Archive

Archive for the ‘Chinese culture’ Category

How Chinese engage in conflict

29 November 2010 7 comments

Image from sxc.hu1. Harmony in Confucianism

The Chinese are strongly influenced by Confucianism, which has shaped the thinking and behaviour over a period of two and a half thousand years. And arguably the highest virtue in Confucianism is harmony.

Confucius taught during a time when China was divided up into warring kingdoms. And he taught with the aim of bringing about harmony for the whole of society. But he also desired harmony in other places as well – the ruler was to maintain harmony between heaven and earth. The li was meant to order harmonious relationships between the five key relationships of society (eg. between the ruler and subjects). And even within oneself, the goal was to train oneself by means of the rites so that one would naturally and instinctively (or harmoniously) perform the right thing.

And particularly, conflict is to be avoided. Here is a famous passage from the Analects:

Master said, ‘There is no contention between gentlemen. The nearest to it is, perhaps, archery. In archery they bow and make way for one another as they go up and on coming down they drink together. Even the way they contend is gentlemanly.’

Confucius, Lun Yu, 3.7

The most conflict you should find in society is an archery contest. But even in that contest the way they engage in that ‘conflict’ is in a gentlemanly fashion. They drink together. They make way for one another. They bow towards each other. This is the most conflict that one should see in society!

But the reality is that today, in Confucian-influenced societies, there is still conflict – it’s simply not the case that there is only harmony! But the way that conflict is expressed is strongly shaped by Confucianism.

2. In group and out group

Hui-Ching Chang, in “The Concept of Yuan and Chinese Conflict Resolution” points out that there is invariably an inner group, and an outer group in Chinese society. And different rules apply to different groups. If you belong to the inner group (of the family, clan, gang, faction) then you may expect a fair degree of tolerance and flexibility of relationship. However outside of that group, slights are taken with full seriousness, and offences are never forgotten.

And so there is a marked difference between the inner group, and the outer group. Chang writes that,

“the Chinese tendency to avoid conflict tends to be narrowly defined within the family or the in-group. While Chinese may be willing to maintain a somewhat conflict-free atmpsohere among family or friends with in-group ties, in line with their tendency to mark clear distinctions between insider and outsider they find little reason to hide their aggressiveness toward out-group members in conflict situations.”

Hui-Ching Chang

This means that if you are considered in the outer group by a person, and if you get on their wrong side, you may still feel a lot of hostility towards you – despite the much vaunted Chinese love for harmony in all things.

3. Mechanisms for criticising others

But not only that, Chang points out that there are particular mechanisms that the Chinese have developed for expressing that hostility in a way that preserves the semblance of harmony. He writes that,

“underneath the surface of conflict-free harmony, Chinese also cleverly craft manipulative messages to communicate competition, frustration, and other signs of interpersonal discord. Given the extensiveness of Chinese interpersonal networks and their need to manage multiple layers of relationship, many Chinese have developed skillful forms of verbal expression to compete and negotiate with, criticize, and even ridicule others. Throughout Chinese history, ministers in government have been known to use clever language, involving metaphor, analogy, irony, and so on, to criticize higher officials (even the emperor) while protecting themselves from punishment or death.”

Hui-Ching Chang

Chang lists a few of these methods, and you can see how they allow the user to preserve the pretence of harmony, while sniping at their opponent from safety at the very same time.

    • zhishang mahuai (pointing to the mulberry tree and scolding the locust tree)
    • xiaoli cangdao (hiding a knife behind one’s smile)
    • komi fujian (mouth sweet and knife in the stomach)

This gives the user a kind of plausible deniability when directly challenged by their opponent (or emperor). “No, I was obviously scolding the mulberry tree.”

4. Use of these methods among Chinese Chrisitans

But you can see that not only is this a means of indicating one’s disapproval to another, it’s also a means by which one exacts a form of revenge. A means by which one pays back, humiliates, even punishes the other – and all this is done out in the open.

“Instead of addressing issues directly, hinting becomes an effective means for conveying interpersonal problems. Conflict that is concealed under surface cooperativeness helps assert group harmony while at the same time satisfying the needs of the individual.”

Hui-Ching Chang

While this all makes a kind of sense within the Confucian world-view, it’s inappropriate for Chinese Christians to employ such methods. Rather than humiliating and punishing our opponents, and rather than merely expressing our own disapproval – even if done in a plausibly deniable way – we are to do things in a Matthew 18 way.

Our response to hurt must not be to cleverly attack back – but to show the other person their fault (Matt 15:15), and offer forgiveness (Matt 15:21-22). As people who know the astounding forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are to be a people who forgive – as the Lord has forgiven us (Col 3:13)!

Categories: Chinese culture

Confucianism and the application of the law

26 October 2010 5 comments

1. The application of the law in the West

One of the bedrock principles of the Western legal system is that justice is blind, and the the law applies to all people equally, irrespective of their social position.

This can be seen in the Magna Carta (1215), when the English monarch was required by a group of barons to submit himself explicitly under the rule of law. But this principle stretches even as far back as the Roman goddess of Justice, who is often pictured as blindfolded (in addition to carrying a sword and scales).

In Western society we expect that if a person breaks a law, he will have to bear its consequences, irrespective of who he is – whether he is a famous judge, or a common thief. And in fact if it becomes known that justice was applied unevenly – people will become outraged.

2. The application of the law in the East

However when we come to Confucianism we see something different when the law is being applied. In Confucianism far from being blind, it is expected that the law will in fact differentiate between persons on the basis of their circumstances and status. Here is a simple example:

At eighty or ninety, we say of him, ‘He is very old.’ When he is seven, we say that he is an object of pitying love. Such a child and one who is very old, though they may be chargeable with crime, are not subjected to punishment.

The Rites, I.I.7.27

This might sound fair enough, and this leniency has parallels in Western legal system. But this differentiation is actually the tip of a much larger iceberg. Consider the following:

50. The rules of ceremony do not go down to the common people. 51. The penal statutes do not go up to great officers. 52. Men who have suffered punishment should not (be allowed to) be by the side of the ruler.

The Rites, I.IV.10.50-52

In Confucianism then punishments might be meted out to the common people – but they become progressively lesser as the person rises up the social scale of magistrates, officials and officers – and towards the top disappears completely.

While this sounds corrupt, it is in fact an outworking of  a broader principle in Confucianism that people are not be treated as equals. Each person has their own persona (such as that of father, subject, younger brother) – and people relate to others on the basis of their corresponding persona.

This becomes particularly clear in the different and unequal obligations required in the five li relationships of ruler-subject, father-son, husband-wife, older-younger brother, friend-friend.

But it comes out in much simpler ways too, such as how melons are prepared for people of different rank:

67. He who pares a melon for the son of Heaven should divide it into four parts and then into eight, and cover them with a napkin of fine linen. For the ruler of a state, he should divide it into four parts, and cover them with a coarse napkin. To a great officer he should (present the four parts) uncovered. An inferior officer should receive it (simply) with the stalk cut away. A common man will deal with it with his teeth.

The Rites, I.III.22.67

It would be understood by everyone in society that it is appropriate for a great officer to simply be quietly spoken to in private – instead of having his home confiscated – on account of his rank.

3. When East meets West

When people influenced by Confucianism come to the West and apply rules in a way that respects persons, or indeed when people from the West observe the workings of legal systems of the East, there is inevitably going to be conflict.

On the one hand Westerners are appalled by the corruption and nepotism that seems so widespread. It is simply unjust. And on the other hand Easterners cannot imagine not bending the rules to benefit a trusted and respected colleague. It is simply  inhumane.

Related to this is the Confucian belief that it is by the virtue of the leader (and not so much his ability) that the leader is able to influence people around him. And so the virtue of the leader (or at least its facade) must be clung to at all costs. Because for the leader to be shown to be unvirtuous would be catastrophic for his ability to lead, and damage  that persona irreparably.

This can even be seen working itself in Chinese churches. I know of  situations where church leaders were clearly in the wrong – but are merely spoken to quietly, with others carefully conspiring to delicately work around the matter – instead of the individual being removed from office. And all the while preserving the image of respectability.

4. Personal virtue – and alien virtue

How do we reflect on this theologically?

We need to recognise that the Confucian desire to preserve the persona of the virtuous leader is flawed. It makes sense in Confucianism, but it is totally wrong in the Bible. Consider Peter, who denied Jesus three times – and yet who is still appointed by Jesus to care for his church (John 21). As Christians, regardless of whether we are from the East or West, it is not on the basis of our own virtue that we lead – but on the basis of the alien virtue (or: righteousness) of Christ.

That sets us free from needing to furtively preserve the leaky semblance of the leaders’ virtue – in order to rejoice together as brothers in the alien righteousness of Christ.

Categories: Chinese culture

Voting – East and West

7 July 2010 1 comment

Over the years I’ve noticed a difference in the way that voting is perceived by people from Chinese and Western backgrounds.

For Chinese, voting comes after decisions have already been made, and is an affirmation of support. It’s one of the most visible means by which a group shows encouragement to its leaders. That’s why when Chinese vote, everyone is expected to vote positively. If not, it is seen as a serious sign of dissention and even disloyalty. If people disagree, they are expected to abstain.

However for Westerners, voting is part of the process of decision making. This is how people decide whether to go this way, or that. This allows the group as a whole to choose. It’s quite common in Western groups for there to be disagreement in a group, and for this to show itself during a vote.

On paper, a Chinese group may be constitutionally similar to a Western group (including the mechanism of voting). However the Confucian-influenced culture means that the real source of authority is different. In the Chinese group it is the leaders who really make the decisions – while for Westerners it is the group.

You can also pick up the heavy emphasis on harmony in the Eastern approach, in contrast to the Western embrace of conflict. Which is a problem if this is meant to be the place where different ideas are considered and decisions made!

And behind this all you can also see the much more positive view of leaders generated by Neo-Confucianism, which expects that leaders will do what is right (see previous post). In contrast the Western approach (informed in large part by biblical Christianity) has a much more pessimistic view of leaders. Western culture expects that leaders may do what is wrong – and as a result builds checks and balances against the power of leaders.

In a group where there are both Eaterners and Westerners, you can see that there will inevitably be a difference in understanding when it comes to a vote. Those who are more Eastern in their thinking will see those who vote against them (or even abstain) as malicious trouble makers tearing apart the harmony of the group. Those who are influenced more by the West will be atsounded to see their voice suppressed, their questions brushed aside.
It’s not necessarily the case that both East and West are equally right and must learn to put up with each other. Light is shed on all human cultures by gospel, exposing our culutral blindspots. For instance in Western democracy the many may still make selfish choices. However in this regard it is particularly the Eastern approach, with its overly trusting and positive view of leaders, that is particularly dangerous…

[ PS: how have you seen this work itself out in a Chinese church? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Loyalty – where it comes from

25 March 2010 2 comments

Loyalty in Chinese culture

One of the key virtues in Confucian-influenced cultures is loyalty. You find this in Chinese cultures, but it is particularly strong in Korean cultures!

It may not be immediately apparent, of course. No one may talk about loyalty very openly or list it among the values of their church. But if you show yourself to be disloyal, the reaction will quickly show how highly prized loyalty is…

It’s one of the worst things to be seen as disloyal. You may lie or be greedy – yet that behaviour may easily be excused. But if you are thought of as disloyal - you may find yourself cut out from the loop and labelled as a rebel. you may find that any future efforts on your part to fall back into line will be viewed with deep suspicion.

And I should make it upfront that, as a Chinese pastor, I find that I like loyalty myself. I like it a lot… I like it when church people come regularly to my training events. I find myself gratified when people choose our events over others when there is a clash. I like it when people are regular and dependable in coming to our church things. And what’s more I find myself feeling somewhat suspicious and distrustful of those who don’t!

And there is more to it than simply wanting for people to come to events that make them strong in their Christian lives. There is more to it than simply desiring that they be faithful and dependable in exercising the ministry entrusted to them! I fear that, for many of us, there is a strong leaning towards loyalty…

Where loyalty comes from

This high premium placed on loyalty or faithfulness (忠 zhong) comes from the Confucian background of Chinese culture. In Confucianism loyalty is one of the virtues to be cultivated in a virtuous man (仁 ren). In the following quote from The Analects, notice how prominent zhong is in the lists of virtues:

The philosopher Zeng said, “I daily examine myself on three points: whether, in transacting business for others, I may have been not faithful (zhong); whether, in intercourse with friends, I may have been not sincere; whether I may have not mastered and practiced the instructions of my teacher.”

Confucius, The Analects, 1.4

The Master said, “If the scholar be not grave, he will not call forth any veneration, and his learning will not be solid. Hold faithfulness (zhong) and sincerity as first principles. Have no friends not equal to yourself. When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them.”

Confucius, The Analects, 1.8

There were four things which the Master taught: letters, ethics, devotion of soul (zhong), and truthfulness.

Confucius, The Analects, 7.25

Loyalty is particularly required of subjects and officials towards their ruler. Notice the assymeterical relationship between ruler and subject:

Ji Kang asked how to cause the people to reverence their ruler, to be faithful (zhong) to him, and to go on to nerve themselves to virtue. The Master said, “Let him preside over them with gravity; then they will reverence him. Let him be final and kind to all; then they will be faithful (zhong) to him. Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent; then they will eagerly seek to be virtuous.”

Confucius, The Analects, 2.20

The duke Ding asked how a prince should employ his ministers, and how ministers should serve their prince. Confucius replied, “A prince should employ his minister according to according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness (zhong).”

Confucius, The Analects, 3.19

In Confucianism, loyalty does not take into account the inner desires of a person. The focus is merely on external obedience and dutiful consistency. Here, for instance, we see Confucius’ instruction to government officials:

Zi Zhang asked about government. The Master said, “The art of governing is to keep its affairs before the mind without weariness, and to practice them with undeviating consistency (zhong).”

Confucius, The Analects,12.14

And as with the other Confucian virtues, loyalty is a deeply ingrained virtue. Not only is loyalty expected of you, but you also feel terrible inside of yourself when you consider being disloyal. This is because Confucianism mainly depended, not on external laws and regulations that had to be enforced by others, but on internal sense of shame whereby you punished yourself.

Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously.

Confucius, The Analects, 2.3

The reason why disloyalty is seen as such a terrible thing is that loyalty is part of what is expected of a virtuous man (仁 ren). However when you are disloyal, you show yourself to be less than truly human. You are just like a dog or bird! Mengzi writes that,

The parrot can speak, and yet is nothing more than a bird; the ape can speak, and yet is nothing more than a beast. Here now is a man who observes no rules of propriety; is not his heart that of a beast? But if men were as beasts, and without the principle of propriety, father and son might have the same mate. Therefore, when the sages arose, they framed the rules of propriety in order to teach men, and cause them, by their possession of them, to make a distinction between themselves and brutes.

Mengzi, Qu Li I.9

Writers have seen a link between filial piety on the one hand, and loyalty on the other (although they may sometimes be in tension). As one is filial towards one’s parents in the realm of the home, so one is to be loyal towards wider social structures in the realm beyond the home. And from what we have previously seen about Confucianism (see previous posts) you can already see parallels between filial piety on the one hand, and loyalty on the other: both are what is required of the subordinate in a two-party relationship, both focus on external observance and find internal motivations irrelevant, both are deeply ingrained virtues, and the absence of either renders one less than human in the eyes of society…

[ PS: is there a place for loyalty in Christianity? how should we think of loyalty? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – how to respond!

19 February 2010 1 comment

Over the last month or so we’ve been looking at Chinese pietism – what it is, where it comes from, what it looks like, and in what way it’s dangerous. Not all Chinese Christians will be influenced by Chinese pietism – only some of them.

And so in this last post on this subject we consider: what can you do to minister to those influenced by Chinese pietism?

1. Be careful about using the term

While I’ve written a lot about Watchman Nee, be aware that not many Chinese Christians will have read him – and there’s a reason for that.

A distinctive feature about Watchman Nee that I haven’t mentioned so far is his ecclesiology (doctrine of church). Nee disliked the profusion of denominations that he saw from the Western missionary movement, and thought that it was more biblical for there to be only one gathering in each locality (village, town, city). This led to “Little Flock” gatherings that saw themselves as the only true expression of church. Needless to say, this didn’t endear the writings of Watchman Nee to many denominations, or pastors of established congregations!

However just because people may not have read Watchman Nee, does not mean that they are not influenced in any way by his teachings… Consider how many people today may be postmoderns – without actually having ever read the writings of Fish or Iser, or even knowing their names! And very few Westerners will have actually read The Republic or Categories - but this does not mean they are not influenced by Plato or Aristotle!

And that’s because influence happens through sitcoms, movies, and casual conversations. It happens through families, through modelling, through common phrases we learnt from childhood. The influence is there – but in our ministry to actual people, it may not always be helpful to wheel out the big names!

Consider how it would probably unhelpful to tell your Aussie neighbour over the back fence, “You’re just being postmodern!” In the same way it would probably also be unhelpful to say “That’s just Chinese pietism.” In both cases that may be true! But in both cases they would probably not know what you mean. And after you have explained, they would strenuously protest that they have never read Fish or Nee!

And so it may be more helpful just to make a mental note of the influence of Chinese pietism – and then to allow that to inform how you conduct your ministry…

2. Make use of contrast and
3. Tell stories

You need to teach the good – but that’s not all. Because if that’s all you do, long-standing Christians will tend to think that they’ve already got the good, when in fact they are clinging to the bad all along.And so you also have to contrast the good with the bad. That way people can clearly see that they must flee from the bad, and cling to the good. Yes, it’s good to explain to people that our confidence is in the gospel. But it’s more helpful to explain that our confidence is in the gospel – not in feeling close to God because of intuitions! Because they will easily nod their heads in agreement at the first – but the second may give them pause to think.

And as you do so, it’s best to make use of stories of people, instead of directly referring to them. Because stories are very powerful ways to get under people’s defences – and you also see this modelled in the Bible!

If possible, it’s best to tell stories about yourself, using your growth as an illustration in this regard. Explain how when you were younger you came across Christians who insisted that godly people did this - and describe how, from the Bible, you began to see that this was wrong and dangerous, and that instead that was the biblical way to live the Christian life…

4. Present an alternative and
5. Show the positive use of ‘carnal’ faculties

You can’t just suddenly rip away the way people have, for years, understood how the Christian life is meant to be lived. This is catastrophic, and you actually risk plunging people into depression. They may even fall away!

And so you have to replace it with a different and compelling model of the Christian life – how they are to grow, what authentic spirituality is, the language with which they describe their growth. And it has to be compelling, since to them they feel that you are calling them to give up ‘spirituality’ for ‘carnality’.

But it’s not just an alternative way to live the Christian life in general – you also want to show them an alternative way to think of the ‘carnal’ faculties in particular. And so you need to show them a positive use of knowledge – how it truly lights the fires of our affections. You need to live it out for them. model it to them. show them that, with all your knowledge, you are forgiving, you are prayerful, you have a deep love for the Lord. You need to model in your prayers how you give thanks for these faculties, showing how we speak about these ‘carnal’ faculties.This is because people aren’t just robots that need to be intellectually reprogrammed! Emotionally, they also need to be reassured that, yes, this works. And behaviorally, they need to be shown that this is how we handle reason, this is how we talk about our talents, this is how we use knowledge.

In all of this you need to realise that often, you won’t just be working against intellectually held positions with little emotional significance. You are actually working against patterns of behaviour and thought built up over decades. These have been modelled in their early years by those who discipled them, and reinforced for many years by Christians they have great respect for. These things are hard to change because they are emotionally held - they just seem to make sense deep down!

Which doesn’t mean we avoid the issue! But it does mean we have to be smart in how we deal with it…

[ PS: any other suggestions about how to respond to Chinese pietism? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – the dangers of pietism

13 February 2010 2 comments

Over the last few posts we’ve looked at some of the distinctive features of Chinese pietism. Chinese pietism can sound very holy and impressive, with a lot of talk about faith in God. But throughout this series you can already get a sense of some of the serious theological problems hidden within Chinese pietism. Today we draw some of those threads together…

The primacy of the Bible

The first danger of Chinese Pietism is that God’s inscripturated word takes a back seat to God speaking directly as Spirit, to our human spirits. Together with this is the rejection of the tools of grammatico-historical exegesis to get at the meaning of the text. The Spirit bypasses the need for such worldly discipline, through direct communion with our spirits, and guidance through our intuition.

Sure, the Bible might speak very clearly on a certain point – but what if I feel called to disobey that instruction? For individuals, they are most likely to value that spiritual guidance over and above Scripture. And for others, they are unlikely to question that person’s calling. And this happens more often than you would imagine… In some cases, this has led to the clear teaching of Scripture being sidelined!

Yet this is very different from Paul’s instructions to put such intuitions and leadings of the Spirit to the test (1 Thes 5:19-22). Others are to weigh carefully what is said (1 Cor 14:29-38). Paul is aware that God may speak through prophets in the future. But such extra biblical revelation must never be treated as over and above God’s inscripturated word. No, it is always to be tested by the word.

The basis of Christian assurance

A second danger is that people’s assurance and confidence no longer rests in the finished work of Christ proclaimed in the gospel. Instead it shifts to the present experience now of God, through special feelings, and happenstances.

How do I know that I am truly a spiritual Christian? that my Christian life is real and not a sham? I know, because God speaks to me! because he called me to do this work! because of his constant leading! And this logic will be quite persuasive to many people: anyone can read the Bible and make some sense of it. But if we experience God by his Spirit, then that must mean that our spirit are truly made alive!

Yet this is very different from the tests for assurance that John gives us in 1 John: that we love the brothers (1 John 2:9); that we hold to the truth about the Son (1 John 2:23); that we obey his commands (1 John 2:3). The danger of substituting present experience for biblical tests is that we may fool ourselves that we are close to God (when in fact there is no biblical grounds for that assurance), or be uncertain of our standing before God and anxious to feel these spiritual impulses (when in fact we may actually be showing biblical signs of new life).

The way the Christian life is lived

A third danger is that Chinese pietism redefines the Christian life entirely. No longer is it characterised by turning from sin, and growing in our love for God. Instead sin expands to now include our intelligence, wisdom, knowledge and natural abilities – in fact anything that is of the body or soul. We are to die to these things. And the goal of growing love for the God of the Scriptures – now becomes the goal of ongoing communion with God in our spirits in the present.

When faced with a situation, the spiritual thing is not to make use of the natural resources that God has given us (such as our natural talents, problem solving skills, reasoning). The admirably spiritual thing would actually be to do something non rational, under the prompting of our intuition – because rationality can only ever be carnal! And one would only feel truly spiritual when one is living by intuition alone.

The danger here is that while there are examples in the Bible of God indicating to individuals what he would have them do in certain cases, there is no indication that this was the normal course of life for these individuals. Nor does the Bible set up an expectation that God would interact with Christians in this way into the future. And whenever the Bible speaks about God’s will for us, it is always in general terms: to be properly ordered under God (1 Cor 12:18), to suffer for doing good rather than evil (1 Pet 3:17), to make known the riches of his glory through us (Col 1:27). At the very least it is presumptuous for us to redefine authentic spirituality so as to require God to interact in a way he has never promised.

The passage usually quoted here to affirm the priority of faith over reason is 2 Corinthians 5:7 where Paul says that “we live by faith, not by sight”. Chinese pietism takes this to mean that we are to live our lives depending entirely on God to provide for our needs (‘faith’), and not on our own human resources (‘sight’). Faith here is understood to mean abandonment of the soulish faculties of reason, talents, ability and the limitations of what may be visible to us (hence: ‘sight’).

However in its context Paul is encouraging Christians who were unconfident about having a future heavenly body. He assures them that, while they currently live in this earthly tent (and this is all they can see), they can have confidence that one day they will be clothed with a heavenly body. More than that, we have a guarantee that this will come, in the form of the Holy Spirit. And so you can see that in 2 Corinthians 5:7 Paul is not giving a blanket instruction to abaondon reason in all of life, but rather he is saying that we can press on with confidence in the Christian life, trusting that God’s promises for heaven will come true.

Such a redefinition of the Christian life dangerously shifts the focus for Christians away from loving God’s word and being obedient in living it out – to a longing for personal revelations and obedience to those intuitions. And authentic spirituality is no longer about being enabled by the Spirit to understand and live out the things in God’s word – it is now about being open to, and enjoying frequent personal intiutions!

[ PS: how do you think you might minister to Chinese pietists? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – and Eastern asceticism

8 February 2010 2 comments

In a previous post we saw how there is a direct connection between Western pietism on the one hand, and those who came to embody Chinese Pietism in the East on the other. And in particular we saw that this connection came about through the missionary movement of the 19th century. But why has Chinese Pietism taken on the form that it has?

As with most cases of ‘influence’, we can’t say for sure - however there are some pretty clear indications!

Confucianism

Confucianism is the main philosophy that influences most of the Eastern world, with a history that stretches back over 2500 years (see previous posts). Confucianism aimed at creating virtuous men (ren) – and, as a consequence, a harmonious society – by devotion to rituals from the past (the li).

However Keith Lai points out that this intense devotion on practical questions also came with an equal indifference to theoretical questions. As a result Confucius never felt there was a need to clarify the nature of heaven (tien), or the original state of humans. He writes that:

Culturally, Chinese are very receptive to practical religion. It is widely accepted that Confucianism is the heart of Chinese culture. Reflecting on the missionaries’ impression of Chinese culture, Flynt and Berkley wrote that: “Everything in Confucianism depended upon correct behavior, […] Hence, Confucianism emphasized the need for self-discipline and self-examination and the continuous cultivation of the inner virtues of righteousness, propriety, wisdom and goodness.” Emphasis on behaviour is at the heart of Confucianism.  At the same time, the missionaries realized that there is no clear definition of the heavenly Way, even it was mentioned, and immorality in Confucianism. In other words, Confucianism did not aim to provide a systematic explanation of the universe and human sin. Hence, it can be said that the Chinese mind is trained to be concerned about behaviour, but not so much about theory.

Keith Lai, “Influence of Pietism on the Chinese Church”, 16.

Perhaps then, when Chinese culture encountered Western Pietism, it embraced its strong focus on practical Christianity. And while it did not explicitly reject theology, it saw little use for it.

However even Confucianism’s focus on the practical does not explain why selfhood (in the form of the soul) is seen as such an enemy to spiritual man. And for this we need to turn to Eastern asceticism…

Eastern asceticism

Eastern philosophy draws a distinction between spirit (which is good) and matter (which is bad). This can be seen in Hinduism and Buddhism where the aim is to deny bodily desires and ultimately escape from the world of matter with all its suffering and troublesome desires. All our suffering is caused by these cravings and desires. And so significantly, we make spiritual progress by effacing one’s soul (atman) in order to reach this ultimate level! This happens as one applies oneself to the Four Noble Truths and follows the Noble Eight-fold Path.

But you can already pick out how Chinese pietism shares striking similarities with Eastern asceticism at a number of points. Like Eastern asceticism, Chinese pietism also prizes the spirit, despising the outer man with all its troublesome carnality. And like Eastern asceticism, the spiritual man is the one who is able to put the soul to death – and live only by the spirit.

Stephen Johnson suggests that the interpretation of the Scriptures that led to Chinese Pietism may have been working off such a worldview:

“Spirit is good, material is evil. Each culture tends to read its presuppositions into its Scriptural exegsis. [...] While this is speculative, its potential influence upon Nee’s anthropology is great and would seem to colour biblical interpretation significantly, though subtly enough to escape notice from one who has grown up within that cultural norm. The continued emphasis on thinking and acting in the flesh as opposed to the spirit, may have its roots in Asian pre-Christian spirituality and produce a hybrid when mingled with a genuine sincerity as far as concerns biblical fidelty.”

Stephen Johnson, “The Spirituality of Watchman Nee”, 21.

Perhaps then Chinese Pietism, while using a great deal of biblical language, and despite how well it might resonate with the Chinese sense of what is deeply spiritual, is at its heart much closer to Eastern asceticism than it is to biblical Christianity!

[ PS: Roger Bray also suggests that Eastern animism/spiritism may influence the regard for omens and signs in Chinese pietism (see his comment here)... ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – things to watch for

2 February 2010 3 comments

Over the last few posts we’ve been looking at Chinese pietism. This is not actually a very big feature of second generation Chinese, but tends to be more prominent in first generation ministries. And even then the influence of pietism is not uniform: many may not even know the name Watchman Nee, and there are in fact competing influences on OBCs – such as modernism (see previous post)! 

Yet Chinese pietism still exerts a strong influence on some Chinese – and you can see it in the things that are said:

“They did not worry about money or resources – they simply had faith that God would provide everything they need.”

“Others told him that he was crazy! That he should have a plan, that he should think through resources! But he had faith in God and trusted in him instead.”

“He didn’t have a plan in mind – he simply followed God’s calling.”

Notice the rejection of the carnal and ‘soulish’ methods such as planning, reason, calculating resources, raising support – and in its place the more ‘spiritual’ dependence on God by faith. Often these carnal methods are not explicitly spoken of as bad – but implicitly understood to be inferior. Yet in practice there is a sharp division between the spiritual (which is good) – and the worldly (which is bad).

But there is more:

“God broke him through that experience and he learnt to trust in God for his every needs.”

“He denied himself and instead was willing to sacrifice even his career as a doctor for God.”

“You need to become fully devoted to God.”

And here we have that theme of the denial of self / dying to self in order to become the truly spiritual man.  The things that we are to learn to die to are things like our wisdom, cunning, intelligence, and talents. And underlying this is the thinking that Christian growth is not actually about putting sin to death and growing in our love for God… instead it’s about breaking the outer man so that the inner life of the spirit may shine forth (see previous post).

Here are some more things to listen out for:

“It was not us, it was God.”

“God told him not to finish his uni course, but instead to travel overseas and wait for his leading.”

“Yes he missed that plane – but it was God, you know. God did not allow him to board that plane, he had something greater in mind that we could not fathom at that time.”

“God did not allow us to sell the church building at that time. He had another way in mind, that was not our way.”

“God spoke to him and told him not to return yet, there was more God had planned for him to do.”

Notice the unqualified certainty with which people ascribe what god has been doing in recent events in history. God’s supernatural and present intervention in one’s ministry - and even his speaking to us in our spirit – is a valuable confirmation of one’s election. Notice also that it is often associated with things which, at the time, go against the ‘carnal’ faculties such as reason and careful planning, and instead exhibit a life that is much more ‘spiritual.’

However Chinese pietism doesn’t just show itself in what people say, it can also show up in practices common in the Chinese church – practices such as faith missions, and faith promise giving. These look for God’s present involvement apart from the normal means of drawing up budgets, talking to supporters, calculating resources. These are merely the workings of man. Instead, for God to work, he must do so supernaturally, through his spirit.

Be aware that, taken individually, these may all be innocuous. And of course, some of these things can also be seen in non-Chinese Christianity. But taken together, they may indicate the influence of Chinese pietism…

[ PS: how else have you seen pietism at work in the things people say and do? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – dying and being broken

31 January 2010 2 comments

Watchman Nee’s tripartite anthropology is the theological foundation of much of Chinese church pietism. And in the last post we saw how that works itself out in terms of how God’s will is discerned, and in terms of how much spiritual authority is given to intuition. But Nee’s anthropology also leads to even more implications for the Christian life…

Dying to one’s ‘self’

If the spiritual man is someone who is controlled by the spirit, it means that the faculties of the soul must be denied, it must be put to death. Just as the body is crucified and delivered from the dominion of sin, so also are we to die to our soul.

In his exegesis of John 12, Nee says this:

He [Jesus] compares himself to a grain of wheat. If it does not fall inot the earth and die it remains alone. But if he be crucified and die, he shall impart life to many. The one condition is death. No death, no fruit. No other way is there to bear fruit than through death.

Every one of his disciples must follow in his footsteps. He pictures the grain as representing their self life. Just as a grain is unable to bear fruit until the natural life has been broken through death. Here he emphasises the matter of fruitfulness. While the soul life does possess tremendous power it nevertheless cannot fulfill the work of fruit-bearing. All the energies generated in the soul including talent, gift, knowledge and wisdom, cannot enable believers to bear spiritual fruit. If the Lord Jesus must die to bear fruit so also must his disciples die in order to produce fruit. The Lord regards soulish power as of no help to God in his work of fuirt bearing.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 1:189-190.

A kind of life may be generated from the soulish faculties – but it should not be confused with true spiritual fruit. Instead we must die to soulish things like our talents, gifts, knowledge and wisdom if God is to work in us!

Keith Lai writes that according to Nee,

The salvation of the spirit, with the freedom of the body, does not entail the defeat of the soul, which is also the source for sin.  Nee contended that after one has received Christ, the soul is still at work. That soul life is the carnal life.  If anyone, even a Christian, depends on his natural strength, like his own talent, eloquence, cleverness, attractiveness, and zealousness, he is depending on flesh and not the Spirit.  Even when he draws on these natural abilities to achieve a godly goal, he is led by selfish ambitions and not the Spirit.  Consequently, he still cannot please God. There is a need for the salvation of the soul.

But the salvation of the soul is a much more longer process than that of the spirit. In dealing with the soul, one has to deny oneself, just as Jesus said in Matthew 16: 24: “If anyone will come after me, let him first deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.”  To deny oneself, for Nee, means to “deny everything originating in ourselves-what we are, what we have, what we can do-and move entirely by Him, daily apprehending the life of Christ through the Holy Spirit.”  This also includes the willingness to embrace sufferings, as the Spirit requires. This is what Nee called “walk in the Spirit”. He insisted Christians should not use their own natural ability to cope with the trials.  Instead they should pray that: ‘Lord, I cannot handle it but Lord you handle it for me.’ Then we will act differently from what we normally can.  It is because Christ, who lives within us by his Spirit guides the action.

Keith Lai, “Influence of Pietism on the Chinese Church”, 25-27.

This means that planning, strategising, calculating resources and raising supporters are carnal methods for achieving God’s purposes. These reveal a dependence on the faculties of the soul – and not a dependence on the spirit. A truly spiritual man denies himself – and all the things that come from the ‘self’ such as his intellect, wisdom, knowledge. He dies to those carnal things – and instead lives by the spirit.

Keith Lai explains how a number of encounters early in Nee’s life impressed such an approach on him:

Nee’s Christian faith was nurtured by Dora Yu.  After he had dedicated himself to serve the Lord, Nee spent a year in Yu’s Bible School.  There he said Yu “taught him too to let God’s Word speak to his own hear and not merely – essential though that was – to store his mind with its text.”  Later, Yu introduced Nee to Margret E. Barber, who was a former Anglican Missionary.  Barber’s life had a tremedous impact on Nee.  Founded in his later writing, Nee said:

“I always thought of her (Barber) as a ‘lighted’ Christian.  If I did but walk into her room, I was brought immediately to a sense of God.  In those days I was very young and had lots of plans, lots of schemes for the Lord to sanction, a hundred and one things which I thought would be marvellous if brought to fruition.  With all these I came to her to try and persuade her; to tell her that this or that was the thing to do.  But before I could open my mouth she would say a few quite ordinary words – and light dawned.  It simply put me to shame.  My scheming was all so natural, so full of man, whereas here was one who lived for God along.  I had to cry to Him, ‘Lord, teach me to walk that way.’”

Keith Lai, “Influence of Pietism on the Chinese Church”, 33-35.

And already you can see that in Nee’s theology, the faculties of thinking, reasoning etc. themselves are seen as carnal in-and-of-themselves – not just sin, not just sin-damaged thinking. They take on an entirely subordinate role in the spiritual man – but it is so subordinate that it effectively negates those God-given faculties!

Being broken by the Spirit

Nee describes the process of the soul being put to death, and the spirit taking control as a process called being ‘broken’.

In The Release of the Spirit, Nee uses the language of the ‘inner man’ (the spirit) and the ‘outer man’ (the soul, and then the body). God indwells us in our spirit – but there is a problem: the outer man traps and smothers the spirit.

When God comes to indwell us, by His Spirit, Life and power, He comes into our spirit which we are calling the inward man. Outside of this inward man is the soul wherein functions our thoughts, emotions and will. The outermost man is our physical body. Thus we will speak of the inward man as the spirit, the outer man as the soul and the outermost man as the body. We must never forget that our inward man is the human spirit where God dwells, where His Spirit mingles with our spirit. Just as we are dressed in clothes, so our inward man “wears” an outward man: the spirit “wears” the soul. And similarly the spirit and soul “wear” the body. It is quite evident that men are generally more conscious of the outer and outermost man, and they hardly recognize or understand their spirit at all. We must know that he who can work for God is the one whose inward man can be released. The basic difficulty of a servant of God lies in the failure of the inward man to break through the outward man.

Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit, I.

How can the spirit be released, so that the inner life can shine forth? Nee’s answer is that the outer man must be broken:

Yet due to the distractions of the outward man, their spirit does not seem to function properly. It is basically because their outward man has never been dealt with. For this reason revival, zeal, pleading and activity are but a waste of time. As we shall see, there is just one basic dealing which can enable man to be useful before God: brokenness.

Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit, I.

This experience of being broken is crucial in Nee’s understanding of the Christian life. It is a lifelong process, and many experiences of being broken may be needed for the outer man to be put to death. Keith Lai writes that,

Nee was aware that to walk after the spirit is life long process. Throughout this process, it is important for every Christian to reach many breaking points, by which he becomes aware that he can no longer do anything out of natural abilities, but has to depend on Christ. It is through these “broken” experiences that the soul will be broken, and the spirit will take control as a result.

Keith Lai, “Influence of Pietism on the Chinese Church”, 28.

For this breaking to occur, the Christian must first place himself willingly in the hands of God by full consecration. And then the Holy Spirit works to break the outer man using external means – circumstances and crises that force us to see our reliance on our own knowledge, intellect, wisdom - and which make us give these up in order to depend wholly on God.

It is not by the supply of grace to the inward man that the Holy Spirit breaks the outward. Of course, God wants the inward man to be strong, but His method is to utilize external means to decrease our outward man. It would be well nigh impossible for the inward man to accomplish this, since these two are so different in nature that they can scarcely inflict any wound on each other. Accordingly the nature of the outward man and that of external things are similar; thus the former can be easily affected by the latter. External things can strike the outward man most painfully. So it is that God uses external things in dealing with our outward man.

Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit, VI.

Nee places a very high value on this personal and present discipline of the Holy Spirit – so high in fact, that he compares it negatively with the Word!

Once you yield yourself to God, this discipline will meet your need to a far greater extent than that of the Word. It is not just for the learned, the clever, the gifted; no, it is the way for every child of God. The supply of the Word, the grace of prayer, the fellowship of the believers—none of these can substitute for the discipline of the Holy Spirit. This is because you need not only to be built up; you need also to be destroyed, to be delivered of all the many things in your life that cannot be brought over into eternity.

Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit, VI.

And so once again we see how Watchman Nee’s anthropology leads to a unique vision of the Christian life – one which rejects carnal reliance on one’s own abilities, and which learns this through being ‘broken’ again and again by the Spirit. And for many this will be a compelling vision!

But is that really what we are meant to do with our intellect? with wisdom? with knowledge? is faith really opposed to these things? Or has Nee simply assumed that these ‘lesser’ functions cannot be spiritual?

And could Nee’s emphasis on the subjective and present work of the Spirit end up replacing the historic yet objective foundation of the gospel in the confidence of believers?

[ PS: how have you seen this in the things that Chinese Christians say and do? ... and how have you seen it in how missions work is done? ]

Categories: Chinese culture

Pietism in the Chinese church – anthropology and revelation

29 January 2010 1 comment

Chinese Pietism is perhaps most embodied in the teaching of Watchman Nee (1903-1972). And most crucial for Nee’s theology was his understanding of the human being – particularly his tripartite (‘threefold’) anthropology.

Watchman Nee believed that 1 Thess 5:22-23 outlined for us three separate parts of the human being: the spirit, the soul and the body. And understanding how Nee thought these three parts related to one another is crucial in getting a handle on Chinese Pietism…

Watchman Nee’s tripartite anthroplology

According to Watchman Nee, the body is that part of us that interacts with the world and has bodily desires. The spirit is that part which contains the intuition, the conscience and is capable of communion with God. And the soul is the self-conscious part of ourselves, formed by the meeting of spirit and body. It is the soul that contains the intellect, will and emotions.

The unregenerate man is under control of their ‘self’ in the form of their own soul. This ‘self’ is governed by the passions of the body, and is dead to the spirit.

However Nee believed that the spiritual man allows their regenerated spirit to govern their soul, which then governs the body. In his book The Spiritual Man, Nee writes that,

At regeneration man receives God’s own life into his spirit and is born of God. As a consequence, the Holy Spirit now rules man’s spirit which in turn is equipped to regain control over the soul and, through the soul, to govern his body. Because the Holy Spirit becomes the life of man’s spirit, the latter becomes the life of man’s whole being. The spirit, soul and body are restored to God’s original intention in every born-again person.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 1:63.

But there is more. Watchman Nee also believed that since God is spirit, he must communicate to spirit. And through our regenerated spirits, God now relates to us directly. Nee writes of the spiritual person that,

it is his spirit that relates itself to God. God is Spirit; all who worship Him, therefore, must worship in spirit.  It alone can commune with God.  Only spirit can worship spirit.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 1:62.

Stephen Johnson highlights the functions of the spirit in Nee’s thought:

The spirit is seen as the place where God works in regenerate man. The spirit contains intuition (the sense organ which receives revelation from God). It also embraces communion, which is the activity of receiving the revelation through one’s intuition. Communion is seen as the activity of knowing the mind of God. Lastly, there is conscience. Though it is operataive in both believers and unbelievers, the work of the conscience in a believer brings the possibility of true communion with God.

Stephen Johnson, “The Spirituality of Watchman Nee”, 8.

Notice that it is through these three higher faculties of the spirit that God relates to us - intuition, communion and conscience - and not through the lesser, ‘soulish’ faculty of the intellect.

In the next post we will look at the implications of this for what the spiritual Christian life looks like, but for the moment we will look at what this means for how a Christian perceives the will of God.

The place of exegesis in understanding God’s will

Since God only communicates with spirit, Watchman Nee’s anthropology means that the ‘soulish’ intellect is incapable of accessing God’s will. Nee writes that,

When one tries to increase his knowledge by doing mental gymnastics over books without waiting upon God and looking to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, his soul is plainly in full swing. This will deplete his spiritual life.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 1:47.

And that is because spiritual things can only discerned by the faculties of the spirit (such as intuition) – and not by the faculties of the soul (such as intellect). Johnson writes that,

A natural man cannot understand the Bible until his spirit is enlivened. Man does not primarily understand with his mind in the area of spiritual pursuits but with the spirit. The soulish area of the mind is only secondary.

Stephen Johnson, “The Spirituality of Watchman Nee”, 10-11.

That may sound good, but in practice, this means that the normal tools of exegeis that we learn at KYLC/NextGen are not spiritual, but worldly. The skills of looking out for the situational, literary and theological context, of paying attention to the meaning of words, of the structure of sentences and paragraphs, is an inferior, ‘soulish’ occupation that must be rejected. In her book Understanding Watchman Nee, Dana Roberts writes that,

Nee is admirable and insightful in understanding the illuminating work of divine revelation in comprehending the spiritual reality of the Bible. But he also seems un-appreciative of the Bible as God’s interpretation of real events, language, culture, and people in his covenant history. In Nee’s discussion of Bible study methods, comparing and compiling texts are his keys to understanding, never the historical circumstances of the passages. Like many writers who rely entirely on the devotional hermeneutic, he never subjects the biblical text to some discerning questions: Why does the author say this? How does it fit into the context of the whole book? Does the historical background of the passage relate to the circumstances of my own life or the life of my church?”

Dana Roberts, Understanding Watchman Nee, 146.

It’s important to note that Nee is not alone in this rejection of the intellect. Other early Chinese church leaders also showed this tendency. John Sung reacted against his liberal education from Union Theological Seminary, and in a well known incident on the voyage back to China threw overboard his diplomas and medals. John Sung once said that “one has knowledge, then he can not have love.” Like Nee, Sung also believed that the intellect did not play an important role in understanding the Bible, but instead emphasised the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Continuing revelation through the spirit

But there is more than that… Not only does Chinese Pietism downplay the intellect, it also opens the door to continuing revelation through the spirit, by our intuition. Nee writes that,

Spiritual life is maintained simply by heeding the direction of the spirit’s intuition. If a believer walks according to God’s Spirit he will not originate or regulate anything; he will instead wait quietly for the voice of the Holy Spirit to be heard in his spirit intuitively and assume for himself the position of a subordinate. Upon hearing the inner voice he rises up to work, obeying the direction of intuition. By so walking the believer remains a steadfast follower. The Holy Spirit alone is the Originator.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 1:149-50.

That is, the spiritual Christian looks for God’s supernatural leading into his will by being sensitive to his intuition. In all this, Nee does have a role for the mind – but it’s only to understand that will – not to test or question the intuition.

We consistently ought refuse to allow the mind to serve as the prime element for receiving God’s will, yet we must not inhibit it from serving as the secondary apparatus for understanding that will. A carnal Christian mistakes the thought of the head to be the criterion for his conduct because he has not yet learned how to walk after the spirit.

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, 3:65-6.

Stephen Johnson highlights the danger of this:

It might be said that the biggest danger in Nee’s spiritual assessments is the threat of incipient gnosticism. Nee’s conclusion of the subjective nature of what a ‘spiritual man’ is, gives rise to a form of the pneumakti or enlightened ones of the second century.

Stephen Johnson, “The Spirituality of Watchman Nee“, 23.

From what we have seen so far of Watchman Nee’s anthropology, we can already see that it leads to a very different kind of Christianity… and huge issues are actually at stake.

How does God reveal his will to us? Is it revealed in the Bible, accessed using the normal tools of exegesis? Or does God now reveal his will for us directly to our spirits, through our intuition?

And what level of authority do we ascribe to such intuition? Is God whispering directly to me today, calling me to do certain things (such as full time ministry)? would I be presumptuous to subject these feelings under the ‘soulish’ intellect? Or are we to exercise wisdom informed by our understanding of the Bible?

[ PS: how have you seen this showing itself in the things that Chinese Christians say or do? ]

Categories: Chinese culture
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.