From the linked article.
Quote:
This is the pattern in the body. Fathers in the faith instruct faithful men, bringing them to maturity, that they in their turn might do the same.II Timothy 2:1-2
You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Is this pattern followed in the traditional church? No, it is not. But this is the pattern set forth in scripture. Yahshua was not invisible among His disciples. The disciples, turned apostles, were not invisible either. They were very evident among the saints. Paul was very visible everywhere he went. He did not try to hide among the body and make himself obscure, nor should leaders today. They are granted authority to edify the body, to build it up. They are called as servants, not benefactors, and they are visible servants.
It has been asserted that it is wrong for any saint to stand out among the others. It has been stated that it is wrong for any of the saints to be looked at differently due to their calling. This sounds like humility and sound reason, but it is not scripturally supported. In regard to the issue of support, Frank Viola spoke the following:Frank replies: Let me add something more practically. I have been a Christian a long time. I have never seen in all of my life a man who received a salary from God's people who was not set apart from them as someone better, someone higher, and someone of a different class...
Also the saints will look at you differently. You are separating yourself from them by this practice.
Did we not already read that an elder is worthy of double honor? If this is true, then do not elders stand out? Are they not set apart and presented as an example to the body of Christ? In this same talk Frank has stated that he believes that elders are worthy of double respect, that is, not the same respect as other brothers, but a special, double respect. It cannot be both ways. Elders cannot be given double honor and no honor at the same time. They cannot be treated with extra respect and with the same respect as everyone else at the same time. Many such difficulties are encountered by trying to make the scriptures fit a wrong model.
|
It was interesting to read through roughly half the article this morning. While I can see where they are rightly pointing to the blindness of interpretation in the ones they write to and about, they are equally blind to their own problems of interpretation.
In this short segment that is probably about 3/5 through the article, there is much said that I can agree with. Yet from the very beginning, he simply dismisses the "traditional church" as not following this pattern. He makes this assertion immediately after quoting the verses in 2 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy to entrust what he has learned to faithful men that they can also teach it. How is this not he way of the traditional church? Given the way in which seminaries so often rely on recommendation from others of stature to decide who will be able to attend and learn, how is this different? How is any of it different other than the unstated desire to claim some higher ground than the traditional church through unsubstantiated claims that they are not following the same pattern.
Then he moves on to the matter of honor for those who lead. He rightly points out that they are worthy of double honor. It is interesting that here the argument is that paying a minister does not unjustly set him apart as different because people then look at ministers as different from themselves. And his references for his claim are valid. Yet periodically throughout the article he has made references to the to something like the "clergy-laity divide" as if it is a proven error that he never mentions other than as a disparaging remark.
So what would the divide be? That they are somewhat set apart? Like Paul and Barnabas for ministry? That they are the ones charged to teach the flock? Like elders and unlike leaderless groups who simply teach themselves whatever they think is right.
I note that at one point shortly before the one I quoted, there is a passage from Nee's
Spiritual Authority in which he makes his case for the proper understanding of authority. It is a 593-word portion that begins with "
Authority is a tremendous thing in the universe - nothing overshadows it. It is therefore imperative for us who desire to serve God to know the authority of God." But it does not contain a single reference to evidence that the importance that Nee gives to it is even found in scripture. In fact, there is no scripture mentioned at all. Just statements that the importance of it all is as he claims.
But what I find just as interesting, or even more so, is that it is now evident that those who less directly follow Nee (compared to those who more directly follow Lee) are in many ways just as dogmatic about their superiority to "traditional Christianity" They are totally blind to how they are just like everyone else as they claim superiority. All in the name of a group (like others) who gripe about various "divides" as they go to extraordinary lengths to separate themselves from the others.