Quote:
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.
|
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.
Regardless of Nee's original thoughts about The Work and spiritual authority, under Lee it came to mean one unquestioned leader at the top, over all the workers and the elders, whose authority only grew year by year. Lee was peerless and his authority was absent of input from other spiritual men. Yes, he might have appeared grandfatherly and austere to most of the saints, but look what happened when he transferred a fraction of his authority to his two sons.
Regardless of what the saints believed about "local" churches and leadership autonomy in these churches, I witnessed too much to the contrary. Both Lee and Chu ruled with an iron fist. They both could be so incredibly charming to the saints in general, and yet so overly dominant and abusive to other leaders. The word "local" became basically a farce and a smokescreen when attached to the mounting authority of these so-called "deputies" of the body of Christ.