Authority and Submission

[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

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Lord's example was to wash the feet of the disciples.

PROPOSED RULE FOR ALL FUTURE APPLICANTS FOR MINISTER OF THE AGE:
You must wash 1,000 pairs of feet BEFORE you can set up a publishing company.

[Suannehill]

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. Titus wrote a couple of books for sisters, practical and down to earth. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.
This is just my opinion...but I saw those sisters in Mansfield rise up in rebellion...they had absolutely no respect for spiritual authority. They only wanted their way. And their way matched Benson's...now there's a match, eh?
Anyway, I kept encouraging them to go back to the books on spiritual authority, because there is an authority in all of creation. Authority is position. The top branch of the tree has a higher position than those close to the ground. Not better, just different. Each branch functions in it's position. The top has nothing to Lord over, or humiliate. It is simply on top.
Sue

[Cal]

I don't buy a lot of the WN/WN authority and submission argument.

This is the way I look at authority. If you are going to join a group, then you should respect the order in that group. If you can't, for whatever reason good or bad, then don't make a big fuss, and perhaps the answer (which might very well be fully of the Lord) is to move on.

I believe the pastors of my church should be respected. But I don't believe they have authority in the way Nee/Lee taught it. God asks me to respect the role he has given them. If I cannot handle that then I need to come to grips with why. If the why is God, perhaps I need to confront them in a respectable way. Or perhaps I just need to move on. All as the Lord leads. But blessed are the peacemakers.

But the idea that someone's "authority" looms, e.g. WL's or an elder's, over me wherever I go, like an umbrella, is, I believe, a false teaching that usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful position.

This is one of the gnarly problems with the one-church-one-city belief as practiced by the LCs. It gives way too much power to so-called local elders--effectively giving them authority over every Christian in the city. I think this idea is absurd and indefensible.

A corollary to this is the manifest weakness in the so-called practicality of the local ground doctrine. You can argue all you want that there is one church in the city. But none of that proves or can ever prove that a certain set of men are the elders of that church.

In fact, there is no way to determine who the elders of the one church in a city (if there is indeed such a thing) are. Who they are is entirely speculation. Which brings us back to the practical necessity of voluntary cooperation with the order of the particular group in which you find yourself, rather than some insistance on absolute submission to a set of elders whose ostensive position is assumed rather than proved. Absolute submission to an assumption is foolish.

Originally Posted by Suannehill

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. Titus wrote a couple of books for sisters, practical and down to earth. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.
This is just my opinion...but I saw those sisters in Mansfield rise up in rebellion...they had absolutely no respect for spiritual authority. They only wanted their way. And their way matched Benson's...now there's a match, eh?
Anyway, I kept encouraging them to go back to the books on spiritual authority, because there is an authority in all of creation. Authority is position. The top branch of the tree has a higher position than those close to the ground. Not better, just different. Each branch functions in it's position. The top has nothing to Lord over, or humiliate. It is simply on top.
Sue

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.

This is the ultimate mixture of leaven -- using the scripture to support cultural practices -- especially when they create nearly unlimited centralized power in one man -- doesn't this current scenario help to explain the formation of the Roman Papal system of old -- in an ancient culture which for centuries considered Caesar as God.

As others have written, the scriptural "power" to enforce these errant concepts of "deputy authority and submission" lie mainly in the story of Noah/Ham and secondarily in the story of Ananias/Sapphira. These continually reinforced the "fear of God" in all the saints.

The "curse of Ham" (or better Canaan, and Nigel did address this topic) was one of the most powerful control devices ever taught in the Recovery -- an entire race of blacks for just a few laughs at the drunken old man. I know I am being a little crude here for effect, but couldn't this be considered the "bottom line." Herein lies the problem -- what if one day I inadvertently "blow a little cold wind" of heartfelt "concern" about the direction things were going, I might be cursed forever.

For many years I remained silent under the effects of this warning. Most of the reason for my silence was godly fear. I was also genuinely ignorant of most things, and even part of that was my choice. LC leadership received the ultimate "free pass" in my heart and my life. I would still be there except for one thing -- people were getting hurt. The accumulation of "hurts" finally caught up to me. But how little did I really know! How much had been hidden away! How many more precious ones had been hurt in all the cover-ups!

The "curse of Ham" needs some serious balance in the leadership of the LC's. The program is skewed to the extreme. Actually I could "cover up" a few "drunken bouts" in Anaheim. Everybody has a bad day or two. Drinking too much wine in the privacy of your own "tent" is not an impeachable offense. Not a good habit, but understandable, all things considered ... but LC leadership has "cloaked" itself with this "curse" of protection far too long.

If the "curse of Ham" were so "God-ordained," then why didn't God Himself honor it with the case of David and Bathsheba? Couldn't David be considered the "acting God" of that age?

An equally troubling point is to consider how many consciences have been damaged and compromised over the years in the LC's by those who could not speak up as Nathan did, and rather remained silent and "one with the ministry."

[KSA]

With all due respect to Watchman Nee, his views on the ministry, difference between wthe church and work, authority and submission were far off the mark.

[KSA]

Hogwash! Apostles were not submitting to the leaders. They submitted to God! And they made it quite clear. It is a false dichotomy between submission and obedience.

submission |səbˈmi sh ən|
noun
1 the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person : they were forced into submission.

obedience |ōˈbēdēəns|
noun
compliance with someone's wishes or orders or acknowledgment of their authority : unquestioning obedience to the commander in chief.
• submission to a law or rule : obedience to moral standards.
• observance of a monastic rule : vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

[Paul Miletus]

Excerpts from "Authority and Submission" by Watchman Nee:

SUBMISSION BEING ABSOLUTE, BUT OBEDIENCE BEING RELATIVE

Submission is a matter of attitude, but obedience is a matter of conduct. Acts 4:19 says, “But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you judge.” The apostles, however, were not rebellious in their spirit; they were still submitting to all those who were in authority. Obedience is not absolute. Some authorities we have to obey, but others we cannot obey. The latter include those who touch on basic matters of the Christian faith, such as our belief in the Lord and the liberty of preaching the gospel. A son can say anything to his father. But there cannot be any attitude of rebellion. Our submission should always be absolute. In some matters we can be obedient at the same time that we are submissive. In other matters we cannot be obedient, but we still have to remain submissive. All these are a matter of attitude.

Acts 15 is an example of a church conference. In a conference we can suggest or debate. But when the decision is reached, everyone should be submissive.

[Cal]

Watchman Nee's teaching on submission being absolute and obedience being relative are interesting, but it's not supported by the Bible. My belief is that it is mostly a transference of Chinese culture to the Bible, with a bunch of M.E. Barber added.

There's no verse that says submission should be "absolute." In fact, the Bible says "submit to one another." Now, if you are submitting to me and I'm submitting to you how can either submission be "absolute?"

Secondly, I'm not sure how one cannot obey and still be submitting. The concept sounds good but it makes no sense.

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Many Christians have been shipwrecked in the faith because of being trapped in systems of absolutism in terms of the leadership. Spiritual leadership is firstly servanthood and secondly any authority attached to it is derivative i.e. the seat of authority is outside the individual and the office they hold. Authority is held by the Lord and His word. But even this has to be qualified further. The individual believer is expected to personally know the word and be able to accept or reject interpretations for themselves. So if a leader thinks he is submitting to the Lord and the word the individual believer does not have to adhere to it if they believe the interpretation is incorrect.

Staying in a church and accepting it's leadership is an act of constant filtering: of all the things taught and done here what we will I accept and what will I reject and on the whole does one outweigh the other? If the accepts outweigh the rejects I stay. If the rejects outweigh the accepts I bid them farewell.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

I respect the ministry of Watchman Nee, but his teachings should be confirmed or rejected when tested and checked against the Bible.

Terry

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Watchman Nee's teaching on submission being absolute and obedience being relative are interesting, but it's not supported by the Bible. My belief is that it is mostly a transference of Chinese culture to the Bible, with a bunch of M.E. Barber added.

There's no verse that says submission should be "absolute." In fact, the Bible says "submit to one another." Now, if you are submitting to me and I'm submitting to you how can either submission be "absolute?"

Secondly, I'm not sure how one cannot obey and still be submitting. The concept sounds good but it makes no sense.

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

Would you like to try the following Scriptures if God would not want you to submit to authority? Do you think it is alright for you to submit to authority if ever you would like to? Or, will you submit to authority because it is imperative for us to submit to authority? In other words, submission to authority is absolute! Please take note of the word "everyone" and also see an excerpt from Brother Watchman Nee's "Authority and Submission".

Romans 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Romans 13:5
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

God’s children must learn to know authority and find out to whom they should submit. Wherever we go, the first thing we should ask is whose authority should we be under. As soon as we move to a place, we should not expect to be the master, asking others to submit to us. Instead, we should be like the centurion, who told the Lord Jesus, “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me” (Matt. 8:9). Here was a man who truly knew authority. He could submit to authority; therefore, he was able to be a deputy authority himself. We have said that God upholds and maintains the whole universe with His authority. He also begets His children with His authority (John 1:12) and binds them together with His authority. Therefore, if a man is independent, individualistic, and free from any God-appointed deputy authority, he is an outsider as far as God’s administration over the whole universe is concerned. He cannot get along with other children of God, and as such, he cannot accomplish God’s work on earth today. God has established deputy authorities in the church; the church is built up and maintained by the authority of God. For this reason every child of God should look for the authority to whom he should submit so that he can coordinate with others in a proper way. Unfortunately, many people have failed in this point.

[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.