Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
The question I have, like on some other issues, is whether it is important that we understand something that could be called "delegated authority" in this day and age outside of the very terms that are already used for whatever human authority there should be in the church.
These special doctrines that are codified seem too often to be for the purpose of making them into more than they actually are. Like making an elder or other leader immune to claims of wrongdoing. Like when Nee claimed that only God could deal with the sins of a deputy authority.
Really? Fire must come down from heaven to consume the pedophile priests? Or condemn church leaders for abusive practices? (not just thinking about the LCM here)
But this is where deputy authority was going. Even if Nee seemed to write (some) truth in the book, was it really there for that truth? Or was if for the purpose of arriving at a place where he could never be excommunicated again for sexual immorality? And if you want to be part of this congregation, you have to go along with this new rule that exempts me from claims of any wrongdoing that the police will not come arrest me for.
|
"was it really there for that truth?" The answer to your question may be in the fact that LSM divided Nee's book "Spiritual Authority" into two books. The section on Misrepresenting God by Delegated Authority was in the 2nd book. If you didn't read the 2nd book, you wouldn't know that the DA's had any responsibility in accurately representing God.
Another question is, as you seem to touch on, Who talks this way? Who talks about authority in the church?
Nell