Identifying Spiritual Authority

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Speaking of Spiritual Authority....

I believe I upset a brother today. He texted me this morning, as he usually does... but this time I think what he sent came from him, and not from the ministry. What he sent me was this:

"1 Corinthians 14:31 'you can all prophesy' this is one of the clearest verses in the Bible. We may all have different gifts, but we can ALL prophesy. Our progress is slow b/c we do not speak."

I responded to this with:

"Ah, but 1 Corinthians 14:29 says "And as to prophets", indicating this portion is specifically directed to prophets - not to all men.
1 Cor 12:28 "And God has placed some in the Church; first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then works of power, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." If all were prophets, then each would not be named here - and it would be no spiritual gift to prophesy, but merely a function of our own nature."

This brother remained silent to this the rest of the day, but just now has texted me more.

"Numbers 11:29 read that foot note."
"Also remember 1 Cor 14:24. This is speaking about the church meetings. The note on that is also good."
"1 Cor 14:1-5 Prophesying is not just for prophets it is the function of all the saints. This builds up the body."
"Remember to prophesy is to speak for God and speak forth God."

This brother was born and raised in an LRC home, so anything that challenges Lee's ministry is, I believe, terrifying to him. Lee embodies Spiritual Authority, in his eyes - and hence his desire that I read footnotes for elucidation (when the Scriptures themselves disagree with Lee's interpretation, go back to more of Lee's interpretations for enlightenment!)

I'm going to read what he's referenced, and give him a thoughtful and prayerful response. Do any of you have any suggestions? How have you dealt with dear ones like this?

In Him,

NFNL.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Speaking of Spiritual Authority....

1 Cor 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Now is there a verse that says every member needs to "speak". I doubt it, imagine the condemnation if someone had throat cancer or some other problem. What i do think is very clear is that throughout the week every one of us should have experiences of Christ that we would want to share with the Body of Christ. Generally it would be very convenient to share this by speaking, but I suppose you could write a poem, or have a video, or some other way of sharing.

As to the word prophecy, I have always understood this to be similar to a spokesman. Just as the President has a cabinet member whose job is to talk to the Press (most of the time) so the Lord has "prophets" that speak to the nations. In the sense that our speaking as Christians represents the Lord, we all are to some extent "prophets", but that doesn't mean that there are not gifted members whose gift is the gift of prophecy. For example, there are gifted members who are evangelists. Billy Graham is a good example, but does that mean that only those who are gifted evangelists preach the gospel? Aren't all Christians responsible to preach the gospel?

[UntoHim]

NFNL, hope all is well with you and yours. I have kept you and your son in my thoughts and prayers, and I trust so many of us out here have as well.

I think your response to your friend was spot on.

No, prophesying is actually a gift, along with teaching, evangelizing and others. Not all have such gifts, much less the right to "exercise" them in a church gathering.

This all relates somewhat to Witness Lee's teaching regarding "the release of the spirit" (originated by Nee but Lee took to a whole different level). Lee taught that the release of the spirit (a dubious, man-made concept at best) had to be an outward, verbal manifestation such as "calling on the Lord" or "prayreading". He never provided any scriptural proof of this because there is none.

So really you need not do much more then point your friend to the Word of God, or in this case the lack of scriptural evidence for such a teaching or practice.

[OBW]

1 Corinthians 14:26-33: What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three — should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace — as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

So how do we read the above? Do we accept Lee's version of "you can all prophesy" or do we confine ourselves to the context? "Two or three prophets should speak." They should not step on each other. And there should be a clear stop by one before another speaks. But these all can speak. But the "these all" is the two or three, not the whole assembly.

And our spirit is subject to us, not the other way around. If we feel so compelled that we explode, and just can't stop, then there is a problem.

I do not disdain what we might call a "testimony meeting" where the floor is open to virtually all for a short time each. But that is not what Paul is discussing in this passage.

[OBW]

Now, back on topic.

I'm not sure that there is such an important need to identify spiritual authority in the way that it has been labeled by Nee and Lee. And even if we back down from that, are we too focused on creating a layer of separation from God when we discuss it in this manner? There is a practical element to elders, deacons, teachers, etc. But when we start to label it as "spiritual authority" are we adding terminology that leads us away from our responsibility? Are we ignoring our charge? Are we trying to second-guess others? (Not suggesting that we take just anything. We surely should be concerned when we see "teachers" who don't stack-up.)

Just a question.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now, back on topic.

I'm not sure that there is such an important need to identify spiritual authority in the way that it has been labeled by Nee and Lee. And even if we back down from that, are we too focused on creating a layer of separation from God when we discuss it in this manner? There is a practical element to elders, deacons, teachers, etc. But when we start to label it as "spiritual authority" are we adding terminology that leads us away from our responsibility? Are we ignoring our charge? Are we trying to second-guess others? (Not suggesting that we take just anything. We surely should be concerned when we see "teachers" who don't stack-up.)

Just a question.

Good evening brother,

I think we do need to define spiritual authority - but I didn't post this question in order to wrestle everyone here into an agreement on who has it and who doesn't; but rather to remind us all that we do need to exercise discernment for ourselves in order that we "Be not carried away by divers and strange teachings: for it is good that the heart be established by grace;" Hebrews 13:9a

How do we exercise discernment? I think a good place to start is exactly where the Bereans started - by searching the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so.

LSM doesn't teach people to get in the Word - not exactly - they ask us to read the "Interpreted Word" - get into the footnotes; and that is unhealthy; because it comes with a premise: The premise is that the footnotes are as inerrant as God's Word itself... which of course means the author of those footnotes was infallible. We need to read the Pure Unadulterated Word of God... and to be certain we interpret rightly.

Read passages in context, don't read part of a verse and then run off to apply what you've read... read the Chapter the verse is in, and if you think the Lord has clearly identified a principle, search for confirmation. I think Dr. Charles Stanley once said that you should never identify a Biblical principle with a single quote - try to find three, two in the New Testament and at least one in the Old Testament.... I think that's a healthy practice....

...Not that I'm always faithful to follow this practice, but I am learning, growing, and by the Grace of God, will learn to be more faithful...

[OBW]

And it is in what I now consider the better way to do these kind of inquiries that I asked the question. (Not commenting on how you posed the question, but on what is for me an improvement in how I participate.)

I know that there is spiritual authority. But I honestly think that for most people, focusing on it creates in them the mentality of positions that is more of a "it's not my job" view than the recognition of the benefit to them and everyone else that the "positions" provide in their service. Now it would be just as easy to say that anything that is a service to us comes from a position of spiritual authority and that would excessively oversimplify the analysis.

And I would agree that where there is the sense that something is happening where the goal does not seem to be the "improvement" of the assembly or the direction is questionable when compared to what we understand to be the core of "healthy teachings," then we should speak up, although "speak up" may not mean to talk out loud to the assembly in general, at least at first. I would always suggest restraint in the forum in which we speak because we could discover that we have begun negative talk that is worse for the group than what we perceived to be error.

But that does not mean remain silent.

At times I wonder how much of the "deal with the bad stuff" teachings, even of Paul, were intended for the consumption of the general population of the assembly. At least part of it was written in a private letter rather than in general letters to the local Christians. But not all. Still, if we accept that an elder is charged with the oversight of the flock, it would seem that none of us who do not hold the position, practically or functionally, are the ones to which concerns about spiritual authority, or spiritual error, should be addressed. I'm not saying that we abdicate any responsibility to them. But I suspect that there is a problem with spiritual authority if we bypass it.

In any case, I would assume that my part should be, at most, as a part of a kind of Acts 15 consideration rather than a personal determiner of things. I believe that my input is important, but not determinative.

And not everything deserves an Acts 15 kind of inquiry.

I did note in the segments you posted from the Brethren site that the questions and the answers seemed very different. The questions seemed to be concerned with getting definitions right while the answers were more about "soft" considerations in actual practice. For me, I would lean more to the "soft" side when considering "spiritual authority" in broad terms. At least one of the answers seemed concerned with the present condition of the person on whom some sort of spiritual authority was presumed to rest.

When it comes to viewing individuals, we should always remember that no man or woman is perfect. On any given day, at any given time, in any given set of circumstances, anyone is capable of acting outside of the grace given. And in certain terms, that could have ramifications concerning "authority." But we have all been given the charge, and therefore authority, to preach the gospel at some level. Just because I did not have my normal "quiet time" this morning does not relieve me of my charge to preach. (Don't over analyze the particulars. It is an example.) But I may not have authority at all in other ways.

But it would seem that considerations from the standpoint of "spiritual authority" is to redefine the issue at hand into something other than the real issue. The issue with teaching wrong things isn't spiritual authority. It's the clarity that the teachings are wrong. If we are considering whether person X should be doing thing D rather than Person Y the real issue might be whether we are just asserting our opinion as authority. If we question the authority of a teacher because we think that one thing they recently said was not in line with our personal thoughts, is that a matter of authority?

I wonder if maybe the truth about authority is that we are all authorized to do the things that are according to our gifts for the benefit of the body and that most of us do not have the gift of discerning whether another's gift is being used efficiently, properly, and/or at all. In other words, the most important thing about spiritual authority is that I take what is given to me (i.e., God has authorized me concerning) and use it. And realize that all gifts are not my gifts. And others' gifts are not my gifts. And that my gifts are not others' gifts.

And is trying to understand spiritual authority more about trying to second-guess everyone else. And is asserting spiritual authority proof of a lack of it because it has become a sort of "lording over."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

NFNL, hope all is well with you and yours. I have kept you and your son in my thoughts and prayers, and I trust so many of us out here have as well.

I think your response to your friend was spot on.

No, prophesying is actually a gift, along with teaching, evangelizing and others. Not all have such gifts, much less the right to "exercise" them in a church gathering.

This all relates somewhat to Witness Lee's teaching regarding "the release of the spirit" (originated by Nee but Lee took to a whole different level). Lee taught that the release of the spirit (a dubious, man-made concept at best) had to be an outward, verbal manifestation such as "calling on the Lord" or "prayreading". He never provided any scriptural proof of this because there is none.

So really you need not do much more then point your friend to the Word of God, or in this case the lack of scriptural evidence for such a teaching or practice.

Thank you brother, for your thoughts and prayers... and your sharing.

I want to confess that sometimes, I get very very... I don't know if angry is the word, or frustrated, or disgusted, or what it is - with what I see as idolatry in the Local Church. I don't like that negative feeling, and I need to beg forgiveness for it and drop it. I just feel, I don't know - why are so many taken in by it? These are genuine Believers, aren't they? Do they not see the incongruity between what the Word clearly defines as a proper Christian (meek, humble, loving), and what the man who ran the show became?

Sheep don't eat sheep, they're herbivores. When you see a "sheep" attacking and devouring another sheep, you know it isn't a sheep at all - it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Lord forgive me. Soften my heart to express Your love, Lord.

Amen

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1 Cor 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Amen, yes - when we get together, even as we do here on this forum, let us each have a revelation, an interpretation - let us be built up together for edification one of another.... but this isn't prophesying; it's just sharing. Prophesying is a very definite Spiritual Gift which we do not all receive:

1 Corinthians 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of Healing, do all speak with tongues, do all interpret?" .... the answer of course is, no. They're not.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As to the word prophecy, I have always understood this to be similar to a spokesman. Just as the President has a cabinet member whose job is to talk to the Press (most of the time) so the Lord has "prophets" that speak to the nations. In the sense that our speaking as Christians represents the Lord, we all are to some extent "prophets"

...Prophecy does not neccessarily mean that we foretell future events - although that is one definition... but to prophesy does mean to speak by the inspiration of God, as lead by the revelation from the Holy Spirit... and that's not the way it's being applied by LSM, with weekly regurgitation from the HWMR and the usual discussion about how it's touched you this week.