light. Nowhere does NT eisegesis say that it contravened the light. Nowhere.

The scripture is neither vain words nor fallen human concepts - rather it points us to the Christ. In this, NT reception of scripture is consistent.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The New Testament actually did not come from theology, yet it is legitimate. Not everything legitimate must come from Scripture or theology. For example, in the New Testament, Jude and Paul cited things not found in the Old Testament - the "book of Enoch", "the Assumption Of Moses", not Scripture but nonetheless truthful.

I think the fact that the Spirit included these quotes in scripture negates the importance of their source.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the fact that the Spirit included these quotes in scripture negates the importance of their source.

There is also a place in Paul's comments about his coming death and how he has done that he is almost quoting Socrates. I was listening to something being read from Socrates at one point years ago and was struck how similar a small part was to what Paul had said. I can't give references now, but it was interesting.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the fact that the Spirit included these quotes in scripture negates the importance of their source.

Right, it doesn't really matter that the Book of Enoch wasn't authored by Enoch.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the fact that the Spirit included these quotes in scripture negates the importance of their source.

The fact that the Spirit quoted these non-scriptural sources, is proof of what I say that some of what the non-scriptural sources say is truthful.

My comment before that a statement not from the bible or theology can be truthful, is well supported by these facts.

Witness Lee's statements regarding the "Age of the Spirit" may be truthful, even if it is not found in the bible or theology.

If we believe otherwise, we would have to say to Paul "Paul, you quoted from non-scriptural sources, therefore what you say is false".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact that the Spirit quoted these non-scriptural sources, is proof of what I say that some of what the non-scriptural sources say is truthful.

My comment before that a statement not from the bible or theology can be truthful, is well supported by these facts.

Witness Lee's statements regarding the "Age of the Spirit" may be truthful, even if it is not found in the bible or theology.

If we believe otherwise, we would have to say to Paul "Paul, you quoted from non-scriptural sources, therefore what you say is false".

It's truth because Paul, one of the apostles, wrote it.

WL's statements, on the other hand, are not true in itself, rather must be compared with the truths in the Apostles' teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But . . It is not scripture or theology. It is misdirection ... the ignoring of what is available with which to study God and instead using the whimsy of (a) man..

Whimsy is exactly the right word. "The age of spiritual giants is over" was what we heard at WL's passing; that's whimsy. "The age of the Word is over; it is the age of the Spirit" again is cheap sloganeering, devoid of basis. And its simplicity helped the promulgation of a ministry and organization but entirely at the expense of truth.

The reason globalized Chinese Christianity, or this variant at any rate, has taken hold predominantly among the Chinese diaspora is they can't smell the stench of fallen human culture in the slogans. To them it's the normal Christian church life. Now, one may argue that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are likewise fallen human culture. Fine. But why is Asian culture a better replacement?