Authority and Submission

[KSA]

"Minister of the Age" teaching is just a particular application of LC view on the authority and submission in the church. My believe is that LC view on authority undermines the headship of Christ. According to the Word, there is not authority in church but the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Word. Any authority in the church is derived from the Word and the Spirit. Any leader that goes against the Word and the Spirit loses his authority.

[OBW]

KSA,

While I generally agree with the notion that it is not something human that is the authority but rather the Holy Spirit, it would appear that Acts 15 shows something of the authority of the church.

But that authority was not something presumed, but was the result of an interaction between a group of believers and the Holy Spirit. I think that this was what Jesus was speaking when he said he would build his church and that he gave the “keys.”

While I have not done original research, I have found others who indicate that the “keys,” binding and loosing, even fulfilling and destroying the law were terms well understood by the disciples as “tools of the trade” of the Jewish religious leaders and teachers of the law, rabbis, etc. They sought to properly live the law (fulfill it) rather than live contrary to it (destroy it). They would bind (deny) or loose (allow) consistent with their understanding of scripture applied to real life. That is exactly what that council did in Acts 15.

In that manner, there is authority in the church. For centuries we have seen abuse of this granting of authority in the RCC, and now more recently in the LC. The answer is not every man for himself. As individuals, our clarity concerning any “word” from the Holy Spirit is suspect. But in Biblical community, in the church, there is a place for testing of our private considerations. In Acts, one might have decided that the answer was more severe than what was actually recorded. Another might have thought, just leave them alone. (We might agree with that today). But these men joined in prayer and consideration, then put aside their personal preference for the sense of the group from their deliberations. It seemed good to both them and the Holy Spirit. And they ate some crow in the process. They were effectively admitting that they had not acted righteously toward their Gentile brothers.

Unfortunately, that is not what we see from the LC. It is about subservience to another human based on some notion of spiritual superiority. Their goals are not the furtherance of the growth of their flocks, but the perpetuation of their system which grants them authority and pays their salaries. They deflect criticism at all costs. The Gentiles might have been quarantined if they had dared to send that letter to Anaheim instead of Jerusalem.

[Peter Debelak]

This post is based on the premise that the Bible teaches that there is such a things as human-weilded "spritual authority" (a premise I'm more than happy to examine later).

If we assume there is spritual human authority in the Word, my question is this:

Does the authority reside in a person as a status or does it reside in a person only to the extent that his acts conform to God's will?

The difference between the two is revealed when we consider where our personal accountability resides. Nee seemed to take the position that authority resides in a status - such that, so long as an authority (who held a status) told you to do something, you did it. And, if what you did was contrary to God's will, the "authority" would be accountable and you would not. The difference is tested by the question: is it even possible for an individual believer to have a genuine leading from the Lord that contradicts the will of the "authority" who is purportedly above him? I would say that, if the Scripture teaches that authority resides in a status, then the answer is "No, God would not give an individual a leading which contradicts his appointed authority"

The authority that resided in Paul seems more like that of a status - i.e. he was an "apostle" by designation. Elders who were "appointed" by an apostle clearly have authority which resides in their status.

But that doesn't necessarily answer the question for us today, where their are no Scripture-confirmed, God-ordained apostles.

Human authority which the Scripture discusses is certainly based upon "status" - husbands, parents, the state, etc... These are God-ordained relationships and authority resides in a status. You obey the authority regardless of whether you think they are "right". E.g. If you are a slave, you obey your master, even if slavery is wrong; or you pay your taxes, even if they are being used to fund a war you disagree with etc...

But do these principles of human authority translate into spiritual principels of authority? Or is it a false analogy?

Thoughts?

Peter

[TLFisher]

I came across the following verse:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Now to tie this into what Peter was saying, which authority is being discussed by the author of Hebrews?
Is it spiritual authority or something more?

Terry

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Terry

I came across the following verse:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Now to tie this into what Peter was saying, which authority is being discussed by the author of Hebrews?
Is it spiritual authority or something more?

Terry

Terry,

Good verse. From the context of that chapter in Hebrews - in which the author is giving a wide range of admonitions for our lives, this reference to "authority" could either be human or spiritual. The NASB translates part of the verse as "They keep watch over your souls" - which might indicate more of a spiritual authority (although, in the LC theology, the verse would then read "They keep watch over your spirit" - in which case "over your souls" means this verse is refering to secular authority.) Anyone know the Greek on this?

Another verse which I think relates: "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; {13} And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves."(1 Th 5:12 -13 KJV - just in case Steward is here...).

Here, it seems odd that Paul would admonish the Thessilonians to "know them which labor amoung you" - as in, "take note of who they are" if "authority" resided in a status - since, there would be no question of who the "leaders" or "authorities" were in such a case.

Just more food for thought. But here's my real question:

Is there anything in the "submit to authority" verses which conveys something more than "submit to one another in reverence for CHrist"? (Eph. 5:21?

Peter

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here, it seems odd that Paul would admonish the Thessilonians to "know them which labor amoung you" - as in, "take note of who they are" if "authority" resided in a status - since, there would be no question of who the "leaders" or "authorities" were in such a case.

Just more food for thought. But here's my real question:

Is there anything in the "submit to authority" verses which conveys something more than "submit to one another in reverence for CHrist"? (Eph. 5:21?

Peter

Peter,
"to know them which labor amoung you", could that be not only those who serve through appointment or coordination to carry out a work, but those who have no appointment and no affiliation, but are burdened before the Lord which he or she may be pressed to pursue?

My comment on your second point, the answer is not so simple. The matter of submitting is a matter of the will. We can submit to one another in reverence for Christ. What can muddy the equation, is our fallen adamic man. If we sense alternative agendas other than Christ on the matter of "submit to authority", we have reservation in submitting. In the past there have been brothers who have outwardly resisted "submitting" while others just go along. I wouldn't consider going along as submitting, because the will has not submitted. I see it as a passive resistance to submission.
Truthfully the matter of submitting is something I need more clarity on.

Terry Fisher

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I would say that historically the RC and EO relate authority to status and position. The LC follows in this pattern. The Reformation was really not about justification by faith per se. There was bigger issue behind it i.e. by what authority is Luther and the other Reformers teaching this? What is their basis for legitimization if it conflicts with the established "spiritual" authority in "the church". The basis was clarified at Worms: the Scriptures and the conscience.

[YP0534]

Quickly, now, where's that padlock??


My sense is that God's authority rests where it needs to in order to accomplish God's purpose at the moment. It appears somewhat like a status because it abides on the mature and the stable among us.

Paul fallen away into sin would not have remained the apostle we know.

He was an apostle because he was faithful.


(P.S. Definitely need more smilies at some point but, please, not the one with the automatic weaponry...)

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

My observation is that most people want to follow leadership that has sufficient gravitas. Once people discover that their leaders are superficial lightweights any credibility they had crumbles.

The bible does teach us to follow those that lead but with multiple qualifiers. Obviously we do not follow those that violate the Scriptures or our conscience or do not have the character to be leaders as described in the Scriptures. Those who do follow leaders who violate the Scriptures and their conscience can easily become shipwrecked in the faith.

[Old Rasputin]

For me to follow any leadership, I need to respect not only the leader, but understand and share the goals to which they are leading me.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

For me to follow any leadership, I need to respect not only the leader, but understand and share the goals to which they are leading me.

Old Rasputin, on the topic of leadership and respect I feel there are different levels of respect. It's easy to respect a leader out of position and function. To respect a leader as a brother is defined by how sensitive situations are handed.
Whether or not the leader takes time to know the individuals involved in situations and the situations itself without relying on someone else's speaking.

Even if we as brothers and sisters come to respect a leader by their direction and how situations are handled, they are still men prone to err and our submission to them is according to their authority in Christ.

Terry

[Only by Grace]

The congregations I've attended have been elder led, with elders rising from the ranks when the biblical qualifications have been fulfilled. They are usually recognized, and then appointed by the congregation/other elders...not by a vote, but by rather an "absence of objections" based on biblical qualifications. As far as I know, they've never lorded their "authority" over the rest of us. One congregation where I attended, the elders were really pretty weak, and were "yes men" to the pastor. (I ended up leaving that church for that very reason.) But, the other congregations have had strong elders who were spiritually mature, able to teach, gentle and yet strong, wise. I have watched a couple of very fine men remove themselves from their elder status when they, themselves, felt no longer "qualified" to serve in that capacity...usually because of teenage children who went astray while under their care. So, even leaders who don't "go against the Word and the Spirit" (as KSA stated), can and should lose their spiritual authority when they no longer fit the description found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Agreed?

Maybe in my small circle of churches I've attended, I've missed something out there -- even though our elders govern the affairs of our congregation, and provide spiritual advice and leadership, I don't think anyone really thinks they are the "bosses" to whom we have to "submit." Rather, they are respected men who serve and lead and who we "follow" as they follow Christ. I see their role as helping us grow in our relationship with God rather than bossing us around, laying down edicts, etc. I have always felt responsible to Christ Jesus, first...and would not attend a congregation if the elders were missing the mark in a big way.


~gracie

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

Maybe in my small circle of churches I've attended, I've missed something out there -- even though our elders govern the affairs of our congregation, and provide spiritual advice and leadership, I don't think anyone really thinks they are the "bosses" to whom we have to "submit." Rather, they are respected men who serve and lead and who we "follow" as they follow Christ. I see their role as helping us grow in our relationship with God rather than bossing us around, laying down edicts, etc. I have always felt responsible to Christ Jesus, first...and would not attend a congregation if the elders were missing the mark in a big way.


~gracie

Amen, Gracie!

To my perception, the New Testament example that looms largest in the minds of Local Church people is this:

Acts 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it.

6 And the young men arose and wrapped him round, and they carried him out and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 But Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to try the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them that have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out.

10 And she fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost: and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things.

They figure that this kind of awesome display of power will exist in the proper "local church" and, especially since it touches the core issue of funding for their activities, they are nearly obsessed with being "right" enough for this sort of thing to be possibly manifested among them.

Like I said, this is according to my perception.

But essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

Amen. I would only add that in the local church parlance the appearence of control is smoothed out by using the royal "we". As in "The feeling in the Body is that we all need to jump." Everybody who's been in for more than two days knows exactly what this means.

[aron]

I would like to add something about the 'gavitas' that djohnson speaks about. In every congregation I meet in it seems there are at least a few 'elder sister prayer warriors' that I always seem to gravitate to. You know, grey hair, short, thick, always smiling. In one fellowship I would wander off for six months and when I stopped in this particular sister would greet me, beaming, "There you are! I've been praying for you!"

They mean business. The world holds little attraction to them. Like Anna the prophetess, every day they are in the temple, serving the Lord. I always like to be friendly with them so they add me to thier 'prayer list'. Perhaps that seems selfish but I use this example as what, for me, it means to lead in the church, and what it means for me to be in authority. When these sisters pray, it gets done.

I respect outward position, which is basically the 'will of the people' putting someone into a role: pastor, minister, elder, deacon, youth leader, etc. But to me that gravitas, that spiritual weight, that I am attracted to and submit to, is the result of a walk with God, a walk that has deposited the weight of heavenly gold into a frail earthen vessel. When I use the word 'submit to' I don't use it in the worldly way of 'obey the commands from' but rather in the spiritual way of 'align myself with a particular spiritual flow'. Hope that is precise enough.

Interesting, because in my youth, as a rough and tough American male I wasn't too impressed with 'little old ladies'...now that I have been down the road a pace or two my impression is the exact opposite! I may be dull, but I do recognize spiritual authority when I see it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting, because in my youth, as a rough and tough American male I wasn't too impressed with 'little old ladies'...now that I have been down the road a pace or two my impression is the exact opposite! I may be dull, but I do recognize spiritual authority when I see it.

I remember hearing a teaching among the Local Church people once that stated that the Lord's authority could be found with the sisters when the situation was degraded. I sure don't know a verse for that and I'm not interested here in debating it.

I'll leave it to Thankful, perhaps, to shred that up and shed some light on it as far as a doctrine goes, but, to my observation, I saw a lot of this in reality among them.

In other words, I observed a lot of sisters solidly and quietly laboring in the Lord for their families and all the saints and it was really pretty obvious to me where the real authority was, although someone else had a title and a position that they were the ones in charge.

I don't know if that necessarily meant that it was a degraded situation or not but where would that leave them under their own doctrine?

If their was even such a teaching.

I don't recall this one very clearly being spoken by anyone in particular, so maybe I just dreamed it.

[Thankful Jane]

I think in general we have the whole idea of authority and submission upside down.

Because of the worldly culture when we hear the words “leaders”, “authority,” “submission” we automatically think in terms of a top-down scenario. This is actually satanic authority and the bible uses the words “lording over” to refer to it.

Biblical authority is another animal altogether. It’s bottoms up authority. The one with the greatest authority is the one bearing the greatest responsibility for those he loves. He is underneath them in order to serve them.

In earthly pictures, a parent has God-given authority for the benefit of their children so they can protect and nurture them, not so they can sit on some kind of parent throne and brandish a sword of authority over their underling children, commanding them to do their bidding. The parent has to bear the children over a long period of time with a labor of longsuffering and patient love, not thinking about their own selfish benefit, welfare or happiness, but about that of their children. They have to pay the price to teach by example.

A husband has God-given authority in a marriage, not so he can bind his wife’s feet and cause her to shuffle along behind him (no cultural offense meant, just a good word picture) but so he can lay down his life, if necessary, for his wife whom he is told to love as Christ loved the church by giving Himself for her.

This is what it means for a man to rule his house well.

True authority and submission is seen in what Christ did on the cross. He had the authority to lay his life down or to save it. He submitted completely and willingly to His Father’s will. He used his authority to lay his life down for us, to submit to our killing hands without calling down fire on us, and as a result He saved us and demonstrated God’s love for us tangibly.

It is easy to submit to someone who loves like this. That is how Jesus won our love and submission. The more I see Him as He really is, the more I love Him and call Him my Lord, and the more I can live toward others as He did. After all, we are all called to submit to one another in love.

When men take up positions as representatives of God to people, they had best first have learned from the crucified Christ, as Paul did, what true authority is. If instead they sling around words like “spiritual authority” and “submission” using them as weapons over God’s people to subdue them, they will be found guilty of misrepresenting God--as if He was some kind of a cruel overlord. In so doing, they will be heaping up judgment unto themselves.

Thankful Jane

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by YP0534

But essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

Yes and because of the severity of disobeying God's authority, which is why some former leading ones could not take the way of LSM and were called rebels ever since. Problem here is elders may view themselves as delegated authority and the coworkers as deupty authority. As deputy authority, they may view their word being on par with God's word. As brothers and sisters we must consider "what if they're wrong"? We have a human spirit. We have a conscience. Exercise it and don't submit so blindly that you disobey God's authority. I am speaking concerning myself so that others may be helped too.

Because even in the authority the leading ones might have, it could be spiritual or it could be according their preferences and partialities.

[Lisbon]

If this is pure redundancy, please delete. But whatever happened to the authority of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Darby, Austin Sparks?I listened to WL for 25 years and I never remember hearing him bad mouth Billy Graham. He bad mouthed and cursed everyone else but not Graham. Do you suppose he did still have a little conscience? This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

If this is pure redundancy, please delete. But whatever happened to the authority of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Darby, Austin Sparks?I listened to WL for 25 years and I never remember hearing him bad mouth Billy Graham. He bad mouthed and cursed everyone else but not Graham. Do you suppose he did still have a little conscience? This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

Not sure exactly what Lee said about Graham, but others made it clear to me that BG "did not see the church," and thus implied that BG was somehow deficient.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

"Is it Christian?" - I have been asking myself this question, since I realized that the LC is a cult. I don't have a clear answer. They use the Bible (I don't want to say "read"), they have some kind of Christian worship, and they believe in Christ the Savior. But do they have communion or living relationship with the Lord behind their words, prayers, and worship? I don't know. Personally, I have never felt that in the LRC. Anyway, it's none of my business. I have my own sins to study.

Originally Posted by Ohio

BG "did not see the church,"

Probably, WL meant something else in that context, but in my locality they like to repeat that in denominations, Christians think that church is a building with windows and doors; while in the LRC, "we know that the church is not a building but saints who are the Body of Christ". They say so as if it's a well-kept secret and it's only them who know the truth.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

but in my locality they like to repeat that in denominations, Christians think that church is a building with windows and doors; while in the LRC, "we know that the church is not a building but saints who are the Body of Christ".

Apparently that's a teaching that has been propagated for decades. I'm now 46 and have been hearing that since I was a teen in the local churches. Those in the lead, would like to think those in fellowship with Living Stream Ministry through the local churches are the only ones who know the reality of the church. It's easy to marginalize non-LC/LSM Christians when you will not have fellowship with them; denominational and non-denominational assemblies alike.
Rather I believemany assemblies do see the reality of the church and probably live out the reality of the church without necessity of a publishing house to exhibit their oneness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure exactly what Lee said about Graham, but others made it clear to me that BG "did not see the church," and thus implied that BG was somehow deficient.

Yes, I was told basically the same thing. In retrospect I believe what is far more likely Billy Graham did not see "the local ground". He probably saw there is the church, but many assemblies. In his spiritual gift of evangelism in leading thousands to receive Jesus Christ as their savior, it was not his gift to tell them where to fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, I was told basically the same thing. In retrospect I believe what is far more likely Billy Graham did not see "the local ground". He probably saw there is the church, but many assemblies. In his spiritual gift of evangelism in leading thousands to receive Jesus Christ as their savior, it was not his gift to tell them where to fellowship.

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

Or not holding Christ as their head. A big no-no in the LRC ... that's been reason (I've both seen it and experienced it) to kick bros & sisters out.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

Could be, those holding to "the local ground", were holding onto an Old Testament type. While our brothers and sisters not claiming the local ground doctrine are in the New Testament reality.

Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

John 4:20-21