Desiderius Erasmus Versus Martin Luther

[aron]

The following was published in 1501, by Erasmus. It is part of Chapter 7, of a 38-chapter book, entitled "Enchiridion Militis Christianii", or "The Manual of a Christian Warrior". Chapter 7 is called "On the three parts of man, the spirit, the soul, and the flesh"

These things afore written had been and that a great deal more than sufficient: Origene in his first book upon the epistle of Paul to the Romans maketh this division. nevertheless that thou mayst be somewhat more sensibly known unto thyself, I will rehearse compendiously the division of a man, after the description of Origene, for he followeth Paul making three parts, the spirit, the soul and the flesh, which three parts Paul joined together, writing to the Thessaloniences. That your spirit (saith he) your soul and your body may be kept clean and uncorrupt, that ye be not blamed or accused at the coming of our Lord Jesu Christ. And Esaias (leaving out the lowest part) maketh mention of two, saying, My soul shall desire and long for thee in the night, yea, and in my spirit and my heart strings I will wake in the mornings for to please thee. Also Daniel saith, Let the spirits and souls of good men laud God. The flesh. Out of the which places of scripture Origene gathereth not against reason the three partitions of man, that is to wit, the body, otherwise called the flesh, the most vile part of us, wherein the malicious serpent through original trespass hath written the law of sin, wherewithal we be provoked to filthiness. And also if we be overcome, we be coupled and made one with the devil. The spirit. Then the spirit wherein we represent the similitude of the nature of God, in which also our most blessed maker after the original pattern and example of his own mind hath graven the eternal law of honesty with his finger, that is, with his spirit the Holy Ghost. By this part we be knit to God, and made one with him. In the third place, and in the midst between these two he putteth the soul, which is partaker of the sensible wits and natural motions. Thou must remember the soul and the spirit to be one substance, but in the soul be many powers, as wit, will, memory: but the spirit is the most pure and farthest from corruption, the most high and divine portion of our soul. Capax of God [recognition or awareness of God] immediately wherein God hath graven the law of honesty, that is to say, the law natural, after the similitude of the eternal law of his own mind. She is in a seditious and wrangling commonwealth and must needs join herself to the one part or the other, she is troubled of both parts, she is at her liberty to whether part she will incline. If she forsake the flesh and convey herself to the parts of the spirit, she herself shall be spiritual also. But if she cast herself down to the appetites of the body she shall grow out of kind into the manner of the body. This is it that Paul meant writing to the Chorintes. Remember ye not that he that joineth himself to an harlot is made one body with her: but he that cleaveth to the Lord, is one spirit with him. He calleth the harlot the frail and weak part of the man. This is that pleasant and flattering woman of whom thou readest in the second chapter of Proverbs on this wise. That thou mayst be delivered from a strange woman and from a woman of another country, which maketh her words sweet and pleasant, and forsaketh her husband to whom she was married in her youth, and hath forgot the promise she made to her Lord God: her house boweth down to death and her path is to hell. Whosoever goeth into hell, shall never return: nor shall attain the path of life. And in the vi. chapter. That thou mayst keep thee from an evil woman, and from the flattering tongue of a strange woman, let not thy heart melt on her beauty, be not thou deceived with her beckonings, for the price of an harlot is scarce worth a piece of bread: but the woman taketh away the precious soul of the man. Did he not when he made mention of the harlot, the heart and the soul express by name three parts of the man? Again, in the ix. chapter: A foolish woman ever babbling and full of words, swimming in pleasures, and hath no learning at all, sitteth in the doors of her house upon a stool in a high place of the city to call them that pass by the way and be going in their journey, Whosoever is a child, let him turn in to me: and she said unto a fool and an heartless person, Water that is stolen is pleasanter, and bread that is hid privily is sweeter. And he was not aware that there be giants, and their jests be in the bottom of hell. For whosoever shall be coupled to her, he shall descend into hell. And whosoever shall depart from her, shall be saved. I beseech thee with what colours could more workmanly have been painted and set out either the venomous enticements and wanton pleasures of the poisoned flesh, provoking and tempting the soul to filthiness of sin, or else the importunity of the same crying and striving against the spirit, or the wretched end that followeth when she doth overcome the spirit. To conclude therefore, the spirit maketh us gods, the flesh maketh us beasts: the soul maketh us men: the spirit maketh us religious, obedient to God, kind and merciful. The flesh maketh us despisers of God, disobedient to God, unkind and cruel. The soul maketh us indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor bad. The spirit desireth celestial things: the flesh desireth delicate and pleasant things: the soul desireth necessary things: the spirit carryeth us up to heaven: the flesh thrusteth us down to hell. To the soul nothing is imputed, that is to say, it doth neither good nor harm: whatsoever is carnal or springeth of the flesh that is filthy: whatsoever is spiritual proceeding of the spirit, that is pure, perfect and godly: whatsoever is natural and proceedeth of the soul, is a medium and indifferent thing, neither good nor bad. Wilt thou more plainly have the diversity of these three parts shewed unto thee as it were with a man’s finger? Certainly I will essay. That which is natural deserveth no reward. Thou doest reverence to thy father and mother: thou lovest thy brother, thy children and thy friend: it is not of so great virtue to do these things, as it is abominable not to do them. For why shouldest thou not being a christian man do that thing which the gentiles by the teaching of nature do, yea which brute beasts do? That thing that is natural shall not be imputed unto merit. But thou art come in to such a strait case that either the reverence toward thy father must be despised, the inward love towards thy children must be subdued, the benevolence to thy friend set at nought, or God must be offended. What wilt thou now do? The soul standeth in the midst between two ways: the flesh crieth upon her on the one side, the spirit on the other side. The spirit saith, God is above thy father: thou art bound to thy father but for thy body only. To God thou art bound for all thing that thou hast. The flesh putteth thee in remembrance, saying: Except thou obey thy father, he will disinherit thee, thou shalt be called of every man an unkind and unnatural child, look to thy profit, have respect to thy good name and fame. God either doth not see, or else dissimuleth and wittingly looketh beside it, or at the least, will be soon pacified again. Now thy soul doubteth, the soul doubteth, now she wavereth hither and thither, to whether of either part she turn herself. That same shall she be, that that thing is she went unto. If she obey the harlot, that is to say the flesh (the spirit despised) she shall be one body with the flesh. But if she lift up herself and ascend to the spirit (the flesh set at nought) she shall be transposed and changed to the nature of the spirit. After this manner accustom to examine thyself prudently.

This was published 15 years before Luther protested indulgences at Wittenberg. This was the kind of work I was referencing when I said (on the thread "Was Witness Lee a False Prophet?") that Erasmus had "light". My assertion had nothing to do with the Pope, the Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation.

I remember Witness Lee said he'd gotten the teaching of the three parts of man from Mary McDonough ("God's plan of redemption", published in 1922, reprinted by LSM in 1999). I would argue that Lee was a few centuries out of date, at least, and I also feel that Erasmus (and Origen, as well) did as goor or better a job of explaining this matter than did Witness Lee.

Of course, "better" and "worse" are subjective human assessments. So I am trying to give an example showing why I prefer Erasmus. Can someone give an example of Lee's writing on the three parts of man, which is better (i.e. more useful) to us than this excerpt might be?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The following was published in 1501, by Erasmus. It is part of Chapter 7, of a 38-chapter book, entitled "Enchiridion Militis Christianii", or "The Manual of a Christian Warrior". Chapter 7 is called "On the three parts of man, the spirit, the soul, and the flesh"
This is it that Paul meant writing to the Chorintes. Remember ye not that he that joineth himself to an harlot is made one body with her: but he that cleaveth to the Lord, is one spirit with him.... I beseech thee with what colours could more workmanly have been painted and set out either the venomous enticements and wanton pleasures of the poisoned flesh,

I note here also that Erasmus takes the spiritual picture painted by Paul, of being joined together and "being one", and connects it to the multiple admonitions against joining with "strange women" in Proverbs, and ending up in hell. Lee apparently missed this opportunity. The Book of Proverbs to Lee seems to have been "natural", and not worth much discussion.

If someone can show me where I am wrong here in my assessment, by all means please do so.

[MacDuff]

Aron

A couple questions.

Was this the Erasumus that compiled the Greek New Testament that eventually became the Received text in Protestantism? If this is the same Erasmus, I've seen references to him being a humanist. And I see no evidence of such in what you have quoted.

What is the source of this work of Erasmus and are there other works of his that are available in translation?

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

A couple questions.

Was this the Erasumus that compiled the Greek New Testament that eventually became the Received text in Protestantism?

Yes. Erasmus was noted for his translation of "church fathers" like Jerome, Augustine, and Origen. And also for his Greek New Testament, which immediately challenged the Vulgate and became the basis for English and other translations (Tyndale, etc).

My understanding is that the "textus receptus" was one of Erasmus' more hasty works. But it is subtantially correct, and it was a quite a shock to the "Vulgate only" crowd.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm

If this is the same Erasmus, I've seen references to him being a humanist. And I see no evidence of such in what you have quoted.

I think Erasmus is the patron saint of the humanists because he was at the forefront of scholarly forces overturning of centuries of superstition and tradition. He was widely credited for bringing ancient learning back into contemporary discourse. His insistence on using the brain God gave him to examine the evidence before him, and to make his own conclusions, made him an inspiration to many, including those "humanists" who put the human reason at the center. Erasmus clearly did not. His clear and unswerving aim of scholarship was that both "the philosophy of Christ", as he put it, and also the person of Christ as God's Son and our Savior, would be at the forefront of the human experience.

What is the source of this work of Erasmus and are there other works of his that are available in translation?

MacDuff

The book is in the public domain. I copied mine from a site called "The online site of Liberty"

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php...temid=99999999

Erasmus' most enduring work was "The Praise of Folly", a 'paradoxical encomium' in which something clearly not worthy of respect, in this case human folly, is extolled highly. What was dangerous about the book was that in it he skewered the Catholic Church with all of its ridiculous behaviors. The monks, priests, bishops and popes were mocked.

He was also credited with "Pope Julius Excluded From Heaven", a widely disseminated satire in which the recently deceased Pope tries to get Peter to recognize and admit him within heavens' courts. Peter naturally refuses. It is quite funny, and nearly cost Erasmus his life.

An excerpt: PETER: Immortal God, what a sewer I smell here! Who are you?
JULIUS: So you know what sort of a prince you’re insulting, listen a bit …The Venetians, previously not conquered by anyone, I crushed in battle…I drove the French, who were then the terror of the whole world, completely out of Italy…when I died I left five million ducats…
PETER: Madman! All I hear about is a leader not of the church but of this world, more wicked than the pagans…
JULIUS: You would say otherwise if you had witnessed even one of my triumphs…the horses, the parades of armed soldiers…the lavishness of the displays, the triumphs, the booty…myself carried aloft like some divine thing…So you won’t open?
PETER: To any, sooner than to such a pestilence; you yourself are a great builder: build yourself a new paradise.

I grew up in fundamentalist Protestantism. Luther was adored, and Erasmus ignored. But as I tried to make the point in ZNP's "Was Witness Lee a False Prophet?" thread, history is not as "black and white" as we wish it were. We shouldn't fall into the same traps that caught Lee. How many voices had to be silenced for him to present his "History of the Church and the Local Churches"? Let's not do the same. Let everyone speak.

I was hoping to contrast Erasmus with Luther, not to show that one was "better" than another, but to demonstrate that history may not be as simplistic as we may have hoped. Only Jesus wears a white hat. We all have varying shades of gray, and our attempts at darkening others' only succeeds in besmirching our own. May we all see grace and mercy triumph over judgment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I grew up in fundamentalist Protestantism. Luther was adored, and Erasmus ignored. But as I tried to make the point in ZNP's "Was Witness Lee a False Prophet?" thread, history is not as "black and white" as we wish it were...

I was hoping to contrast Erasmus with Luther, not to show that one was "better" than another, but to demonstrate that history may not be as simplistic as we may have hoped. Only Jesus wears a white hat. We all have varying shades of gray, and our attempts at darkening others' only succeeds in besmirching our own. May we all see grace and mercy triumph over judgment.

I really don't have much to say on Erasmus vs. Luther. So I'll make my few points.

First, as I tried to demonstrate with a quote from his Enchiridion, Erasmus had something to say about Jesus Christ, and our Christian experience. As a Protestant I never got exposed to people like Erasmus because how could a Catholic say anything of value to us? Yet as I said, Erasmus connected First Corinthians Six' warning on being joined with a lascivious woman with the Proverbs' similar warnings in a penetrating manner. Lee seems to have ignored the Proverbs. I argue that Lee was too shallow; Erasmus (like his great hero Origen) went deeper, and found spiritual 'water' for the thirsty.

Second, I cannot criticize Luther for his ex-communication and subsequent schism, and the violence which ensued. But it's worth noting that no troops marched forth behind Erasmus' writings. Nobody died. In contrast, when Luther was notified of thousands perishing in one of the failed "Peasant Rebellions", he merely shrugged and said, in effect, "To make omelets you have to break eggs." But no, Luther: these were human beings who were dying.

I cannot say that I prefer Erasmus to Luther, but I certainly prefer the non-violence which followed Erasmus to the violence following Luther (and the Calvinists, the Puritans, and so many others).

Thirdly, when it became apparent that Erasmus wouldn't join his cause, Luther, who had admired and been inspired by Erasmus, became his bitter foe. Erasmus, however, wouldn't reciprocate the antagonism, saying that he wasn't against anything, but rather for Jesus Christ. I read a letter written by Luther shortly before his death, in which he tried to bury Erasmus under the most scandalous invective he could muster. Erasmus simply wrote back and said, "Luther, you are mad". In Erasmus' writing I could see both a love of truth and compassion for humans, including Martin Luther, his onetime protege. In Luther's letter I merely saw fury personified.

Having said all this, I have read some of Luther's writings on justification by faith and admit in them is the power of clear truth revealed. But I find his writings more "fundamental", more crude and simplistic, than those of Erasmus. Erasmus went further, deeper, higher. I think in Protestantism he's been ignored because a) he's not a hero of "the cause", and b) because those godless secular humanists admire him. And the Catholics mostly pretend Erasmus doesn't exist because he didn't respect the status quo, but rather held it up against the Bible, and Christ in particular. And this made a lot of powerful people very unhappy.

I have heard it said that a prophet is the one who speaks truth to power. I admire Erasmus tremendously for his conviction to present the truth, and for his efforts to trace it back to the Truth manifested to all by God in Jesus Christ, and which has been plainly revealed in scriptures.

[awareness]

Great post Aron. Thanks for the links ..

A favorite Erasmus quote :

"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god....."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Second, I cannot criticize Luther for his ex-communication and subsequent schism, and the violence which ensued. But it's worth noting that no troops marched forth behind Erasmus' writings. Nobody died. In contrast, when Luther was notified of thousands perishing in one of the failed "Peasant Rebellions", he merely shrugged and said, in effect, "To make omelets you have to break eggs." But no, Luther: these were human beings who were dying.

It was the German nobles which made Martin Luther the first MOTA. When it comes to standing up against the Papists, Luther is without equal, partly because none of his predecessors could survive the Roman thugs very long. Luther, however, was protected, and lived to protest another day.

When it came to treating his brothers with the love of God, Luther was very much like the last MOTA in Anaheim. Luther threw many under the bus. He sacrificed the Anabaptists to preserve his own movement. He and the Swiss reformers led by Ulrich Zwingli agreed on 14.5 major items, yet Luther still refused to work together with them. In true MOTA fashion, he could not work together with others, unless he was in charge.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it came to treating his brothers with the love of God, Luther was very much like the last MOTA in Anaheim. Luther threw many under the bus... In true MOTA fashion, he could not work together with others, unless he was in charge.

Luther behaved maybe better than we would have in similar circumstances; and if there be a kingdom reward he might be found far up the table than us "small potatoes". Who knows? Certainly, though, he had his faults, some pretty glaring.

But our point here has not been to measure the man Luther; rather it is that circumstances, and situations, and people, are not as simplistic as we might have been led to believe. Luther was arguably (and I largely agree) a man used by God. Yet there were also aspects of the tale which don't shine as brightly, as with Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, and others of whose histories we got mostly biased accounts. And this obviously includes those of Mssrs. Nee and Lee. We heard that their only faults might have been that they were too patient, too trusting, too forgiving of others.

But I argue that those kinds of one-sided, glowing tributes lead to strange and paradoxical conclusions. For example, if it was of God that Luther left Catholicism, and a similarly that Nee left Luther's Protestantism, then why are any such further moves called "divisive", "Satanic", and "rebelling against God"? Perhaps because such contradictory assessments further the narrative. Likewise Luther's biography often got simplified, with any unpleasant bits toned down, in order for him to fit the "hero" mold we got in the Protestant-biased histories.

For me it all comes down to this: those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In the local church versions of church history, the RCC was the paragon of evil, and today the local churches have created something arguably worse than the RCC. They ignored all the unpleasant, troubling and contradictory parts of their own histories, until those hidden parts mushroomed so large that they're obvious to all but the most blinded.

In what way has Anaheim become the new Rome, you may ask? Well, let me give just one example to make my point. Erasmus managed to survive within the RCC system, although he was on thin ice at a couple points. The papal powers had to decide whether more damage would be done by eliminating this popular and infuential writer, or by tolerating him. And Erasmus, aware of this, tried to serve the truth as he saw it without becoming a martyr. For example, he continually denied being the author of "Pope Julius Excluded from Heaven", although the writing style was unmistakably his, and he would smile and wink when his friends pressed him privately about it.

My question is this: would an Erasmus survive today, in the "One Publication Policy", Living Stream Ministry-dominated Lord's Recovery? I would answer, not a chance. Any tolerance his voice found within the RCC would be absent today in the local churches of Lee. This is why I see in the "One Publication" edict a distinct echo of the human-centric "oneness" of Daniel 3:6 and Revelation 13:15.

[Ohio]

A few snapshots from the bootleg edition of Philip Schaaf's work might help the reader here ...

What Reuchlin did for Hebrew learning, Erasmus, who was twelve years his junior, accomplished for Greek learning and more. He established the Greek pronunciation which goes by his name; he edited and translated Greek classics and Church Fathers and made them familiar to northern scholars, and he furnished the key to the critical study of the Greek Testament, the magna charta of Christianity.

He was the contemporary of the Protestant Reformers and was an invaluable aid to the movement led by them through his edition of the New Testament, his renunciation of scholastic subtlety in its interpretation and his attacks on the ceremonial religiosity of his age.

But, when the time came for him to take open sides, he protested his aversion to the course which the Reformers had taken as a course of violence and revolution. He died in isolation, without a party. The Catholics would not claim him; the Protestants could not.

Erasmus was the prince of Humanists and the most influential and useful scholar of his age. He ruled with undisputed sway as monarch in the realm of letters. He combined brilliant genius with classical and biblical learning, keen wit and elegant taste. He rarely wrote a dull line. His extensive travels made him a man of the world, a genuine cosmopolitan, and he stood in correspondence with scholars of all countries who consulted him as an oracle. His books had the popularity and circulation of modern novels.

His labors had a far-reaching bearing on the future. He was a leading factor in the emancipation of the mind of Europe from the bondage of ignorance and superstition, and he uncovered a lifeless formalism in religion. He unthawed the frost-bitten intellectual soil of Germany. ... But the sweep of his influence is due to the mediation of his pupils and admirers, Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Luther.

Erasmus’ break with the old mediaeval ecclesiasticism was shown in a fourfold way. He scourged the monks for their ignorance, pride and unchastity, and condemned that ceremonialism in religion which is without heart; he practised the critical method in the treatment of Scripture; he issued the first Greek New Testament; be advocated the translation of the Bible into the languages spoken in his day.

In almost every work that he wrote, Erasmus, in a vein of satire or in serious statement, inveighed against the hypocritical pretension of the monkery of his time and against the uselessness of hollow religious rites. In his edition of the New Testament, he frequently returns to these subjects. For example, in a note on Matt. 19:12 he speaks of the priests "who are permitted to fornicate and may freely keep concubines, but not have a wife."

Perhaps Erasmus was the first to begin the practice of footnotes and study Bibles.

This footnote was particularly poignant for Erasmus since he was born out of wedlock, and his father was probably a priest at the time.

It was a common saying, to which Erasmus himself refers, that he laid the egg which Luther hatched. Here it is enough to say that Erasmus desired a reformation by gradual education and gentle persuasion within the limits of the old Church system. He disapproved of the violent measures of Luther and Zwingli, and feared that they would do much harm to the cause of learning and refined culture, which he had more at heart than religion.

He and Luther never met, and he emphatically disavowed all responsibility for Luther’s course and declared he had had no time to read Luther’s books. And yet, in a letter to Zwingli, he confessed that most of the positions taken by Luther he had himself taken before Luther’s appearance. The truth is that Erasmus was a critical scholar and not a man of action or of deep fervor of conviction. At best, he was a moralist. He went through no such religious experiences as Luther, and Luther early wrote to Lange that he feared Erasmus knew little of the grace of God.

Erasmus had no mind for the fray of battle. His piety was not deep enough to brave a rupture with the old order. He courted the flattery of the pope, though his pen poured forth ridicule against him. And nowhere is the difference of the two men [Luther and Erasmus] shown in clearer light than in their treatment of [Pope] Leo X., whom, when it was to his advantage, Erasmus lauded as a paragon of culture. Erasmus lacked both the candor and the courage to be a religious hero. "Erasmus is a man for himself" was the apt characterization often repeated.

Erasmus never intended to separate from Rome any more than his English friends, John Colet and Thomas More. He declared he had never departed from the judgment of the Church, nor could he.
The Catholic Church, however, never forgave him. All his works were placed on the Index by two popes, Paul IV. in 1559 and Sixtus V., 1590, as intentionally heretical.

It is my opinion that the Reformation needed critical scholars like Erasmus, many passionate leaders like Luther and Zwingli, and the spirit of man crying out for truth and liberty. Missing a single ingredient and Rome would have squashed the movement as she had done for centuries.

[MacDuff]

Learning from history can still be narrow, if one is learning from only a small portion of it.

Anaheim becoming the “new Rome” implies that the “old Rome” is dead. And in order to become a “new Rome” it would have to be more than just another Protestant denomination, which in fact the LC is.

The “One Publication Policy” is not so unusual. Lutherans will only go to the book of Concord and those writings that agree with it. Calvinists will only go to Calvin’s systematic theology and writings that conform to it. Wesleyans are biased toward Wesleyan writings. So also, the RCC has it’s own publications that it thinks promotes the mind of “the Church”. Since the LC can’t monitor what everyone in that community reads, but only what is written, it has the “One Publication Policy” that promotes the mind of that community that thinks of itself as “the Church”. Would you rather they used writings that promoted the RCC or some Protestant denomination? And cause as much confusion within that community as is in Protestantism?

The cry for truth and freedom can be taken too far and the idea very misunderstood. Take note of what is happening in America today, where secular Relativism is the order of the day, except when it has to do with Christian “truths” of one sort or another.

MacDuff

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Luther behaved maybe better than we would have in similar circumstances; and if there be a kingdom reward he might be found far up the table than us "small potatoes". Who knows? Certainly, though, he had his faults, some pretty glaring.

But our point here has not been to measure the man Luther; rather it is that circumstances, and situations, and people, are not as simplistic as we might have been led to believe. Luther was arguably (and I largely agree) a man used by God. Yet there were also aspects of the tale which don't shine as brightly, as with Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, and others of whose histories we got mostly biased accounts. And this obviously includes those of Mssrs. Nee and Lee. We heard that their only faults might have been that they were too patient, too trusting, too forgiving of others.

In my previous post, I was just noting how Lee and Luther, and we could add Darby too, all considered so-called Recovery MOTA's, had similar intolerant personalities, with a disdain for others, and the noted inability to work with peers.

aron, I am only critical of ones which have been "over-esteemed" in the Recovery, and not trying to berate Luther, Erasmus, or any other of a whole host of the Lord's servants. I am not their judge. Neither do I consider it beneficial to anyone that we elevate Martin Luther as the initial MOTA of the Lord's Recovery. He was just one of many used by God.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Well, in keeping with a nod to the request from Igzy to keep posts brief where we can - let me begin by saying briefly "You just blew my mind!"

I wasn't sure how much of a discussion I wanted to get in to here on this topic - given that:

1) It's only related to "Local Church Discussions" by way of simile.
2) I am no expert on either Erasmus or Luther.

However, I have to respond to what I've read here because, given pt. #1 above and our current positions, I cannot really believe what I am hearing.

Aron sir, you have said "Erasmus, was, I believe, one of the most effective "opposers" of the RCC system. And he did so, strikingly, from within the system itself".

I must ask how you arrive that conclusion? What was it Erasmus did to "effectively" oppose the Catholic church? He skewered it with satire, yes - but what was "effective" about his oppostion? What is the legacy of reform left within the Catholic church after the death of Erasmus (1536)?

Let me specifically ask:

A) Did the Catholic church renounce the claim that the elected Pope was the Head of the Church? (Answer: No - this is still their claim, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)

B) Did the Catholic church renounce the claim that the Pope was infallible? (Answer: No - this is still their claim, see http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility).

C) Did the Catholic church renounce the claim that people ought to pray to or through Mary, the human mother of Jesus and acknowledge that this is nothing less than idolatry, an abomination in the eyes of God? (Answer: No - this is still their claim, see http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/prayingtomary.html).

D) Did the Catholic church open up the blessed sacraments of our Lord to Laity and acknowledge their error in retaining them (the elements of the Lords' Supper) for themselves? (Answer: No, they still do not share the Body of Christ with believers - only the priests have access to this. See http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm).

E) Did the Catholic church cease burning those who opposed their authority at the stake? (Answer: No - the Spanish Inquisition itself ran through to 1834, and while finding answers to this question is difficult because it is considered extremely politically incorrect in this age to nail down this one quick with a google search, suffice it to say that this practice continued well past the time of Erasmus).

...I could go on, but I think my point is made. Erasmus was never about reform - and he admitted it himself. He was not just scared of confrontation, he was all about appeasement. He enjoyed lambasting, not seeking piety and Truth. This actually broke Martin Luther's heart, as he tried again and again to appeal to the man to stand for something other than himself - but Erasmus wouldn't do it. Read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther, and you will see what I mean. Erasmus wanted to stay in Rome's good books because he saw it was in his own best interest....

How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?

1) If we really believe that Erasmus was an effective "opposer" or reformer of the Catholic church, then we all ought to return to the Catholic church ourselves, so that we can emulate his effective reform to effect more.

2) Taken to the next logical conclusion - if we really believe that effective opposition can be made from within a corrupt religious system, then we should never have left the LRC either. We could have accepted the status quo, perhaps anonymously "lambasted" a few higher up muckety-mucks, and otherwise let matters lie.

Do either of those options really strike you as the right one to make?


Seriously? (and I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically).


Ray

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?

1) If we really believe that Erasmus was an effective "opposer" or reformer of the Catholic church, then we all ought to return to the Catholic church ourselves, so that we can emulate his effective reform to effect more.

2) Taken to the next logical conclusion - if we really believe that effective opposition can be made from within a corrupt religious system, then we should never have left the LRC either. We could have accepted the status quo, perhaps anonymously "lambasted" a few higher up muckety-mucks, and otherwise let matters lie.

Do either of those options really strike you as the right one to make?

I tried to show in those blurbs from Schaaf's History that Erasmus was an extremely influential ingredient of the Reformation. His contribution cannot be under-valued even though ones like Luther were critical of his endeavors. My comments about Luther were designed to also acknowledge his tremendous role in the Reformation, yet he was by no means the first MOTA of the Recovery.

In like manner, we should not be critical of others' efforts regarding the Recovery. We have to allow each to be led by the Lord. There are no requirements upon us to replicate another's path. Regarding the Recovery today, we need some Luther's, some Erasmus's, some to run a discussion forum on the web, others to post on it, and however else the members are led.

We also need ones like Ray and awareness to challenge us.

[MacDuff]

NeitherFirstnorLast

Did you even read any of the links you provided? Your point D is totally false. Originally, only the bread was offered the laity, not the wine. So they got the body, but not the blood if one takes it in the sense you say. Currently, most Catholic Churches now offer both elements to the laity. The rest of what you said about the RCC was typical fundamentalist Protestant thinking. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the part about the RCC being the antichrist. Since you equate RCC and the LC in the latter part of your post, I have to wonder if your thinking concerning the LC isn't as skewed as of the RCC. Take care of your bias.

Ohio, I'm sorry if this lessons your view of Erasmus and his contribution to the Reformation in the eyes of some, but I agree with it. Probably be the last time I say I agree with you. It's time for me to move on, I think. You don't want someone like me to challenge you, and it's pretty obvious I have wore out my welcome here, especially where Igzy is concerned.

MacDuff

[OBW]

While the beginning may be similar, there is a difference between Rome and the "protected" state of Luther's new movement. At least from what I read in the snippets provided.

What eventually became the RCC began as something brought to power by the government (specifically Constantine). At that point, you can draw a parallel to Luther. Luther did not seek to become leader of a new nation/religion. Rather, the nation sought to remove the chains of the Roman nation which was ruled by the religion of the RCC. Luther did not direct any armies. But we see that the pope did at that time. References to Rome were not to a civil government, but to the RCC. And to the pope.

But Germany was never ruled by the Lutherans, no matter how linked you may say they were. As far as I can see, the head of the Lutheran church was never the leader of the civil authorities. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

As for Erasmus' writings on the spirit, and the three parts of man, I find his comments about as foundational as wet sand. He said a lot. But I don't see anything that makes his thoughts more than a self-spun yarn.

And whether Lee should or should not have given credit to earlier writers for his teachings is really not the important point. The real point is whether it is supported by the scripture. The age of the teaching is really unimportant. Same for the original teacher. Sure, we may give more serious thought to things taught by certain ones, but if we simply take it because it was [whoever], and not someone else, then we are failing to diligently consider what they say against the record we find in scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Ohio, I'm sorry if this lessons your view of Erasmus and his contribution to the Reformation in the eyes of some, but I agree with it. Probably be the last time I say I agree with you. It's time for me to move on, I think. You don't want someone like me to challenge you, and it's pretty obvious I have wore out my welcome here, especially where Igzy is concerned.

MacDuff

Macduff, please don't take things so personally, especially from Igzy -- he's just trying to improve the quality and content of the forum. I get corrected all the time -- just a part of life.

I'm fine with folks challenging me -- just don't be upset with my response, or lack thereof.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Macduff, please don't take things so personally, especially from Igzy -- he's just trying to improve the quality and content of the forum. I get corrected all the time -- just a part of life.

I'm fine with folks challenging me -- just don't be upset with my response, or lack thereof.

I second that Macduff. You put good stuff out here. It would be a shame to lose you.

Because of the mission out here it is a little stuffy.

There's more freedom on iSpeak -- that use to be The Bereans :
psquare.org/ispeak/forumdisplay.php?19-Local-Church-movement-(Lord-s-Recovery)

[Cal]

awareness's comments don't bother me because he thinks anything is stuffy that doesn't fit him like a glove, and since that includes just about everything...

Just be grown-ups, guys. Treat people how you'd like to be treated. Be respectful of others. Don't be petulant. Don't make it all about you. Focus on the subject at hand instead of on your pride.

What I'm asking for should be no problem for mature people.

Posting here is a privilege not a right. It's clear you guys want to post here. So just respect the forum. Do you go to parties and start complaining about the refreshments? It takes some work to provide this venue. The least you could do is respect the rules and the people here. Is that too much to ask? Sheesh.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

awareness's comments don't bother me because he thinks anything is stuffy that doesn't fit him like a glove, and since that includes just about everything...

Just be grown-ups, guys. Treat people how you'd like to be treated. Be respectful others. Don't be petulant. Don't make it all about you. Focus on the subject at hand instead of on your pride.

What I'm asking for should be no problem for mature people.

Posting here is a privilege not a right. It's clear you guys want to post here. So just respect the forum. Do you go to parties and start complaining about the refreshments? It takes some work to provide this venue. The least you could do is respect the rules and the people here. Is that too much to ask? Sheesh.

I understand Igzy. Thanks fer the advice. I'm doing my best to be a good boy.

I guess I'm still use to The Bereans forum, that was pretty free. That site was amazing. And the material abounded. I think freedom is where innovation and ingenuity abound. It certainly more than worked at the Bereans. But freedom is hard to deal with at times. We saw that on the Bereans as well.

[UntoHim]

Harold, my dear friend, you are confusing freedom with anarchy.

Here in the good ole US of A we have freedom, but our freedom comes with some limitations. Free speech doesn't mean you can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. We have "public" areas... parks, national forests, etc. This public areas are for public use, however they come with limitations - what days you can camp there, prohibitions on open fires, etc. Most of the streets and highways are for public use - but they have a speed limit.

What are all these restrictions and rules about. I thought we were free in America?

LocalChurchDiscussions is an open forum, but this does not mean it is open to anybody who wants to talk about anything. That would be anarchy. The general theme is discussions regarding the teachings, practices and history of The Local Churches associated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. This forum does not exist for folks to question the major tenets of the Christian faith, or compare and contrast it to other religions, much less humanism or other secular concerns.

I really don't think we are too restrictive, but if a person considers it as such they definitely have LOTS of choices out there. The Internet is a great big world full of blogs and forums for people to spout off in any manner they want. Nobody is forced to come here and lurk, much less participate. As you have noted, there is at least one other forum which contains a board about Nee, Lee and the Local Church. They have a "mission" as well, but it's just so diverse that the administration does not seem to have the interest or time in moderating that particular board. It's like the wild, wild west.....shoot from the hip and don't worry where the bullets end up.

Whatever you do Harold, I would appreciate it very much if you don't run on over to the Bereans forum and falsely claim that you or anybody else was banned from LocalChurchDiscussions for merely expressing your opinions....that's a very bad look for you my man.

[awareness]

I wouldn't want your job bro UnToHim. Things are never so clear cut.

Some question everything when coming out of the LRC. But you only want Nee, Lee, Recovery questions. Yet these ones are or have come out of the LRC.

The sharing of their questioning may turn out to be a case-study for the forum. And maybe a help to others going thru similar post-LRC experiences. Don't you love them too?

Do you have to be an evangelical to be welcomed out here? If so I can love you guys, but you're not gonna have much love fer littl' ol' me.

[UntoHim]

Now Harold, you know very well that I love everybody....I'm just that kind of guy But you see I love my children very much, and when they were young I didn't let them play in the street, and I didn't let them stick the silverware in the electric sockets either. What a meanie I was!

No you don't have to be evangelical to be welcomed out here. Look at you Harold, you're welcome here. Here's the thing though, whether you're an Evangelical, a Roman Catholic or a Zen Buddhist....We all need to stay within the general theme of the forum. Again, there are lots and lots of other places on the Internet for people to discuss everything under the sun.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now Harold, you know very well that I love everybody....I'm just that kind of guy But you see I love my children very much, and when they were young I didn't let them play in the street, and I didn't let them stick the silverware in the electric sockets either. What a meanie I was!

LOL ... I did that with a wire bobby-pin ...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No you don't have to be evangelical to be welcomed out here. Look at you Harold, you're welcome here. Here's the thing though, whether you're an Evangelical, a Roman Catholic or a Zen Buddhist....We all need to stay within the general theme of the forum. Again, there are lots and lots of other places on the Internet for people to discuss everything under the sun.

Yes and I'm on other forums ... but I identify with exLCers more than those on other forums ... I'm weird ... Weird Harold ... And thanks for loving this idiot ...

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Anaheim becoming the “new Rome” implies that the “old Rome” is dead. And in order to become a “new Rome” it would have to be more than just another Protestant denomination, which in fact the LC is.

I didn't state precisely. Anaheim becoming the new Rome doesn't presuppose that the old Rome is nullified.

Better, perhaps, to have said that the principle of power agglomeration and human domination (which are the hallmarks of Satan), which were exemplified biblically in Rome, Jerusalem, and Babylon, can be reproduced again, and may be seen today in the edicts coming from Anaheim. And elsewhere I am sure: Living Streamers don't have the last word on control issues; they are just the topic of our discussion here.

The LC is just another Protestant denomination, yes; but one with a "black hole" at its center. Everything flows to Anaheim, and nothing flows out, except cries for "more! more!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

What was it Erasmus did to "effectively" oppose the Catholic church? He skewered it with satire, yes - but what was "effective" about his oppostion?

Nobody died from Erasmus' writings; contrast this to the mayhem that followed Luther. I call that effective. Remember that our standard is Christ. "Let everything be done decently and in order", said Paul, and I agree. I see more Christ in Erasmus' life and letters than in Luther's.

How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?

1) If we really believe that Erasmus was an effective "opposer" or reformer of the Catholic church, then we all ought to return to the Catholic church ourselves, so that we can emulate his effective reform to effect more.

2) Taken to the next logical conclusion - if we really believe that effective opposition can be made from within a corrupt religious system, then we should never have left the LRC either. We could have accepted the status quo, perhaps anonymously "lambasted" a few higher up muckety-mucks, and otherwise let matters lie.

How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?

1) It is to ask a question, which I have not seen anyone answer yet, despite my repetitions: if it is okay for Luther to leave Catholicism, why not also for Nee to leave Luther's Protestantism? And why not for Dong Yu Lan (et al) to leave LSM's movement? All I ever see is the subjective "It was okay for Luther, and Nee, but not for Dong Yu Lan." In other words, I can do it but you can't. Why? Because.

2) The thread of Erasmus vs. Luther grew out of my point to ZNP in "Was Lee a False Prophet" that history isn't so black-and-white as we wish. I grew up in Protestantism, hearing encomiums to the heroes of the faith, who happened to be Protestants. People like Erasmus, who just might have something to say to us about Jesus Christ, get ignored. History is messier, and more complicated. Jesus clearly has a white robe, but we should be hesitant to elevate or denigrate any others before we all reach the Judgment Seat.

I as a life-long Protestant have grown to prefer Erasmus over Luther, but that is a subjective preference because a) I am a liberal intellectual and b) the violence that followed Luther bothers my conscience. If it doesn't bother yours, that's fine. And ten years from now I might have much less esteem for Erasmus.

3)I dated Erasmus' "three parts of man" essay at 1501 to show that the history timelines provided by various restoration movements should be taken with skepticism. These groups give us bowdlerized versions of history which fit their self-interested narrative, and don't reflect actual events. The Resoration History usually runs thus: "Mankind dwelt in darkness, then God raised up (Watchman Nee, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy) to bring us the recovered truth in these last days". The LSM version of this has, for example, Luther "recovering" justification by faith in the 16th century, then Brethren Assemblies with their OT types, then Mary MacDonough recovering the three parts of man in 1922, then Nee recovering the ground of the church. My point was that Origen covered types and anti-types with arguably greater depth and sophistication than Govett and Panton ever did, and Erasmus wrote on the Paul's "three parts of man" four centuries before MacDonough did. And the book I cited was quite well-known in Europe in the first decades of the 16th century.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for Erasmus' writings on the spirit, and the three parts of man, I find his comments about as foundational as wet sand. He said a lot. But I don't see anything that makes his thoughts more than a self-spun yarn..

I find the image of a soul faced with the choice of either a divinely-oriented spirit and an earthy-oriented body to be foundational, right behind "Love the LORD your God with all your heart..." and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus asked, "What profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" What your soul loves it will join, and ultimately become, as Erasmus so effectively showed by connecting Paul's admonitions regarding prostitution in 1 Cor. 6 with the similar admonitions in Proverbs (2:15, ch. 5, ch. 7, 9:18, etc).

Originally Posted by OBW

And whether Lee should or should not have given credit to earlier writers for his teachings is really not the important point. The real point is whether it is supported by the scripture. The age of the teaching is really unimportant. Same for the original teacher.

My point in noting the publication date of the "Enchiridion" is that the Restoration Movement histories usually give truncated versions of the "recovery of lost truths". See my comments in point 3) in post 25 of this thread. "Who got there first" is largely irrelevant to folks like you and I, but it is crucial to the legitimacy of people like Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The LC is just another Protestant denomination, yes; but one with a "black hole" at its center. Everything flows to Anaheim, and nothing flows out, except cries for "more! more!"

I went back to the LC franchise which I was most familiar with, about ten years later. None of the young people were left. They had all either been vaccuumed up by the LSM and were "serving" somewhere, or they were "out of the church life". How local is that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I went back to the LC franchise which I was most familiar with, about ten years later. None of the young people were left. They had all either been vacuumed up by the LSM and were "serving" somewhere, or they were "out of the church life". How local is that?

Sorry aron, but you are seriously out of date, and out of touch.

The transition from the "local" church to the "one body" was successfully engineered by LSM over 25 years ago. You are definitely not "up to date" with the Recovery. Sorry!

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by aron

Nobody died from Erasmus' writings; contrast this to the mayhem that followed Luther. I call that effective. Remember that our standard is Christ. "Let everything be done decently and in order", said Paul, and I agree. I see more Christ in Erasmus' life and letters than in Luther's.

Well Aron, as you say, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine... but I would say that it sounds like you're blaming Luther for the "mayhem" that followed him, rather than the parties that caused the mayhem (the Papists) - and that's a little like blaming a rape victim for dressing too attractively, wouldn't you say? ("Well, if you woulda just put up with all the apostacy and corruption instead of nailing your 95 thesis to the door in Wittenburgh, you never would have gotten so many thousands killed, WOULD you have Martin?!") Martin Luther wasn't the bad guy here, the Papists were. And if you can't take a stand against Apostacy, then how can you possibly be better than the apostates?

....And if burning "heretics" at the stake was still acceptable, and Anaheim didn't have to content themselves with only "character" assassinations of those who 'oppose', then I think you can imagine where our own break with that "church" would lead us - can't you? In such a hypothetical scenario, would you lay the blame for the blood shed by Anaheim on us as well?


Ray

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?

It is to ask a question, which I have not seen anyone answer yet, despite my repetitions: if it is okay for Luther to leave Catholicism, why not also for Nee to leave Luther's Protestantism? And why not for Dong Yu Lan (et al) to leave LSM's movement? All I ever see is the subjective "It was okay for Luther, and Nee, but not for Dong Yu Lan." In other words, I can do it but you can't. Why? Because.

It was OK for Luther to leave Catholicism from his point of view not the RCs point of view. It was OK for Nee to leave Protestantism from his point of view not many missionaries point of view. Of course it's OK for Dong Yu Lan to leave the LSM movement but they don't think so.

Originally Posted by aron

The Resoration History usually runs thus: "Mankind dwelt in darkness, then God raised up (Watchman Nee, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy) to bring us the recovered truth in these last days". The LSM version of this has, for example, Luther "recovering" justification by faith in the 16th century, then Brethren Assemblies with their OT types, then Mary MacDonough recovering the three parts of man in 1922, then Nee recovering the ground of the church. My point was that Origen covered types and anti-types with arguably greater depth and sophistication than Govett and Panton ever did, and Erasmus wrote on the Paul's "three parts of man" four centuries before MacDonough did. And the book I cited was quite well-known in Europe in the first decades of the 16th century.

The common currency of restoration/recovery and their step-child remnant movements is that God specially selected them and gave them special light and they conveniently make church history match this position. They put themselves in a select stream of history. But if you look closely at the "new light" they supposedly have you'll find that many Christians before them "saw" the same things in the Bible.

What happened when Witness Lee came to the U.S. in the 1960s with his package of new light is he was met with 3 things:

1) Spiritual hunger especially among young people who had a willingness to hear new things

2) A general ignorance of Biblical truth among Christians

3) Many Christians dissatisfied with their existing "church life" experiences

So his teachings and practices of seemingly new things were not actually new but they were new to the people hearing them. Eventually some of these people realized that the new light he claimed to have were just rehashed Brethren and inner life teachings.

[MacDuff]

Aron

Post #24 (if it is still so)

the principle of power agglomeration and human domination (which are the hallmarks of Satan)

I don’t see human power and domination as necessarily from Satan. Humans are quite capable in that regard in their own right. But I’m not ruling out Satanic influence either.

Other than that, I see what you’re saying and agree. I rather like your reference to the black hole. I haven’t had your experience in the matter. But from what I have read, your analogy is more than apt.

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I don’t see human power and domination as necessarily from Satan. Humans are quite capable in that regard in their own right. But I’m not ruling out Satanic influence either.

Power and influence are of themselves not necessarily bad. The physical universe seems to be constructed thus: things clot together (galaxies, solar systems, mountain ranges, ant hills), and in the clotting process, someone (or something) is bound to assert, "I am in charge here!" (as ever, thx to Al Haig for that phrase).

But Jesus taught, "That is the way it is in the world, but it should not be so with you. With you, whomever wants to be great, should be the least of all" (Matt 20:16; Mk 9:35). So I overlook it at least somewhat in Corporation X but take a rather dim view of it when "I am in charge here" inevitably rears its head among the faithful.

[MacDuff]

Aron

Couldn’t agree more.

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The common currency of restoration/recovery and their step-child remnant movements is that God specially selected them and gave them special light and they conveniently make church history match this position. They put themselves in a select stream of history. But if you look closely at the "new light" they supposedly have you'll find that many Christians before them "saw" the same things in the Bible.

What happened when Witness Lee came to the U.S. in the 1960s with his package of new light is he was met with 3 things:

1) Spiritual hunger especially among young people who had a willingness to hear new things

2) A general ignorance of Biblical truth among Christians

3) Many Christians dissatisfied with their existing "church life" experiences

So his teachings and practices of seemingly new things were not actually new but they were new to the people hearing them. Eventually some of these people realized that the new light he claimed to have were just rehashed Brethren and inner life teachings.

Originally Posted by Larry Eskridge

Most Influential Authors/Books

Not surprisingly, the Bible was overwhelmingly the first response of the people who took our
survey-but this was expected. This list takes into account the other authors and titles (including
various new paraphrases/formats of the Bible that appeared in the `70s) that were mentioned most
frequently among initial responses.

1. ) Hal Lindsey (136)
2. ) David Wilkerson (78)
3. ) C. S. Lewis (75)
4. ) Watchman Nee (46)
5. ) Francis Schaeffer (43)
6. ) Josh McDowell (41)
7. ) Chuck Smith (23)
8. ) tie-Bob Mumford (18)
The Living Bible (18)
10. ) Billy Graham (16)
11. ) tie-Nicky Cruz (13)
Derek Prince (13)
John L. Sherrill (13)
Corrie Ten Boom (13)
15. ) tie-Dennis and Rita Bennett (11)
Hannah Hurnard (11)
A. W. Tozer (11)
18. ) tie--Arthur Blessitt (10)
Merlin Carrothers (10)
20. ) Pat Boone (8)

Other authors/titles with 5 or more "first three" mentions: Brother Andrew, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Bill Bright, John Bunyan, Charles G. Finney, The Good News Bible, Tim LaHaye, Letters to Street
Christians, Andrew Murray, Pat Robertson, Ray Steadman, John Stott, Mel Tari, Winkey.

Another thing Witness Lee had going for him upon his arrival on the shores of the USA was the strong positive influence of Watchman Nee. Lee could peg himself as Nee's true successor and closest former confidant, and would immediately have spiritual credibility with many.

The second quote is from "God's Forever Family", published by Oxford U. Press in 2013. A revised PhD diss. by Larry Eskridge. Eskridge surveyed several hundred former Jesus People from the 1960s and Watchman Nee was 4th in name recognition/influence. So Lee traded on that, big time.

Perhaps yet another thing WL had going for him when he came was that the TV show "Kung Fu" was popular. Sorry...had to say it. I think it set people up for some super spiritual Chinese man to tell them "secrets" of how to live! It ran from'72 to '75. : )

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Perhaps yet another thing WL had going for him when he came was that the TV show "Kung Fu" was popular. Sorry...had to say it. I think it set people up for some super spiritual Chinese man to tell them "secrets" of how to live! It ran from'72 to '75. : )

I know you're being facetious, but there's some truth here. In the late '60s - early '70s USA the Old Order of the West was collapsing around the youth (Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War, Environmental Crisis, Sexual Revolution, the Bomb (Nuclear Annihilation - remember the Cuba Missile Crisis) Women's Liberation Movement). JFK and RFK and MLK were shot to death, the college campus was the scene of riots, Yippies, Hippies, Diggers, Black Panthers, Weathermen, SLA ... I could go on. Suffice it to say there was a lot of uncertainty and instability.

So a sage from the East telling his 'grasshopper' the hidden secrets and wisdom as an emergent myth was not without attraction. The Beatles went to India looking for Wisdom, followed by the Stones and the Who. Sun Myung Moon started his Korean Holiness Church. We started talking about "karma" even though we knew nothing about it - we just said it because others were saying it and it was new and, "cool". Thus, culture is born anew. It assimilates 'the other' in a constant attempt to re-invent itself. Religion is really no different.

Suddenly the little humble Chinaman Bruce Lee sprouts claws (oops, that was the wrong comic) and beat up Chuck Norris in 1972

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068935/

and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and in the same year. We were all impressed.

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

Culture is a double-edged sword. We're attracted by the "other" and yet repelled by it. Witness Lee definitely took advantage of the novelty factor, claiming credit for his seemingly otherworldly ministry, but then he and his group had to deal with it when the cultural pendulum swung the other way.

Aron: That is exactly what I meant. Thank you for seeing it, too.