Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Nee didn't realize it, or maybe he was plotting complete control, either way, his delegated authority and MOTA doctrines ended up being a machination for a cult.

All cults would totally agree with Nee, on these matters.

And having no delegated authority is the machination of anarchists. This is not an easy topic. Human authority has been the biggest issue we have had for the last 2000 years.

I am a teacher. I went to school in England and the US and have been a teacher in the US and Taiwan. England and Taiwan give teachers a lot of delegated authority relative to the US. There are pros and cons for each. I think the US system should get top marks for empathy, but overall they should score the lowest on this one criteria. In the US individual students are allowed to bring down the school to a much higher degree than is allowed in England or Taiwan.

I have also travelled to a number of countries other than the US. Based on my personal experience and first hand observation I would say that the US has the best government in the world. However, that is much more a comment on how poor human government is rather than on how good the US government is. Also, to my opinion the negatives of the US government are becoming more negative (primarily the negative impact of the US on its neighbors, economically, environmentally, and militarily) while the positives are not getting more positive (primarily human rights).

Likewise, delegated authority in the family is a major issue with no clear answer. In this country, more than any other, we protect the rights of children and women. However, one result is that 40% of families are now headed by a woman, which is much, much higher than other first world nations. There are many negative consequences of removing a father from a family. As a teacher I know that when I call home due to some child's very poor behavior it is my hope that I will get a father. If I get a father I rarely ever have to make a second call. If I get a mother, aunt, grandmother or step dad then the problem is rarely resolved. Instead the most common response is "I can't do anything with him".

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And having no delegated authority is the machination of anarchists. This is not an easy topic. Human authority has been the biggest issue we have had for the last 2000 years.

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

I am a firm believer in the offices of elders and deacons established for every congregation. There is safety in the plurality of leadership. Plurality among the elders and plurality among the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. Safety in numbers, as they say.

Regardless of Nee's original thoughts about The Work and spiritual authority, under Lee it came to mean one unquestioned leader at the top, over all the workers and the elders, whose authority only grew year by year. Lee was peerless and his authority was absent of input from other spiritual men. Yes, he might have appeared grandfatherly and austere to most of the saints, but look what happened when he transferred a fraction of his authority to his two sons.

Regardless of what the saints believed about "local" churches and leadership autonomy in these churches, I witnessed too much to the contrary. Both Lee and Chu ruled with an iron fist. They both could be so incredibly charming to the saints in general, and yet so overly dominant and abusive to other leaders. The word "local" became basically a farce and a smokescreen when attached to the mounting authority of these so-called "deputies" of the body of Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am a firm believer in the offices of elders and deacons established for every congregation. There is safety in the plurality of leadership. Plurality among the elders and plurality among the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. Safety in numbers, as they say.

I think any group will be subject to being dominated by a gifted member. Look at basketball teams. The "superstar" literally molds the team to their image and if it doesn't fit they drive the other players away. This does not seem unreasonable to me for a ministry. So plurality will always be influenced by how gifted someone is.

Our govt is set on "checks and balances" and "plurality rules" yet it has quickly become an oligarchy. The rich and powerful will always seek to have more voice in govt than others.

However, the church should be structured much more like a family in which everyone has a stance and stake in the family. A father is not a dictator. A grandfather presumably would have something at stake in every child, not just a favored son. The Lord talked about the shepherd versus the "hired hand". A father is not a "hired hand", which is certainly a key safeguard. I would like my "leaders" to be invested in my success and well being.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think any group will be subject to being dominated by a gifted member. Look at basketball teams. The "superstar" literally molds the team to their image and if it doesn't fit they drive the other players away. This does not seem unreasonable to me for a ministry. So plurality will always be influenced by how gifted someone is.

Our govt is set on "checks and balances" and "plurality rules" yet it has quickly become an oligarchy. The rich and powerful will always seek to have more voice in govt than others.

However, the church should be structured much more like a family in which everyone has a stance and stake in the family. A father is not a dictator. A grandfather presumably would have something at stake in every child, not just a favored son. The Lord talked about the shepherd versus the "hired hand". A father is not a "hired hand", which is certainly a key safeguard. I would like my "leaders" to be invested in my success and well being.

Bro ZNP, Nee in his Spiritual Authority says we all should find our authority. And you sound like your authority is in the local church. So are you in rebellion to your authority?

Nee says : respect your authoritah ....
http://www.talkingwav.com/south_park/cartman_07.wav

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, Nee in his Spiritual Authority says we all should find our authority. And you sound like your authority is in the local church. So are you in rebellion to your authority?

Nee says : respect your authoritah ....
http://www.talkingwav.com/south_park/cartman_07.wav

In my experience as a father you have absolute authority over the kids life when they are an infant and every year you give up some authority as the kid wants more authority over their own life. However, children in their 20s still want advice, help and counsel.

Likewise, in my experience if someone asks for your advice and then completely disregards it you are much less inclined to respond the next time the request is made. If you want counsel you have to respect the counselor, otherwise you will not pay any attention to the counsel.

It is a blessing to have someone you can ask advice and counsel of. But, sometimes when you ask advice it is not a simple question, but something you need the other person to be invested in. If you want to go to graduate school and need some advice it might require that this person really know you, your financial situation, your family situation, where you are in your career, your goals, etc. So, to my mind the fact that your father has been invested in your life from day 1 really gives them the inside track. Now I recognized this from the first day I met with the LRC, hence I gave much more respect to those that I knew had been invested in my Christian life and didn't give any regard to some guy living 1,000 miles away.

So then, it is not merely about who is "appointed" the elder, or who is the "apostle". Obviously I deferred to them on matters they had authority over, but when it came to my life and my decisions I would fellowship with those I felt were most invested in my well being.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, the church should be structured much more like a family in which everyone has a stance and stake in the family. A father is not a dictator. A grandfather presumably would have something at stake in every child, not just a favored son. The Lord talked about the shepherd versus the "hired hand". A father is not a "hired hand", which is certainly a key safeguard. I would like my "leaders" to be invested in my success and well being.

Love is essential in any family environment. Same goes for where each of us fellowship on Lord's Day morning. When ZNP says he would like his leaders to be invested in success and well-being, that is simply more than setting meeting times, making announcements, or shaking hands after the meeting is over.
Just as a father knows his children and is involved in his children's lives, same goes for leaders of the church.
The difference between a shepherd and a hirling (aka steward of a system), a shepherd goes after the one that has gone astray. A hirling doesn't concern himself about the ones that go astray, only the ones that are present. If a church leader wants to be a shepherd, a brother or sister hasn't been attending for a while, he has to go after them. Otherwise if a church leader has the mindset "if you want to be part of the churchlife, you have to be here", that's an indication the church leader is more like a hirling than a shepherd. Even more so if you feel more responsible to the feeling of the Body enimating from Cleveland or Anaheim.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

The difference between a shepherd and a hireling (aka steward of a system), a shepherd goes after the one that has gone astray. A hireling doesn't concern himself about the ones that go astray, only the ones that are present.

During my last time of fellowship in the LC, I voiced my ever-growing concerns that a serious conflict of interest existed when all 3 church elders were employees of Titus Chu in Cleveland. It didn't matter that it was the hard-earned offerings of the saints which supported them because it was Titus who cut the check. It was more than abundantly clear in situation after situation, that their loyalty to Titus Chu far exceeded their care for the sheep of God.

Calling it a "conflict of interest" was just a kind way of saying that they had all become hirelings. Obviously they did not see things that way, and took great offense at my concerns. These hirelings were simply being loyal to their boss. They may have prided themselves with the fact that were "co-"workers with the great "apostle" Titus Chu, but there was no "co-" about their service to him. Whatever liberty they had once enjoyed was forfeited once they were on the payroll. They had lost the Christian liberty and rights they once had concerning where they lived and how they served the Lord.

The one elder, who was placed in charge by Titus Chu over the other elders, knew nothing about the condition of the saints in the church. He came from the Chicago area after Chicago's leaders flip-flopped on their loyalty to Titus Chu and the truth of the scriptures. One time I protested the sweeping changes that this maximum elder was instituting in my church, and he replied to me, "sometimes we need to shock the saints." After I left the church, I learned that many indeed had been "electrocuted." He was just a hireling doing his job, and a bad one at that.

Such was the false authority imposed upon the precious saints in the local churches. Titus Chu exercised a false authority when he relocated maximum brother to take over our church. The other elders believed a false authority by submitting to him. What is significant about these verses is that the Lord cares little about how "one" the shepherds were with their headquarters. Healthy authority is related to how we conduct ourselves in the house of God, composed of His own children.

Matt 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Matt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Calling it a "conflict of interest" was just a kind way of saying that they had all become hirelings. Obviously they did not see things that way, and took great offense at my concerns. These hirelings were simply being loyal to their boss. They may have prided themselves with the fact that were "co-"workers with the great "apostle" Titus Chu, but there was no "co-" about their service to him. Whatever liberty they had once enjoyed was forfeited once they were on the payroll. They had lost the Christian liberty and rights they once had concerning where they lived and how they served the Lord.

When a brother is simultaneously an elder and a co-worker, how does a conflict of interest not exist? Isn't this a case of “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
(Matthew 6:24)

On one hand as an elder serving the local assembly and on the other hand serving a ministry. Sooner or later which of the two is more of a priority?
When a brother is an elder/co-worker, is he just an elder when not abroad fulfilling the co-worker function?
The concept is no different from the family unit. When a father's employer has him traveling for work or if family situations results in the husband and wife being separated or divorced, how is the father going to shepherd his family? He's not if he's not home. He needs to be home in order to do that.

Same applies to the local assembly. When an elder/co-worker is out of town, he won't be able to fulfill his responsibility to shepherd the church. When you have this conflict of interest, invariably being a co-worker reduces the responsibility of an elder to a "rubber-stamp" function.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

When a brother is simultaneously an elder and a co-worker, how does a conflict of interest not exist?

Isn't this a case of “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:24)

The conflict of interest exists in the Recovery because of their rule that the most senior worker (Titus Chu in the GLA) directs all the movements of the other workers. Titus Chu is the de facto master of all other co-workers and full-timers. All the GLA workers found this out the hard way, the most recent being John Myer. As the Master, Titus Chu had the right to abuse and publicly shame all the other workers under his "perfecting care." Once this became totally unsuitable to the coworker, he had no other recourse but to leave the Recovery completely. There was no arbitration available for relief.

The churches learned this the hard way. They had no claim to the worker's time or service. He could be ordered to leave for the weekend with just a moment's notice. Neither could the worker have the liberty to follow the Lord directly. His movements must be initiated by headquarters.

Back in the late 80's, after one gifted and beloved brother quit his job to serve full-time, I watched both Witness Lee and Titus Chu fight over his "service." Both wanted him in their "territory." It was only his wife's threats of divorce which stopped him from repeatedly relocating at their bidding. Because we knew the "rules," his local church had no way to keep or protect him from this. After Lee's death, Titus Chu finally got his way and relocated the family to Toronto. There he remained until Chu's public invectives got so abusive that he abruptly quit serving. No one came to his aid. No amount of medicine could reduce the stress-induced hypertension he suffered. The public assaults were so caustic, that he was almost physically beat up by a zealous brother thinking he was doing God a favor and ridding the Recovery of such a "plague." Such were the "perfecting" methods of the "master" Titus Chu.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

When a brother is simultaneously an elder and a co-worker, how does a conflict of interest not exist? Isn't this a case of “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
(Matthew 6:24)

Then it doesn't matter where the paycheck is coming from. Without a doubt, elders should not be paid from a ministry.

But if someone is really a gifted shepherd they don't need a paycheck from either TC or the church.

IMVLE the best shepherds and the best evangelists were not on any payroll at all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

Great post bro Z.

But what do I know?

The LRC claims to be a Bible based church.

So I looked there to find "who was right."

I searched the Bible for "delegated authority" and "minister of the age." Result : no hits. So I narrowed the search to "delegated." Again no hits.

But "authority" pulled up :

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:

So does Jesus qualify as someone who knows who is right?

Other than that, right now, I got nothing. But maybe I'll know everything some time soon. I'll get back to you then.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But "authority" pulled up :

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:
So does Jesus qualify as someone who knows who is right?

So google got it right about authority in the church.

Who knew?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So google got it right about authority in the church.

Who knew?

Nah bro Ohio. I was using the e-Sword Bible reference, searching the KJV, and didn't use google. But maybe I should have. But I doubt the Critical Text translations would be any different.

However I'm sure the search results would be different in the RcV, if footnotes are included in the search.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Nah bro Ohio. I was using the e-Sword Bible reference, searching the KJV, and didn't use google. But maybe I should have. But I doubt the Critical Text translations would be any different.

However I'm sure the search results would be different in the RcV, if footnotes are included in the search.

Methinks LSM ought to use that search tool and get re-educated when it comes to authority. That's one topic they have entirely messed up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great post bro Z.

But what do I know?

The LRC claims to be a Bible based church.

So I looked there to find "who was right."

I searched the Bible for "delegated authority" and "minister of the age." Result : no hits. So I narrowed the search to "delegated." Again no hits.

But "authority" pulled up :

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:

So does Jesus qualify as someone who knows who is right?

Other than that, right now, I got nothing. But maybe I'll know everything some time soon. I'll get back to you then.

Wow! Who would have thought? The Bible doesn't mention Fathers or mothers! It doesn't command you to "honor your father and mother". It doesn't talk about obeying authority! It doesn't talk about headship. It doesn't mention laws, or elders, or excommunication, or any vestige of authority! Were you doing a search of the King James Bible or the Anarchists Bible?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Were you doing a search of the King James Bible or the Anarchists Bible?

So you think Jesus was an Anarchist? The Romans thought so too. That's why they hung him. As they did all Anarchists. Jesus was just one among thousands (mostly Pharisees) they hung on a cross for insurrection against Rome.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you think Jesus was an Anarchist? The Romans thought so too. That's why they hung him. As they did all Anarchists. Jesus was just one among thousands (mostly Pharisees) they hung on a cross for insurrection against Rome.

This may explain the confusion of your other posts. I don't think Jesus, Lord of all, is an anarchist. I think you are.

[UntoHim]

Hi Harold, good to see you....kind of...

Please stay on topic. The last few post are wondering a bit. I think this topic is controversial enough without having to resort to agitating other members. Let's keep the Topiq Nazi on the sidelines where he belongs.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hi Harold, good to see you....kind of...

Please stay on topic. The last few post are wondering a bit. I think this topic is controversial enough without having to resort to agitating other members. Let's keep the Topiq Nazi on the sidelines where he belongs.

I respect your authoritah .... sorry ... It went off topic at post #38 ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! Who would have thought? The Bible doesn't mention Fathers or mothers!

So now we're not talking about spiritual authority, but natural authority. Of course parents are an authority. They change the diapers. Still, who can have authority over a baby? Just command it to do something and see what happens.

You are confusing authorities. Normal authorities are not the same as God authorities.

Were you doing a search of the King James Bible or the Anarchists Bible?

I already stated it was the KJV.

The point is that "delegated authority" as taught by Nee & Lee, and "Minister of the Age, are not in the Bible. They are extra-Biblical teachings and practices, that require a "Sleight of Mind spell casting trick of verbage" to gain all-in allegiance.

And don't try to bait me into the subject of Christian anarchy. However, if we're talking about sticking to scripture, at least there's more support for Christian anarchy than delegated authority or the MOTA.

But we're good boys and won't talk about that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So now we're not talking about spiritual authority, but natural authority. Of course parents are an authority. They change the diapers.

You are confusing authorities. Normal authorities are not the same as God authorities.


I already stated it was the KJV.

The point is that "delegated authority" as taught by Nee & Lee, and "Minister of the Age, are not in the Bible. They are extra-Biblical teachings and practices, that require a "Sleight of Mind spell casting trick of verbage" to gain all-in allegiance.

And don't try to bait me into the subject of Christian anarchy. However, if we're talking about sticking to scripture, at least there's more support for Christian anarchy than delegated authority or the MOTA.

But we're good boys and won't talk about that.

In Nee and Lee's teaching they refer to "delegated" authority using Police and the uniform as one example. Hence, anarchy is relevant to their teaching. They also use Fathers, Mothers, head covering and other scriptural references. The issue with the teaching is not that the NT does not teach this concept, it does. The issue isn't that some of what Nee and Lee taught was scriptural, it was. The issue is that they went too far and also misappropriated the teaching. MOTA is a clear example of their error.

Yes the NT teaches delegated authority, especially when Paul says to "obey" those in authority.
Yes their is "delegated" authority in the church, particularly when Paul says to let everything be done in order, and where he says that we need to learn how to behave in the house of God.

However, Jesus made it very clear that we are to call no man "Rabbi", hence the teaching of MOTA is clearly prohibited by Jesus. That teaching is heretical. To justify that teaching with "delegated authority" is to misappropriate that teaching. Lee and Nee clearly mishandled the word of God and did not cut it straight.

PS. -- Honoring your father and mother is a commandment with the two promises that it will "be well with you" and that "you will live long". Hence, I don't accept your distinction between this being a "natural" delegated authority whereas Elders and Apostles are "spiritual" delegated authority.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Nee and Lee's teaching they refer to "delegated" authority using Police and the uniform as one example. Hence, anarchy is relevant to their teaching. They also use Fathers, Mothers, head covering and other scriptural references. The issue with the teaching is not that the NT does not teach this concept, it does. The issue isn't that some of what Nee and Lee taught was scriptural, it was. The issue is that they went too far and also misappropriated the teaching. MOTA is a clear example of their error.

Yes the NT teaches delegated authority, especially when Paul says to "obey" those in authority.
Yes their is "delegated" authority in the church, particularly when Paul says to let everything be done in order, and where he says that we need to learn how to behave in the house of God.

However, Jesus made it very clear that we are to call no man "Rabbi", hence the teaching of MOTA is clearly prohibited by Jesus. That teaching is heretical. To justify that teaching with "delegated authority" is to misappropriate that teaching. Lee and Nee clearly mishandled the word of God and did not cut it straight.

PS. -- Honoring your father and mother is a commandment with the two promises that it will "be well with you" and that "you will live long". Hence, I don't accept your distinction between this being a "natural" delegated authority whereas Elders and Apostles are "spiritual" delegated authority.

I would quibble but not cuz this was a great post. Thanks ZNP.

[Cal]

Misappropriation (great word by the way) of principles of authority is a calling card of abusive groups. Heck, it is a calling card of almost all abuse, spiritual or otherwise. It is taking advantage of another's good faith and intentions.

Nee's distorted view on authority is just one more example of why spiritual teaching needs to be vetted by the Body of Christ. I am under authority in the church I'm in. I honor God by being so. But if my church ever got on a tear, like the LC did, of making a big deal about spiritual authority, I would strongly consider leaving, because I know emphasizing it is a pretext to abuse.

Jesus specified tying a millstone around one's neck and throwing it in the sea being better than the consequences of such abuses. LC leaders, take note.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And having no delegated authority is the machination of anarchists. This is not an easy topic. Human authority has been the biggest issue we have had for the last 2000 years.

I am a teacher. I went to school in England and the US and have been a teacher in the US and Taiwan. England and Taiwan give teachers a lot of delegated authority relative to the US. There are pros and cons for each. I think the US system should get top marks for empathy, but overall they should score the lowest on this one criteria. In the US individual students are allowed to bring down the school to a much higher degree than is allowed in England or Taiwan.

I have also travelled to a number of countries other than the US. Based on my personal experience and first hand observation I would say that the US has the best government in the world. However, that is much more a comment on how poor human government is rather than on how good the US government is. Also, to my opinion the negatives of the US government are becoming more negative (primarily the negative impact of the US on its neighbors, economically, environmentally, and militarily) while the positives are not getting more positive (primarily human rights).

Likewise, delegated authority in the family is a major issue with no clear answer. In this country, more than any other, we protect the rights of children and women. However, one result is that 40% of families are now headed by a woman, which is much, much higher than other first world nations. There are many negative consequences of removing a father from a family. As a teacher I know that when I call home due to some child's very poor behavior it is my hope that I will get a father. If I get a father I rarely ever have to make a second call. If I get a mother, aunt, grandmother or step dad then the problem is rarely resolved. Instead the most common response is "I can't do anything with him".

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

I appreciate this perspective very much, when it comes to human relationships and structures. But I find an absolutely fundamental flaw in this sort of analogy between human organizations and the work of God.

Before Christ, there was an inherent need for delegated authority. God needed "representatives" through whom He could speak and exercise authority.

But Christ entirely changed that paradigm at the most fundamental level. The fact that the Spirit can and does indwell a believer; that a believe can receive a leading, a restricting, a speaking, a psalm, a message - directly from God means that God "delegates" through every believer. Indeed, He does so differently through each and at different times. But His authority is not "delegated." Through Christ, He can execute his authority directly.

To say otherwise - or to contrive a system of delegated authority - or to compare the need for it with human institutions and structures - is to disbelieve the gospel of Christ.

You can say I am over spiritualizing, but I don't know how to understand the gospel of Christ differently. Either Christ can speak to each one directly (albeit aided through much care and shepherding of one another) and thus does not need "delegated authority" or God cannot do this and thus we must set up a system of delegated authority.

It cannot be both - otherwise, the central question would always be: do I trust the speaking within, or do I trust the "delegated authority of God". That sort of doctrinal set-up is shizophregenetic.

Thoughts?

P.S. None of that is to say that believers do not submit to other believers. Indeed, through Christ within, this happens all the time. But the source of that submission is different. It is not inherent and automatic submission because of someone's status, but rather because of the restricting Spirit.

P.P.S. The waters muddy, of course, when you ask the question abouth whether a believer is really responding to a command of the Lord within, or just being anarchic. To know the Lord's voice is not automatic. The counsel of older, wiser believers is needed. Shepherds are needed. Scripture teachers are needed. But there is a key difference: when a believer errs under the "each believer answers directly to the Lord's authority" paradigm, he hurts himself and must learn from that before the Lord... When a believer errs under the "delegated authority" paradigm, the effect can be extremely damaging to entire congregations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

to contrive a system of delegated authority - or to compare the need for it with human institutions and structures - is to disbelieve the gospel of Christ.


Thoughts?

Amen. "There is one mediator between man and God, and that is the man Christ Jesus." I remember that quote from somewhere. Or am I misremembering it?

And who mediates between the sinner and Christ? "The Holy Spirit, whom I shall send; he will lead you into all of the reality of our Father's kingdom". The spirit brings us into all of the reality of what Christ taught and lived. Not some of the reality, but all of it.

Of course this is within the context of the collective. And there is hierarchy within the collective. Some have one talent, some two, some five. Some rule over one city, some over ten. But it cannot be overstressed that: A) the disciples were continually bickering over which of them was the "alpha dog", and could be seen angling for choice positions; and B) Jesus completely flipped this fallen and natural survival instinct, which otherwise becomes a constant motive force driving our collective [read: organizational] behaviors, on its pointy little head.

And how soon are these things forgotten, whenever two or three gather in the Name!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Thoughts?

Let's describe "delegated authority".

1. Parents are "delegated authority". I think the need for parents as a delegated authority holds true regardless of it being a Christian or non Christian family.

2. Teachers are "delegated authority" and are actually referred to as "parenti in loci". If the children of Christians go to school they should be under this authority every bit as much as a non Christian.

3. Police are "delegated authority". True your conscience trumps the law, and a genuine believer will walk according to a higher law. But the church is composed of genuine believers, mature believers, immature believers, nominal believers, gospel contacts, etc. I think Christians must respect the police as a "delegated authority".

4. Ushers in a church meeting are a delegated authority. Suppose someone who is unruly, drunk, or belligerent comes into a meeting and for the safety and well being of the members needs to be escorted outside. This should not be a "group" decision, but those appointed for this should be able to respond immediately. Paul said let all things be done in order, this is only one example.

5. Sunday school teachers are a delegated authority.

6. Someone must be responsible for the meeting hall, paying the bills, turning on the AC, or heat, fixing leaky faucets, etc. This is "delegated authority" and it would include the ability to sign checks. Having a bank account and authorizing certain people to sign is "delegated authority".

7. If the church has a van some people may have permission to drive that van, that is "delegated authority".

8. Suppose two saints have a dispute or need counseling. Perhaps husband and wife. They need to talk to someone who is both impartial and also someone that they both know and respect. For this counseling to work everyone will have to agree up front that they will respect, i.e. heed, the counselors advice. That, is by definition, delegated authority.

9. If the church is going to invite a speaker someone needs to be responsible for that choice, that is "delegated authority". Once again, another example of "let all things be done in order".

10. If one saint is causing many to complain concerning their behavior, which can be interpreted to be sinful by some and rude by others, what do you do? You can pray that they heed the Spirit speaking directly to them, but are you really going to allow anyone and everyone to hijack the church meetings? Anything that you do to respond to this situation other than pray is going to be "delegated authority". If a brother "needs to speak to them" then the question is "on who's authority?" If the church gathers for an emergency meeting to vote that is another form of delegated authority.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's describe "delegated authority".

1. Parents are "delegated authority". I think the need for parents as a delegated authority holds true regardless of it being a Christian or non Christian family.

2. Teachers are "delegated authority" and are actually referred to as "parenti in loci". If the children of Christians go to school they should be under this authority every bit as much as a non Christian.

3. Police are "delegated authority". True your conscience trumps the law, and a genuine believer will walk according to a higher law. But the church is composed of genuine believers, mature believers, immature believers, nominal believers, gospel contacts, etc. I think Christians must respect the police as a "delegated authority".

4. Ushers in a church meeting are a delegated authority. Suppose someone who is unruly, drunk, or belligerent comes into a meeting and for the safety and well being of the members needs to be escorted outside. This should not be a "group" decision, but those appointed for this should be able to respond immediately. Paul said let all things be done in order, this is only one example.

5. Sunday school teachers are a delegated authority.

6. Someone must be responsible for the meeting hall, paying the bills, turning on the AC, or heat, fixing leaky faucets, etc. This is "delegated authority" and it would include the ability to sign checks. Having a bank account and authorizing certain people to sign is "delegated authority".

7. If the church has a van some people may have permission to drive that van, that is "delegated authority".

8. Suppose two saints have a dispute or need counseling. Perhaps husband and wife. They need to talk to someone who is both impartial and also someone that they both know and respect. For this counseling to work everyone will have to agree up front that they will respect, i.e. heed, the counselors advice. That, is by definition, delegated authority.

9. If the church is going to invite a speaker someone needs to be responsible for that choice, that is "delegated authority". Once again, another example of "let all things be done in order".

10. If one saint is causing many to complain concerning their behavior, which can be interpreted to be sinful by some and rude by others, what do you do? You can pray that they heed the Spirit speaking directly to them, but are you really going to allow anyone and everyone to hijack the church meetings? Anything that you do to respond to this situation other than pray is going to be "delegated authority". If a brother "needs to speak to them" then the question is "on who's authority?" If the church gathers for an emergency meeting to vote that is another form of delegated authority.

I can't put my finger on it but it feels like you are misconstruing Nee's Spiritual Authority.

Apes have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean? A pack of wolves have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean?

Primitive human tribes, that believe all kinds of wild mythologies, have "delegated authority." Is this what you are speaking of?

Aren't you speaking of human authority? Not kingdom authority?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't put my finger on it but it feels like you are misconstruing Nee's Spiritual Authority.

Apes have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean? A pack of wolves have "delegated authority." Is this what you mean?

Primitive human tribes, that believe all kinds of wild mythologies, have "delegated authority." Is this what you are speaking of?

Aren't you speaking of human authority? Not kingdom authority?

Nee and Lee both used these examples to explain the concept.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nee and Lee both used these examples to explain the concept.

Well you've just explained the local church in a nutshell ... the local church was a natural system with Nee and Lee as the Alpha Dogs. No wonder I left. It was just more hooey to deal with in the world ... and was a natural "godless" system of authority -- like animal instincts.

If we've already got all those delegated authorities in our world, why do we want to add more?

The Pope is a delegated authority. Do we submit there? Why then submit to the local church? What's the difference?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well you've just explained the local church in a nutshell ... the local church was a natural system with Nee and Lee as the Alpha Dogs. No wonder I left. It was just more hooey to deal with in the world ... and was a natural "godless" system of authority -- like animal instincts.

If we've already got all those delegated authorities in our world, why do we want to add more?

The Pope is a delegated authority. Do we submit there? Why then submit to the local church? What's the difference?

Human society requires delegated authority. The human body also has "delegated authority". That is not the error.

The error is that the hand has to obey the eye. That is absurd, the hand obeys the head. The eye serves the head, but in the end the head makes the decision.

If the Lord speaks through a member, as he did with Ananias, Acts 9:10, then that person has acted as a deputy authority, in the same way that the hand of the Body acts on behalf of the head. Today we have robotic hands that can actually be hooked directly up to the brain and act at the discretion of the Brain.

http://news.yahoo.com/tiny-helicopte...W4tVVM-;_ylv=3

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

... the local church was a natural system with Nee and Lee as the Alpha Dogs. No wonder I left. It was just more hooey to deal with in the world ...

It was a natural system with a veneer of spirituality. Thus its great holding power on the hearts, minds, and lives of so many.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's describe "delegated authority".

1. Parents are "delegated authority". I think the need for parents as a delegated authority holds true regardless of it being a Christian or non Christian family.

2. Teachers are "delegated authority" and are actually referred to as "parenti in loci". If the children of Christians go to school they should be under this authority every bit as much as a non Christian.

3. Police are "delegated authority". True your conscience trumps the law, and a genuine believer will walk according to a higher law. But the church is composed of genuine believers, mature believers, immature believers, nominal believers, gospel contacts, etc. I think Christians must respect the police as a "delegated authority".

4. Ushers in a church meeting are a delegated authority. Suppose someone who is unruly, drunk, or belligerent comes into a meeting and for the safety and well being of the members needs to be escorted outside. This should not be a "group" decision, but those appointed for this should be able to respond immediately. Paul said let all things be done in order, this is only one example.

5. Sunday school teachers are a delegated authority.

6. Someone must be responsible for the meeting hall, paying the bills, turning on the AC, or heat, fixing leaky faucets, etc. This is "delegated authority" and it would include the ability to sign checks. Having a bank account and authorizing certain people to sign is "delegated authority".

7. If the church has a van some people may have permission to drive that van, that is "delegated authority".

8. Suppose two saints have a dispute or need counseling. Perhaps husband and wife. They need to talk to someone who is both impartial and also someone that they both know and respect. For this counseling to work everyone will have to agree up front that they will respect, i.e. heed, the counselors advice. That, is by definition, delegated authority.

9. If the church is going to invite a speaker someone needs to be responsible for that choice, that is "delegated authority". Once again, another example of "let all things be done in order".

10. If one saint is causing many to complain concerning their behavior, which can be interpreted to be sinful by some and rude by others, what do you do? You can pray that they heed the Spirit speaking directly to them, but are you really going to allow anyone and everyone to hijack the church meetings? Anything that you do to respond to this situation other than pray is going to be "delegated authority". If a brother "needs to speak to them" then the question is "on who's authority?" If the church gathers for an emergency meeting to vote that is another form of delegated authority.

What you describe here are matters every human organization needs. There is nothing that distinguishes these examples from a meeting of Jews or of Libertarians or the PTA.

Parents are a good example, because the Bible specifically commends us to them. But Jesus also said to leave them and follow Him.

This follows the point I made about Christ being the paradigm shifter in regards to authority. Here's my thesis:

Humans need structures of authority, even delegated authority, UNLESS, they have access to and follow Christs direct demands.

Your examples raise the question of where the SOURCE of the authority comes. A group can delegate its collective authority and the. Choose to submit to it in a pre-defined sphere, such as care of a meeting hall or ushers in meeting. But this is a practical arrangement or "contract" for the sake outward stability.

"Delegated Authority" when it comes to interpreting the word or the spiritual health of individuals, marriages, gospel work, etc... Is VERY different.

Thoughts?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What you describe here are matters every human organization needs. There is nothing that distinguishes these examples from a meeting of Jews or of Libertarians or the PTA.

Parents are a good example, because the Bible specifically commends us to them. But Jesus also said to leave them and follow Him.

This follows the point I made about Christ being the paradigm shifter in regards to authority. Here's my thesis:

Humans need structures of authority, even delegated authority, UNLESS, they have access to and follow Christs direct demands.

Your examples raise the question of where the SOURCE of the authority comes. A group can delegate its collective authority and the. Choose to submit to it in a pre-defined sphere, such as care of a meeting hall or ushers in meeting. But this is a practical arrangement or "contract" for the sake outward stability.

"Delegated Authority" when it comes to interpreting the word or the spiritual health of individuals, marriages, gospel work, etc... Is VERY different.

Thoughts?

My point is that if you have access to Christ's direct demands and follow them then you have acted as a delegated authority.

For example, I remember a story of a man in China, he was a believer. The Lord began bothering him tremendously till he had no choice but to signal time for the miners to come up at the end of the shift, even though the shift didn't end for another hour. When they came up they were outraged, he was fired on the spot, and then the mine exploded. He had saved everyone alive. He had acted as a "delegated authority" which he had trumped his human authority.

However, had the Lord not spoken to him and he had done that he would have been fired and maybe sent to the gulag.

Even though the Lord tells us to "leave our parents" the NT also teaches us to honor our parents, including the example set by Jesus.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that if you have access to Christ's direct demands and follow them then you have acted as a delegated authority.

For example, I remember a story of a man in China, he was a believer. The Lord began bothering him tremendously till he had no choice but to signal time for the miners to come up at the end of the shift, even though the shift didn't end for another hour. When they came up they were outraged, he was fired on the spot, and then the mine exploded. He had saved everyone alive. He had acted as a "delegated authority" which he had trumped his human authority.

However, had the Lord not spoken to him and he had done that he would have been fired and maybe sent to the gulag.

Even though the Lord tells us to "leave our parents" the NT also teaches us to honor our parents, including the example set by Jesus.

I agree that through Christs speaking, we will act on His behalf and even exercise His authority. That happens fluidly through his instant speaking/leading.

That is different than having a DOCTRINE of "delegated authority" which results in certain individuals having "status" of "delegated authority". That is both over and under-inclusive of the way Gods authority works thru humans.

Your example of the Chinese miner is good. But it's altogether too clear an example to build a doctrine around. It's one thing to follow the Lords leading as an individual. It's entirely another to claim that The Lord told ME what YOU should do. If its saving people's lives, that's one thing. If its what materials to read or when to "volunteer" or what I should do in a difficult marriage... That's another.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that through Christs speaking, we will act on His behalf and even exercise His authority. That happens fluidly through his instant speaking/leading.

That is different than having a DOCTRINE of "delegated authority" which results in certain individuals having "status" of "delegated authority". That is both over and under-inclusive of the way Gods authority works thru humans.

Your example of the Chinese miner is good. But it's altogether too clear an example to build a doctrine around. It's one thing to follow the Lords leading as an individual. It's entirely another to claim that The Lord told ME what YOU should do. If its saving people's lives, that's one thing. If its what materials to read or when to "volunteer" or what I should do in a difficult marriage... That's another.

Here is the doctrine of fluidity.
1Cor
14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Ohio
"Another interesting connection between Rome and Anaheim. Rome calls the Pope "the Holy See," while LSM calls Nee the "Seer of the divine revelation." Supposedly they both can "see" things on God's heart which none of us can see, and which were never recorded in the Bible."

Again, totally unscriptural.

Peter Debelak
"Amen! I've always been bothered by the use if Moses or other OT figures as examples of deputy authority. In the OT God NEEDED deputy authority. But Christ completely altered that! To revert back to an OT pattern on the matter of Gods administration is to deny the gospel of Christ!"

When Paul says "Put on Christ" that is analogous to the Policeman's uniform. The authority is from Christ, not WL.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

"Delegated Authority" when it comes to interpreting the word or the spiritual health of individuals, marriages, gospel work, etc... Is VERY different.

This is hitting the nail on the head. Policemen, school teachers and even parents do not automatically carry the delegated authority of God. Nee was flat out wrong in this matter. Of course he wrote "The Spiritual Man" in his mid-20s, so it's no wonder that it contains the thoughts and notions of a very young man who was more influenced by Christian mystics and Chinese culture than the Word of God and historic Christian thought. Though they would vehemently deny it, much of the "theology", norms and culture in The Local Church spring from what was taught by Nee back in early part of the 20th century in Mainland China. Needless to say, Witness Lee took the mistakes and false teachings of Nee and magnified them many times over.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This follows the point I made about Christ being the paradigm shifter in regards to authority. Here's my thesis:

Humans need structures of authority, even delegated authority, UNLESS, they have access to and follow Christs direct demands.

Thoughts?

Nee's paradigm for deputy authority uses Moses as a type of today's spiritual authority in the church. Those who voice their "concerns" about his leadership, will end up with leprosy as Meriam did. Great fear is needed to hold the church under such authority. The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability.

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6) Moses as a "deputy authority" was a type of Christ, our New Testament authority, and not some gifted leader or church founder. In the church age, God has given all authority to His Son.

Catholicism uses the concept of "deputy authority" the same as Lee did. They have long proclaimed that the pope is the "vicar" of Christ, thus placing one man on earth (in Rome) in the place of Christ, since He has apparently "left" and gone back to heaven. Likewise, the Recovery uses the concept of "deputy authority" when claiming Lee was the consummate MOTA and the "acting God," claiming that all authority has been placed in one man for God's move on earth.

Another interesting connection between Rome and Anaheim. Rome calls the Pope "the Holy See," while LSM calls Nee the "Seer of the divine revelation." Supposedly they both can "see" things on God's heart which none of us can see, and which were never recorded in the Bible.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's paradigm for deputy authority uses Moses as a type of today's spiritual authority in the church. Those who voice their "concerns" about his leadership, will end up with leprosy as Meriam did. Great fear is needed to hold the church under such authority. The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability.

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6) Moses as a "deputy authority" was a type of Christ, our New Testament authority, and not some gifted leader or church founder. In the church age, God has given all authority to His Son.

Amen! I've always been bothered by the use if Moses or other OT figures as examples of deputy authority. In the OT God NEEDED deputy authority. But Christ completely altered that! To revert back to an OT pattern on the matter of Gods administration is to deny the gospel of Christ!

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's paradigm for deputy authority uses Moses as a type of today's spiritual authority in the church. Those who voice their "concerns" about his leadership, will end up with leprosy as Meriam did. Great fear is needed to hold the church under such authority. The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability.

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6)...

Exactly! Mishandling the word of God to strike fear in those who dare to question the MOTA. Who wants to be considered a leper or cursed? Nobody. Well the only way to avoid it is blind loyalty and adherence to the authority. Even if you're right and the MOTA is wrong don't say anything. Don't be negative. Don't question. Question marks are in the shape of a serpent and come from the devil. Just nod and agree and shout "amen" and repeat Witness Lee messages and all will be well with you!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Exactly! Mishandling the word of God to strike fear in those who dare to question the MOTA. Who wants to be considered a leper or cursed? Nobody. Well the only way to avoid it is blind loyalty and adherence to the authority. Even if you're right and the MOTA is wrong don't say anything. Don't be negative. Don't question. Question marks are in the shape of a serpent and come from the devil. Just nod and agree and shout "amen" and repeat Witness Lee messages and all will be well with you!

Sounds like the Borg to me. I thought God didn't want robots. He doesn't. But Lee wanted them. And now the BBs (Blended Borgs) want followers to be non-thinking robots. What a bewitching Nee & Lee's spiritual authority doctrine is. (Gal 3:1).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The curse of Ham for exposing Noah's impropriety was also effectively used to silence the church, and deliver the leadership from accountability..

Right. "Whenever you all come together, each one has" something to share, as long as it is exactly what has just been delivered from the podium. Otherwise, silence.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Moses, however, was never a type of the MOTA or an apostle. Moses was type of Christ. (Heb 3.2-6) Moses as a "deputy authority" was a type of Christ, our New Testament authority, and not some gifted leader or church founder. In the church age, God has given all authority to His Son..

Again an amen. "in the last of these days, God has and is speaking to us in the person of His Son." Not in a deputy, or proxy, but in the Son Himself.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Catholicism uses the concept of "deputy authority" the same as Lee did. They have long proclaimed that the pope is the "vicar" of Christ, thus placing one man on earth (in Rome) in the place of Christ... Likewise, the Recovery uses the concept of "deputy authority" when claiming Lee was the consummate MOTA and the "acting God," claiming that all authority has been placed in one man for God's move on earth..

One problem with the tree of knowledge is that you have 20/20 sight as regards to the failures of others, but are blind to your own. Nee & Co. rightly noted the "Babylonian" nature of the Romish system, and then gradually built their own replica, complete with synods of bishops (sorry, blendeds) and bulls (accords).

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rome calls the Pope "the Holy See," while LSM calls Nee the "Seer of the divine revelation." Supposedly they both can "see" things on God's heart which none of us can see, and which were never recorded in the Bible.

Ironic, given the amount of vitriol the Nee/Lee crew had for the RCC, that they fell into the same trap. The terminology may have been refined, but the same deceptive hierarchical structure beckoned them 'upward'. It's so inviting up there at the top, right next to Jesus! Just ask James and John (a certain "leading angel" also comes to mind).

[Ohio]

Here is an example of the extreme views W. Nee purported concerning "Delegated Function being Deputy Authority." -- Collected Works Vol 47, pg 175 ...

No one dares to say that he would not submit to the Lord's authority. But there is also the authority of the members in coordination that we have to submit to. We have to realize that all the members are joined together. If we do not receive help from other members, we are in rebellion. Sometimes the Lord uses one member directly. At other times, the Lord uses a member to supply another member. When the head directs the eyes to see, the whole body takes the seeing of the eyes as its own seeing because when the eyes see, the whole body sees. This delegated function, which is deputy authority, is also the authority of the Head. If any other members think that they can see for themselves, they are in rebellion. We cannot be so foolish as to think that we are almighty.

Twice in this short section, Nee uses examples of members not "submitting" to one another, and jumps to the extreme, citing they are "in rebellion." The apostle Paul's premier teaching on this subject -- First Corinthians -- with the host of problems they manifested among their members -- never once mentioned this sin of "rebellion." Yes, Paul taught us that we need the other members of the body, but he never introduced such condemnations upon their shortcomings.

Just cracking this book again, randomly opening to this section, gives me a peephole into the extremes of the Recovery system I once lived in. With such a "foundation" in the Recovery as this, one can easily understand how minor differences between leaders can easily rise to the level of spewing epithets like "rebel" and "leper." Teachings such as this can easily be used by abusive leaders.

The primary message of the New Testament, however, is not that we must find another member to submit to, rather that we must love the Lord and submit to Him. The whole law is not summarized in "submit to thy neighbor," but to "love thy neighbor."

Nee's extreme teachings have distorted the message of the gospel by introducing Chinese customs and culture. While they apparently sound spiritual and scriptural, we must look at the fruit. Teachings on submission and authority have produced ruling dynasties in China for millennia, and one might conclude that LSM had similar motives for the church of God. While these teachings and strict authoritarian rule of law might result in a well-ordered society, they do so by producing slaves of their citizens.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is an example of the extreme views W. Nee purported concerning "Delegated Function being Deputy Authority." -- Collected Works Vol 47, pg 175 ...
Twice in this short section, Nee uses examples of members not "submitting" to one another, and jumps to the extreme, citing they are "in rebellion." The apostle Paul's premier teaching on this subject -- First Corinthians -- with the host of problems they manifested among their members -- never once mentioned this sin of "rebellion." Yes, Paul taught us that we need the other members of the body, but he never introduced such condemnations upon their shortcomings.

Just cracking this book again, randomly opening to this section, gives me a peephole into the extremes of the Recovery system I once lived in. With such a "foundation" in the Recovery as this, one can easily understand how minor differences between leaders can easily rise to the level of spewing epithets like "rebel" and "leper." Teachings such as this can easily be used by abusive leaders.

The primary message of the New Testament, however, is not that we must find another member to submit to, rather that we must love the Lord and submit to Him. The whole law is not summarized in "submit to thy neighbor," but to "love thy neighbor."

Nee's extreme teachings have distorted the message of the gospel by introducing Chinese customs and culture. While they apparently sound spiritual and scriptural, we must look at the fruit. Teachings on submission and authority have produced ruling dynasties in China for millennia, and one might conclude that LSM had similar motives for the church of God. While these teachings and strict authoritarian rule of law might result in a well-ordered society, they do so by producing slaves of their citizens.

Excellent point. On one hand he says "we cannot be so foolish as to think we are almighty", a valid basis for seeing the need for different functions in the society. We cannot be the policeman, teacher, govt leader, secretary, etc. We each have a function in society but need the other members.

But then to extrapolate that reality to say that we are "in rebellion" if we do not submit. That is both absurd and something that is a natural outgrowth. For example, in my son's school they give materials they want us to use to help prep him for the State exam. They give these to the parents months before the test. These are good and useful materials. But I have completely ignored them for the last 3 years and do not consider that to be "rebellion" or a crime. My son began school in 1st grade 18 months developmentally delayed. By 3rd grade he was less than a year behind. Last year he was on grade level, and this year we expect he will be at the top of the class based on pretests.

I ignore their materials because they are much less effective to what I do. Also, the Bible says that the responsibility for my kids education is the Father's, not the schools. They work for me, I don't work for them. Likewise the police are also my employees, as are the politicians, etc. WN flipped this whole thing on its head. A good example of his error and WL's error.

[OBW]

I hate to bring this thread forward, but this particular quote just sort of bugged me as I read back through it due to the resurrection of the kind of dismissal of the errors of Nee that has occurred lately. I have omitted the writer because I am not picking on anyone. Just trying to deal with a question that often comes up in so many discussions.

So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.

Why must there be an identification of who is right to establish who is wrong? If the Rosetta Stone of our faith (scripture) disagrees with Nee or Lee, then it is irrelevant who is right when determining that either of them is wrong.

And in newer discussions, we are now begin faced with yet another version of what is right (and you guys are wrong). The need to pin it all down so neatly, especially when done at the expense of reasonable and accurate handling of scripture, just seems to be more than even the Bible itself requires. Our faith is not in the propositions of heaven, hell, Calvinism, Arminianism, substitutionary atonement, and so many other things. It is true that the better we understand some of them, the better we are able to recognize our failures in sticking to the faith. But it is faith in the person and work of Christ that is crucial, and then to obedience to his commands.

And knowing a lot of theology is not among the commands. But when someone comes along and tries to limit our freedom in Christ by putting on yet a different set of "thou shalts" and can't make them stick to the scripture any better than Nee did on spiritual authority or Lee did on God's economy, I have no qualms in casting such nonsense aside even if I cannot assert with certainty that a specific alternative is instead right.

Some might think that it just doesn't matter then and we should leave those who claim certainty alone. If they were not enslaving Christians to yet another "this is the way" coupled with fear concerning their destiny (or euphoria over the idea that they are God's chosen people and the rest are street derelicts) I could agree. And for that reason I am not very critical of Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, AOG, Lutheran, Anglican, CofC, DofC, and other Christian groups. (Didn't mean to exclude anyone unjustly. Just can't remember all of them by name.) But those who set out to create subcultures who insist on extremes are enslaving Christians. The RCC has done it on some issues. The LRC is deep in this arena. And every so often it seems that another comes along. Not as seriously flawed as the LRC. But equally certain that their understanding is simply it. Unwilling to actually discuss anything else.

Why should I need to be like them, insisting on what is absolutely right to establish that they are wrong? Much better to hold strongly to the core of the faith, but with love. Then to hold to the rest with a much looser grip, and with love.

[TLFisher]

Concerning Elders

The elders are the authorities in the local church. All the brothers have to submit to the elders. Titus 1 speaks of basic qualifications of an elder—self-control and submission. A lawless person can never execute the law, and a
rebellious person can never make others submissive. An elder must exercise strict self-control. A common trait among many people is the lack of discipline. Hence, in appointing elders, we have to select those who are
particularly exercised in self-control. God appoints the elders to manage the church. As such, they must be submissive and must exercise self-control. They must set their hearts to be a pattern to all in everything. God
never appoints a person who loves to be the first among others (like Diotrephes) to be an elder. The elders are the highest deputy authority in a local church. For this reason they must be men with self-control.

First Timothy 3:4-5 speaks of another basic qualification of an elder—he must be able to manage his own house. Managing one’s house does not refer to managing one’s parents or wife, but it refers mainly to managing
one’s children. An elder has to teach his children to walk soberly and to be obedient in all things. A man must first be a good father before he can be an elder. He must first be an authority at home before he can be an elder in the church.

An elder must not be an arrogant person. If a person becomes proud as soon as he assumes authority, he is not qualified to be an elder. An elder in a local church should feel as if he has no authority at all. If an elder is always conscious of his authority, he is not qualified to be an elder or to handle the affairs of the church. Only the foolish and the narrow-minded are proud. Such ones cannot stand the temptation of God’s glory, and they
cannot bear God’s commission and assignment. Once such ones are entrusted with something, they fall into a snare. This is why a new convert cannot be an overseer (1 Tim. 3:6—in Greek this word means a novice in a
trade. For example, among carpenters there are masters who have been in the trade for decades, and there are novices who have barely learned to handle a hammer.), lest he be blinded with pride and fall into the judgment
suffered by the devil.
Page 85

Very good words by Watchman Nee. However in the practices in the local churches how can you submit to the "deputy authority" when there is no love or humility exhibited?