Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not familiar with that particular acronym, but I think you are spot on here.

Not saying that there are no excellent shepherds or evangelists on some payroll somewhere. Just that when it comes to the LRC, it seems that the less beholden the more responsible.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I can't tell if we're disagreeing on any key issue any more... It seems as though you are in disagreement with Nee's articulation of delegated authority while still maintaining that God does, in some ways, delegate authority. I'd likely agree...

As a secondary point, "put on Christ" can mean a lot of things other than te wielding of authority over others.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

IMVLE the best shepherds and the best evangelists were not on any payroll at all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability..

Originally Posted by Ohio

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6) Moses as a "deputy authority" was a type of Christ, our New Testament authority, and not some gifted leader or church founder. In the church age, God has given all authority to His Son..

Originally Posted by Ohio

Catholicism uses the concept of "deputy authority" the same as Lee did. They have long proclaimed that the pope is the "vicar" of Christ, thus placing one man on earth (in Rome) in the place of Christ... Likewise, the Recovery uses the concept of "deputy authority" when claiming Lee was the consummate MOTA and the "acting God," claiming that all authority has been placed in one man for God's move on earth..

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rome calls the Pope "the Holy See," while LSM calls Nee the "Seer of the divine revelation." Supposedly they both can "see" things on God's heart which none of us can see, and which were never recorded in the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is the doctrine of fluidity.
1Cor
14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Ohio
"Another interesting connection between Rome and Anaheim. Rome calls the Pope "the Holy See," while LSM calls Nee the "Seer of the divine revelation." Supposedly they both can "see" things on God's heart which none of us can see, and which were never recorded in the Bible."

Again, totally unscriptural.

Peter Debelak
"Amen! I've always been bothered by the use if Moses or other OT figures as examples of deputy authority. In the OT God NEEDED deputy authority. But Christ completely altered that! To revert back to an OT pattern on the matter of Gods administration is to deny the gospel of Christ!"

When Paul says "Put on Christ" that is analogous to the Policeman's uniform. The authority is from Christ, not WL.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Exactly! Mishandling the word of God to strike fear in those who dare to question the MOTA. Who wants to be considered a leper or cursed? Nobody. Well the only way to avoid it is blind loyalty and adherence to the authority. Even if you're right and the MOTA is wrong don't say anything. Don't be negative. Don't question. Question marks are in the shape of a serpent and come from the devil. Just nod and agree and shout "amen" and repeat Witness Lee messages and all will be well with you!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's paradigm for deputy authority uses Moses as a type of today's spiritual authority in the church. Those who voice their "concerns" about his leadership, will end up with leprosy as Meriam did. Great fear is needed to hold the church under such authority. The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability.

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6)...

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that through Christs speaking, we will act on His behalf and even exercise His authority. That happens fluidly through his instant speaking/leading.

That is different than having a DOCTRINE of "delegated authority" which results in certain individuals having "status" of "delegated authority". That is both over and under-inclusive of the way Gods authority works thru humans.

Your example of the Chinese miner is good. But it's altogether too clear an example to build a doctrine around. It's one thing to follow the Lords leading as an individual. It's entirely another to claim that The Lord told ME what YOU should do. If its saving people's lives, that's one thing. If its what materials to read or when to "volunteer" or what I should do in a difficult marriage... That's another.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's paradigm for deputy authority uses Moses as a type of today's spiritual authority in the church. Those who voice their "concerns" about his leadership, will end up with leprosy as Meriam did. Great fear is needed to hold the church under such authority. The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability.

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6) Moses as a "deputy authority" was a type of Christ, our New Testament authority, and not some gifted leader or church founder. In the church age, God has given all authority to His Son.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This follows the point I made about Christ being the paradigm shifter in regards to authority. Here's my thesis:

Humans need structures of authority, even delegated authority, UNLESS, they have access to and follow Christs direct demands.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

"Delegated Authority" when it comes to interpreting the word or the spiritual health of individuals, marriages, gospel work, etc... Is VERY different.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that if you have access to Christ's direct demands and follow them then you have acted as a delegated authority.

For example, I remember a story of a man in China, he was a believer. The Lord began bothering him tremendously till he had no choice but to signal time for the miners to come up at the end of the shift, even though the shift didn't end for another hour. When they came up they were outraged, he was fired on the spot, and then the mine exploded. He had saved everyone alive. He had acted as a "delegated authority" which he had trumped his human authority.

However, had the Lord not spoken to him and he had done that he would have been fired and maybe sent to the gulag.

Even though the Lord tells us to "leave our parents" the NT also teaches us to honor our parents, including the example set by Jesus.

Originally Posted by awareness

If I have a computer problem and you know the fix, you are my authority. Tomorrow if you have a computer problem and I know the fix, I'm your authority. If I lose my keys and my son knows where they are, he's my authority.

Where's my need to be under Nee and Lee?

Where's my need to be under the Rome Catholic church or the local church?

I once thought I needed to be under Lee and the local church, but I weren't right in the head back then. That was misplaced trust and authority. I wouldn't respect Chairman Mao Tse-tung's authority either ... except for the gun.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Human society requires delegated authority. The human body also has "delegated authority". That is not the error.

The error is that the hand has to obey the eye. That is absurd, the hand obeys the head. The eye serves the head, but in the end the head makes the decision.

If the Lord speaks through a member, as he did with Ananias, Acts 9:10, then that person has acted as a deputy authority, in the same way that the hand of the Body acts on behalf of the head. Today we have robotic hands that can actually be hooked directly up to the brain and act at the discretion of the Brain.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What you describe here are matters every human organization needs. There is nothing that distinguishes these examples from a meeting of Jews or of Libertarians or the PTA.

Parents are a good example, because the Bible specifically commends us to them. But Jesus also said to leave them and follow Him.

This follows the point I made about Christ being the paradigm shifter in regards to authority. Here's my thesis:

Humans need structures of authority, even delegated authority, UNLESS, they have access to and follow Christs direct demands.

Your examples raise the question of where the SOURCE of the authority comes. A group can delegate its collective authority and the. Choose to submit to it in a pre-defined sphere, such as care of a meeting hall or ushers in meeting. But this is a practical arrangement or "contract" for the sake outward stability.

"Delegated Authority" when it comes to interpreting the word or the spiritual health of individuals, marriages, gospel work, etc... Is VERY different.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by awareness

... the local church was a natural system with Nee and Lee as the Alpha Dogs. No wonder I left. It was just more hooey to deal with in the world ...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's describe "delegated authority".

1. Parents are "delegated authority". I think the need for parents as a delegated authority holds true regardless of it being a Christian or non Christian family.

2. Teachers are "delegated authority" and are actually referred to as "parenti in loci". If the children of Christians go to school they should be under this authority every bit as much as a non Christian.

3. Police are "delegated authority". True your conscience trumps the law, and a genuine believer will walk according to a higher law. But the church is composed of genuine believers, mature believers, immature believers, nominal believers, gospel contacts, etc. I think Christians must respect the police as a "delegated authority".

4. Ushers in a church meeting are a delegated authority. Suppose someone who is unruly, drunk, or belligerent comes into a meeting and for the safety and well being of the members needs to be escorted outside. This should not be a "group" decision, but those appointed for this should be able to respond immediately. Paul said let all things be done in order, this is only one example.

5. Sunday school teachers are a delegated authority.

6. Someone must be responsible for the meeting hall, paying the bills, turning on the AC, or heat, fixing leaky faucets, etc. This is "delegated authority" and it would include the ability to sign checks. Having a bank account and authorizing certain people to sign is "delegated authority".

7. If the church has a van some people may have permission to drive that van, that is "delegated authority".

8. Suppose two saints have a dispute or need counseling. Perhaps husband and wife. They need to talk to someone who is both impartial and also someone that they both know and respect. For this counseling to work everyone will have to agree up front that they will respect, i.e. heed, the counselors advice. That, is by definition, delegated authority.

9. If the church is going to invite a speaker someone needs to be responsible for that choice, that is "delegated authority". Once again, another example of "let all things be done in order".

10. If one saint is causing many to complain concerning their behavior, which can be interpreted to be sinful by some and rude by others, what do you do? You can pray that they heed the Spirit speaking directly to them, but are you really going to allow anyone and everyone to hijack the church meetings? Anything that you do to respond to this situation other than pray is going to be "delegated authority". If a brother "needs to speak to them" then the question is "on who's authority?" If the church gathers for an emergency meeting to vote that is another form of delegated authority.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well you've just explained the local church in a nutshell ... the local church was a natural system with Nee and Lee as the Alpha Dogs. No wonder I left. It was just more hooey to deal with in the world ... and was a natural "godless" system of authority -- like animal instincts.

If we've already got all those delegated authorities in our world, why do we want to add more?

The Pope is a delegated authority. Do we submit there? Why then submit to the local church? What's the difference?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nee and Lee both used these examples to explain the concept.

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't put my finger on it but it feels like you are misconstruing Nee's Spiritual Authority.

Apes have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean? A pack of wolves have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean?

Primitive human tribes, that believe all kinds of wild mythologies, have "delegated authority." Is this what you are speaking of?

Aren't you speaking of human authority? Not kingdom authority?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is an example of the extreme views W. Nee purported concerning "Delegated Function being Deputy Authority." -- Collected Works Vol 47, pg 175 ...
Twice in this short section, Nee uses examples of members not "submitting" to one another, and jumps to the extreme, citing they are "in rebellion." The apostle Paul's premier teaching on this subject -- First Corinthians -- with the host of problems they manifested among their members -- never once mentioned this sin of "rebellion." Yes, Paul taught us that we need the other members of the body, but he never introduced such condemnations upon their shortcomings.

Just cracking this book again, randomly opening to this section, gives me a peephole into the extremes of the Recovery system I once lived in. With such a "foundation" in the Recovery as this, one can easily understand how minor differences between leaders can easily rise to the level of spewing epithets like "rebel" and "leper." Teachings such as this can easily be used by abusive leaders.

The primary message of the New Testament, however, is not that we must find another member to submit to, rather that we must love the Lord and submit to Him. The whole law is not summarized in "submit to thy neighbor," but to "love thy neighbor."

Nee's extreme teachings have distorted the message of the gospel by introducing Chinese customs and culture. While they apparently sound spiritual and scriptural, we must look at the fruit. Teachings on submission and authority have produced ruling dynasties in China for millennia, and one might conclude that LSM had similar motives for the church of God. While these teachings and strict authoritarian rule of law might result in a well-ordered society, they do so by producing slaves of their citizens.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's describe "delegated authority".

1. Parents are "delegated authority". I think the need for parents as a delegated authority holds true regardless of it being a Christian or non Christian family.

2. Teachers are "delegated authority" and are actually referred to as "parenti in loci". If the children of Christians go to school they should be under this authority every bit as much as a non Christian.

3. Police are "delegated authority". True your conscience trumps the law, and a genuine believer will walk according to a higher law. But the church is composed of genuine believers, mature believers, immature believers, nominal believers, gospel contacts, etc. I think Christians must respect the police as a "delegated authority".

4. Ushers in a church meeting are a delegated authority. Suppose someone who is unruly, drunk, or belligerent comes into a meeting and for the safety and well being of the members needs to be escorted outside. This should not be a "group" decision, but those appointed for this should be able to respond immediately. Paul said let all things be done in order, this is only one example.

5. Sunday school teachers are a delegated authority.

6. Someone must be responsible for the meeting hall, paying the bills, turning on the AC, or heat, fixing leaky faucets, etc. This is "delegated authority" and it would include the ability to sign checks. Having a bank account and authorizing certain people to sign is "delegated authority".

7. If the church has a van some people may have permission to drive that van, that is "delegated authority".

8. Suppose two saints have a dispute or need counseling. Perhaps husband and wife. They need to talk to someone who is both impartial and also someone that they both know and respect. For this counseling to work everyone will have to agree up front that they will respect, i.e. heed, the counselors advice. That, is by definition, delegated authority.

9. If the church is going to invite a speaker someone needs to be responsible for that choice, that is "delegated authority". Once again, another example of "let all things be done in order".

10. If one saint is causing many to complain concerning their behavior, which can be interpreted to be sinful by some and rude by others, what do you do? You can pray that they heed the Spirit speaking directly to them, but are you really going to allow anyone and everyone to hijack the church meetings? Anything that you do to respond to this situation other than pray is going to be "delegated authority". If a brother "needs to speak to them" then the question is "on who's authority?" If the church gathers for an emergency meeting to vote that is another form of delegated authority.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

to contrive a system of delegated authority - or to compare the need for it with human institutions and structures - is to disbelieve the gospel of Christ.


Thoughts?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And having no delegated authority is the machination of anarchists. This is not an easy topic. Human authority has been the biggest issue we have had for the last 2000 years.

I am a teacher. I went to school in England and the US and have been a teacher in the US and Taiwan. England and Taiwan give teachers a lot of delegated authority relative to the US. There are pros and cons for each. I think the US system should get top marks for empathy, but overall they should score the lowest on this one criteria. In the US individual students are allowed to bring down the school to a much higher degree than is allowed in England or Taiwan.

I have also travelled to a number of countries other than the US. Based on my personal experience and first hand observation I would say that the US has the best government in the world. However, that is much more a comment on how poor human government is rather than on how good the US government is. Also, to my opinion the negatives of the US government are becoming more negative (primarily the negative impact of the US on its neighbors, economically, environmentally, and militarily) while the positives are not getting more positive (primarily human rights).

Likewise, delegated authority in the family is a major issue with no clear answer. In this country, more than any other, we protect the rights of children and women. However, one result is that 40% of families are now headed by a woman, which is much, much higher than other first world nations. There are many negative consequences of removing a father from a family. As a teacher I know that when I call home due to some child's very poor behavior it is my hope that I will get a father. If I get a father I rarely ever have to make a second call. If I get a mother, aunt, grandmother or step dad then the problem is rarely resolved. Instead the most common response is "I can't do anything with him".

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was never sold this story. I heard RG develop this line of reasoning but felt he was cracked, however it was never put forward in such a way publicly... [t]his was Ray's personal "light".

Originally Posted by aron

I guess the story we got sold was that WN got "perfected" under Miss Barber, and thus after that he didn't need to be under anyone's authority. He was only under God. WL, henceforth, sold himself as WN's sole deputy.

Conversely, the argument went that WN was under a vision, a hermeneutic, and WL likewise was under this vision. Again, therefore, they didn't need to be "under" anyone. They had a vision straight from the throne, and if you wanted to be right with God, so the story went, you had to be under Nee & Lee. The divine hierarchy went: Jesus Christ, then WN, then WL, then whomever WL chose at his right hand.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was sold on the idea that WN was a "true man of God" but never heard the "MOTA" exposition at the time. That view has been tarnished recently, and perhaps in the final judgment will be corrupted even more, but I'll leave that to the Lord.

Originally Posted by aron

Conversely, the argument went that WN was under a vision, a hermeneutic, and WL likewise was under this vision. Again, therefore, they didn't need to be "under" anyone. They had a vision straight from the throne, and if you wanted to be right with God, so the story went, you had to be under Nee & Lee. The divine hierarchy went: Jesus Christ, then WN, then WL, then whomever WL chose at his right hand.

Originally Posted by aron

I guess the story we got sold was that WN got "perfected" under Miss Barber, and thus after that he didn't need to be under anyone's authority. He was only under God. WL, henceforth, sold himself as WN's sole deputy.

Conversely, the argument went that WN was under a vision, a hermeneutic, and WL likewise was under this vision. Again, therefore, they didn't need to be "under" anyone. They had a vision straight from the throne, and if you wanted to be right with God, so the story went, you had to be under Nee & Lee. The divine hierarchy went: Jesus Christ, then WN, then WL, then whomever WL chose at his right hand.

Thus, if PL was under WL, you had to be under PL to be right with God. So you ended up with an organization of christian brothers, scattered here and there, each waiting for a phone call from "the office" in Anaheim to tell them what God's next move on the earth was going to be. Ultimately, the fruit borne by WN's 'authority' teaching revealed what its source was.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems to me that Jesus Christ is Spiritual Authority. If you are truly under His headship then you will be one with His authority..

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This way of doing things was set up by Watchman Nee. His model was: the work is regional and has a center and the church is local and has no center. In his book The Normal Christian Church Life he indicated that coworkers could be considered as apostles with authority in the work and this authority included appointing elders. But workers had no authority in church administration - this was the sphere of the elders. Once appointed the workers needed to leave them alone and let them do their jobs locally.

Anyway obviously Nee's model didn't work if Witness Lee is any indication of it's fruit. Under him the work was not regional it was global. His practice in the Far East and elsewhere is that he ruled the work and the work ruled the churches. Period. Titus Chu in the GLA is just a miniature of that modus operanti.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Anyway obviously Nee's model didn't work if Witness Lee is any indication of it's fruit. Under him the work was not regional it was global. His practice in the Far East and elsewhere is that he ruled the work and the work ruled the churches. Period. Titus Chu in the GLA is just a miniature of that modus operanti.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then it doesn't matter where the paycheck is coming from. Without a doubt, elders should not be paid from a ministry.

But if someone is really a gifted shepherd they don't need a paycheck from either TC or the church.

IMVLE the best shepherds and the best evangelists were not on any payroll at all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The conflict of interest exists in the Recovery because of their rule that the most senior worker (Titus Chu in the GLA) directs all the movements of the other workers...The churches learned this the hard way. They had no claim to the worker's time or service. He could be ordered to leave for the weekend with just a moment's notice. Neither could the worker have the liberty to follow the Lord directly. His movements must be initiated by headquarters.

Originally Posted by Terry

When a brother is simultaneously an elder and a co-worker, how does a conflict of interest not exist? Isn't this a case of “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
(Matthew 6:24)

Originally Posted by Terry

When a brother is simultaneously an elder and a co-worker, how does a conflict of interest not exist?

Isn't this a case of “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:24)

Originally Posted by Ohio

Calling it a "conflict of interest" was just a kind way of saying that they had all become hirelings. Obviously they did not see things that way, and took great offense at my concerns. These hirelings were simply being loyal to their boss. They may have prided themselves with the fact that were "co-"workers with the great "apostle" Titus Chu, but there was no "co-" about their service to him. Whatever liberty they had once enjoyed was forfeited once they were on the payroll. They had lost the Christian liberty and rights they once had concerning where they lived and how they served the Lord.

Originally Posted by Terry

The difference between a shepherd and a hireling (aka steward of a system), a shepherd goes after the one that has gone astray. A hireling doesn't concern himself about the ones that go astray, only the ones that are present.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, the church should be structured much more like a family in which everyone has a stance and stake in the family. A father is not a dictator. A grandfather presumably would have something at stake in every child, not just a favored son. The Lord talked about the shepherd versus the "hired hand". A father is not a "hired hand", which is certainly a key safeguard. I would like my "leaders" to be invested in my success and well being.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Misappropriation (great word by the way) of principles of authority is a calling card of abusive groups. Heck, it is a calling card of almost all abuse, spiritual or otherwise. It is taking advantage of another's good faith and intentions.

Nee's distorted view on authority is just one more example of why spiritual teaching needs to be vetted by the Body of Christ. I am under authority in the church I'm in. I honor God by being so. But if my church ever got on a tear, like the LC did, of making a big deal about spiritual authority, I would strongly consider leaving, because I know emphasizing it is a pretext to abuse.

Jesus specified tying a millstone around one's neck and throwing it in the sea being better than the consequences of such abuses. LC leaders, take note.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Nee and Lee's teaching they refer to "delegated" authority using Police and the uniform as one example. Hence, anarchy is relevant to their teaching. They also use Fathers, Mothers, head covering and other scriptural references. The issue with the teaching is not that the NT does not teach this concept, it does. The issue isn't that some of what Nee and Lee taught was scriptural, it was. The issue is that they went too far and also misappropriated the teaching. MOTA is a clear example of their error.

Yes the NT teaches delegated authority, especially when Paul says to "obey" those in authority.
Yes their is "delegated" authority in the church, particularly when Paul says to let everything be done in order, and where he says that we need to learn how to behave in the house of God.

However, Jesus made it very clear that we are to call no man "Rabbi", hence the teaching of MOTA is clearly prohibited by Jesus. That teaching is heretical. To justify that teaching with "delegated authority" is to misappropriate that teaching. Lee and Nee clearly mishandled the word of God and did not cut it straight.

PS. -- Honoring your father and mother is a commandment with the two promises that it will "be well with you" and that "you will live long". Hence, I don't accept your distinction between this being a "natural" delegated authority whereas Elders and Apostles are "spiritual" delegated authority.

Originally Posted by awareness

So now we're not talking about spiritual authority, but natural authority. Of course parents are an authority. They change the diapers.

You are confusing authorities. Normal authorities are not the same as God authorities.


I already stated it was the KJV.

The point is that "delegated authority" as taught by Nee & Lee, and "Minister of the Age, are not in the Bible. They are extra-Biblical teachings and practices, that require a "Sleight of Mind spell casting trick of verbage" to gain all-in allegiance.

And don't try to bait me into the subject of Christian anarchy. However, if we're talking about sticking to scripture, at least there's more support for Christian anarchy than delegated authority or the MOTA.

But we're good boys and won't talk about that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! Who would have thought? The Bible doesn't mention Fathers or mothers!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by awareness

So you think Jesus was an Anarchist? The Romans thought so too. That's why they hung him. As they did all Anarchists. Jesus was just one among thousands (mostly Pharisees) they hung on a cross for insurrection against Rome.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Were you doing a search of the King James Bible or the Anarchists Bible?

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, Nee in his Spiritual Authority says we all should find our authority. And you sound like your authority is in the local church. So are you in rebellion to your authority?

Nee says : respect your authoritah ....
http://www.talkingwav.com/south_park/cartman_07.wav

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think any group will be subject to being dominated by a gifted member. Look at basketball teams. The "superstar" literally molds the team to their image and if it doesn't fit they drive the other players away. This does not seem unreasonable to me for a ministry. So plurality will always be influenced by how gifted someone is.

Our govt is set on "checks and balances" and "plurality rules" yet it has quickly become an oligarchy. The rich and powerful will always seek to have more voice in govt than others.

However, the church should be structured much more like a family in which everyone has a stance and stake in the family. A father is not a dictator. A grandfather presumably would have something at stake in every child, not just a favored son. The Lord talked about the shepherd versus the "hired hand". A father is not a "hired hand", which is certainly a key safeguard. I would like my "leaders" to be invested in my success and well being.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am a firm believer in the offices of elders and deacons established for every congregation. There is safety in the plurality of leadership. Plurality among the elders and plurality among the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. Safety in numbers, as they say.

Originally Posted by awareness

Great post bro Z.

But what do I know?

The LRC claims to be a Bible based church.

So I looked there to find "who was right."

I searched the Bible for "delegated authority" and "minister of the age." Result : no hits. So I narrowed the search to "delegated." Again no hits.

But "authority" pulled up :

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:

So does Jesus qualify as someone who knows who is right?

Other than that, right now, I got nothing. But maybe I'll know everything some time soon. I'll get back to you then.

Originally Posted by awareness

Nah bro Ohio. I was using the e-Sword Bible reference, searching the KJV, and didn't use google. But maybe I should have. But I doubt the Critical Text translations would be any different.

However I'm sure the search results would be different in the RcV, if footnotes are included in the search.

Originally Posted by Ohio

So google got it right about authority in the church.

Who knew?

Originally Posted by awareness

But "authority" pulled up :

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:
So does Jesus qualify as someone who knows who is right?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

Originally Posted by Terry

That quote I see was and still is applied in response for accountability and responsibility, but has since been paraphrased to say something to the effect of, we don't care for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we only care for the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted by Terry

Quite simply leading brothers do not like to be put on defense for their actions or lack of, thus this is their counter-strike towards those who expect a response for a lack of accountability and responsibility.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And having no delegated authority is the machination of anarchists. This is not an easy topic. Human authority has been the biggest issue we have had for the last 2000 years.

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Nee didn't realize it, or maybe he was plotting complete control, either way, his delegated authority and MOTA doctrines ended up being a machination for a cult.

All cults would totally agree with Nee, on these matters.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Nee didn't realize it, or maybe he was plotting complete control, either way, his delegated authority and MOTA doctrines ended up being a machination for a cult.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently Philip Lee's favorite quote from the ministry is, "we don't care for right and wrong, we only care for life." After hearing of his lack of respect for other persons, this quote becomes more than fitting.

Originally Posted by zeek

Nee's teaching is diametrically opposed to American values.

Originally Posted by zeek

Nee only recognizes one exception to the principle of absolute obedience to authority ...

Originally Posted by aron

Again, Watchman Nee:

"Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us, since he has to be responsible directly to God. The obedient needs only to obey...Insubordination, however, is rebellion, and for this the one under authority must answer to God."

Notice how easy it is to slide from this to "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right." Turns out that God is a respecter of persons, after all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This obvious connection has to be examined. For Nee and Lee to teach absolute submission to human deputy authorities, beyond the prescribed words of the Bible, is to establish a system where one man will rise to the top of the heap conquering all others in the process.

Originally Posted by aron

If Nee's teaching on authority was any good, why have its fruits been so persistently bad?

Originally Posted by aron

In zeek's quote, Nee wrote that insubordination to authority was akin to rebellion.

It is little wonder that his spiritual heirs are bullies, sycophants, and merchandizers.

Originally Posted by Terry

I understand what you mean Aron. I realize there was no intent to disparage any. Ones you had mentioned: Benson, Titus, Dong, etc seem to come out of the Lee discipleship camp much more than Nee. This is where our [limited] frame of reference has it's orientation.

Originally Posted by Terry

I can very well understand aron's point if your are referring to the late Witness Lee and his handpicked "blended brothers". However if you are referring to other brothers Nee had discipled, I say you're going too far.

Originally Posted by aron

It is little wonder that his spiritual heirs are bullies, sycophants, and merchandizers. Had Nee's "ground of the church" teaching and organization been true to the word coming from God's throne (i.e. obedient to God's disseminated authority), his new organization and its subsequent spin-off progeny would have been immune to usurpation by such rebellious forces.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lucifer... was given great authority from God Himself to administer the universe. That authority was parlayed into the first coup d'etat in recorded history. One third of the angels "obeyed" their authority to their own peril.

Originally Posted by Terry

The Bible teaches the wife to submit to the husband and the husband to exercise authority. Children should obey their parents. But as deputy authorities, parents also have their responsibilities and requirements.

Originally Posted by aron

In this section Jesus, the subject, gets 2 quick sentences and the bulk of the attention goes to "teaching". Notice how easily Witness Lee turned the focus away from the leadership example of Jesus Christ. ... Lee transformed this "doing good" into being a talking head, and selling one's messages, or teachings, for lucre.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

What the LC systems has done is equate Witness Lee's teachings with the apostles' teachings.

Originally Posted by zeek

Nee argues for strict authoritarianism over the normal exercise of human conscience and reason. History has show the disastrous consequences of such teaching. No wonder tyranny has been so prevalent in the Local Churches.

Originally Posted by aron

here is a section from page 80 "Elder's training, book 9"

"The New Testament leadership in the Gospels was a person. That person was the Lord Jesus Himself. But from Acts to Revelation, the unique New Testament leadership became the teaching of the apostles. Thus, neither Peter nor Paul controlled any church, but their teaching controlled. We can see this in 1 Timothy where Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus in order that he might charge certain ones not to teach different things other than the economy of God (1:3-4). Different teachings are teachings which are different from the apostles' teaching concerning God's economy. This teaching is the unique leadership."

In this section Jesus, the subject, gets 2 quick sentences and the bulk of the attention goes to "teaching". Notice how easily Witness Lee turned the focus away from the leadership example of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

in regards to so called "spiritual authority" the question [] is: where does spiritual authority reside? If it resides in a certain person or select group of leaders than we are in trouble. Because this idea and practice allows this person or select handful of people to freely say and do whatever they want and everyone else is expected to submit to them regardless of what their own conscience says or what the Word of God says...

Originally Posted by Ohio

This may sound good, but why teach it? It's like arming people with guns, teaching them gun safety, and then leaving the guns laying around for the wrong person to use them. Why not limit your teaching to the Bible? Why even discuss the authority of a "deputy?" Why not focus your teaching, as the Apostle Paul does, on the character of the Lord's servants and on the numerous warnings in the Bible about the abuse of authority. I daresay that the word "deputy" has never helped anyone but he who misused it for his own selfish gains. Paul called this filthy lucre.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Supposedly Witness Lee himself was there in person for all of Nee's messages on spiritual authority, and supposedly he should have been the one with the most fear of the abuse of authority. He claimed to be absolutely one with Watchman Nee and his ministry. Yet was he not the one who abused these teachings the most? Why did he teach others like the God-fearing John Ingalls these messages about deputy authority and then neglect to teach his own profligate sons?

Timothy and Philip Lee obviously knew what it meant to wield great authority over the brothers and sisters in the Recovery. I'm sure they witnessed daddy's public rebukes, humiliations, and chastisements for many years. They obviously lusted over the great adoration their father regularly received. By all accounts, Lee's own sons knew little about respect, morality, virtue, kindness, faith, godliness, decency, etc. yet Witness saw fit to place Philip over LSM and all the workers.

It's hard not to believe that the teaching of deputy authority in the Recovery had far more to do with Chinese culture than the Bible, especially since the Recovery has become little more than the Lee Dynasty.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee would countenance no peers. His model of "the work" was himself as an apostle with the status of a Paul while his coworkers had the status of a Titus or Timothy who he could give dictates to and expect them to be followed. This practice was propped up with MOTA and deputy authority teachings.