Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I do believe that the Nee in the Recovery is strongly biased by the oft-times dominant Witness Lee. We have no idea what Nee really said, but it seems that Confucius and Chinese culture often supersedes the influence of the Bible.
|
I think this can be true of anyone studying and teaching the Bible. We bring our upbringing, culture etc. to bear on our interpretation. We are unavoidably influenced but it. Listening to some Americans talk you would think Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed guy who lived in the suburbs, had BBQs in his backyard, voted Republican, was a flag waving American patriot and was always on our side regardless of the conflict we got ourselves involved in.
However those who are more seriously engaged in Biblical scholarship understand that these biases exist and consciously try to be as objective as possible in their exegesis work. They use tools like the hermeneutical spiral. They work in teams of peers who can freely cross check and challenge one another. Etc.
Witness Lee did not do this which is why so much of his cultural baggage could influence his teachings and practice. There was no one there to stop him. And there was no "scientific" method to Bible study and interpretation. He was a one man show and so today the LC system does not ask themselves: what does this verse mean? They ask: what did Witness Lee say this verse means? This is their method of Bible study. And their team of peers (BB) is based on all agreeing on what Witness Lee said this verse means. That's the extent of it.