Misrepresenting God: Delegated Authority (Nee)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Who is the Church?

The Bible tells us to practice conflict resolution, but it doesn't tell us exactly how to do it.

Believers seem to believe that "tell it to the church" means "tell it to the elders" or to the church leadership. What if the sinning brother is an elder? This would seem to present a dilemma. Would you expect a fair hearing from elders who have offended the membership?

Where does it say in the Bible that "tell it to the church" means definitively "tell it to the elders"? Are we not all members of the church, the Lord's Body?

Are we then free to tell all Christians? Technically, probably, yes. Should we? I don't think so. Then, who do we "tell"?

Logically, those church members who have knowledge of the situation, love for the brothers in question, and are in a position to "hear" would be the best church audience to hear a matter of grievance brought against an elder. In a Local Church locality, all regular attendees of meetings would be in a position to "hear" a grievance against an elder.

Nell

I don't disagree with you Nell. From what you've posted it's sound on paper regarding delegated authority. Problem I find in the current LSM version of delegated authority is the absence of character. Current so-called delegated authorities have exhibit pride instead of humility. So-called delegated authorities are quick to anger instead of slow to anger. From my observation and interaction with elders, they are political showing no impartiality towards their fellow elders who are considered "in good standing" with LSM leadership. Generally the phrase uttered is "cover the brothers"....A more specific paraphrased quote I have been told is "keep matters in house".
Why must all grievances against an elder be confined to "the fellowship room"?

[OBW]

The question I have, like on some other issues, is whether it is important that we understand something that could be called "delegated authority" in this day and age outside of the very terms that are already used for whatever human authority there should be in the church.

These special doctrines that are codified seem too often to be for the purpose of making them into more than they actually are. Like making an elder or other leader immune to claims of wrongdoing. Like when Nee claimed that only God could deal with the sins of a deputy authority.

Really? Fire must come down from heaven to consume the pedophile priests? Or condemn church leaders for abusive practices? (not just thinking about the LCM here)

But this is where deputy authority was going. Even if Nee seemed to write (some) truth in the book, was it really there for that truth? Or was if for the purpose of arriving at a place where he could never be excommunicated again for sexual immorality? And if you want to be part of this congregation, you have to go along with this new rule that exempts me from claims of any wrongdoing that the police will not come arrest me for.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question I have, like on some other issues, is whether it is important that we understand something that could be called "delegated authority" in this day and age outside of the very terms that are already used for whatever human authority there should be in the church.

These special doctrines that are codified seem too often to be for the purpose of making them into more than they actually are. Like making an elder or other leader immune to claims of wrongdoing. Like when Nee claimed that only God could deal with the sins of a deputy authority.

Really? Fire must come down from heaven to consume the pedophile priests? Or condemn church leaders for abusive practices? (not just thinking about the LCM here)

But this is where deputy authority was going. Even if Nee seemed to write (some) truth in the book, was it really there for that truth? Or was if for the purpose of arriving at a place where he could never be excommunicated again for sexual immorality? And if you want to be part of this congregation, you have to go along with this new rule that exempts me from claims of any wrongdoing that the police will not come arrest me for.

My gut tells me both Née and Lee used that doctrine to cover their ugly a#&. Yes, I know I'm cynical, pray for me.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

My gut tells me both Née and Lee used that doctrine to cover their ugly a#%. Yes, I know I'm cynical, pray for me.

Ok, I'll use logic. Did Christ, Paul, Peter, John, or any of the church fathers use DA to prevent criticism? How about Luther (on a beer binge he might have), Calvin, ... let's skip hundreds of years... Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, the last John Paul Pope?

It seems that only crazies like David Koresh, Sun Yun Moon, Jim Jones, and many others play this kind of card. Why would anyone (like Lee, Née, the blindeds) want to be associated with that kind of cultish practice?

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

It seems that only crazies like David Koresh, Sun Yun Moon, Jim Jones, and many others play this kind of card. Why would anyone (like Lee, Née, the blindeds) want to be associated with that kind of cultish practice?

I was recently reading the "Life Study of John" online. Chapter 23, section 2. Titled: "Frustration of Human Opinions". Not sure what was in the rest of the chapter, but according to what I could see, the main point to be learned from the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead was not to have opinions. That's it, folks - the true "intrinsic significance" of the gospel record is for us to "drop our concepts" and follow God's DA without question. No wonder they are called a cult.

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

WL might have been able to siphon off thousands or even tens of thousands of seeking ones during the Jesus Movement of the seventies, to become his unquestioning acolytes. But I really doubt this kind of teaching is going to prevail, in the long term. It's both anti-God and anti-human. It turns us away from God to a self-appointed "deputy", and denies us our essential humanness, to try, to fail, to see, to learn, to grow. Just be "absolutely identical" with God's so-called oracle.

At the bottom of the page it says not to copy these "spiritual riches", so I'll merely quote one point WL made.

Martha and Mary considered that the Lord should have come immediately. This was their opinion. But the Lord never acts on the basis of anyone's opinion; He always acts according to His own will.

To me this is flat-out wrong. The gospel record repeatedly said that the Lord didn't act according to His will, but rather was completely submissive to the will of the Father in heaven. And the epistles affirmed this. I could cite a half-dozen verses, or more. This is a basic tenet of the Christian faith, no? How could WL have missed this essential point?

p.s. There's nothing wrong with letting go of our opinions. It's arguably a good thing. But to make that the focal point of the gospel message is extremely myopic at best.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

p.s. There's nothing wrong with letting go of our opinions. It's arguably a good thing. But to make that the focal point of the gospel message is extremely myopic at best.

This highlights the hallmark of Lee's equivocation -- when do our thoughts and words become those dreaded "opinions?"

My opinion is that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and died on the cross for my sins. I'll even die for that "opinion," but over on the alt-views that opinion is condemned as merely my unsubstantiated and unproven "opinion."

The LC uses the matter of "opinion" like progressives use their "politically correct" speech -- designed strictly to silence the mouths and minds of the rank and file. If my speaking matches that of the powers that be, then it is approved and sanctioned for further use. Otherwise my opinion may frustrate Jesus, and cause Him to even weep, or so Lee has said. (John 11.35 and footnote 3 of John 11.27)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LC uses the matter of "opinion" like progressives use their "politically correct" speech -- designed strictly to silence the mouths and minds of the rank and file.

Someone's opinion will be heard in the LC. Ohio, Terry, etc is rendered as politically incorrect. If it's the blended's opinion, well now their opinion is the "feeling of the Body". As it's the politically correct opinion to have.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question I have, like on some other issues, is whether it is important that we understand something that could be called "delegated authority" in this day and age outside of the very terms that are already used for whatever human authority there should be in the church.

These special doctrines that are codified seem too often to be for the purpose of making them into more than they actually are. Like making an elder or other leader immune to claims of wrongdoing. Like when Nee claimed that only God could deal with the sins of a deputy authority.

Really? Fire must come down from heaven to consume the pedophile priests? Or condemn church leaders for abusive practices? (not just thinking about the LCM here)

But this is where deputy authority was going. Even if Nee seemed to write (some) truth in the book, was it really there for that truth? Or was if for the purpose of arriving at a place where he could never be excommunicated again for sexual immorality? And if you want to be part of this congregation, you have to go along with this new rule that exempts me from claims of any wrongdoing that the police will not come arrest me for.

"was it really there for that truth?" The answer to your question may be in the fact that LSM divided Nee's book "Spiritual Authority" into two books. The section on Misrepresenting God by Delegated Authority was in the 2nd book. If you didn't read the 2nd book, you wouldn't know that the DA's had any responsibility in accurately representing God.

Another question is, as you seem to touch on, Who talks this way? Who talks about authority in the church?

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Terry

...Why must all grievances against an elder be confined to "the fellowship room"?

The Matt. 18 doesn't distinguish grievances among the believers in the church whether elder/s or not. Does it? The only issue is whether or not the grieved is "heard" or not. First in private, next with 2-3 witnesses, then by the church.

Nell