[Cal]

Again, in order for something like "handing over" to take place, someone has to be the enforcer. In the case of Acts (Ohio's example), Peter, a bona fide Apostle, was the enforcer.

The early genuine apostles had such extra authority. Their apostleship was verifiable, they had been with the Lord, they had been appointed by Him, they had worked signs and wonders.

These days there is no way to verify apostleship. No matter what anyone says, deciding whether one is or isn't can be nothing more than a matter of opinion and taste. I do not believe that God expects anyone to "hand over" their entire fortune based on so tenuous an assumption.

In my opinion Nee was grossly in error simply by saying that people should hand over everything to the church, because that meant Nee thought he was an apostle (an enforcer).

So although I agree with KTS that "handing over" would definitely cause tension between those that had and those that hadn't, that symptom is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that Nee presumed he had the authority to command such a thing in the first place.

It's just another case of "deputy authority" run amok.