Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
I've often thought about someting. According to Lee's "Deputy Authority" teaching, Timothy should have succeeded Paul. In his two letters to Timothy it would seem that Paul was indeed grooming Timothy to at least carry out his burden. But does church history give any indication of Timothy doing anything? Or, maybe he just dropped the ball...oops...I mean "mantle."
Roger
|
More study - another wrinkle:
Lee taught clearly that Paul's "apostleship" was based upon revelation. Perhaps I've always just assumed that the basic revelation to kick that off happened on the road to Damascus. And perhaps in a sense that was the case. However, reading the start of Acts 13 this morning, there was another revelation, far more clear than I've ever seen before.
Saul and Barnabas were "sent" by the Holy Spirit *and*
the assembly at Antioch.
This is what the Bible says.
This is the complete REVERSE of the historic teachings of top-down hierarchical thinking, reflected in Lee's teachings as well as many other places.
This section of Acts 13 could justifiably be read to indicate that the sending forth of Saul and Barnabas by the assembly in Antioch *was* in fact the sending forth of Saul and Barnabas by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, there is the laying on of hands, which clearly is meant to indicate the identification of the locality and the sent ones.
From a practical perspective, I'm entertaining a thesis that this must be the case. Regardless of your opinion on whether contemporary Christian "missionaries" are the equivalent of "apostles" (Nee taught that they were in NCCL), the model concerning the source of material supply by a sending locality seems to be almost universally applicable out of sheer practical necessity.
It would also seem that the ability for someone to succeed in organizing groups of assemblies into supporting their "ministry" as an "apostle" that might in some fashion or other eventually lord it over those very assemblies is simply a perversion of the practical and Biblical model of assemblies sending forward material supply to those
they themselves have sent forth.
I'm not reaching any conclusions yet but, just as a practical matter, He gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some shepherds and teachers for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the Body of Christ. Surely, there is no doubt that the shepherds and teachers are fully grounded in the locality. It would seem too obvious to have to point out that all the working of the other gifts are to the aid of the practical building in a locality or localities. But why exactly would we have the concept that any of these people, including the "apostles," would not be solidly grounded in a particular locality as their point of origin? Why would there be some notion that they had some sort of extra-local existence when all the real building of the Body and magnification of Christ happens practically and locally?
I believe it may be the case that the Bible reveals that none could ever be an "apostle" without being a member of a genuine assembly first and foremost. Focusing on the aspect of the function of the Body that "apostles" give birth to "churches" ignores the reality that the "churches" first give birth to the "apostles."
Still digging, though.
There's a lot of ground to cover.