[OBW]

And it is in what I now consider the better way to do these kind of inquiries that I asked the question. (Not commenting on how you posed the question, but on what is for me an improvement in how I participate.)

I know that there is spiritual authority. But I honestly think that for most people, focusing on it creates in them the mentality of positions that is more of a "it's not my job" view than the recognition of the benefit to them and everyone else that the "positions" provide in their service. Now it would be just as easy to say that anything that is a service to us comes from a position of spiritual authority and that would excessively oversimplify the analysis.

And I would agree that where there is the sense that something is happening where the goal does not seem to be the "improvement" of the assembly or the direction is questionable when compared to what we understand to be the core of "healthy teachings," then we should speak up, although "speak up" may not mean to talk out loud to the assembly in general, at least at first. I would always suggest restraint in the forum in which we speak because we could discover that we have begun negative talk that is worse for the group than what we perceived to be error.

But that does not mean remain silent.

At times I wonder how much of the "deal with the bad stuff" teachings, even of Paul, were intended for the consumption of the general population of the assembly. At least part of it was written in a private letter rather than in general letters to the local Christians. But not all. Still, if we accept that an elder is charged with the oversight of the flock, it would seem that none of us who do not hold the position, practically or functionally, are the ones to which concerns about spiritual authority, or spiritual error, should be addressed. I'm not saying that we abdicate any responsibility to them. But I suspect that there is a problem with spiritual authority if we bypass it.

In any case, I would assume that my part should be, at most, as a part of a kind of Acts 15 consideration rather than a personal determiner of things. I believe that my input is important, but not determinative.

And not everything deserves an Acts 15 kind of inquiry.

I did note in the segments you posted from the Brethren site that the questions and the answers seemed very different. The questions seemed to be concerned with getting definitions right while the answers were more about "soft" considerations in actual practice. For me, I would lean more to the "soft" side when considering "spiritual authority" in broad terms. At least one of the answers seemed concerned with the present condition of the person on whom some sort of spiritual authority was presumed to rest.

When it comes to viewing individuals, we should always remember that no man or woman is perfect. On any given day, at any given time, in any given set of circumstances, anyone is capable of acting outside of the grace given. And in certain terms, that could have ramifications concerning "authority." But we have all been given the charge, and therefore authority, to preach the gospel at some level. Just because I did not have my normal "quiet time" this morning does not relieve me of my charge to preach. (Don't over analyze the particulars. It is an example.) But I may not have authority at all in other ways.

But it would seem that considerations from the standpoint of "spiritual authority" is to redefine the issue at hand into something other than the real issue. The issue with teaching wrong things isn't spiritual authority. It's the clarity that the teachings are wrong. If we are considering whether person X should be doing thing D rather than Person Y the real issue might be whether we are just asserting our opinion as authority. If we question the authority of a teacher because we think that one thing they recently said was not in line with our personal thoughts, is that a matter of authority?

I wonder if maybe the truth about authority is that we are all authorized to do the things that are according to our gifts for the benefit of the body and that most of us do not have the gift of discerning whether another's gift is being used efficiently, properly, and/or at all. In other words, the most important thing about spiritual authority is that I take what is given to me (i.e., God has authorized me concerning) and use it. And realize that all gifts are not my gifts. And others' gifts are not my gifts. And that my gifts are not others' gifts.

And is trying to understand spiritual authority more about trying to second-guess everyone else. And is asserting spiritual authority proof of a lack of it because it has become a sort of "lording over."