Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
If WN had truly come to the realization that rejecting authority was such an evil sin, then he should have promptly recanted his Little Flock position and gone back to join the already established Protestants (who, btw, had themselves quit the RCC, who'd in turn rejected the Eastern church authority).
|
On the EO/RCC split, I find it difficult to determine who split from whom. More like a separation of equals. And it appears that they had been divided for centuries, dating back all the way to around 180 but somewhat officially when they both excommunicated certain emissary individuals of the other group (roughly 1054?).
The funny thing is that while many denominations have hierarchies that ultimately rule in certain aspects of the members of their sects, they don't pretend to rule over all believers as the EO and RCC initially did. Except for the kinds of groups that dismiss virtually all others as divisive (based on their own private rules) and therefore their grand leader, whatever called, is the ruler of everyone (whether they like it or not). Especially if failure to recognize their authority is called rebellion against God.
That apparently would be Nee then Lee. And I guess that those who followed Nee but not Lee still recognize the authority of Nee, or of some other coworker even if not stated. Or at least a variant on "blended ones" — in this case people like Kaung and others who would not claim to be the minister of the age, but who otherwise have no one over them and everyone below.
Now it is commendable that some of them, like Kaung, seem to have accepted his Nee-ordained "position" in more of a servant-leader way. But this discussion raised by this apparent follower suggests that the understanding from below may not have been much different that of those who revered Lee and continue to do so. And who are held in the control of those who wield Nee's deputy positions.
And now with the withdrawal of Kaung from regular active ministry, those who were under his "authority" appear to be leaderless in many cases.
The subtleness of Nee to say things like "
It is the rebellious nature of man that makes him want to obey God's direct authority without being subject to the delegated authorities God has established" is that it is written by the man who asserts himself into the picture as the one to whom all but God should submit. It is very true that we should submit to others. Also generally to one another. Yet for Nee, and then for Lee, there was no "one anothers" to whom they would submit. They were above it as the pinnacle of a hierarchy. And unlike those holding such positions in so many other Christian hierarchies, I don't think they recognize the responsibility of the position, but only the authority of it. They come across more like the teachers of the law demanding the best seats at banquets while putting rules on the followers that they cannot (and do not) keep.