Identifying Spiritual Authority

[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 OBW

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....

....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.

Amen! Brother, I don't think I can add to that!

As for whether or not understanding spiritual authority is about trying to second guess everyone else... I don't think so, although perhaps it depends upon the reason for which the person asks the question. It came to mind for me to post this topic because one of the persons on this site was claiming spiritual authority for themselves - and they wrote: "the Word defines me as one with authority". In a sense, the Word does - but in what sense does It?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Amen! Brother, I don't think I can add to that!

As for whether or not understanding spiritual authority is about trying to second guess everyone else... I don't think so, although perhaps it depends upon the reason for which the person asks the question. It came to mind for me to post this topic because one of the persons on this site was claiming spiritual authority for themselves - and they wrote: "the Word defines me as one with authority". In a sense, the Word does - but in what sense does It?

I understand the context. And I fear that there is a willful desire to not even consider that it might not be correct. I note that with respect to any direct challenges over the time to the ones (there are actually two) who take that position, there is nothing in response that would suggest that they even considered them, but rather threw an alternate challenge back. I have only continued to comment periodically for the express purpose of being sure that anyone lurking, especially only occasionally, does not get the impression that these ramblings are accepted as reasonable or true.

We can be fairly sure that there is no scripture that grants the authority that they have taken for themselves. And I note that they seem to take it primarily from Revelation, the one place that mentions something about not adding to the revelation. (I'm not sure that was intended to mean that there can actually not be more scripture, but it is a popular way to use it.)

But I like to come back to the observation that if God really is who he says he is, and he has told us some of it in the scripture that we have, anything that we think beyond that, whether from a "personal word from God," or from what anyone writes or says (whether as a suggestion, or as these guys do, claiming to be adding to scripture) needs to be consistent with what we already know from the scripture we already have. I really don't need to decide whether there is some special definition of spiritual authority that someone can lay claim to. I just need to look at their fruit, and in this case, read what they claim God says. Since it disagrees with what I already know about God from scripture and from the healthy teaching that I have received over many years, I have cause to reject their teaching, and to refuse them the right to be a teacher.

Now within the assembly I am part of, it is not my role to refuse them to teach. But I can reject their words anyway. And still get along with the rest of the assembly. (Not saying these guys have ever been to Irving, TX, or that anyone in my assembly has ever heard a word they say.)

[OBW]

I think that a different way to say what I just said is that I believe that there is spiritual authority. But I think that dealing with it is more about seeing what is not rather than defining what is.

Like defining what will be the acceptable teaching. We might be able to lay some general framework for proper teaching, but it either has to be very broad, or we risk excluding much sound teaching due to our own limitations. But when something is said that seems problematic, we should be willing to at least ask the question. A little like Kirk did in that Star Trek movie when he asked why god needed a starship. The first response of many was to say "you don't question God." But you should question the "god" that needs a starship.

In this case, question the man who claims that he has authority to write new scripture. Not because he claims authority as much as the fact that he writes "scripture" that redefines God and truth. I could ignore someone who claimed to write scripture if they at least wrote true things. But there are a lot of people out there looking for a guru. Another Lee.