Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

The question is, what is the point of believing Lee was an apostle? So that people will accept his teachings and the Church will benefit? People accepted Rick Warren's teachings much more than Lee's. Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life is the best selling non-fiction book of all time. Nobody had to believe that Rick Warren was an apostle for that to happen.

The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives. I.e. misery loves company. Lee couldn't convince enough people by the power of his teachings, so he has to co-opt the authority of an apostle to intimidate people into following him. For this cause he has the willing accomplices like Drake and other stubborn true believers, who say to themselves, If I have to follow Lee then everyone else does too.

Make no mistake, they are not arguing for the existence of latter day apostles for any other reason but to defend the supposed authority of their guy(s).

Again, a common sense view of the Scripture and of history shows us it is very unwise to consider people like Witness Lee to be apostles. The Church-at-large understands this. Those that think otherwise will continue to remain fringe operators, and people will continue to be hurt because of them, which the true believers will sweep under the rug and rationalize away. I post here to try to somehow push against that.


A few years ago I was in a small town in California and was approached by three young Mormon men. They were very nice and by the end I was almost convinced they were true Christians, and they might have been. They were humble, loving and genuine. I have to say they were more pleasant than I was. But they were convinced that they were right and Jesus was not God. Still they weren't exclusive. They believed we were all in the same family of God.

I didn't think of this at the time, but if I ever get into another conversation like that I'm going to ask, "If we are all believers, all God's children, then what makes you think 95% of the believers are wrong about Jesus and only you are right? What gives that reassurance? "

Of course the only reason they believed it was that was what they were used to, what they identified with, and no one wants to admit that the beliefs that define them on the deepest level are wrong.

LCMers are the same way. What gives them the reassurance that apostles with the kind of authority they confer to Lee still exist? The overwhelming majority of the Church doesn't believe it. So what makes the LCM right and others in the vast majority wrong? Do they really believe they understand the Bible so much better than everyone else?

So to me they are just like those Mormon boys. They believe what they believe because confirming what they've always believed is easier than admitting they might be mistaken. There is probably an element of wanting to be special as well. But either way, the odds of the LCM being right about its fringe beliefs are about the same as that the Mormons are right about Jesus not being God. Slim to none.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is, what is the point of believing Lee was an apostle? So that people will accept his teachings and the Church will benefit?

The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives.

Make no mistake, they are not arguing for the existence of latter day apostles for any other reason but to defend the supposed authority of their guy(s).

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

I see a big difference between apostolic authority and deputy authority. You don't see the writers (epistles and gospels) puffed up with pride. That being pride is a characteristic deputy authority produces. There's similarities between deputy authority and divine right of kings (as seen in European history). Each claim to be accountable only to God and not to man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

"Apostolic authority" is a different doctrine than apostles.

I agree that LSM's doctrine on "Apostolic authority" is completely bogus.