NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[UntoHim]

LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity
Watchman Nee’s Eternal Subordination Error

PDF File posted below
**If anybody knows who to post the entire document in it's native format into the forum as a post,
please feel free to do this at your earliest convenience.**

-

[Drake]

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Provide an example for our consideration. Otherwise your comment is without actual point. Just a generic claim with no substance.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Provide an example for our consideration. Otherwise your comment is without actual point. Just a generic claim with no substance.

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

And there is merit to looking at the forest and not just the trees. For example, a view of the forest in this case is taking EFS and the heretical implications of it and then slapping that label on Watchman Nee without ever proving Watchman Nee embraced EFS. Then he quotes someone who argues that anyone who believes in EFS must be a heretic because the essential Trinity would be changed and yet he never proves that the economical Trinity is limited to the starting point of incarnation or time. Then he makes it sound as if his sources are addressing Watchman Nee directly but he did not show that either. He also tees up Witness Lee to appear to disagree with Watchman Nee's view on authority and submission but explains this through innuendo as if there were problems with it.

And then of course, he never provides a comparison of authority and submission teachings but prefers to take the easy way out by simply dismissing it and thereby apparently avoiding aN obvious universal truth. Does anyone who believes in God think this does not exist outside of the economical Trinity? On this point he apparently has views as applied to gender relationships but doesn't develop this to prove the point. Maybe he knows what a landmine looks like and prefers to sidestep it. He never explains his personal view in this article on that point, maybe elsewhere.

This type of thinking works for economics with so many variables that most things need not and cannot be proven, just argued and so the adage that if you stack all the economists end to end they would never reach agreement. Yet, this does not work so well for theological dissertations. I'm sure Dr. Tomes is a genius in his field of training but not this one.

Anyway, his papers look authentic and educational but when you step back and look at the forest, and not just circular path he takes the reader on, through the bramble bushes, across the creek, up the cliff, over hill, over dale then a twisted matrix of trails emerge seemingly related but not necessary parts of a whole.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

The closest thing I know to the Washington Post is all the "hit pieces" on afaithfulworddotcom during the quarantines of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, etc.

LSM invented FAKE NEWS even before WaPo, NYT, and the MSM made it popular.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

And there is merit to looking at the forest and not just the trees. . . .

I would agree that sometimes there is something in the forest that is not seen tree-by-tree.

But when you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put A&S/SA into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it. If you simply note that it seems spiritual, or that it "hangs together," that might not be enough. I did some significant review of the first couple of chapters several years ago and came to see that if you just brush through the first chapters and accept the little that they say as true, the rest follows. But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. And without those chapters and their groundwork, you never get to rest.

Besides, when you insist on viewing it from 40,000 feet, you miss that there are details that just aren't quite right. Like declaring that no one had the position to complain or do anything about certain persons because they had some "position." Only God could deal with them. That is simply not true. The Bible is full of stands against that.

But if you start by agreeing that the declaration that there is "authority and submission" in the verses in chapter 1 of the book, then you have bought Nee's false word substitution.

And it is in the trees. You need to show why the first chapter is even correct before you get to the rest. It is because authority and submission is given such a high and lofty place that Nee goes on to chapter 2. And then what is in chapter 2 is so important that you can now go on to chapter 3. If you are just taking it all in isolation without any critical thinking, then it probably is cohesive and has a good "forest" kind of effect. But when you start at the entrance to the forest and find pine beetles attacking the pines, and labels on the Aspens declaring them to be White Oak, then you begin to wonder if you are following a marine biologist on a fact-finding trip through the woods. He may make it all fit together and look pretty, but it is full of factual errors. He may think the beetles are simply symbiotic with the trees. And that anything with a white bark is a White Oak.

And that coconuts are migratory.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Not me. Although I like to agree with Dr. Tomes, I don't always.

Actually, I didn't read the article until today. I was more interested in the discussion about Noah.

Let me say, if I understand Tome's argument, I think it is a stretch. In the first place, I'm not sure I don't believe in EFS. In the second, even if it EFS is true that doesn't necessarily support Lee's authority model anyway.

And I disagree with argument that says if EFS is true that boils down to that the Son has a different essence than the Father. The fact is, that there is a Father and Son shows they are in some way different. If they are the same in every way then the distinction is completely meaningless. Therefore there must be a difference and that difference must be eternal and essential.

But just what does "essential" mean. Well, as always with the Trinity, it often boils down to subjective registrations of what we think the words used to discuss it mean. We say God is of one "essence" but we think of that essence as a cloud of stuff. But God's essence is not just stuff. In fact, I would argue that the most important part of his essence is something that is very difficult to define. But I guess the closest I can get is to call it a "moral idea in its reality." We say God is love. But is love a stuff? No, love is something that is alive and has a kind of consciousness and moral substance. The same for righteousness, wisdom and relationship.

I think the key to the Trinity is to think of it in terms of relationships rather that "stuff." God has a relationship with himself. Is that one or two? It is both. The Father is God in himself and the Son is God in his image of himself, what he sees when he considers himself. Yet these two have a relationship. So in that relationship the image (Son) can by definition only do what the source (Father) does or tells him to do, because the Father is the origin. Yet since the Son is God's perfect self-image, he is equal to the Father in every single way except for the distinction between the two, and thus not subordinate, but just one.

So just as my self-image is subordinate to me, God's is to him. Yet since my self-image, if I was as moral and psychologically healthy as God, would be exactly me, except for the distinction, so we would be co-equal. I think full salvation will bring us to the consciousness where we regard our self-image in the manner the Father regards the Son. This in the end is "finding your soul."

Anyway, regardless. I don't think either view validates or negates Lee's authority model. His model is wrong because it is not supported by scripture and manifestly always-and-ever produces rotten fruit.

So as the Apostle John wrote: "Remember, the sins of some people are obvious, leading them to certain judgment. But there are others whose sins will not be revealed until later." It's the same with doctrines. Some aren't revealed for what they are until they are put into practice. Let's authority model is such a doctrine.

[Cal]

Let me say I do think that one's view of the Trinity does seem to have a far-reaching effect on their view of things. It's really interesting. Or said another way, one's view of life is often reflected in their view of the Trinity.

If you think authority is very important, you might see authority in the Trinity.

If you think oneness is important, you might see oneness in the Trinity.

If you value diversity, you might see that.

I see all three. But more than all those what I see in the Trinity is relationship. To me that is really what it's all about. Relationship is so important that the one God even has relationship within himself.

He values our relationship with him and with each other more than anything. That is why the first and second commandments are love God and love people.

Lee didn't really see this that much I don't think. He valued the oneness of the Trinity, and somewhat discounted the diversity. He never seemed to get however that all of life really about how we relate to three things: God, others and ourselves.

His authority model actually works against that. How many relationships have been broken because Lee's authority model superseded all else?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

This type of thinking works for economics with so many variables that most things need not and cannot be proven, just argued and so the adage that if you stack all the economists end to end they would never reach agreement. Yet, this does not work so well for theological dissertations. I'm sure Dr. Tomes is a genius in his field of training but not this one.

Anyway, his papers look authentic and educational but when you step back and look at the forest, and not just circular path he takes the reader on, through the bramble bushes, across the creek, up the cliff, over hill, over dale then a twisted matrix of trails emerge seemingly related but not necessary parts of a whole.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

I find it quite amusing that our friend Drake, a regular defender of LSM, would so casually dismiss every single paper penned by Dr. Nigel Tomes, who was a former co-worker in the Lord's Recovery, until that bogus hit piece was authored a decade ago in Whistler quarantining the GLA. I would like to know what part our friend Drake had in those quarantines and excommunications in the GLA, which included the writer Tomes.

Obviously if Tomes' papers were simply fake news "hit jobs" akin to WaPo's numerous pieces on "Russian collusions," then someone with Drake's extensive credentials would not waste his time here on this insignificant "group-think, bitter, cult" forum of ex-LC members.

Actually, Tomes' piece here appeared to be a "dud" to me at first glance, since Trinitarian theological speculations are not my cup of tea. But after Drake took notice, and I looked further into the paper, I now realize that Tomes is now dismantling the entire Recovery construct by taking the axe to the root of their false basis of authority.

Long overdue Nigel!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it quite amusing that our friend Drake, a regular defender of LSM, would so casually dismiss every single paper penned by Dr. Nigel Tomes, who was a former co-worker in the Lord's Recovery, until that bogus hit piece was authored a decade ago in Whistler quarantining the GLA. I would like to know what part our friend Drake had in those quarantines and excommunications in the GLA, which included the writer Tomes.

Obviously if Tomes' papers were simply fake news "hit jobs" akin to WaPo's numerous pieces on "Russian collusions," then someone with Drake's extensive credentials would not waste his time here on this insignificant "group-think, bitter, cult" forum of ex-LC members.

Actually, Tomes' piece here appeared to be a "dud" to me at first glance, since Trinitarian theological speculations are not my cup of tea. But after Drake took notice, and I looked further into the paper, I now realize that Tomes is now dismantling the entire Recovery construct by taking the axe to the root of their false basis of authority.

Long overdue Nigel!

Good point. WL's teachings condemned hierarchy to the max and yet WN and WL teach that the Triune God is a hierarchy. If we are being replaced molecule by molecule with the Triune God, which is a hierarchy it would stand to reason that the expression of this God, the church, would also be a hierarchy.

Clearly this shows the fundamental hypocrisy in this WL and WN's teaching. If you agree with WL that hierarchy is an expression of fallen Christianity then you have to say he has made a fundamental error in his doctrine of the Trinity.

On the other hand if you agree with WL's teaching on authority and submission then you have to throw out all his teachings condemning Christianity for hierarchy.

Also this paper seems to finally make sense of these verses in Matt 18:

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

If you understand this question of "who is greatest" in the context of "Authority and Submission" the Lord's word completely blows a hole in WN and WL's teaching.

[Indiana]

)L

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Hi Drake. Speaking of faulty reasoning and inaccurate representations, I gave you opportunity to critique my website lordsrecovery.us and you agreed to do it. But did not get back to me. But then neither did Ron Kangas when I asked him to explain himself after his false representation of me publicly in an international conference. Neither has any blending brother or elder been able to explain to me or to the churches why I am not received by them in the churches.

Nigel accurately exposed a wrong teaching by Nee on Noah's curse. He explained accurately also why LSM needed to correct this error in their publications. They have ignored him. But that exposure of a clearly inaccurate teaching of Nee's caused me to look closely at LC teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a teaching that bolsters their idea of authority and submission, which has bred the most destructive practice in the LC and borne its most egregious fruit. And, it all began with Nee in Shanghai in his post-suspension ministry when spiritual authority was foremost on his mind, and submission to it was imperative.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

)L

Hi Drake. Speaking of faulty reasoning and inaccurate representations, I gave you opportunity to critique my website lordsrecovery.us and you agreed to do it. But did not get back to me. But then neither did Ron Kangas when I asked him to explain himself after his false representation of me publicly in an international conference. Neither has any blending brother or elder been able to explain to me or to the churches why I am not received by them in the churches.

Nigel accurately exposed a wrong teaching by Nee on Noah's curse. He explained accurately also why LSM needed to correct this error in their publications. They have ignored him. But that exposure of a clearly inaccurate teaching of Nee's caused me to look closely at LC teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a teaching that bolsters their idea of authority and submission, which has bred the most destructive practice in the LC and borne its most egregious fruit. And, it all began with Nee in Shanghai in his post-suspension ministry when spiritual authority was foremost on his mind, and submission to it was imperative.

Brother Nigel,

It is said that the best way to help people understand the problem of radical Islam is to inform them of the true character of their leader, Mohammed. We can learn about him and their belief system by studying carefully his thoughts and practices - since their belief system originated with him, his ideas, and his actions.

A current co-worker with Stephen Kaung (former Nee coworker) points out that the Bible is a truthful book revealing the true condition of God's people - including its leaders!

“......Thus, we see the twelve forefathers of the Israelite nation born from such a chaotic and disarrayed family situation (Jacob's). Usually when we talk about our ancestors we always speak of them in such grandiose and mystical fashion. The Chinese always praise virtue and conceal evil, so no matter how horrid our ancestor was you never speak of it; you only mention their greatness. Thank God that the Bible is the only honest thing. I’ve read much history and autobiographies, never was there a book more truthful than the Bible. The Holy Spirit recorded everything just as it was. Even as people we always try to show the good and conceal the bad, we wish for others to see our good side: how we love the Lord, how wonderful and blissful our family is. The Bible isn’t so, it tells it like it is, this is how real the Bible is. Many religious books are so hypocritical, they obscure the evils. Thank our God for the Bible is the most truthful book.
"In reality, the history of the Israelite forefathers was so despicable and unsightly. Brothers and sisters, when the Lord Jesus was on earth He was true and He desires for us to be as well: if it is, then let it be so. We ought to be honest, there’s no need to be fake or hypocritical. But I also understand that if we are completely real, we’ll likely offend others, and if we see something good in others we like to compliment them. We all enjoy this type of treatment, but the Bible says otherwise. Some may find it amusing when they read about Jacob’s family, but it is imperative for us to see the honesty and truth behind it. The Bible describes some events in great detail so that we may understand the true condition.”

Some thoughts:

Not many in the Local Churches would think that Watchman Nee could have been seriously wrong in any of his teachings or impure in motive or intention in any significant way in the church life; yet, our concepts about our Local Church "father" were greatly altered when we heard about the Watchman Nee that Lily Hsu knew in Shanghai.

The exposure of his over-the-top teachings on authority and submission were eye-opening to me and I felt that his exposure would be key to understanding their history, and certain crucial problems that plague them today.

Your exposure of his exposition on Noah's curse opens the way for full examination of his teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a major component of his teachings on submission to deputy authority.

Now, his teaching you brought up on the triune God becomes the penultimate and leading error to address on the weightiest of issues - authority and submission in the Local Churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Not many in the Local Churches would think that Watchman Nee could have been seriously wrong in any of his teachings or impure in motive or intention in any significant way in the church life; yet, our concepts about our Local Church "father" were greatly altered when we heard about the Watchman Nee that Lily Hsu knew in Shanghai.

The exposure of his over-the-top teachings on authority and submission were eye-opening to me and I felt that his exposure would be key to understanding their history, and certain crucial problems that plague them today.

Your exposure of his exposition on Noah's curse opens the way for full examination of his teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a major component of his teachings on submission to deputy authority.

Now, his teaching you brought up on the triune God becomes the penultimate and leading error to address on the weightiest of issues - authority and submission in the Local Churches.

So true. An analogy would be to take a mathematical formula believed to be true, but is faulty. As you apply the formula, you're led into error. Same applies to the teaching and practices of deputy authority, you're led into error.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

So true. An analogy would be to take a mathematical formula believed to be true, but is faulty. As you apply the formula, you're led into error. Same applies to the teaching and practices of deputy authority, you're led into error.

And the problem with the teachings of Nee and Lee is that they too often cannot make the scripture support what they want to say, so they find an analogy that fits what they want. They tricked us into thinking that if there is an analogy that supports it, then it must be true.

But there are analogies that support evil. And support gross error. Analogies are only useful in demonstrating what you already have determined to be true. They are not evidence that it is true. I doubt that they thought of what they were doing in that way. But the effect was to say something was true, but rather than actually support it soundly from the Bible, they provided an analogy. Proves nothing. Supports nothing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Knowing that one of LSM's chief polemics wrote this, I consider Tomes' article to be right on the mark.

LSM's promotion of the aberrant teachings surrounding Authority & Submission have produced a history leadership characterized by the following:

• Rejection of Accountability: Witness Lee rejected all ministerial accountability. Any critique, either from within or without, was met with brute force. Like the Pharisees of old, they "stoned" all the prophets God sent to them.
  
  
• Pattern of Abuse: The public pattern of shaming and humiliation established their hierarchy and produced a systemic system of abuse. I often concluded that this program produces bullies out of beloved brothers. This feature was witnessed nationally, regionally, and locally. Their views of authority often drove brotherly love from the church life.
  
  
• Usurping the Headship of Christ: "Fellowship" from headquarters often prevented the Son of Man from walking in the midst of the churches. The ability of brothers and elders to directly follow the leading of the Head of the body was circumvented by mandates from "The Ministry."
  
  
• Obsession with Succession: With an established construct of one-man leadership firmly embedded in all dedicated members, the inevitable result was bitter infighting as to who was the next "oracle of God." The quarantines of Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lon were motivated by such ambitions.
  
  

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obsession with Succession: With an established construct of one-man leadership firmly embedded in all dedicated members, the inevitable result was bitter infighting as to who was the next "oracle of God."

Actually it's worse. They are not fighting about who was going to be the next oracle of God, they are fighting to keep Witness Lee as the only oracle of God. To many, God stopped speaking 20 years ago when Lee died. So now, all they have is a "paper oracle". God stopped speaking, God stopped "recovering" - all the "high peak truths" have been released, and the only thing left to do is repeat and regurgitate. For better or for worse, the movement is frozen in time. Let us pray that some will wake up, and see that God is still indeed active and speaking among his people today. "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27)
-

[Drake]

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

This is evident because even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes. Likewise, a Protestant now Catholic apologist is not good enough for them.

The funny thing is I'm said to be staunch here, but in Alternative views I'm said to be not that deep in the Recovery because I use the internet and a leading brother said don't use the internet in the 1970's before the internet even existed. Isn't it silly?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Contrary to Drake's standard "talking points" for all loyal LSM'ers, Nigel Tomes accurately dissects faulty Trinitarian theology with the deleterious consequences many of us have lived with in the LC's, i.e. abuse of authority.

Carefully read the following and consider your own experiences in the LC:

Watchman Nee attempted to anchor his authority/submission doctrine in the eternal being of the essential Trinity. He presented authority as the overriding attribute of the Trinity. This allowed W. Nee to assert that “Once we touch God’s authority, we touch God Himself...Meeting God’s authority is the same as meeting God ...Offending God’s authority is the same as offending God Himself. A Christian should submit to authority.” Yet the Bible never says “God is authority;” it says “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16), “God is light” (1 Jn. 1:5) and “God is Spirit” (Jn. 4:24).

By inserting authority into the Godhead, W. Nee elevated authority above its place in the divine order. This issued in the exaggerated emphasis on authority and submission which characterizes LSM’s Local Church until today. What does this teaching produce? W. Nee described the desired outcome: “In order to practice submission, the first thing to ask is who is above me...Whenever any brother or sister or co-worker goes to a place, he or she has to find out who his or her authority is.” Moreover Witness Lee echoes these sentiments: “Whenever the brothers and sisters are together, each one should keep the order and take his proper place, whether he is above or below others or on the right or the left...In God's house there is only the question of God's authority and order.” A hierarchical view of God produces a hierarchical church & society.

One all too clear example haunted us in the LC's for years. Publicly we learned and talked about "local" churches, each of them locally governed by a healthy eldership not subject to outside influences, unlike those "evil" denominations. In actuality, however, the local eldership had very little say in the direction of the church under their care. Workers at headquarters completely directed the elders in all major decisions. They liked to call it simple "fellowship," but in reality it was hierarchy and control. Buck the program and abusive sanctions would follow.