Misrepresenting God: Delegated Authority (Nee)

[Nell]

Precap:

• "To be an authority is to represent God."
  
• "He (Moses) had misrepresented God, for it was of himself that he had had a wrong spirit and had thus spoken wrongly and smote wrongly."
  
• "(Moses) ... he gave the people of Israel a wrong impression about God, as though God were fierce and reviling and lacking in grace."
  
• "Nothing is more serious nor regarded more severely than for a delegated authority to do wrongly."
  
• "Let us be careful that we never draw God into human failure ..."
  
• "The government of God ought not be offended. Let us be clear about it." (Watchman Nee)

Spiritual Authority, Misuse of Authority and Gods Governmental Discipline, p. 149 Watchman Nee (Original printing before LSM split Nee's original book)
And there was no Water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. And the people strove with Moses, and spake, saying, Would that we had died when our brethren died before Jehovah! ... And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink. And Moses took the rod from before Jehovah, as he commanded him.

And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; shall we bring you forth water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice: and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed not in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them. These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Jehovah, and he was sanctified in them. (Num. 20.2-3,7-13)

And Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Nor, by the border of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto mount (p. 148) Nor; and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded: and they went up into mount Nor in the sight of all the congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleasar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleasar came down from the mount. (Num. 20.23-28)

And Jehovah spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying, Get thee up into this mountain of Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession; and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people, as Aaron thy brother died in mount Nor, and was gathered unto his people: because ye trespassed against me in the midst of the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah of Fadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel. For thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither into the land which I give the children of Israel. (Deut. 32.48-52)

Delegated Authority Ought to Sanctify God
After over thirty years of wandering in the wilderness the people of Israel again forgot the lessons they had learned through their rebellion. When they came to the wilderness of Zin and found no water they once again contended with Moses and Aaron, uttering many unpleasant words. God nevertheless was not angry with them. He merely commanded to take the rod and speak to the rock that it might give water. Moses took the rod, a symbol of God's authority, in his hands. However, he was so provoked by anger that he called the people rebels and then, ignoring God's command, he smote the rock twice with the rod. He erred, yet water still flowed out of the rock.

Because of this, God reprimanded His servant, saying, "You did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel." It meant that Moses had not set God apart from himself and Aaron. He had misrepresented God, for it was of himself that he had had a wrong spirit and had thus spoken wrongly and smote wrongly. God seemingly remonstrated with Moses on this wise: "I saw my people thirsty and was willing to give them to drink, so why did you scold them?" God did not reprove the people, but Moses did. And so he gave the people of Israel a wrong impression about God, as though God were fierce and reviling and lacking in grace.

To be an authority is to represent God. Whether it be in wrath or mercy, an authority must always be like God. If, in such a position, we do anything wrong, we should acknowledge it as our own doing. We ought never draw God into our own fault. Because Moses misrepresented God, he had to be judged. If anyone in authority misrepresents God and does not confess it, God will have to vindicate Himself.

Thus He showed the people of Israel that this was Moses' doing, not His. True, the people had murmured and perhaps their attitude had been rebellious, nevertheless God had not judged them. How could Moses be so impatient as to judge them before God did, and to speak angrily without restraint? It was his attitude and his wrath, but most likely the people of Israel got the impression that it was God's attitude and God's wrath. Hence God had to acquit Himself by separating Himself from Moses and Aaron.

Let us be careful that we never draw God into human failure by giving the wrong impression that He is expressing His attitude through us. In case such a wrong impression is made, God will have to absolve Himself. A delegated authority is supposed to manage affairs for God. If we should become angry, let us confess that this anger comes from us and not from God. The two must be separated. It is a dreadful thing to mix up one 's own doing with God's.

We are too prone to err. Accordingly, whenever we do err, let (p. 150) us immediately acknowledge that it is our own error. Then we will not misrepresent God and give the evil one any ground, nor will we fall into darkness. If we confess first, then God will not need to defend Himself and we shall be delivered from falling into His governmental hand.

To Be a Delegated Authority Is a Serious Matter

As a consequence of the above incident, God announced that both Moses and Aaron were not to be allowed to enter Canaan. If a person should speak carelessly and do something in a way which does not sanctify God, then, from the moment God has to step in to justify Himself there is no way left to ask for forgiveness. We must fear and tremble when we are managing the affairs of God. Let us beware lest we grow careless and reckless as we become older.

In the earlier days, when Moses' anger burned hot and he smashed into pieces the tables on which God had written the law, God did not blame him. He had touched God's heart of jealousy, and so his anger was justified. Now, after having followed the Lord for many more years and yet failing to do as He commanded by smiting the rock twice and speaking hasty words, Moses had misrepresented God. For this, he was kept out of Canaan.

The people of Israel rebelled against God many times, but He was patient with them. Moses and Aaron, though, committed one mistake and yet they were barred from Canaan. It shows how serious it is to be delegated authorities. God is most strict with those who represent Him. In Numbers 18 the Lord said to Aaron, "Thou and thy sons and thy fathers' house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary" (verse 1). The more authority which is delegated, the severer is God's dealing. The Lord also said, "To whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more" (Luke 12.48).

It is truly a beautiful picture to see Moses and Aaron and Eleazar his son ascend together to Mount Hor. All of them were obedient to God in humbly accepting God 's judgment. They did not even pray, for they knew God. Aaron knew his day had arrived, and Moses was also conscious of his own future. God ordered Moses to perform the transaction, since at the waters of Meribah Moses had also been the chief character. By viewing how Aaron went, it was made known to Moses how he would also go.

As Aaron was stripped of his holy garments, he died. Ordinarily people do not die by their clothes being stripped off, but Aaron did, because his life was maintained by service. This suggests that the life of one who serves God ceases when his service ends.

Many years elapsed after the above, yet God's judgment did not pass away. Eventually He dealt with Moses in the same way He had dealt with Aaron. He summoned Moses to Mount Nebo to die, even though during the intervening years Moses had remained faithful. Before his death Moses blessed the people of Israel with a song, but he did not ask to be exempted from his particular judgment (see Deut. 33). He too humbled himself under the mighty hand of God. He who had represented God's authority and who had obeyed Him all his life except in that one instance in his old age, was not permitted to enter Canaan. What tremendous loss Moses incurred. He could not partake of God's promise made to Abraham six hundred years ago!

Nothing is more serious nor regarded more severely than for a delegated authority to do wrongly. Every time we execute authority we must ask to be united with God. If a mistake is made let us swiftly separate it from God lest we incur His judgment. Before we decide anything, let us seek to know His mind. Only after ascertaining His mind may we do it in His name. Moses could not claim that what he had done at the waters of Meribah was done in the Lord's name. Let us not be foolish, but let us learn to fear and tremble before God. Do not render judgment carelessly; rather, control your spirit and your mouth, especially at the time of provocation. The more one knows God, (p. 152) the less he is careless. There are some times when one may receive forgiveness after having fallen into God's governmental hand, but this does not always happen. The government of God ought not be offended. Let us be clear about it. (Watchman Nee)

Nell

[Nell]

For this discussion, do we have to subscribe to the premise that the "Delegated Authority" teaching by Nee is a legitimate interpretation of Scripture...that Nee and Lee are correct? Not necessarily. I think these verses stand alone. Moses and Aaron sinned by drawing God into their sin and misrepresenting Him. I also think Nee's discussion is pretty good.

This discussion by Nee has been ignored to the extent that LSM split Nee's book "Spiritual Authority" to exclude the responsibilities of their Delegated Authorities.

So what do we do if we have a grievance against an elder?

Nell

[Nell]

In the New Testament we are told:

• 1 Timothy 5:20 (NIV) 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
  
• 1 Timothy 5:20 (KJV) 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
  
• 1 Timothy 5:20 (NET Bible) 20 Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.

As "delegated authorities" or "deputy authorities" were not given a free pass in the Old Testament, neither are they given a free pass in the New Testament. The difference being, in the Old Testament, God dealt with Moses and Aaron personally. In the New Testament that responsibility is given to the church to deal with a sinning brother. 1 Tim. 5:20 doesn't say to rebuke those who sin...except for elders.

Tell it to the Church
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

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

[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?

[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

[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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

To be an authority is to represent God. Whether it be in wrath or mercy, an authority must always be like God. If, in such a position, we do anything wrong, we should acknowledge it as our own doing. We ought never draw God into our own fault. Because Moses misrepresented God, he had to be judged. If anyone in authority misrepresents God and does not confess it, God will have to vindicate Himself.

To Be a Delegated Authority Is a Serious Matter. Nothing is more serious nor regarded more severely than for a delegated authority to do wrongly. Every time we execute authority we must ask to be united with God. If a mistake is made let us swiftly separate it from God lest we incur His judgment.

The Bible does make it clear that some men of God are placed in authority, and as such they represent God. Actually all God's children represent Him to some degree, and should be keenly aware that their failures bring shame to His name. Even more so are the failures of those called by God to be leaders of His people. Leaders in the O.T. such as Moses and David brought much honor to God, yet the Bible is faithful to also record their failures. Peter likewise in the N.T. brought much glory to the Lord, yet his own failures were made public. W. Nee's words here are a sobering reminder to all Christian leaders.

First of all, leaders should never elevate themselves above all others in the eyes of God's people. The Lord Jesus clearly opposed this in the Gospels. No minister should ever assume a position over all of God's church. The early apostles never did this. There is no justification whatsoever for a "vicar of Christ," a pope, "our brother," the holy see, the minister of the age, or whatever imaginative title men might dream up.

Hebrews makes it clear that Moses was a type of Christ (Hebrews 3.1-6) building God's house, and never a type of N.T. leaders. Using the pattern of Moses to establish your power base has no scriptural authority. There are no "delegated authorities" in the N.T. of the order of Moses. Paul, Peter, and John were some of the many apostles of God.

The LC's under Witness Lee became a strong counter-example of why the Bible is written as it was. In a word, power corrupts men, and power definitely corrupts even Christian men. Jesus Christ alone is Head of the church, our Great Shepherd, the Minister of the Ages, and today's Moses, today's Noah, today's David, today's Solomon, etc. Witness Lee abused the authority he had from God. He damaged others, and brought shame to His holy name. Within LSM and the Recovery, Lee even exalted his own reprobate and profligate son Philip above the Lord, while destroying other men of God placed in authority. All this was done to preserve his own reputation, and save himself from repentance. Sounds like base gain and filthy lucre.

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

If it's the blended's opinion, well now their opinion is the "feeling of the Body".

God's delegated authority, by definition it seems, doesn't have an opinion. God's DA has God's oracle. Everyone else has an opinion.

I think this extends from an obsession with order at the expense of freedom. The "freedom of the Spirit" of Jesus and Paul is completely extinguished in the Chinese-flavored drive for "good order in the church".

There's a spirit which manifests itself in fallen humanity, which piggy-backs upon the revelation of Jesus Christ, and which ultimately strips the gospel of all its motive force. HERn cited Jim Jones and David Koresh; my poster child is the Mormon church. The "Jesus Christ" the Latter Day Saints talk about is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible; rather they use the natural desire to access God through faith in Jesus Christ to introduce a different spirit, and catch people, and pull them into their net.

If you hang around the LC long enough, at some point this spirit will manifest. Bill Mallon was told by RG, "We do what we are told", regarding Philip Lee as "the Office" of LSM. Awareness heard regional Florida overlord MP tell him, "You will take my personality as your own", mimicking MP's personality being subsumed by that of WL. In my case, I heard the FTTA trainer tell us, "Don't waste your time" with the poor, or sick, or weak; go for the Caucasian college students. Go get the good building material. And I heard, "The age of spiritual giants is over; it is the age of small potatoes". This statement had nothing to do with the Bible, and everything to do with the cultural agenda seen in the collective.

At some point the Bible stops getting piously waved in the air, and scripture gets ignored, because Big Brother has spoken. The logic simply becomes that Maximum Leader WN or WL said it, therefore it's in the best interest of the Mother Ship to ignore the poor, or to elevate one member to god-like status, or to obsess over relative position in the hierarchy, or pretend that Christians on Campus are "just Christians". Because our culturally-derived Mother Ship model dictates this thinking, and this behavioral norm. Just do as you are told. And don't question; be one with our brother's burden.

Originally Posted by aron

I was recently reading the "Life Study of John" online. Chapter 23, section 2. Titled: "Frustration of Human Opinions". ...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.

Reading WL going over the gospel of John and boiling it down to "life" versus "opinions" was something like reading a book review of a Zane Gray or Louis L'amour or Larry McMurtry novel, where the reviewer says, "In chapter one I noted men and horses. Chapter two also had men and horses. Chapter three through eight as well. Chapter nine: no horses. Chapters ten through eighteen all had men and horses. Therefore this book is clearly about men and horses."

The LC's culturally-based idea of good order in the church needed John's gospel to be about life versus opinions, so there it is. There's your book report. Enjoy the riches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I think this extends from an obsession with order at the expense of freedom. The "freedom of the Spirit" of Jesus and Paul is completely extinguished in the Chinese-flavored drive for "good order in the church".

Jesus said, "If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed." -- John 8.36

Paul said, "For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of wise discretion." -- II Timothy 1.7

[JJ]

In the Bible, delegated authority is a matter of household servants serving both the household owner (who has ultimate authority) and the members of the household. And, it never includes "lording it over" anyone.

When a servant gives you some of the master's food, you don't even think about the servant, you just appreciate the food. That is way it works in God's house. God's headship is offended by the gentile way of leaders lording it over others (wherever that happens), versus serving as lowly slaves of God.

The word the recovery version often translates as "economy" is easier to understand if the word stewardship replaces it consistently (versus once in a while), and with an understanding that stewards are simply servants distributing the Master (God's) riches, embodied in Christ, and flowing as the Spirit, to everyone lucky enough to be there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by JJ

In the Bible, delegated authority is a matter of household servants serving both the household owner (who has ultimate authority) and the members of the household. And, it never includes "lording it over" anyone.

When a servant gives you some of the master's food, you don't even think about the servant, you just appreciate the food. That is way it works in God's house. God's headship is offended by the gentile way of leaders lording it over others (wherever that happens), versus serving as lowly slaves of God.

The word the recovery version often translates as "economy" is easier to understand if the word stewardship replaces it consistently (versus once in a while), and with an understanding that stewards are simply servants distributing the Master (God's) riches, embodied in Christ, and flowing as the Spirit, to everyone lucky enough to be there.

It's one thing to say "serving as lowly slaves of God" and another to actually serve as lowly slaves of God. What qualities do you consider is needed to serve as a lowly slave of God? Several that come to mind are love, humility, and grace.
When the is such emphasis on submission and deputy authority; love, humility, and grace is incompatible. Instead there's pride among other unmentionable qualities that result in fearing man instead of fearing God. As a result delegated authority/deputy authority misrepresents God.

[aron]

I wanted to pull this thread forward again. Some interesting things are coming out, worth considering. I wrote this earlier on another thread:

Originally Posted by aron

If a 38 year-old mother of two writes an open letter to the saints in the Lord's recovery, and two months later they have to convene a Special Synod to urge 900 ex-trainees not to look at or discuss the contents of that letter, is that the kingdom of God? Doesn't look very robust, to me. Does God really forbid that anyone should actually read, think, question, speak or write?

Here is a good resource:

https://coveringandauthority.com/?fb...aRBmORYX8A_3Mk

QUOTE:

Who is your covering? While many Christians have never heard that phrase a growing segment of the church knows exactly what it means. It means "which authority are you submitted to." Among evangelicals there is a growing movement that teaches all people in the church need to be properly "covered" by God’s "delegated authority" in the church. The self-styled New Apostolic Reformation is a major component of this movement but doesn’t encompass all of it. Around the world "apostolic networks" are springing up heralding the return of God’s true authority to the church. While covering theology is more popular in non-denominational charismatic churches it is slowly gaining ground in more traditional evangelical circles.

More and more people are becoming concerned with the rise of this theology because it has led to spiritual abuse, controlling church leadership and spiritual shipwreck. The goal of this website is to examine covering theology from an evangelical perspective without resorting to personal attacks or underhanded tactics. If you believe I have misconstrued the facts I invite you to contact me through this website.

The best recently published work espousing apostolic covering and authority is John Bevere’s book "Under Cover" and his companion video series. Theologically it is a retread of the doctrines of the old shepherding movement of the 70s and 80s. Much of the shepherding movement was rooted in a combination of Watchman Nee’s Spiritual Authority and the doctrines of the Latter Rain Movement.

Covering Theology emphasizes the following:

Sin's disobedience to God’s authority
Salvation is only available to those who confess and do the will of God
Grace is the power of God to obey him
All authority is instituted by God
God establishes his rule in the church through people he has delegated to be his authority
The 5-fold ministry (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) represents God’s authority on earth
Obedience to the Lord requires obedience to God’s delegated authorities (employers, church leaders, civil authorities)
Rebellion against God’s delegated authority is rebellion against God
Rebellion to authority opens one up to the demonic realm resulting in deception
People should live by the principle of obedience rather than reason
People should always obey authority unless they are clearly instructed to violate scripture
The line of authority extends in the home where the father holds the highest authority
Spiritual authority and blessing flows to those who suffer under authority
God does not judge people on the fruit of their life but on how faithfully they followed authority
Those outside the local church and the covering of its leaders are at serious risk of spiritual attack

Undoubtedly there are some people reading this page that are currently involved in a church that believes in coverings. For those of you who are seriously questioning these teachings let me reassure you. Covering theology has very little basis in scripture. For those that believe wholeheartedly in coverings let me challenge you to take another look at the scriptures, our common authority, to see if this teaching is true. The proponents of covering theology often paint their critics as backslidden prodigals who want to be in total control of their own lives and live in rebellion to God’s authority. This may be true of some, but a great many people believe wholeheartedly in submission and accountability but feel that strong authoritarian structures subvert and destroy life giving fellowship.

Covering theology is based on a patchwork of biblical texts that are incorrectly interpreted, misapplied and misconstrued. Despite this it continues to grow in the fertile soil of the charismatic movement given its anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly bias.

Scriptures commonly used in covering theology.
Click each one to see how it is used and a biblical response.
1Chron 16:22 – "Touch not the Lord’s anointed"
Rom 13:1-7 – "Be subject to governing authorities"
Heb 13:17 – "Obey your leaders and submit to them"
Eph 4:8-16 – "God gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers"
Mat 8:5-12 – "For I too am a man under authority"
2Tim 2:11-12 – "If we endure we will reign with him"
1Sam 15:22-23 – "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft"
Num 23:23 – "nor is their any divination against Israel"
1Pe 2:13-14 – "Submit yourself to every authority"
1Sam 24 – "I will not put my hand against my Lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed"

The proponents of covering theology often paint a picture of the church polarized in to two camps: those people properly submitted in God’s hierarchical order and the rebels that reject God’s governing authority. Ironically it is the covering proponents that risk rebellion because they claim authority for themselves that belongs only with God. In their attempts to patch together the disparate passages that make up their case for coverings they have to neglect centuries of orthodox biblical interpretation and the very foundations of the reformation and evangelicalism.

There is a better understanding, a more biblical understanding of how Christ’s body works. It doesn’t fit neatly in a corporate flow chart. This is the path of servant leadership and mutual submission. The path of "mutual submission" is more complicated but it takes in to consideration several passages of scripture that don’t fit the authoritarians picture.

Other important scriptures about submission and authority

Matthew 20:20-28 – "Those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you"
Matthew 23:8 – "For you have one teacher and you are all brothers"
1Cor 16:16 – "Submit to people like this, and to everyone who cooperates"
Eph 5:21 – "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ"
1Pe 5:3 – "do not Lord it over, but be examples"
1Cor 14:29 – "Two or three prophets should speak, let the others evaluate"
1Cor 12:17 – "To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all"
Rom 2:6 – "He will reward each one according to his works"
1Jn 4:18 – "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear"
1Jn 2:27 – "the anointing that you received from him resides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you"
1Pe 2:5 – "your yourselves…built up as a spiritual house to be a royal priesthood"
Heb 8:11 – "no need at all for each one to teach his countryman…since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest."
Gal 5:1 – "For freedom Christ has set us free"
1Ti 2:5 – “one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus”
1Sam 8:5:22 – “for they have rejected me as their king”
Col 2:9-33 – “you also are complete through your union with Christ”
There are several other passages that make it clear that God is the authority whom we follow and sometimes following God’s authority requires we openly challenge our leaders.
Gal 2:6 – "From those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me, God shows no favouritism)"
Gal 2:14 – "I said to Cephas in front of them all"
Acts 4:19 – "Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide"

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to pull this thread forward again. Some interesting things are coming out, worth considering. I wrote this earlier on another thread:......

Nice find, Aron. I'm happy to see people are starting to understand and make these connections. Praise God!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Nice find, Aron. I'm happy to see people are starting to understand and make these connections. Praise God!

I settled this long ago, after walking away from Lee & Co. : I have no covering other than God Himself.

And to get to the real nitty-gritty of the NAR Dominionism look into Christian reconstructionism, and R. J. Rushdoony.

We've been there, and some still are. I think it's scary stuff.

And what happened to those Nicolaitans? You know : Nike/Victory over the laity ; conquerors of the lay people. In Revelation the Lord frowns on that. And Lee taught it that way.
(It may well have been the followers of Nicolas, deacon of the church of Jerusalem (sexual religious rites)- that's been proposed too.).

[byHismercy]

Thanks for this, Aron.

[aron]

From the book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, by David W. Johnson and Jeff Vanvonderan.

Churches are meant to be safe places where spiritual leaders help and equip the members for the work of service. There are some churches, however, where leaders use their spiritual authority to control and dominate others, attempting to meet their own needs for importance, power, intimacy or spiritual gratification. Through the subtle use of the right "spiritual" words, church members are manipulated or shamed into certain behaviors or performance that ensnares in legalism, guilt and begrudging service. This is spiritual abuse, and the results can be shattering. Deeply ingrained spiritual codes of written and unwritten rules control and condemn, wounding believers' spirits and keeping them from the grace and joy of God's kingdom. Believers find themselves enslaved to a system, a leader, a standard of performance that saps true spiritual life. This is a message for Christians who feel they are spiritually abused and for those who might be causing it. Authors VanVonderen and Johnson address these important themes and point the way toward freedom: What are the abusive spiritual dynamics that can develop in a church? How do people get hooked into these abusive systems? What are the marks of false spiritual leadership and their impact on a congregation?

The good news is that we are not alone. Others have made it down these paths before, and some have made it out. The Lord has left us with guides, on the way home. Praise the Lord.

[Nell]

The following quote is from our ol' friend, Matt Anderson, and his Laymans Fellowship website. It's a perspective I had not considered until recently and am more and more convinced of its merits. In particular, three "issues". 1) The verses in Eph. 4, 2) new (to me) perspective on the implications of these verses, and 3) authority church leaders do not have over believers.

1) Ephesians 4:11-16 – And he himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to a measure of the maturity of the fulness of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed about by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching, by the trickery of people, by craftiness with reference to the scheming of deceit. But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow into him with reference to all things, who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined together and held together by every supporting ligament, according to the working by measure of each single part, the growth of the body makes for the building up of itself in love.

2) This has an amazing implication. The real work of the most notable gifted ones is to make themselves less necessary.
(What???? Less necessary?)

3) "The authority from God wielded by believers is not fully transferred to believers. They do not get to take ownership of the authority in the same manner as a Government Authority with a Citizen or with a Parent with a Child. This does not mean we cannot wield any authority from God. As believers we can transmit God’s authority through our speaking and our actions, but this does not give us control of God’s authority. It also does not give us control over other believers. We simply wield God’s authority for the limited window in which we are acting according to His will.

Let’s clarify what kind of authority that this author believes leading ones do not have:

* Leaders do not have “delegated” authority where authority is passed from God to the leader in such a way that the leader can act according to their own will (while claiming to represent God) apart from being fully in line with God’s point of view and approach to the non-leading believers.

* Leaders do not gain personal authority over another believer as a result of any type of spiritual gifting.

* Paul does speak of some authority vested in Him from the Lord. The real question is whether it is “delegated” authority from God or authority from God that can only be wielded in full agreement with God’s will." (Emphasis added)

I think this explains a lot about what's wrong with the Lee/Nee teaching on "delegated" authority, and its continuing heavy-handed misuse by the LC leadership today.

What do you think? This gives perspective to Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power (authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Nell

Note that this thread is a golden oldie...it's been around since 2/2016.

[OBW]

Nell,

While I am sure that I disagree in small parts here and there, the overall approach of Matt's premise seems sound.

I think that the real problem is the view of people as to what the "positions" are for. And for the most part, the Ephesians passage lays that out most clearly. They are called and given tasks for the purpose of helping the rest of us attain what Christ has commanded. In that sense, they do stand-in for God/Christ. But not so much as authorities, but as helpers.

Yes, they do have a kind of authority. But it is the authority of what they have learned that we have not learned, not an authority of hierarchical control, such as a government or military position.

And to underscore the point of what kind of authority they have, I like to look at Paul in a different way. And there is no better place to look at it than in his first letter to the Corinthians. In that letter, he tells them a lot. But he does in in a way of pleading with them coupled with a lot of discussion of the reasons that he is saying what he is saying and that they should seriously consider what he is saying. From giving up the divisive preferences, to how they practice the Lord's Table, to their seeking after certain gifts, to how they run their meetings, to the significance of the Lord's return and our receiving of a new body in resurrection. Even in the discussion of the man who was openly engaged in serious sexual sin. In no case did Paul demand their obedience. He did not suggest that their salvation was on the line or their status as a church. Instead, he pleaded and reasoned with them on each point.

I do think that point #2 — that they make themselves less necessary — is a nuanced point. At some level, they will never be unnecessary. And there are at least 2 reasons for this.

First, unless the church ceases to increase and all die away, there will always be some (all?) who will need help in their next steps on their way to the full-grown man that is spoken of in the scripture. Despite our increased abilities through significant literacy to somewhat self-feed in spiritual terms, unless we are able to avoid all worldly needs — jobs, families, etc. — most of us will always require some amount of spiritual direction. Yes, there was one place where John said we had no need that anyone teach us. But even in saying that, John was teaching and the understanding of that passage as a complete dismissal of teachers of the word is far beyond what I can only suggest is the obvious intent.

Second, there are many who have assessed the claim by some, such as Nee and Lee, that Paul was saying that the "big E" evangelist was simply there to create a lot of "little e" evangelists, and so on, and have found it wanting. Instead, they are of the general opinion that the entire life of the Christian should be "works of ministry" and that the notion that there are certain activities that are ministry and others that are not is incorrect. So even for the more seasoned Christian, there will always be the need for growth in whatever our aspects of ministry are that arise in doing our jobs, driving our cars, interacting in the marketplace, and so on. And we will not simply be doing it on our own. Evangelists do not create evangelists. They do the basics of bringing converts into the flock in starting the building process. Pastors (shepherds) take care of the flock, leading them to better pastures, tending to their wounds, and so forth. Teachers (not just what the pithy saying implies — those who cannot do) are there to continue our education and training. Each of these is always important to even the most well-developed among us. It is like the top professional golfers who continually learn from others who could not beat them in any round of the game.

The examples are not complete. But I think they make the point. Those that God supplies for our benefit will always be there. Just like the original disciples who were slowly replaced by others as they died, there are always those God calls and sends to us. We do well to see them and give them the proper respect they are due. Not as if some kind of authoritarian, but as authorities on their "subjects." As helpers on our journey of life.

But their part is not as governing officials or even local beat cops. They are servants to us to help us along the way. They may bring light to our failures and suggest what is necessary for correction. They may even reprove us at times. But never like the leaders of the world.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

While I am sure that I disagree in small parts here and there, the overall approach of Matt's premise seems sound.

I think that the real problem is the view of people as to what the "positions" are for. And for the most part, the Ephesians passage lays that out most clearly. They are called and given tasks for the purpose of helping the rest of us attain what Christ has commanded. In that sense, they do stand-in for God/Christ. But not so much as authorities, but as helpers.

Yes, they do have a kind of authority. But it is the authority of what they have learned that we have not learned, not an authority of hierarchical control, such as a government or military position.

That various positions and some amount of authority exists among the brothers is not issue to me, e.g., Eph. 4. Local Church leadership, through WLee has usurped whatever godly authority that exists as their own personal authority. They lord it over believers and demand absolute obedience. Hence, Matt's point: "The authority from God wielded by believers is not fully transferred to believers. They do not get to take ownership of the authority in the same manner as a Government Authority with a Citizen or with a Parent with a Child. ..." Each "position" in the LC seems to contain some degree of "delegated authority", increasing each step up the heirarchy.

And to underscore the point of what kind of authority they have, I like to look at Paul in a different way. And there is no better place to look at it than in his first letter to the Corinthians. In that letter, he tells them a lot. But he does in in a way of pleading with them coupled with a lot of discussion of the reasons that he is saying what he is saying and that they should seriously consider what he is saying. ...

I never heard pleading or "discussion". What I heard was "take it or leave...you rebel."

I do think that point #2 — that they make themselves less necessary — is a nuanced point. At some level, they will never be unnecessary. And there are at least 2 reasons for this.

There is a difference between "less necessary" and "unnecessary". Matt did not indicate that those "in authority" would become unnecessary at some point. However, in a family, as the family ages and grows, eventually as I experienced with my own parents, I became the caregiver to my parents as they aged. This had nothing to do with position or authority, but I became "equipped" to care for my parents as well as younger, growing, family members.

As believers mature, they have less need of apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers but the believers grow into the roles or position/s of "helpers" as they mature.

I believe this is akin to your next point...

First, unless the church ceases to increase and all die away, there will always be some (all?) who will need help in their next steps on their way to the full-grown man that is spoken of in the scripture. Despite our increased abilities through significant literacy to somewhat self-feed in spiritual terms, unless we are able to avoid all worldly needs — jobs, families, etc. — most of us will always require some amount of spiritual direction. Yes, there was one place where John said we had no need that anyone teach us. But even in saying that, John was teaching and the understanding of that passage as a complete dismissal of teachers of the word is far beyond what I can only suggest is the obvious intent.
...
The examples are not complete. But I think they make the point. Those that God supplies for our benefit will always be there. Just like the original disciples who were slowly replaced by others as they died, there are always those God calls and sends to us. We do well to see them and give them the proper respect they are due. Not as if some kind of authoritarian, but as authorities on their "subjects." As helpers on our journey of life.

But their part is not as governing officials or even local beat cops. They are servants to us to help us along the way. They may bring light to our failures and suggest what is necessary for correction. They may even reprove us at times. But never like the leaders of the world.

"The real work of the most notable gifted ones is to make themselves less necessary." ... rather than swing the "delegated authority" bat, the gifted ones pass along their gift.

I think we are mostly on the same page.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

I never heard pleading or "discussion". What I heard was "take it or leave...you rebel."

I think that you are correct that we are mostly on the same page. And my point was never to diminish anything about the wanton leadership of the LC, but to point to the kind of leadership that Paul displayed (as demonstrated by the first letter to the Corinthians). I only bring it up because the way you quoted me then responded with that one sentence seemed to imply that I had somehow defended the LC leadership rather than pointed to an alternative to their errant ways. I know you didn't mean that. But to just read it (as someone else) I felt it needed clarification.

But I think that the true leadership of character and wisdom of the gifts provided to the church never significantly diminishes. It may seem less necessary to us because we might find ourselves less lacking each time we return to them. But I suspect that if we were to decide they were no longer necessary to us, we might soon find ourselves in greater need of them than we suspect.

Just an observation based on the results of people who have become removed from any kind of structure of submission and need. The leadership of the LC is a massive example. But look at other Christian leaders over the past years. Thinking that any of us have risen above the need for others to shepherd us, teach us, etc., is the road to failure.