Now's good - byHismercy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.

Great post here aron putting history in fresh perspective.

I and others completely bought into this "virgin soil" stuff presented by Lee by concluding that perhaps a different culture -- the one from China -- was somehow a "spiritual" culture because it was foreign to our own here in America. Besides Lee told us so. It took a couple decades for this foreign culture paradigm to get exposed by its bad fruit to us native Americans. So its no wonder that the LC's have become so "yellow" over the years.

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In addition to the "much discussion" in v 7 (NIV), look at the decisionmaking process alluded to in verse 22:

"Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men. . ."

It doesn't say that one super-apostle decided something, but that a group of peers decided something together. I've told this story before, but it bears repeating: one of my elders tried to give a conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was shut down by Anaheim. "Re-speak the latest conference".

Collective decision-making was foreign to this culture. It was top-down fiat.

I spent several years immersed in the LC, and learned first-hand their zeal, their dedication to their cause. But the cause for me is to tell the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the forgiveness and eternal life available in his name. The Little Flock/Local Church gave me "truths" like: one apostle per age (an indefensible joke); one church per city (not true if ekklesia means a 'meeting' like the NT shows [see e.g., Acts 19:41]); the "intensified Christ for the degraded church" (doubtful if there were seven lamps of fire already burning before the ark in Moses' vision - "see that you build all things according to the vision given you on the holy mountain"); and "God's economy" (the only time Jesus spoke on 'oikonomeia' it was typically translated stewardship [Luke 16:2], as in 'responsibility', not 'dispensing').

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

the Acts 15 conference . . . under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In the Acts 15 conference there were 'senior members' like Peter and James. But it doesn't seem that they dominated the discussion, only that they concluded it.

Apparently multiple parties got to speak in Acts 15, and give differing views, then Peter and James got to conclude and vocalize group consensus. In the Little Flock/Local Church model, only the deputy God got to speak, and everyone else had to say, "Amen". Do you see the difference? In the Nee/Lee church model only one person got to speak and the rest had to echo. In the LC if anyone tried actual discussion they were told to "get out of your mind". If they persisted in attempting discussion, they were branded rebels, traitors to the cause and expelled.

And if their 'oracle' made logical errors, like in one place saying that the psalmist portrayed Christ through violent expressions ("this shows Christ defeating Satan") and elsewhere calling the same views "natural" or "fallen", or if the RecV footnote in one place said that the psalmist was blessed and rewarded for his fealty as Christ typified (e.g., Psalm 16, notably cited on Pentecost) while elsewhere footnotes panned the same views because "we all know that nobody can please God" (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalms 17-19), we simply had to say, "Amen", because the oracle had spoken. End of discussion. (or, better put, no discussion). "Get into your spirit, brother!"

Or if their deputy God erred and put his "unspiritual" progeny over the churches, to run roughshod over them, too bad. No commentary allowed, nor discussion. One must "take the cross" or some other pseudo-spiritual phraseology.

These kinds of experiences better fit a "cultural Christianity from the orient" model than the actual experiences shown in the NT.

The LC posits an 'expressed truth' or 'recovered truth' dominating each segment of the narrative, and one protagonist as its prime mover. In Acts 15, for example, Peter is perhaps the mover of the "gentiles can come in the church without restrictions" idea, acquiesced by James.

But we should stress that this idea only arrived at after open group discussion. The idea of one dominant oracular vessel holding one 'truth' per age doesn't fit the NT text nor church history. Only Jesus has such a place in the gospel narrative; none else. Those believe in the resurrection of Jesus find themselves in an assemblage of peers, of fellows, of mutuality, of "considering others as greater than oneself". Only Jesus is the Master.