Authority and Submission

[KSA]

"Minister of the Age" teaching is just a particular application of LC view on the authority and submission in the church. My believe is that LC view on authority undermines the headship of Christ. According to the Word, there is not authority in church but the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Word. Any authority in the church is derived from the Word and the Spirit. Any leader that goes against the Word and the Spirit loses his authority.

[OBW]

KSA,

While I generally agree with the notion that it is not something human that is the authority but rather the Holy Spirit, it would appear that Acts 15 shows something of the authority of the church.

But that authority was not something presumed, but was the result of an interaction between a group of believers and the Holy Spirit. I think that this was what Jesus was speaking when he said he would build his church and that he gave the “keys.”

While I have not done original research, I have found others who indicate that the “keys,” binding and loosing, even fulfilling and destroying the law were terms well understood by the disciples as “tools of the trade” of the Jewish religious leaders and teachers of the law, rabbis, etc. They sought to properly live the law (fulfill it) rather than live contrary to it (destroy it). They would bind (deny) or loose (allow) consistent with their understanding of scripture applied to real life. That is exactly what that council did in Acts 15.

In that manner, there is authority in the church. For centuries we have seen abuse of this granting of authority in the RCC, and now more recently in the LC. The answer is not every man for himself. As individuals, our clarity concerning any “word” from the Holy Spirit is suspect. But in Biblical community, in the church, there is a place for testing of our private considerations. In Acts, one might have decided that the answer was more severe than what was actually recorded. Another might have thought, just leave them alone. (We might agree with that today). But these men joined in prayer and consideration, then put aside their personal preference for the sense of the group from their deliberations. It seemed good to both them and the Holy Spirit. And they ate some crow in the process. They were effectively admitting that they had not acted righteously toward their Gentile brothers.

Unfortunately, that is not what we see from the LC. It is about subservience to another human based on some notion of spiritual superiority. Their goals are not the furtherance of the growth of their flocks, but the perpetuation of their system which grants them authority and pays their salaries. They deflect criticism at all costs. The Gentiles might have been quarantined if they had dared to send that letter to Anaheim instead of Jerusalem.

[Peter Debelak]

This post is based on the premise that the Bible teaches that there is such a things as human-weilded "spritual authority" (a premise I'm more than happy to examine later).

If we assume there is spritual human authority in the Word, my question is this:

Does the authority reside in a person as a status or does it reside in a person only to the extent that his acts conform to God's will?

The difference between the two is revealed when we consider where our personal accountability resides. Nee seemed to take the position that authority resides in a status - such that, so long as an authority (who held a status) told you to do something, you did it. And, if what you did was contrary to God's will, the "authority" would be accountable and you would not. The difference is tested by the question: is it even possible for an individual believer to have a genuine leading from the Lord that contradicts the will of the "authority" who is purportedly above him? I would say that, if the Scripture teaches that authority resides in a status, then the answer is "No, God would not give an individual a leading which contradicts his appointed authority"

The authority that resided in Paul seems more like that of a status - i.e. he was an "apostle" by designation. Elders who were "appointed" by an apostle clearly have authority which resides in their status.

But that doesn't necessarily answer the question for us today, where their are no Scripture-confirmed, God-ordained apostles.

Human authority which the Scripture discusses is certainly based upon "status" - husbands, parents, the state, etc... These are God-ordained relationships and authority resides in a status. You obey the authority regardless of whether you think they are "right". E.g. If you are a slave, you obey your master, even if slavery is wrong; or you pay your taxes, even if they are being used to fund a war you disagree with etc...

But do these principles of human authority translate into spiritual principels of authority? Or is it a false analogy?

Thoughts?

Peter

[TLFisher]

I came across the following verse:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Now to tie this into what Peter was saying, which authority is being discussed by the author of Hebrews?
Is it spiritual authority or something more?

Terry

[djohnson]

I would say that historically the RC and EO relate authority to status and position. The LC follows in this pattern. The Reformation was really not about justification by faith per se. There was bigger issue behind it i.e. by what authority is Luther and the other Reformers teaching this? What is their basis for legitimization if it conflicts with the established "spiritual" authority in "the church". The basis was clarified at Worms: the Scriptures and the conscience.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Terry

I came across the following verse:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Now to tie this into what Peter was saying, which authority is being discussed by the author of Hebrews?
Is it spiritual authority or something more?

Terry

Terry,

Good verse. From the context of that chapter in Hebrews - in which the author is giving a wide range of admonitions for our lives, this reference to "authority" could either be human or spiritual. The NASB translates part of the verse as "They keep watch over your souls" - which might indicate more of a spiritual authority (although, in the LC theology, the verse would then read "They keep watch over your spirit" - in which case "over your souls" means this verse is refering to secular authority.) Anyone know the Greek on this?

Another verse which I think relates: "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; {13} And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves."(1 Th 5:12 -13 KJV - just in case Steward is here...).

Here, it seems odd that Paul would admonish the Thessilonians to "know them which labor amoung you" - as in, "take note of who they are" if "authority" resided in a status - since, there would be no question of who the "leaders" or "authorities" were in such a case.

Just more food for thought. But here's my real question:

Is there anything in the "submit to authority" verses which conveys something more than "submit to one another in reverence for CHrist"? (Eph. 5:21?

Peter

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here, it seems odd that Paul would admonish the Thessilonians to "know them which labor amoung you" - as in, "take note of who they are" if "authority" resided in a status - since, there would be no question of who the "leaders" or "authorities" were in such a case.

Just more food for thought. But here's my real question:

Is there anything in the "submit to authority" verses which conveys something more than "submit to one another in reverence for CHrist"? (Eph. 5:21?

Peter

Peter,
"to know them which labor amoung you", could that be not only those who serve through appointment or coordination to carry out a work, but those who have no appointment and no affiliation, but are burdened before the Lord which he or she may be pressed to pursue?

My comment on your second point, the answer is not so simple. The matter of submitting is a matter of the will. We can submit to one another in reverence for Christ. What can muddy the equation, is our fallen adamic man. If we sense alternative agendas other than Christ on the matter of "submit to authority", we have reservation in submitting. In the past there have been brothers who have outwardly resisted "submitting" while others just go along. I wouldn't consider going along as submitting, because the will has not submitted. I see it as a passive resistance to submission.
Truthfully the matter of submitting is something I need more clarity on.

Terry Fisher

[YP0534]

Quickly, now, where's that padlock??


My sense is that God's authority rests where it needs to in order to accomplish God's purpose at the moment. It appears somewhat like a status because it abides on the mature and the stable among us.

Paul fallen away into sin would not have remained the apostle we know.

He was an apostle because he was faithful.


(P.S. Definitely need more smilies at some point but, please, not the one with the automatic weaponry...)

[djohnson]

My observation is that most people want to follow leadership that has sufficient gravitas. Once people discover that their leaders are superficial lightweights any credibility they had crumbles.

The bible does teach us to follow those that lead but with multiple qualifiers. Obviously we do not follow those that violate the Scriptures or our conscience or do not have the character to be leaders as described in the Scriptures. Those who do follow leaders who violate the Scriptures and their conscience can easily become shipwrecked in the faith.

[Old Rasputin]

For me to follow any leadership, I need to respect not only the leader, but understand and share the goals to which they are leading me.

[Only by Grace]

The congregations I've attended have been elder led, with elders rising from the ranks when the biblical qualifications have been fulfilled. They are usually recognized, and then appointed by the congregation/other elders...not by a vote, but by rather an "absence of objections" based on biblical qualifications. As far as I know, they've never lorded their "authority" over the rest of us. One congregation where I attended, the elders were really pretty weak, and were "yes men" to the pastor. (I ended up leaving that church for that very reason.) But, the other congregations have had strong elders who were spiritually mature, able to teach, gentle and yet strong, wise. I have watched a couple of very fine men remove themselves from their elder status when they, themselves, felt no longer "qualified" to serve in that capacity...usually because of teenage children who went astray while under their care. So, even leaders who don't "go against the Word and the Spirit" (as KSA stated), can and should lose their spiritual authority when they no longer fit the description found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Agreed?

Maybe in my small circle of churches I've attended, I've missed something out there -- even though our elders govern the affairs of our congregation, and provide spiritual advice and leadership, I don't think anyone really thinks they are the "bosses" to whom we have to "submit." Rather, they are respected men who serve and lead and who we "follow" as they follow Christ. I see their role as helping us grow in our relationship with God rather than bossing us around, laying down edicts, etc. I have always felt responsible to Christ Jesus, first...and would not attend a congregation if the elders were missing the mark in a big way.


~gracie

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

For me to follow any leadership, I need to respect not only the leader, but understand and share the goals to which they are leading me.

Old Rasputin, on the topic of leadership and respect I feel there are different levels of respect. It's easy to respect a leader out of position and function. To respect a leader as a brother is defined by how sensitive situations are handed.
Whether or not the leader takes time to know the individuals involved in situations and the situations itself without relying on someone else's speaking.

Even if we as brothers and sisters come to respect a leader by their direction and how situations are handled, they are still men prone to err and our submission to them is according to their authority in Christ.

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

Maybe in my small circle of churches I've attended, I've missed something out there -- even though our elders govern the affairs of our congregation, and provide spiritual advice and leadership, I don't think anyone really thinks they are the "bosses" to whom we have to "submit." Rather, they are respected men who serve and lead and who we "follow" as they follow Christ. I see their role as helping us grow in our relationship with God rather than bossing us around, laying down edicts, etc. I have always felt responsible to Christ Jesus, first...and would not attend a congregation if the elders were missing the mark in a big way.


~gracie

Amen, Gracie!

To my perception, the New Testament example that looms largest in the minds of Local Church people is this:

Acts 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it.

6 And the young men arose and wrapped him round, and they carried him out and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 But Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to try the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them that have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out.

10 And she fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost: and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things.

They figure that this kind of awesome display of power will exist in the proper "local church" and, especially since it touches the core issue of funding for their activities, they are nearly obsessed with being "right" enough for this sort of thing to be possibly manifested among them.

Like I said, this is according to my perception.

But essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

Amen. I would only add that in the local church parlance the appearence of control is smoothed out by using the royal "we". As in "The feeling in the Body is that we all need to jump." Everybody who's been in for more than two days knows exactly what this means.

[aron]

I would like to add something about the 'gavitas' that djohnson speaks about. In every congregation I meet in it seems there are at least a few 'elder sister prayer warriors' that I always seem to gravitate to. You know, grey hair, short, thick, always smiling. In one fellowship I would wander off for six months and when I stopped in this particular sister would greet me, beaming, "There you are! I've been praying for you!"

They mean business. The world holds little attraction to them. Like Anna the prophetess, every day they are in the temple, serving the Lord. I always like to be friendly with them so they add me to thier 'prayer list'. Perhaps that seems selfish but I use this example as what, for me, it means to lead in the church, and what it means for me to be in authority. When these sisters pray, it gets done.

I respect outward position, which is basically the 'will of the people' putting someone into a role: pastor, minister, elder, deacon, youth leader, etc. But to me that gravitas, that spiritual weight, that I am attracted to and submit to, is the result of a walk with God, a walk that has deposited the weight of heavenly gold into a frail earthen vessel. When I use the word 'submit to' I don't use it in the worldly way of 'obey the commands from' but rather in the spiritual way of 'align myself with a particular spiritual flow'. Hope that is precise enough.

Interesting, because in my youth, as a rough and tough American male I wasn't too impressed with 'little old ladies'...now that I have been down the road a pace or two my impression is the exact opposite! I may be dull, but I do recognize spiritual authority when I see it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting, because in my youth, as a rough and tough American male I wasn't too impressed with 'little old ladies'...now that I have been down the road a pace or two my impression is the exact opposite! I may be dull, but I do recognize spiritual authority when I see it.

I remember hearing a teaching among the Local Church people once that stated that the Lord's authority could be found with the sisters when the situation was degraded. I sure don't know a verse for that and I'm not interested here in debating it.

I'll leave it to Thankful, perhaps, to shred that up and shed some light on it as far as a doctrine goes, but, to my observation, I saw a lot of this in reality among them.

In other words, I observed a lot of sisters solidly and quietly laboring in the Lord for their families and all the saints and it was really pretty obvious to me where the real authority was, although someone else had a title and a position that they were the ones in charge.

I don't know if that necessarily meant that it was a degraded situation or not but where would that leave them under their own doctrine?

If their was even such a teaching.

I don't recall this one very clearly being spoken by anyone in particular, so maybe I just dreamed it.

[Thankful Jane]

I think in general we have the whole idea of authority and submission upside down.

Because of the worldly culture when we hear the words “leaders”, “authority,” “submission” we automatically think in terms of a top-down scenario. This is actually satanic authority and the bible uses the words “lording over” to refer to it.

Biblical authority is another animal altogether. It’s bottoms up authority. The one with the greatest authority is the one bearing the greatest responsibility for those he loves. He is underneath them in order to serve them.

In earthly pictures, a parent has God-given authority for the benefit of their children so they can protect and nurture them, not so they can sit on some kind of parent throne and brandish a sword of authority over their underling children, commanding them to do their bidding. The parent has to bear the children over a long period of time with a labor of longsuffering and patient love, not thinking about their own selfish benefit, welfare or happiness, but about that of their children. They have to pay the price to teach by example.

A husband has God-given authority in a marriage, not so he can bind his wife’s feet and cause her to shuffle along behind him (no cultural offense meant, just a good word picture) but so he can lay down his life, if necessary, for his wife whom he is told to love as Christ loved the church by giving Himself for her.

This is what it means for a man to rule his house well.

True authority and submission is seen in what Christ did on the cross. He had the authority to lay his life down or to save it. He submitted completely and willingly to His Father’s will. He used his authority to lay his life down for us, to submit to our killing hands without calling down fire on us, and as a result He saved us and demonstrated God’s love for us tangibly.

It is easy to submit to someone who loves like this. That is how Jesus won our love and submission. The more I see Him as He really is, the more I love Him and call Him my Lord, and the more I can live toward others as He did. After all, we are all called to submit to one another in love.

When men take up positions as representatives of God to people, they had best first have learned from the crucified Christ, as Paul did, what true authority is. If instead they sling around words like “spiritual authority” and “submission” using them as weapons over God’s people to subdue them, they will be found guilty of misrepresenting God--as if He was some kind of a cruel overlord. In so doing, they will be heaping up judgment unto themselves.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I think in general we have the whole idea of authority and submission upside down.

Because of the worldly culture when we hear the words “leaders”, “authority,” “submission” we automatically think in terms of a top-down scenario. This is actually satanic authority and the bible uses the words “lording over” to refer to it.

Biblical authority is another animal altogether. It’s bottoms up authority. The one with the greatest authority is the one bearing the greatest responsibility for those he loves. He is underneath them in order to serve them.

The Lord's example was to wash the feet of the disciples.

PROPOSED RULE FOR ALL FUTURE APPLICANTS FOR MINISTER OF THE AGE:
You must wash 1,000 pairs of feet BEFORE you can set up a publishing company.

[Suannehill]

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. Titus wrote a couple of books for sisters, practical and down to earth. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.
This is just my opinion...but I saw those sisters in Mansfield rise up in rebellion...they had absolutely no respect for spiritual authority. They only wanted their way. And their way matched Benson's...now there's a match, eh?
Anyway, I kept encouraging them to go back to the books on spiritual authority, because there is an authority in all of creation. Authority is position. The top branch of the tree has a higher position than those close to the ground. Not better, just different. Each branch functions in it's position. The top has nothing to Lord over, or humiliate. It is simply on top.
Sue

[Cal]

I don't buy a lot of the WN/WN authority and submission argument.

This is the way I look at authority. If you are going to join a group, then you should respect the order in that group. If you can't, for whatever reason good or bad, then don't make a big fuss, and perhaps the answer (which might very well be fully of the Lord) is to move on.

I believe the pastors of my church should be respected. But I don't believe they have authority in the way Nee/Lee taught it. God asks me to respect the role he has given them. If I cannot handle that then I need to come to grips with why. If the why is God, perhaps I need to confront them in a respectable way. Or perhaps I just need to move on. All as the Lord leads. But blessed are the peacemakers.

But the idea that someone's "authority" looms, e.g. WL's or an elder's, over me wherever I go, like an umbrella, is, I believe, a false teaching that usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful position.

This is one of the gnarly problems with the one-church-one-city belief as practiced by the LCs. It gives way too much power to so-called local elders--effectively giving them authority over every Christian in the city. I think this idea is absurd and indefensible.

A corollary to this is the manifest weakness in the so-called practicality of the local ground doctrine. You can argue all you want that there is one church in the city. But none of that proves or can ever prove that a certain set of men are the elders of that church.

In fact, there is no way to determine who the elders of the one church in a city (if there is indeed such a thing) are. Who they are is entirely speculation. Which brings us back to the practical necessity of voluntary cooperation with the order of the particular group in which you find yourself, rather than some insistance on absolute submission to a set of elders whose ostensive position is assumed rather than proved. Absolute submission to an assumption is foolish.

Originally Posted by Suannehill

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. Titus wrote a couple of books for sisters, practical and down to earth. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.
This is just my opinion...but I saw those sisters in Mansfield rise up in rebellion...they had absolutely no respect for spiritual authority. They only wanted their way. And their way matched Benson's...now there's a match, eh?
Anyway, I kept encouraging them to go back to the books on spiritual authority, because there is an authority in all of creation. Authority is position. The top branch of the tree has a higher position than those close to the ground. Not better, just different. Each branch functions in it's position. The top has nothing to Lord over, or humiliate. It is simply on top.
Sue

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

My experience is that Authority and Submission as taught by WN was a very scriptural thing. However, it gets a little muddy in LSM practice, because I believe a great deal of the teaching had cultural roots that were backed with scripture. In other words, the culture dictated the practice, and scripture was used to back them up.

This is the ultimate mixture of leaven -- using the scripture to support cultural practices -- especially when they create nearly unlimited centralized power in one man -- doesn't this current scenario help to explain the formation of the Roman Papal system of old -- in an ancient culture which for centuries considered Caesar as God.

As others have written, the scriptural "power" to enforce these errant concepts of "deputy authority and submission" lie mainly in the story of Noah/Ham and secondarily in the story of Ananias/Sapphira. These continually reinforced the "fear of God" in all the saints.

The "curse of Ham" (or better Canaan, and Nigel did address this topic) was one of the most powerful control devices ever taught in the Recovery -- an entire race of blacks for just a few laughs at the drunken old man. I know I am being a little crude here for effect, but couldn't this be considered the "bottom line." Herein lies the problem -- what if one day I inadvertently "blow a little cold wind" of heartfelt "concern" about the direction things were going, I might be cursed forever.

For many years I remained silent under the effects of this warning. Most of the reason for my silence was godly fear. I was also genuinely ignorant of most things, and even part of that was my choice. LC leadership received the ultimate "free pass" in my heart and my life. I would still be there except for one thing -- people were getting hurt. The accumulation of "hurts" finally caught up to me. But how little did I really know! How much had been hidden away! How many more precious ones had been hurt in all the cover-ups!

The "curse of Ham" needs some serious balance in the leadership of the LC's. The program is skewed to the extreme. Actually I could "cover up" a few "drunken bouts" in Anaheim. Everybody has a bad day or two. Drinking too much wine in the privacy of your own "tent" is not an impeachable offense. Not a good habit, but understandable, all things considered ... but LC leadership has "cloaked" itself with this "curse" of protection far too long.

If the "curse of Ham" were so "God-ordained," then why didn't God Himself honor it with the case of David and Bathsheba? Couldn't David be considered the "acting God" of that age?

An equally troubling point is to consider how many consciences have been damaged and compromised over the years in the LC's by those who could not speak up as Nathan did, and rather remained silent and "one with the ministry."

[Old Rasputin]

This is the way I look at authority. If you are going to join a group, then you should respect the order in that group. If you can't, for whatever reason good or bad, then don't make a big fuss, and perhaps the answer (which might very well be fully of the Lord) is to move on.

I believe the pastors of my church should be respected. But I don't believe they have authority in the way Nee/Lee taught it. God asks me to respect the role he has given them. If I cannot handle that then I need to come to grips with why. If the why is God, perhaps I need to confront them in a respectable way. Or perhaps I just need to move on. All as the Lord leads. But blessed are the peacemakers.

I agree with this. Most authority should be looked at from a practical, orderly perspective. Romans 13 says cops are God's authority. All that means is that I pull over when they turn on the siren. To help me with this, they are willing to throw me in jail if I don't comply. When authority becomes over-spiritualized it can become dangerous. Igzy said it better than me:

But the idea that someone's "authority" looms, e.g. WL's or an elder's, over me wherever I go, like an umbrella, is, I believe, a false teaching that usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful position.

This is one of the gnarly problems with the one-church-one-city belief as practiced by the LCs. It gives way too much power to so-called local elders--effectively giving them authority over every Christian in the city. I think this idea is absurd and indefensible.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For many years I remained silent under the effects of this warning. Most of the reason for my silence was godly fear. I was also genuinely ignorant of most things, and even part of that was my choice. LC leadership received the ultimate "free pass" in my heart and my life. I would still be there except for one thing -- people were getting hurt. The accumulation of "hurts" finally caught up to me. But how little did I really know! How much had been hidden away! How many more precious ones had been hurt in all the cover-ups!

The "curse of Ham" needs some serious balance in the leadership of the LC's. The program is skewed to the extreme. Actually I could "cover up" a few "drunken bouts" in Anaheim. Everybody has a bad day or two. Drinking too much wine in the privacy of your own "tent" is not an impeachable offense. Not a good habit, but understandable, all things considered ... but LC leadership has "cloaked" itself with this "curse" of protection far too long.

If the "curse of Ham" were so "God-ordained," then why didn't God Himself honor it with the case of David and Bathsheba? Couldn't David be considered the "acting God" of that age?

An equally troubling point is to consider how many consciences have been damaged and compromised over the years in the LC's by those who could not speak up as Nathan did, and rather remained silent and "one with the ministry."

A man in any kind of position of authority who has a wrong understanding of what authority is and how it is applied can make life a living hell for those over whom that man thinks he has such authority. If he happens to believe he has spiritual authoriy, and if those whom he is "over" think likewise, then he can crush their precious souls, souls that Jesus died to set free from such tyranny, and never even blink an eye, believing he is serving God. God's authority is a great thing and exists only for the benefit of all. Whoever claims that he possesses God's authority and acts accordingly is a deceived man. Whoever folllows such a man will suffer loss.

Brother Lee went on to say, "You cannot deny the fact that the Lord’s oracle has been with me. I claim this at the face of Jesus Christ. The deputy authority of God is in His oracle; so whoever speaks for God has His deputy authority. But I never used it."

In the elders’ meeting, Brother Lee referred to some anonymous papers being circulated and blamed the elders in Anaheim for not stopping the distribution. He then referred to the flyer which had been printed and was to be put on the windshields of the cars at the conference. I [John Ingalls] then rose from my seat and said that we wanted Brother Lee and all the brothers to know that we fully disapproved of that action and had done whatever we could to stop it. Brother Lee took the opportunity then, while I was on my feet, to question me publicly about a few things. He asked me about an anonymous writing entitled Reconsidering Our Vision. (which had troubled him greatly) and if we had done anything to stop its circulation. I said that we had not.

Regarding some brothers, probably including me (or, especially me), Brother Lee said, Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in, what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you. He said further, Which church is under my hand? You have a church; I have none. I know which church welcomes me, and which has a cold heart toward me.

Near the end of his word he proclaimed, I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care. I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth.

When he sat down and asked for fellowship, a brother from Anaheim, Paul Kerr, rose toward the end of the time and asked two questions. The first consisted of two queries: Why have other brothers besides you not been raised up? And, Why do you have no contemporaries to challenge you and fellowship with you?

Brother Lee’s answer was simply, "I don’t know." And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none. Paul Kerr’s next question concerned John So and John Ingalls. He asked, "How is it that in the past you referred to these two brothers as pillars and today’s Timothy, and today you have nothing good to say about them? Brother Lee’s reply was that brothers can change. Demas loved the Lord, but then he changed and loved the world. I can change, he said; we all can change. So we all need the Lord’s mercy.

Brother Lee was beside himself in this meeting. I had never personally observed him in such a state as I witnessed him there. He was obviously exceedingly agitated. That was the last elders’ meeting with Brother Lee that I ever attended. (from Speaking the Truth in Love by John Ingalls).

This is the state of a man nearing the end of his ministry and life who clearly did not understand what God's authority was. He was on an ego trip of immense proportions fueled by the powers of darkness. Having sat under this man's ministry and come under the soul crushing hand of his authority beliefs through those he trained, I have to say to people who love God, never fall into the trap of thinking of of yourself in terms of authority and never buy the idea that you are called to treat any other man as if he was the voice of God to you. This is a great evil.

We are called to have one King. If we submit to another as if he was God's voice to us, we are actually rejecting God as our King... and that is a serious thing.

Thankful

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

This is the state of a man nearing the end of his ministry and life who clearly did not understand what God's authority was. He was on an ego trip of immense proportions fueled by the powers of darkness. Having sat under this man's ministry and come under the soul crushing hand of his authority beliefs through those he trained, I have to say to people who love God, never fall into the trap of thinking of of yourself in terms of authority and never buy the idea that you are called to treat any other man as if he was the voice of God to you. This is a great evil.

We are called to have one King. If we submit to another as if he was God's voice to us, we are actually rejecting God as our King... and that is a serious thing.

Thankful

Jane, I would say late in Witness Lee's ministry there was an uplifting of a man and his ministry. The real danger that existed was a gifted brother who was partially filled in His spirit, yet promoted as a modern-day apostle Paul; as a brother filled completely in his spirit. It was expected to be submitted to unconditionally. The quote:

"I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care. I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth. "

summed up what happens when we submit and give authority to a brother or brothers that aren't completely filled in spirit. What happens instead is following a brother or brothers according to their soul.

Terry

[Cal]

Terry,

How do you know whether someone is "partially" or "fully" filled in his or her spirit. (I've never heard these terms before, so I can only imagine what you mean.)

I submit you most likely can't know, so you shouldn't "unconditionally submit" to anyone, ever.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Terry,

How do you know whether someone is "partially" or "fully" filled in his or her spirit. (I've never heard these terms before, so I can only imagine what you mean.)

I submit you most likely can't know, so you shouldn't "unconditionally submit" to anyone, ever.

Igzy, how would you know? Whichis why one should not unconditionally submit. Rather couldn't one go along with the speaking of a brother, just has long their speaking is confirmed by what the Bible teaches us?
Conversely when their speaking is contrary to the Bible is when one should not go along with the speaking of a brother.

Terry

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy, how would you know? Whichis why one should not unconditionally submit. Rather couldn't one go along with the speaking of a brother, just has long their speaking is confirmed by what the Bible teaches us?
Conversely when their speaking is contrary to the Bible is when one should not go along with the speaking of a brother.

Terry

Terry,

Agreeing that a brother's speaking is according to the Bible is far different than unconditionally submitting to him.

And even if you do submit, you're not submitting to him, you're submitting to the Word. The point to realize is that he is not the Bible, no matter how accurating he quotes it or interprets it.

But again, were you implying that we could know whether someone is fully or partially filled in their spirit?

[djohnson]

The dimension has to be added that in the LCS they are not asking you to submit to the Word they are asking you to submit to Lee's interpretation of the Word as the official interpretation and the only correct interpretation because any different interpretation = the person giving it is not "holding the Head" i.e. to accept and promote Lee's interpretation = holding the Head.

In this situation I really don't see much material difference in just admitting that they view Lee as the Head of the Body and the real Head at best is a mere ceremonial figurehead.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Terry,

Agreeing that a brother's speaking is according to the Bible is far different than unconditionally submitting to him.

And even if you do submit, you're not submitting to him, you're submitting to the Word. The point to realize is that he is not the Bible, no matter how accurating he quotes it or interprets it.

But again, were you implying that we could know whether someone is fully or partially filled in their spirit?

Igzy by no means was I implying anything. Would it help to say if a brother's speaking doesn't line up according to the Bible, is a lucid indication he's speaking according to his soul and not according to his spirit.

Terry

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy by no means was I implying anything. Would it help to say if a brother's speaking doesn't line up according to the Bible, is a lucid indication he's speaking according to his soul and not according to his spirit.Terry

Dear Terry,

Why not just forget about trying to say whether someone's speaking is according to his soul or according to his spirit? What's the point?

How about just simply saying the speaking doesn't line up with the Bible? It is possible to determine this more objectively. Determining where someone is speakng from is way too subjective and is a waste of thought processes. Why do we need to think or talk like this?

If you want to get some strange looks, ask any believer (who wasn't taught by Lee), "Is that person speaking from their soul or their spirit?" If you want to get a meaningful answer, just ask them if the speaking lines up with the Bible.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Didn't we used to be able to delete our own posts, Admin?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

If you want to get a meaningful answer, just ask them if the speaking lines up with the Bible.

Jane,

I would agree. While it may take some leading of the Spirit to initially see something from scripture, once you think you have something, it should be objectively consistent with scripture. Therefore, the seeing for others should be less difficult since the pathway has been found.

But that pathway needs to be there in the scripture, not just in an extra-scriptural overlay. This is why so much of Lee’s teachings are being rejected in hindsight. If you reject the overlay as being inconsistent with scripture, then the place that overlay took the scripture is also suspect, if not clearly incorrect.

How often do we suddenly see something in scriptures that we have read many times in our lives, but having seen it, find it impossible to miss and others who then look at those scriptures also see the same thing after you speak of your revelation. Other times, we may think we see something, but others are unable to see it. In those cases, it may be relevant to you, but without that revelation becoming apparent to others, it can hardly be called a clear teaching of scripture. That is what Peter was talking about when he said what he did about private revelation/interpretation (don’t have the verse in front of me).

We may not be able to discern whether the one teaching us is filled with the Spirit with respect to his utterances, but we can determine whether the place he attempts to take scripture is consistent with that scripture. In this way it is reasonable to say that it is ultimately the church that determines the meaning of scripture and not the individual. I’m not suggesting that the meaning of scripture is subject to a vote of the congregation, but do contend that the revelation that one thinks he receives is then confirmed or called to question by a larger consideration in concert with the Holy Spirit.

I think this is even consistent with a reading of the account of the giving of the keys of the Kingdom to the church rather than just to Peter. The ultimate authority was not to one person, but to a group. Even if you contend that it was not to the church at large, it was at least to the disciples in general. This is how the record in Acts 15 came about. They were faced with the inconsistency of demanding old Jewish rituals of gentile believers. Together they determined to change. They did not yet have Paul’s writings to consider, but they considered their decision to be consistent with what they heard of Christ and of the Holy Spirit speaking within the group.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is the way I look at authority. If you are going to join a group, then you should respect the order in that group. If you can't, for whatever reason good or bad, then don't make a big fuss, and perhaps the answer (which might very well be fully of the Lord) is to move on.

I believe the pastors of my church should be respected. But I don't believe they have authority in the way Nee/Lee taught it. God asks me to respect the role he has given them. If I cannot handle that then I need to come to grips with why. If the why is God, perhaps I need to confront them in a respectable way. Or perhaps I just need to move on. All as the Lord leads. But blessed are the peacemakers.

I don't disagree with this view outright. I only disagree with it when it is next to a view that I must be in a particular group in order to be right with God (as a matter of doctrine, not personal conviction for the Lord). When I am required to remain in a group, then the authority problems come in. When I am free to leave, according to my conscience, then I have no problem with the view that leaders should be respected and submitted to within the sphere of their organization.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't disagree with this view outright. I only disagree with it when it is next to a view that I must be in a particular group in order to be right with God (as a matter of doctrine, not personal conviction for the Lord). When I am required to remain in a group, then the authority problems come in. When I am free to leave, according to my conscience, then I have no problem with the view that leaders should be respected and submitted to within the sphere of their organization.

Peter,

Then we agree, because that's exactly what I was trying to say.

How can any human being require you to remain in a group, anyway, or say that because you are not in this or that particular group you are at odds with the Church? How insane is that? Yet, this is what our LSM friends do.

[djohnson]

The very idea that there is only one legit church and admin in a city and every Christian must submit to it is insidious because a person who takes this seriously when convicted in their conscience to leave can become easily shipwrecked in the faith because in leaving the group they think they are somehow displeasing God and leaving Him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by djohnson

The very idea that there is only one legit church and admin in a city and every Christian must submit to it is insidious because a person who takes this seriously when convicted in their conscience to leave can become easily shipwrecked in the faith because in leaving the group they think they are somehow displeasing God and leaving Him.

Yes, dj. It also raises the dilemma of how the church can reform if and when the leadership goes bad. The leadership has complete power and authorization, and the members are just grist for the mill.

[Paul Miletus]

Excerpts from "Authority and Submission" by Watchman Nee:

SUBMISSION BEING ABSOLUTE, BUT OBEDIENCE BEING RELATIVE

Submission is a matter of attitude, but obedience is a matter of conduct. Acts 4:19 says, “But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you judge.” The apostles, however, were not rebellious in their spirit; they were still submitting to all those who were in authority. Obedience is not absolute. Some authorities we have to obey, but others we cannot obey. The latter include those who touch on basic matters of the Christian faith, such as our belief in the Lord and the liberty of preaching the gospel. A son can say anything to his father. But there cannot be any attitude of rebellion. Our submission should always be absolute. In some matters we can be obedient at the same time that we are submissive. In other matters we cannot be obedient, but we still have to remain submissive. All these are a matter of attitude.

Acts 15 is an example of a church conference. In a conference we can suggest or debate. But when the decision is reached, everyone should be submissive.

[KSA]

Hogwash! Apostles were not submitting to the leaders. They submitted to God! And they made it quite clear. It is a false dichotomy between submission and obedience.

submission |səbˈmi sh ən|
noun
1 the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person : they were forced into submission.

obedience |ōˈbēdēəns|
noun
compliance with someone's wishes or orders or acknowledgment of their authority : unquestioning obedience to the commander in chief.
• submission to a law or rule : obedience to moral standards.
• observance of a monastic rule : vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

[KSA]

With all due respect to Watchman Nee, his views on the ministry, difference between wthe church and work, authority and submission were far off the mark.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by KSA

With all due respect to Watchman Nee, his views on the ministry, difference between wthe church and work, authority and submission were far off the mark.

Can you specifically substantiate your claim?

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Can you specifically substantiate your claim?

All in its time Besides, I think Hope is going to touch the matter of the work in his new chapter. It would be a good start.

[Cal]

Watchman Nee's teaching on submission being absolute and obedience being relative are interesting, but it's not supported by the Bible. My belief is that it is mostly a transference of Chinese culture to the Bible, with a bunch of M.E. Barber added.

There's no verse that says submission should be "absolute." In fact, the Bible says "submit to one another." Now, if you are submitting to me and I'm submitting to you how can either submission be "absolute?"

Secondly, I'm not sure how one cannot obey and still be submitting. The concept sounds good but it makes no sense.

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

[djohnson]

Many Christians have been shipwrecked in the faith because of being trapped in systems of absolutism in terms of the leadership. Spiritual leadership is firstly servanthood and secondly any authority attached to it is derivative i.e. the seat of authority is outside the individual and the office they hold. Authority is held by the Lord and His word. But even this has to be qualified further. The individual believer is expected to personally know the word and be able to accept or reject interpretations for themselves. So if a leader thinks he is submitting to the Lord and the word the individual believer does not have to adhere to it if they believe the interpretation is incorrect.

Staying in a church and accepting it's leadership is an act of constant filtering: of all the things taught and done here what we will I accept and what will I reject and on the whole does one outweigh the other? If the accepts outweigh the rejects I stay. If the rejects outweigh the accepts I bid them farewell.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

I respect the ministry of Watchman Nee, but his teachings should be confirmed or rejected when tested and checked against the Bible.

Terry

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Watchman Nee's teaching on submission being absolute and obedience being relative are interesting, but it's not supported by the Bible. My belief is that it is mostly a transference of Chinese culture to the Bible, with a bunch of M.E. Barber added.

There's no verse that says submission should be "absolute." In fact, the Bible says "submit to one another." Now, if you are submitting to me and I'm submitting to you how can either submission be "absolute?"

Secondly, I'm not sure how one cannot obey and still be submitting. The concept sounds good but it makes no sense.

Nee's words are not the Bible, his interpretation is not the Bible either, and his teachings on authority have become a tool for a few to try to control many.

Would you like to try the following Scriptures if God would not want you to submit to authority? Do you think it is alright for you to submit to authority if ever you would like to? Or, will you submit to authority because it is imperative for us to submit to authority? In other words, submission to authority is absolute! Please take note of the word "everyone" and also see an excerpt from Brother Watchman Nee's "Authority and Submission".

Romans 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Romans 13:5
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

God’s children must learn to know authority and find out to whom they should submit. Wherever we go, the first thing we should ask is whose authority should we be under. As soon as we move to a place, we should not expect to be the master, asking others to submit to us. Instead, we should be like the centurion, who told the Lord Jesus, “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me” (Matt. 8:9). Here was a man who truly knew authority. He could submit to authority; therefore, he was able to be a deputy authority himself. We have said that God upholds and maintains the whole universe with His authority. He also begets His children with His authority (John 1:12) and binds them together with His authority. Therefore, if a man is independent, individualistic, and free from any God-appointed deputy authority, he is an outsider as far as God’s administration over the whole universe is concerned. He cannot get along with other children of God, and as such, he cannot accomplish God’s work on earth today. God has established deputy authorities in the church; the church is built up and maintained by the authority of God. For this reason every child of God should look for the authority to whom he should submit so that he can coordinate with others in a proper way. Unfortunately, many people have failed in this point.

[OBW]

Paul,

Wow. We're here talking about the lack of scripture supporting absolute submission to elders, FT workers, the ministry, etc., and you throw out two verses concerning being in submission to the civil government to which you are subject.

Care to stick to the subject?

[Cal]

Paul,

Please explain how you can submit to someone and not obey him. Seems like the so-called "submission" is a farce in that case.

We should honor authorities and submit to them as conscience allows. But when the Lord leads us we have to obey him. Christians should not have a "rebellious spirit," they should honor the authorities. But once you disobey you are not submitting, so submission can never be "absolute." Like I said, it sounds good (actually it doesn't even sound good, but that's another story) but it doesn't ultimately make any sense. Nowhere does the Bible say submission is absolute.

As I said, this is just another teaching which is being leveraged to control people.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Would you like to try the following Scriptures if God would not want you to submit to authority? Do you think it is alright for you to submit to authority if ever you would like to? Or, will you submit to authority because it is imperative for us to submit to authority? In other words, submission to authority is absolute! Please take note of the word "everyone" and also see an excerpt from Brother Watchman Nee's "Authority and Submission".

These verses of Romans which Paul has quoted, are they interpreted to mean secular authority as in city, state, and federal government?

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Terry

These verses of Romans which Paul has quoted, are they interpreted to mean secular authority as in city, state, and federal government?

Terry

That is how they are widely understood and I believe this is correct.

For these verses to apply to one set of believers wielding this kind authority over another, I think you'd have to have LSM issuing swords to the elders and co-workers...

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by OBW

Paul,

Wow. We're here talking about the lack of scripture supporting absolute submission to elders, FT workers, the ministry, etc., and you throw out two verses concerning being in submission to the civil government to which you are subject.

Care to stick to the subject?

How much more you can submit to the church authority if you cannot even submit to the governing authorities or vice versa? The authority in the church as well as in any government comes from God alone as directly revealed in Rom 13:1.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul,

Please explain how you can submit to someone and not obey him. Seems like the so-called "submission" is a farce in that case.

We should honor authorities and submit to them as conscience allows. But when the Lord leads us we have to obey him. Christians should not have a "rebellious spirit," they should honor the authorities. But once you disobey you are not submitting, so submission can never be "absolute." Like I said, it sounds good (actually it doesn't even sound good, but that's another story) but it doesn't ultimately make any sense. Nowhere does the Bible say submission is absolute.

As I said, this is just another teaching which is being leveraged to control people.

There are many examples that you can pick up from the Bible but since you have chosen not to see them it is true that they will be hard to find and digest them.

Anyway, please re-read my earlier post and I am re-posting it right here. Please consider to pray-read the referenced Scriptures for enlightenment.

SUBMISSION BEING ABSOLUTE, BUT OBEDIENCE BEING RELATIVE

Submission is a matter of attitude, but obedience is a matter of conduct. Acts 4:19 says, “But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you judge.” The apostles, however, were not rebellious in their spirit; they were still submitting to all those who were in authority. Obedience is not absolute. Some authorities we have to obey, but others we cannot obey. The latter include those who touch on basic matters of the Christian faith, such as our belief in the Lord and the liberty of preaching the gospel. A son can say anything to his father. But there cannot be any attitude of rebellion. Our submission should always be absolute. In some matters we can be obedient at the same time that we are submissive. In other matters we cannot be obedient, but we still have to remain submissive. All these are a matter of attitude.

Acts 15 is an example of a church conference. In a conference we can suggest or debate. But when the decision is reached, everyone should be submissive.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

How much more you can submit to the church authority if you cannot even submit to the governing authorities or vice versa? The authority in the church as well as in any government comes from God alone as directly revealed in Rom 13:1.

Yes, but, brother Paul, you are assuming the part that you should prove.

You seem to believe that secular rule and "church authority" are somehow related.

I would have to testify to you that this is exactly the error in the Local Church that so many here are really concerned about.

God's authority which exists within the Body is entirely of a different kind from that found in secular governments and organizations, as also is the submission thereto.

Brothers Nee and Lee unfortunately didn't really see this problem for some reason and apparently neither do you. But this is really an essential element of recovery that has been lost since Rome first took charge in erroneously asserting the existence of a "universal church" modeled after and even joined to the secular government of Rome.

I hope you will consider this point more fully.

[Cal]

Paul,

You didn't answer my question. Let's get practical. Please explain how you can disobey someone while still submitting to them. Sorry but that sounds like hyper-spiritual nonsense talk to me, like the infamous sound of one hand clapping. Very Zen-like.

If you cannot explain it, I'm going to have to conclude you don't really know what you are talking about.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Yes, but, brother Paul, you are assuming the part that you should prove.

You seem to believe that secular rule and "church authority" are somehow related.

I would have to testify to you that this is exactly the error in the Local Church that so many here are really concerned about.

God's authority which exists within the Body is entirely of a different kind from that found in secular governments and organizations, as also is the submission thereto.

Brothers Nee and Lee unfortunately didn't really see this problem for some reason and apparently neither do you. But this is really an essential element of recovery that has been lost since Rome first took charge in erroneously asserting the existence of a "universal church" modeled after and even joined to the secular government of Rome.

I hope you will consider this point more fully.

Here's a very famous quote from the Lord Jesus Christ regarding submission to authority:

Matthew 22:21
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ was exempted from the governing authorities in His time and He was only answerable to the heavenly authority?

I believe I am aware of the difference between "secular rule and "church authority" " but we cannot deny the very Word of God:

Romans 13:1
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

The "secular rule and "church authority" " are both established by God. Whether we like it or not our submission to them must be absolute.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul,

You didn't answer my question. Let's get practical. Please explain how you can disobey someone while still submitting to them. Sorry but that sounds like hyper-spiritual nonsense talk to me, like the infamous sound of one hand clapping. Very Zen-like.

If you cannot explain it, I'm going to have to conclude you don't really know what you are talking about.

I find the following excerpts from Brother Watchman Nee's "Authority and Submission" and "The Mystery of Christ" very practical for us to consider regarding our submission to the delegated authority especially in the church.

God wants His authority to be upheld in an absolute way. He has to recover this matter. Look again into 1 Samuel 26. A similar thing happened in the wilderness of Ziph. A second temptation came. Saul fell asleep, and David came into the place where he slept. Abishai wanted to kill Saul, but David forbade him. He swore and said, “Who can stretch forth his hand against Jehovah’s anointed and be guiltless?” This is the second time that David spared Saul. He only took Saul’s spear and water jug (vv. 7-12). This was an improvement from the previous time. He did not take anything from Saul’s body. Instead, he only took something from beside his body. He gave up the chance of saving his own life to submit to and uphold God’s authority.

THE JUDGMENT OF TWO OR THREE BROTHERS

Matthew 18:15-16 is not about whether a person is right or wrong. It is not even about whether a person feels that he is right or wrong. It is about the testimony of two or three brothers. If they say that you are wrong, you are wrong. Therefore, when other brothers say that you are wrong, and you do not feel that you are wrong, you should take their judgment and believe in them more than in yourself. If two or three brothers stand in the name of the Lord and say something to you, you should listen to them.

In the church there are four groups of people representing the Body. They are: (1) the apostles, (2) the elders, (3) those whom the Lord has specially chosen, and (4) two or three believers who deny themselves and who have come under the Lord's name. These four groups of people represent the church. If we are wrong, the Lord will send a believer to us to speak to us about it. If we do not listen to the word of one believer, he will tell two or three other believers. If we still do not listen to their word, we should receive help from the elders. We cannot have any independent actions. For problems that cannot be solved, we should consult the apostles. They are designated by the Lord to represent the Body. We cannot overlook the Body, and we cannot overlook the representatives of the Body. May the Lord grant us the revelation of the Body so that we can submit to Christ the Head as well as to the representatives of the Body.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ was exempted from the governing authorities in His time and He was only answerable to the heavenly authority?

I believe I am aware of the difference between "secular rule and "church authority" " but we cannot deny the very Word of God:

The "secular rule and "church authority" " are both established by God. Whether we like it or not our submission to them must be absolute.

Brother Paul, I am afraid that while your responses have demonstrated quite plainly to all the objective persons the lack of scriptural foundation for your church's doctrine of religious authority, you yourself cannot see it.

The Lord grant you much grace on this account, my brother, you and all who are in the Local Church.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother Paul, I am afraid that while your responses have demonstrated quite plainly to all the objective persons the lack of scriptural foundation for your church's doctrine of religious authority, you yourself cannot see it.

The Lord grant you much grace on this account, my brother, you and all who are in the Local Church.

Can you help me out? What is the thing that I am not seeing? Perhaps, you can assist me to see it.

[YP0534]

If you open the pages of the Bible and read with consideration and care, it is nearly impossible to read a page without touching in some way upon the topic of God's authority in the universe. He is the Lord over all, however, so this should not come as any great surprise.

However, if you open brother Watchman Nee's book "Authority and Submission" in the chapter entitled "God Intends that Man Submit to Representative Authority" you could find a section entitled "C. In the Church" where some verses are given.

Just so that we are perfectly clear, I will restate that these are the verses Watchman Nee gives in his book called "Authority and Submission" on the topic of God's intention that man submit to representative authority in "the church." (I'll just note in passing that we aren't clear if the so-called "universal aspect" is intended here or not in Nee's writing.)

Here are the verses, and I'll make a brief comment on each one after citation. (Also, please note that I am actually quoting a slightly larger passage in some cases than what Nee cites in order to give a fuller context.)

1Th 5:11 Wherefore encourage one another, and build up each one the other, even as also ye do.
1Th 5:12 But we beg you, brethren, to know those who labour among you, and take the lead among you in [the] Lord, and admonish you,
1Th 5:13 and to regard them exceedingly in love on account of their work. Be in peace among yourselves.
1Th 5:14 But we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, sustain the weak, be patient towards all.
1Th 5:15 See that no one render to any evil for evil, but pursue always what is good towards one another and towards all;

The brothers are begged to know and love the ones who labor and the lead and admonish them. They are directed to be in peace among themselves. Then, the brothers are also exhorted to admonish others themselves, while also comforting, sustaining and being patient.

If this is a matter of the so-called "deputy authority" why is Paul merely "begging" that the saints recognize and appreciate the leading ones that admonish them while "exhorting" them to render similar aid to the others? Perhaps Paul, as the "deputy authority," was being political and nice to "beg" when this was a matter that touched the important issue of "authority?"

I think we can see why this does not give much strength to the teachings about "deputy authority" - if there was such a thing, Paul here doesn't even use it himself while supposedly directing people to obey it.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who take the lead [among the saints] well be esteemed worthy of double honour, specially those labouring in word and teaching;
1Ti 5:18 for the scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox that treadeth out corn, and, The workman [is] worthy of his hire.

I'm not sure why this is cited other than to note that for the ones who take the lead and spend more time in the Word than they do in making tents, their practical needs should not be left met by those who benefit from their work. I suppose you might consider this a kind of submission but, once again, Paul doesn't really make a direct statement out of authority, does he? All he says is that they "should be esteemed worthy of double honor." He doesn't even say to render any "honor" at all. A feeble exercise of "authority" if that is what you seek to find here.

1Pe 5:1 The elders which [are] among you I exhort, who [am their] fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of the Christ, who also [am] partaker of the glory about to be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God which [is] among you, exercising oversight, not by necessity, but willingly; not for base gain, but readily;
1Pe 5:3 not as lording it over your possessions, but being models for the flock.
1Pe 5:4 And when the chief shepherd is manifested ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory.
1Pe 5:5 Likewise [ye] younger, be subject to [the] elder, and all of you bind on humility towards one another; for God sets himself against [the] proud, but to [the] humble gives grace.
1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in [the due] time;
1Pe 5:7 having cast all your care upon him, for he cares about you.

Nee specifically quotes only 5:5 in this section. Without going into a complete statement about what seems fairly apparent across all these verses, it is surely a practical thing that the younger be subject to the elder. Of course, the RcV does render this as "be subject to elders" which reinforces the poor title of "elder" but even granting that, "being subject to" is not a command of so-called "deputy authority" in the context of everyone being humble towards one another under "the mighty hand of God" after casting your care upon Him. He is the one who takes care of all of us and He is the one who gives us grace and exalts us when we humble ourselves to Him. In that atmosphere, we need to be humble towards one another and as younger men, we need not exalt ourselves over the older ones but even be subject to them. But this word "be subject to" does not mean "be the subject of." The elder ones surely are not the kings with the younger ones as their subjects to follow their whim. Moreover, all of them, the elder ones included, must be in all humility toward each other and before God, for God isn't going to be blessing the efforts of the proud. I think we can all understand this. As opposed to the previous two, it could give a little ground to the doctrine of "deputy authority" but clearly not too much.

1Cr 16:12 Now concerning the brother Apollos, I begged him much that he would go to you with the brethren; but it was not at all [his] will to go now; but he will come when he shall have good opportunity.
1Cr 16:13 Be vigilant; stand fast in the faith; quit yourselves like men; be strong.
1Cr 16:14 Let all things ye do be done in love.
1Cr 16:15 But I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the saints for service,)
1Cr 16:16 that *ye* should also be subject to such, and to every one joined in the work and labouring.

Nee only cites verse 15 and 16 here.

After explaining that Apollos refused to follow Paul's "deputy authority" which was again exercised by the grave technique of "much begging," Paul this time "beseeches" the saints at Corinth to "be subject to" the "house of Stephanas," which is presumably a dwelling composed entirely of elders and co-workers, and hence the charge. He also gives the same direction regarding "every one joined in the work and laboring" even though this is pretty confusing in the context since Apollos just got himself separated and cannot be considered joined any more and should probably be considered for quarantine for publicly refusing to be one with the unique ministry of the apostle and building up his own kind of work.

Yeah. This is clearly the right way to read this.

Actually, because that house of Stephanas was an early fruit of Paul's ministry, he charges Corinth, not unlike his charge in Timothy, that the younger should be subject to the elder. This is not about establishing some kind of governmental arrangement. It is a mere recognition of the practical consequences of the flow of life within the Body. Does the Head not have the proper authority over every member? Why would we dream up that we should set some up as bearing His authority externally for Him? We need to recognize that the flow of authority in the Body is just of a completely different kind from that in the world and we should not imitate it.

This chapter has some more points, such as a citation to Luke 10 where the Lord sent out seventy by twos, keying in on verse 16:

Luk 10:16 He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me; and he that rejects me rejects him that sent me.

But again and again, the problem with Nee's analysis is that, while it is unopposed that there is such a thing as God's authority in the universe, and while it is probably not reasonably questioned that God can and does exercise this authority through living human beings, the concept that God has set up "deputy authorities" to have an appointment as a benevolent and gentle ruler over a governmentally arranged company called "the church" is just without basis in the Scriptures. This is a matter of religious custom, handed down by traditions that have their only real origin in the error of the doctrine of catholicism. Moreover, to the extent that one holds such a belief, one opens the door for all kinds of problems.

Nee discusses the problems by basically saying the followers are off the hook.

What a dangerous risk it is for God to set up authorities for Himself! How much He has to suffer if the delegated authorities that He set up have wrongly represented Him! But God is confident in the authority that He establishes. It is much easier for us to be confident in submitting to representative authorities than for God to be confident in setting them up. Since God is confident in handing over authority to man, are we still not confident in submitting to man? We should be confident in submitting to the authority which God is confident in establishing. If there is a mistake, it is not my mistake. It is the mistake of the authority. The Lord says that every person should be subject to the authorities over him. The difficulty is more on on God’s part than on ours. When God trusts man, so can we. When God is confident about His trust, so should we be even the more.

Watchman Nee, Authority and Submission

Just as our brother Paul Miletus has done here, brother Nee assumes the point that he needs to prove. We don't deny that God's authority as exercised within the realm of His Kingdom is surely something of very great importance and which has rather clearly been neglected for all the centuries. However, to simply duplicate again the errors of the past with regard to such an important issue is just a shame to the Lord, a real frustration to His purpose and an injury to His precious Body.

These devilish words "apostleship" and "eldership" need to be purged from our vocabulary surely just as much as "episcopy," "bishopric" and "papacy" for there are not such words in the Bible nor is there any such a thing in the Body of Christ. They are the natural consequence of the erroneous teachings regarding the "universal Church" but they have been demonstrated once again among us to be contrary to God's ordination in the manner of His carrying out of His eternal purpose in His divine administration.

By the way, I just discovered that my copy of this title published by LSM in 1988 as an apparent reprint of a 1967 publication of the Taiwan Gospel Book Room has only 11 chapters but the online version and the edition published in 1994 is both slightly revised in its text and substantially expanded to nearly double the original length! I see that the new section primarily deals with this concept of "deputy authority." I now will have to review it and amend or supplement this post as a consequence of my review. The appearence of this second section after so many years does appear odd, however, and it would seem that it should have merely been published as a separate but related title rather than in the fashion done here. Here is the explanation given in the publication itself, for what it's worth.

Authority and Submission, based on a series of messages given by Watchman Nee in his training at Kuling Mountain in 1948 through 1949, contains two distinct but related parts. In 1988 the Living Stream Ministry published the first part under the title Authority and Submission, covering the general subject of spiritual authority and submission. This edition includes a second, previously untranslated, part covering the matter of being God’s deputy authority.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

The brothers are begged to know and love the ones who labor and the lead and admonish them. They are directed to be in peace among themselves. Then, the brothers are also exhorted to admonish others themselves, while also comforting, sustaining and being patient.

If this is a matter of the so-called "deputy authority" why is Paul merely "begging" that the saints recognize and appreciate the leading ones that admonish them while "exhorting" them to render similar aid to the others? Perhaps Paul, as the "deputy authority," was being political and nice to "beg" when this was a matter that touched the important issue of "authority?"

I think we can see why this does not give much strength to the teachings about "deputy authority" - if there was such a thing, Paul here doesn't even use it himself while supposedly directing people to obey it.

Of all the Bible translations available only the Darby Translation used the word "beg" in 1Thes 5:12. Others, including the RcV, had used the following words:

• ask
• request
• beseech
• honor
• respect
• urge
• pray

Your assumption of "begging" is not sufficient to negate the "deputy authority" as indicated in the Word of God.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm not sure why this is cited other than to note that for the ones who take the lead and spend more time in the Word than they do in making tents, their practical needs should not be left met by those who benefit from their work. I suppose you might consider this a kind of submission but, once again, Paul doesn't really make a direct statement out of authority, does he? All he says is that they "should be esteemed worthy of double honor." He doesn't even say to render any "honor" at all. A feeble exercise of "authority" if that is what you seek to find here.

Here's the reason why Brother Witness Lee cited 1Timothy 5:17:

In the entire New Testament, Paul wrote only two books which were directed toward young co-workers. They are 1 Timothy and Titus. In these two books Paul often said that a worker should not dishonor himself but should be a pattern in everything. Anything that leads to contempt should be avoided; one should refuse such things. There is a price to pay in being an authority. One has to separate himself from others. He has to be able to live alone. A pattern must be different from others; he must sanctify himself. If he is the same as the others, he is no longer a pattern. We should not uplift ourselves, but at the same time we should not make others despise us. We should always sanctify ourselves and should not jest lightly. We have to learn to separate ourselves in the Lord. A worker should not be arrogant, but neither should he give reason for others to despise him. Once a worker becomes too common, he is disqualified from his work. Once he becomes too common, his usefulness is gone, and his authority is lost.

A worker must also keep his standing and maintain God’s authority. Authority manifests itself in separation and distinction. The main thing about a representative authority is that he represents God, and being an authority has everything to do with being a pattern. This is a very serious matter. A deputy authority is one who “represents” authority, not one who “exercises” authority.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Nee specifically quotes only 5:5 in this section. Without going into a complete statement about what seems fairly apparent across all these verses, it is surely a practical thing that the younger be subject to the elder. Of course, the RcV does render this as "be subject to elders" which reinforces the poor title of "elder" but even granting that, "being subject to" is not a command of so-called "deputy authority" in the context of everyone being humble towards one another under "the mighty hand of God" after casting your care upon Him. He is the one who takes care of all of us and He is the one who gives us grace and exalts us when we humble ourselves to Him. In that atmosphere, we need to be humble towards one another and as younger men, we need not exalt ourselves over the older ones but even be subject to them. But this word "be subject to" does not mean "be the subject of." The elder ones surely are not the kings with the younger ones as their subjects to follow their whim. Moreover, all of them, the elder ones included, must be in all humility toward each other and before God, for God isn't going to be blessing the efforts of the proud. I think we can all understand this. As opposed to the previous two, it could give a little ground to the doctrine of "deputy authority" but clearly not too much.

With your quotation, you must had read the "Chief Shepherd" in verse 4. Elders in this passages are "under-shepherds" or "deputy authority" in the church. As we normally submit to the Head, Who is Christ, we are also endeavored to submit to the "under-shepherds" or "deputy authority".

Brother Watchman Nee's writing is clear regarding the "elders" in the church as established by God Himself as "deputy authority" --

God has His appointed authorities in the church. They are the elders who take the lead well and those who labor in word and teaching. God commands that all should submit to them. In addition, all the younger ones should submit to the older ones. First Peter 5:5 says, “In like manner, younger men, be subject to elders.” Chapter five speaks of those who are elderly in age, while 1 Corinthians 16:15 speaks of the household of Stephanas as “the firstfruits of Achaia (indicating seniority in the order of salvation), and they have set themselves to minister to the saints.” Stephanas was exceedingly humble and had set himself to minister to the saints. In verse 16 the apostle further said, “You also be subject to such ones, and to everyone co-working and laboring.”

I believe Verse 5 was only quoted by Brother Witness Nee because it was his intent to emphasize that God would like man to submit to representative authority as suggested in the title of Chapter 7.

In fact, in the denominations, it will be clearly seen that a hiearchical system is established, top-to-bottom management or pyramid management. This is very obvious. Unfortunately, in the denominations, these representative authorities have been more of "positional titles" rather than "functional". I believe you know what I mean.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Actually, because that house of Stephanas was an early fruit of Paul's ministry, he charges Corinth, not unlike his charge in Timothy, that the younger should be subject to the elder. This is not about establishing some kind of governmental arrangement. It is a mere recognition of the practical consequences of the flow of life within the Body. Does the Head not have the proper authority over every member? Why would we dream up that we should set some up as bearing His authority externally for Him? We need to recognize that the flow of authority in the Body is just of a completely different kind from that in the world and we should not imitate it.

I think you are just echoing what Brother Watchman Nee has written --

Chapter five speaks of those who are elderly in age, while 1 Corinthians 16:15 speaks of the household of Stephanas as “the firstfruits of Achaia (indicating seniority in the order of salvation), and they have set themselves to minister to the saints.” Stephanas was exceedingly humble and had set himself to minister to the saints. In verse 16 the apostle further said, “You also be subject to such ones, and to everyone co-working and laboring.”

However, it seems that you are not recognizing the representative authority for those having the "seniority in the order of salvation".

You wrote: "Why would we dream up that we should set some up as bearing His authority externally for Him?" Actually, we are not dreaming up this representative authority but they are right there in the Word of God!

[Ohio]

Paul Miletus, isn't that like four long posts in a row by you? C'mon now ...

Now, I am so thankful that long ago I decided to only read short posts.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by YP0534

But again and again, the problem with Nee's analysis is that, while it is unopposed that there is such a thing as God's authority in the universe, and while it is probably not reasonably questioned that God can and does exercise this authority through living human beings, the concept that God has set up "deputy authorities" to have an appointment as a benevolent and gentle ruler over a governmentally arranged company called "the church" is just without basis in the Scriptures. This is a matter of religious custom, handed down by traditions that have their only real origin in the error of the doctrine of catholicism. Moreover, to the extent that one holds such a belief, one opens the door for all kinds of problems.

Not scriptural? Wow!

Romans 13:1
[ Submission to the Authorities ] Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Romans 13:2
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

2 Corinthians 10:8
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.

2 Corinthians 13:10
This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

1 Thessalonians 4:2
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 2:13
[ Submission to Rulers and Masters ] Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,

Revelation 2:26
To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Not scriptural? Wow!

Again, brother Paul, I think it is a shame that you are unable to understand your own writings. The verses you have cited are such a mixed-up mess of your own confusion! I surely believe all of these verses but you surely have some peculiar understandings of them. I hope brothers Nee and Lee were not so confused in all of their teachings, although I do believe that they were.

I'm only posting again to say three things.

I've now had a chance to look at the 1994 additional section in Authority and Submission and the only thing I came away impressed with is that brother Nee seems not to have ever even attempted to distinguish between obedience, submission and the Kingdom. I'm not well versed to teach on these distinctions today but I do think it is here. I know someone recently tried to distinguish obedience and submitting without much luck but I think there is a distinction to be made and I will attempt to do so when I have additional light. Basically, though, I would say that the difference is that to obey is to do as one is told whereas to submit is to willingly go along with, which implies knowledgable agreement rather than blind acceptance. And, of course, the matter of the Kingdom is something even in an entirely different realm than either of these. At the end of the day, this book, Authority and Submission, is merely an unfortunate collection of philosphical musings exploring the implications of theoretical power structures in the "universal Church" rather than a valid biblical statement on "deputy authority." Read it. Look for the verses. Other than applying Old Testament principles, you could not find such a thing in the Bible.

The second thing is to restate more clearly something that was only suggested in my prior posting. In fact, "universal Church" is itself nothing more than a concept of a system of authority. It is not that "apostleship" and "eldership" and deaconates and episcopies and bishoprics and councils and synods and papacies derive from the concept of the "universal Church" but that, indeed, they are the very substance of that notion. You cannot have a "universal Church" without apostleships and elderships and such and conversely you cannot have apostleships and elderships and such without having a "universal Church" in the first place.

Finally, to the extent that any assertions regarding this doctrine of "deputy authority" are claimed to be based upon other doctrines regarding the subjugation of the functioning of the sisters in the assembly, I will just flat out reject that. You may be right in noting that we are all the females as to the Lord but you are not being a female in promoting such a doctrine of subjugation.

There.

I'm done for now.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul Miletus, isn't that like four long posts in a row by you? C'mon now ...

Now, I am so thankful that long ago I decided to only read short posts.

Ohio!

I worked hard on my long post!


Oh, well....

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Of all the Bible translations available only the Darby Translation used the word "beg" in 1Thes 5:12. Others, including the RcV, had used the following words:

• ask
• request
• beseech
• honor
• respect
• urge
• pray

Your assumption of "begging" is not sufficient to negate the "deputy authority" as indicated in the Word of God.

OK.
RcV says "ask".

My statement is just the same. Just replace the word "begging" with the word "asking" and it remains the same. You have strained the gnat, brother Paul. Why does the one with the "deputy authority" merely "ask" such a thing?

Your teaching still does not make sense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I find the following excerpts from Brother Watchman Nee's "Authority and Submission" and "The Mystery of Christ" very practical for us to consider regarding our submission to the delegated authority especially in the church.

Paul,

No, they weren't very helpful to the point in question. They had nothing to do with the point, really.

You have failed to explain how one can submit and not obey. I don't think you know the answer to my question, so why don't you just admit it?

You have failed to make your case and have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.

Please don't try to obfuscate that fact by dumping irrelevant WN quotes on the board.

By the way, what is your point in all this anyway? How do you expect people's behavior to be different based on the points you are (not) making?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have failed to explain how one can submit and not obey. I don't think you know the answer to my question, so why don't you just admit it?

Brother Igzy?

Did you manage to wade through my cumbersome postings to see where I stated what I believe to be the distinction here?

I think it's a very important distinction because slaves and children must obey but spouses and the believers should submit.

I'm not concluding my study on these matters here but only beginning them.

Obedience is about following commands. This is what dogs and soldiers and robots do, in addition to children and slaves. They have no choice in the matter. There is no need that they even understand. It is to be done and therefore it is done.

Submission is an informed decision. We know and understand why things are being done and we might agree with them for a number of different reasons, while even holding some disagreement, but submission is about relationships rather than about commands. If I submit to you and you submit to me but we have different ideas, then we are at a stalemate instantly unless we recognize that the point of submission is not that we would be sumbissive in the abstract but so that we could decide and conclude matters and move ahead together.

Mutual submission in love results in a genuine one accord. Obedience is only going to become fertile ground for rebellions. Check your New Testament for evidence of Paul classifying those who left him in Asia being "in rebellion." I don't think you'll find such a thing.

And I still have the sense that the authority of the Head over the many members is of an entirely different kind but I need to go back to the Word make a further and more thorough study before I say too much on this point.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother Igzy?
Did you manage to wade through my cumbersome postings to see where I stated what I believe to be the distinction here?

YP,

I understand you point, but it still doesn't explain how someone can be submitting while being disobedient.

My point wasn't that some sense couldn't be made of the submission/obedience thing. My point was that the canned, pat Nee principle that "submission is absolute and obedience is relative" is absurd. It makes no sense.

My point also is that, once again, Nee/Leeites swallow whole and expect everyone else to unquestioningly swallow whole a teaching that they can't even explain to the satisfaction of a halfway intelligent person.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point also is that, once again, Nee/Leeites swallow whole and expect everyone else to unquestioningly swallow whole a teaching that they can't even explain to the satisfaction of a halfway intelligent person.

I certainly did get this point!

Regurgitation is obviously not the function of the members of the Body!

Brother Paul, how can we help you to learn to contact the Lord for your speaking and not just repeat all the things. We have need of your own rich portion. We can all see all the books for ourselves already.

Mat 13:51 Jesus says to them, Have ye understood all these things? They say to him, Yea, [Lord].
Mat 13:52 And he said to them, For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man [that is] a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.

[OBW]

"The more a person wants to be an authority or a great one, the less we can entrust him with authority ... When a man is standing tall, God can never use him."

I guess this was Lee's problem. He stood so tall in his own mind. He was the apostle of the age. He was the oracle of God (or was it just the oracle of some god?). He was the one with the ministry of the age. He was the one that his followers quoted — not the scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

"The more a person wants to be an authority or a great one, the less we can entrust him with authority ... When a man is standing tall, God can never use him."

I guess this was Lee's problem. He stood so tall in his own mind. He was the apostle of the age. He was the oracle of God (or was it just the oracle of some god?). He was the one with the ministry of the age. He was the one that his followers quoted — not the scripture.

OBW, somehow we felt that WL was immune from this because he was the one teaching it. We always felt his message was for everyone else, especially since he made himself the "judge of all things christian."

I remember a rebuttal book written after the quarantine of the late 80's. RK and KR were rebutting the "16 points" made in Anaheim. The question was posed in the book, "can we honor WL too much?" I was fully persuaded by the argument they made. It was "right" to honor WL as much as we did.

It took the recent quarantines of TC/NT to de-drug me of these concepts. Me and many others.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... somehow we felt that WL was immune from this because he was the one teaching it. We always felt his message was for everyone else..

This reminds me of the verses in the beginning of Matthew chapter 23. Jesus said, "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore observe all they tell you, but do not do according to their works, because what they say, they do not do."

Lee repeated the teachings of Nee, but did not do them. Paul Miletus' quote from Nee on "the teachings in the local church" is admirable. But the practices in the local church was quite another thing. There, we had men being lifted up high above their fellows. We had men, redeemed sinners, being invested with such titles as "oracle of the age" and "minister of the age".

Perhaps some day we will be rewarded for our walk. We will be raised up by our Lord as He was by the Father. We will sit at His table, and feast with Him. Until then, however, it seems rather imprudent, rather presumptuous, to elevate ourselves with positions and titles. Later in Matthew 23 Jesus says, "He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Ohio, it seems the unstated assumption was that Witness Lee was immune from this warning because his soul was already 'perfected'. He could teach others, but be exempt because he was somehow "beyond" the threat of corrupting influences.

Jesus passed through death, and was raised in glory. The rest of us have not yet, and therefore should not presume for ourselves any special status. Let's leave that part to God.

The local churches had 2 sets of rules. One for the "oracle", and one for everyone else. This is a shame to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have failed to explain how one can submit and not obey. I don't think you know the answer to my question, so why don't you just admit it?

Sorr, Igzy... It seems that you have not seen the light in the quoted teachings of Brother Watchman Nee --

SUBMISSION BEING ABSOLUTE, BUT OBEDIENCE BEING RELATIVE

Submission is a matter of attitude, but obedience is a matter of conduct. Acts 4:19 says, “But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you judge.” The apostles, however, were not rebellious in their spirit; they were still submitting to all those who were in authority. Obedience is not absolute. Some authorities we have to obey, but others we cannot obey. The latter include those who touch on basic matters of the Christian faith, such as our belief in the Lord and the liberty of preaching the gospel. A son can say anything to his father. But there cannot be any attitude of rebellion. Our submission should always be absolute. In some matters we can be obedient at the same time that we are submissive. In other matters we cannot be obedient, but we still have to remain submissive. All these are a matter of attitude.

Example:

If I am located in a country that prohibits you to exercise your Christian faith publicly, I will absolutely be submissive. However, this does not mean that I will no longer exercise my Christian faith in private or personally. As soon as I exercise my Christian faith, then I am not obeying the governing authority of that country. By this, my attitude was absolutely submissive to the governing authority and my conduct was relative "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God."

Is there any biblical example as cited above? Yes, of course!

Daniel was "disobedient" ?

Daniel 6
10 Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11 Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12 So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: "Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions' den?"

Daniel was "submissive"

Daniel 6
21 Daniel answered, "O king, live forever! 22 My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, O king."

[YP0534]

While I am still unable to say that I have any comprehension of the larger questions involved here, five hours of study on Saturday afternoon yielded the observation that, at least within the book of 1 Peter, the same word in Greek is used to describe:

1. Our behavior toward the ordinances of man
   1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves 5293 to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake : whether it be to the king , as supreme;
2. The behavior of servants to masters
   1Pe 2:18 Servants, [be] subject 5293 to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle , but also to the froward.
3. The behavior of wives to husbands
   1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection 5293 to your own husbands ; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
4. Again with wives and husbands
   1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection 5293 unto their own husbands:
5. The behavior of angels, authorities and powers to Christ
   1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject 5293 unto him.
6. The behavior of younger ones to elder ones, and
7. The behavior of believers to other believers
   1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves 5293 unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject 5293 one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

I'm not sure if this is perhaps why Peter became the first pope but I must at least state clearly, adjusting my previous speculation, according to the Bible's revelation of Peter's concept, all of these things were basically the same thing. And at least preliminarily, Paul's concept does not appear to be neatly divided into two or three categories that I had recently proposed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Sorr, Igzy... It seems that you have not seen the light in the quoted teachings of Brother Watchman Nee --

... my attitude was absolutely submissive to the governing authority and my conduct was relative "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God."

So Paul, is it okay to be submissive to the brothers in Anaheim but still disobedient to the "one publication" edict which is not from God? I don't think they are giving the saints that option...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Example:

If I am located in a country that prohibits you to exercise your Christian faith publicly, I will absolutely be submissive. However, this does not mean that I will no longer exercise my Christian faith in private or personally. As soon as I exercise my Christian faith, then I am not obeying the governing authority of that country. By this, my attitude was absolutely submissive to the governing authority and my conduct was relative "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God."

Paul,

If you are disobedient in any way then at that point you are not being submissive. So the whole premise of your argument is absurd.

I suggest you find another teaching on authority and submission and just admit to yourself that in this case WN wasn't making any sense.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by aron

So Paul, is it okay to be submissive to the brothers in Anaheim but still disobedient to the "one publication" edict which is not from God? I don't think they are giving the saints that option...

It seems that you have finally concluded that way... As for me, that still under the light of the Word of God to consider whether "one publication" is of the Lord or not. Only the Lord Jesus as a life-giving Spirit mingled in our spirit that we are able to discern spiritually this kind of thing.

Grace be with you. Amen.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul,

If you are disobedient in any way then at that point you are not being submissive. So the whole premise of your argument is absurd.

I suggest you find another teaching on authority and submission and just admit to yourself that in this case WN wasn't making any sense.

Please consider my earlier post in reference to your response as my personal testimony.

The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

It seems that you have finally concluded that way... As for me, that still under the light of the Word of God to consider whether "one publication" is of the Lord or not. Only the Lord Jesus as a life-giving Spirit mingled in our spirit that we are able to discern spiritually this kind of thing.

No, I have not finally concluded that way. I merely posed a hypothetical application to your contention that one could be both submissive and disobedient simultaneously to an ungodly authority.

Paul enjoined us to submit to one another in the fear of God (Eph. 5:21). So I submit to the brothers in Anaheim no more or no less than I submit to other christian authorities. You may fear that this brings in confusion; rather, I think it offers balance and safety. Otherwise you risk being controlled by ones who are not being led of God.

You say that the Spirit alone can discern this kind of thing, i.e. whether the "one publication" edict is of God. I disagree. We have the Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that there is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all(Eph. 4:4-6). It does not say there is one publication. In fact, it gives us the prime example of "many publications". Did Paul try to shut down James and Jude? No, he never said only one person (Paul) can write to the saints. Mark wrote, John wrote, Peter wrote. Peter recommended Paul's ministry, even though he said it was hard for him to understand. There is clearly not "one publication" in the Bible. There are many publications, all testifying of Jesus.

"One publication only" indicates a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit. The ones who impose this policy don't trust that the Spirit indwelling others can say anything profitable for the Body of Christ. They seem to think that only the Spirit dwelling in them, the curators of the Lee archives, can edify and encourage others. This, to me, is the wrong kind of authority. It is a usurping of God's gift to all the saints, the testifying gift to speak, to declare, to preach to the nations.

The Spirit has been poured out, brothers. Don't try to keep it in your box. You will end up with nothing. Better to let others exercise their gift, and look to yourselves, praying for the Lord's shining in others, and trusting in the God who rules heaven and earth. Your attempts to 'control' the ministries of the saints is not an authority of heaven; it is the authority of fearful and untrusting men, and there is enough of that on earth already. We don't need it in the Body of Christ, certainly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You say that the Spirit alone can discern this kind of thing, i.e. whether the "one publication" edict is of God. I disagree. We have the Bible. The Bible ... does not say there is one publication. In fact, it gives us the prime example of "many publications"... "One publication only" indicates a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit. The ones who impose this policy don't trust that the Spirit indwelling others can say anything profitable for the Body of Christ. They seem to think that only the Spirit dwelling in them, the curators of the Lee archives, can edify and encourage others. This, to me, is the wrong kind of authority. It is a usurping of God's gift to all the saints, the testifying gift to speak, to declare, to preach to the nations... The Spirit has been poured out, brothers. Don't try to keep it in your box. You will end up with nothing.

Aron, your points are great, but maybe a little "too kind."

The One Pub "Papal Bull" of 2006, which duplicated WL's own directives in Feb 1986, was a manipulative power mongering, a vehicle to "lynch" a few rivals to the BB's. Some have said it was over book sales only, but that is just "peanuts" to the lust for Movement control. By quarantining other voices, they have brought curse upon themselves. God can no longer speak directly to them from the scriptures.

Isn't it ironical that early on, the time of great blessing and the pouring out of the Spirit, the LC's enjoyed numerous freedoms. Can you believe WL/LSM even had a writer's conference (God forbid!) encouraging other brothers to write and publish God's riches. Cleveland had quite a fruitful gospel paper called "The Harvest," Chicago had the "First Fruits," the Northwest had "The Christian," and other places had other publications. All that ended abruptly in Feb. 1986. TC later said he stopped publications only out of respect for WL, which respect was never "inherited" by a blended of any shape or form.

The LSM/LC's today are long waiting for the "blessing," just as the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. The problem is that neither have a clue what it will look like.

[djohnson]

If anyone doubt the folly of the "one publication" policy I recommend you conduct an experiment. Take some full page ads out in Christian magazines and announce your policy i.e take it out of the little sectarian parochial context and apply it to all the Body which the LCS claims to represent. See what happens! The forthcoming hysterical laughter will no doubt be enough evidence that this idea is the work of small minds in small confines pretending to be something they are not.

[Ohio]

Great point DJ. I think just stepping out into the "fresh air" of the greater body of Christ could produce the same effect. Breathe deeply. Repeat after me, "The Bible is God's word." Take another cleansing breath.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Sorr, Igzy... It seems that you have not seen the light in the quoted teachings of Brother Watchman Nee --



Example:

If I am located in a country that prohibits you to exercise your Christian faith publicly, I will absolutely be submissive. However, this does not mean that I will no longer exercise my Christian faith in private or personally. As soon as I exercise my Christian faith, then I am not obeying the governing authority of that country. By this, my attitude was absolutely submissive to the governing authority and my conduct was relative "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God."

Is there any biblical example as cited above? Yes, of course!

Daniel was "disobedient" ?



Daniel was "submissive"

Paul as I read your post, your content is saying authority is absolute but submission is relative. Is that your intended message?

Terry

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by aron

You say that the Spirit alone can discern this kind of thing, i.e. whether the "one publication" edict is of God. I disagree. We have the Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that there is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all(Eph. 4:4-6). It does not say there is one publication. In fact, it gives us the prime example of "many publications". Did Paul try to shut down James and Jude? No, he never said only one person (Paul) can write to the saints. Mark wrote, John wrote, Peter wrote. Peter recommended Paul's ministry, even though he said it was hard for him to understand. There is clearly not "one publication" in the Bible. There are many publications, all testifying of Jesus.

Please correct me if I am wrong... It seems that your notion is that only Brother Witness Lee can write and only the writings of Brother Witness Lee must be published in the local church. However, I believe this is not the case. What I believe with one publication is that to satisfy the current vision or the up-to-date truth that makes up the ministry of the age. In other words, there must not be any diversion of the truth or the ministry of the New Testament as endeavored by God's economy.

Likewise, it must be noted that there were many writers of the Bible as you have cited. However, please consider that whatever they have written has to do only with God's economy, which is the New Testament Ministry. They altogether meet in one point and was not diverted to any other teachings except the Head and the Body of Christ.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Terry

Paul as I read your post, your content is saying authority is absolute but submission is relative. Is that your intended message?

Terry

My intent was "submission is absolute; but obedience is relative."

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Please correct me if I am wrong... It seems that your notion is that only Brother Witness Lee can write and only the writings of Brother Witness Lee must be published in the local church. However, I believe this is not the case. What I believe with one publication is that to satisfy the current vision or the up-to-date truth that makes up the ministry of the age. In other words, there must not be any diversion of the truth or the ministry of the New Testament as endeavored by God's economy.

Likewise, it must be noted that there were many writers of the Bible as you have cited. However, please consider that whatever they have written has to do only with God's economy, which is the New Testament Ministry. They altogether meet in one point and was not diverted to any other teachings except the Head and the Body of Christ.

This is a parroting of the blendeds which AGAIN we all have heard. You do not need to repeat LSM slogans we know them as well as you do.
Tell us something that the Lord has spoken to YOU, not to Ron.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Please correct me if I am wrong... It seems that your notion is that only Brother Witness Lee can write and only the writings of Brother Witness Lee must be published in the local church. However, I believe this is not the case. What I believe with one publication is that to satisfy the current vision or the up-to-date truth that makes up the ministry of the age. In other words, there must not be any diversion of the truth or the ministry of the New Testament as endeavored by God's economy.

Please read this paragraph 3x and explain to me what it means. Then read it 3 more times. That's what I did. It still makes no sense.

No wonder why so many have rejected this policy.

Let me relay a bit of contemporary history here. For many years Jim Reetzke Sr. in Chicago (an original "founding father" of the Movement) stood against this policy of "One Publication." He made a famous comment which all GLA leaders have heard, "Christians have died for the right to publish." It was his own flip-flop on this matter in ~2003-04 which allowed this extreme policy to "become law." His long time partner Bill Barker, the administrator, also resisted LSM domination, that is until he got publicly chastised by TC and became deeply offended.

Until then, BP and his blendeds were unable to carry out their plans to "lynch" arch-rival TC. Finally, with the Chicago leaders JR and BB in hand, BP could proceed forward with his plans to become "global leader." The whole matter of "one publication," was just a means to reach the end, a smokescreen to hide real motives.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

What I believe with one publication is that to satisfy the current vision or the up-to-date truth that makes up the ministry of the age. In other words, there must not be any diversion of the truth or the ministry of the New Testament as endeavored by God's economy.

Likewise, it must be noted that there were many writers of the Bible as you have cited. However, please consider that whatever they have written has to do only with God's economy, which is the New Testament Ministry. They altogether meet in one point and was not diverted to any other teachings except the Head and the Body of Christ.

Brother Paul, let me ask you this question:

Why do you believe the "current vision" or "up-to-date truth" is according to the revelation of God's economy?

Many of us here could testify that this is not the case.

Let me be clear: I am not asking for a doctrinal statement from you. I myself can say something like "According to God's desire for a counterpart, He has the necessity for some gifts to the Body to assist the saints in the work of building and those gifts will bear God's oracle in accordance with the unique ministry of the New Testament." We all know this and many of us even strongly believe this as a result of what we have received from brother Lee.

No, I am not asking for another answer like that from you, either quoted from or entirely based upon the publications of LSM.

Instead, I want you to consider that perhaps, for a number of reasons, there is a parallel work going on which you might be able to understand and justify in a certain way as being "the one speaking" but which is not in fact the actual one speaking of our Triune God.

And here is your clue: the next time you hear one of the frequent and common self-justifying teachings, ask the Lord if such words are truly directed to those out here who do not listen to such things anyway, or are they directed to those inside your denomination, to saints like yourself, who are kept in on account of such things being spoken.

Don't take my word for this. Ask the Lord. Why do these men spend so much effort to keep saying again and again that they are uniquely working the ministry? If it is true, then you should just do it. There is no need to spend so much time convincing others that they should be convinced by you. If God is in the speaking, He can surely do the convincing.

If you could only look at this sad situation and see it with annointed eyes:
http://www.lsm.org/outlines.html

[djohnson]

Ohio what is the reason Reetzke did the flip flop? I've heard something about the LSM helping out with some mortgage for his church there in Chicago. I've heard that Chu and Barker had a falling out. I ask because it seems like a major flip flop for an author and bookstore owner to make and esp publicly. It turns his credibility to zero.

[Ohio]

Follow the money.

[djohnson]

Thought so!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by YP0534

But essentially, the teaching is that the authority of God is literally deadly serious, that this authority is wielded by the so-called "leading ones" among us and, at a minimum, if they tell you to jump, you shouldn't ask how high because essentially God Himself told you to jump and moreover if you were sufficiently "blended" you'd already know how high.

Anyone got something to add to this?

Yes and because of the severity of disobeying God's authority, which is why some former leading ones could not take the way of LSM and were called rebels ever since. Problem here is elders may view themselves as delegated authority and the coworkers as deupty authority. As deputy authority, they may view their word being on par with God's word. As brothers and sisters we must consider "what if they're wrong"? We have a human spirit. We have a conscience. Exercise it and don't submit so blindly that you disobey God's authority. I am speaking concerning myself so that others may be helped too.

Because even in the authority the leading ones might have, it could be spiritual or it could be according their preferences and partialities.

[Lisbon]

If this is pure redundancy, please delete. But whatever happened to the authority of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Darby, Austin Sparks?I listened to WL for 25 years and I never remember hearing him bad mouth Billy Graham. He bad mouthed and cursed everyone else but not Graham. Do you suppose he did still have a little conscience? This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

If this is pure redundancy, please delete. But whatever happened to the authority of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Darby, Austin Sparks?I listened to WL for 25 years and I never remember hearing him bad mouth Billy Graham. He bad mouthed and cursed everyone else but not Graham. Do you suppose he did still have a little conscience? This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

Not sure exactly what Lee said about Graham, but others made it clear to me that BG "did not see the church," and thus implied that BG was somehow deficient.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

This taking up authority is the main thing that has caused me to say the LC is a cult. Oracle, emperor, dictator, any kind of one man rule has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.

Lisbon

"Is it Christian?" - I have been asking myself this question, since I realized that the LC is a cult. I don't have a clear answer. They use the Bible (I don't want to say "read"), they have some kind of Christian worship, and they believe in Christ the Savior. But do they have communion or living relationship with the Lord behind their words, prayers, and worship? I don't know. Personally, I have never felt that in the LRC. Anyway, it's none of my business. I have my own sins to study.

Originally Posted by Ohio

BG "did not see the church,"

Probably, WL meant something else in that context, but in my locality they like to repeat that in denominations, Christians think that church is a building with windows and doors; while in the LRC, "we know that the church is not a building but saints who are the Body of Christ". They say so as if it's a well-kept secret and it's only them who know the truth.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

but in my locality they like to repeat that in denominations, Christians think that church is a building with windows and doors; while in the LRC, "we know that the church is not a building but saints who are the Body of Christ".

Apparently that's a teaching that has been propagated for decades. I'm now 46 and have been hearing that since I was a teen in the local churches. Those in the lead, would like to think those in fellowship with Living Stream Ministry through the local churches are the only ones who know the reality of the church. It's easy to marginalize non-LC/LSM Christians when you will not have fellowship with them; denominational and non-denominational assemblies alike.
Rather I believemany assemblies do see the reality of the church and probably live out the reality of the church without necessity of a publishing house to exhibit their oneness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure exactly what Lee said about Graham, but others made it clear to me that BG "did not see the church," and thus implied that BG was somehow deficient.

Yes, I was told basically the same thing. In retrospect I believe what is far more likely Billy Graham did not see "the local ground". He probably saw there is the church, but many assemblies. In his spiritual gift of evangelism in leading thousands to receive Jesus Christ as their savior, it was not his gift to tell them where to fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, I was told basically the same thing. In retrospect I believe what is far more likely Billy Graham did not see "the local ground". He probably saw there is the church, but many assemblies. In his spiritual gift of evangelism in leading thousands to receive Jesus Christ as their savior, it was not his gift to tell them where to fellowship.

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

Or not holding Christ as their head. A big no-no in the LRC ... that's been reason (I've both seen it and experienced it) to kick bros & sisters out.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except for us, no one has "seen" the local ground. Probably because they have been reading their bibles.

Could be, those holding to "the local ground", were holding onto an Old Testament type. While our brothers and sisters not claiming the local ground doctrine are in the New Testament reality.

Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

John 4:20-21

[TLFisher]

In the topic of Authority and Submission, I wanted to pass on my intial exposure to Authority and Submission.
As a high school brother one Saturday night as part of our Young People's Meeting, one of the serving brothers had us high school and junior high brothers detail his car.
I objected believing it's his responsibility. My peers just wanted me to submit to his authority and go along.
In conscience I was correct to object, but in A&S doctrine I was in rebellion for opposing the will of an older brother.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the topic of Authority and Submission, I wanted to pass on my intial exposure to Authority and Submission.
As a high school brother one Saturday night as part of our Young People's Meeting, one of the serving brothers had us high school and junior high brothers detail his car.
I objected believing it's his responsibility. My peers just wanted me to submit to his authority and go along.
In conscience I was correct to object, but in A&S doctrine I was in rebellion for opposing the will of an older brother.

It's possible that at that time you might have been reasoning. According to Watchman Nee in Spiritual Authority, page 38 : "None who follow reason can walk the spiritual pathway, because it is beyond and above human reasoning."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's possible that at that time you might have been reasoning. According to Watchman Nee in Spiritual Authority, page 38 : "None who follow reason can walk the spiritual pathway, because it is beyond and above human reasoning."

I'll say! Outside reality too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Watchman Nee in Spiritual Authority, page 38 : "None who follow reason can walk the spiritual pathway, because it is beyond and above human reasoning."

There is absolutely no reason not to accept what the delegated authority says or does. Absolute obedience as nee defines it precludes all moral and ethical reasoning. Terry can thank God that worse, far worse was not required of him than detailing the serving one's car. For, whatever was asked must be followed and reasoning against it is rebellion worthy of God's punishment according to Nee's standard:

Rebellion is a hellish principle . These people rebelled, and so the gate of Sheol was opened. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed up all the men who belonged to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their goods. Hence they and all which belonged to them went down alive into Sheol (Numbers 16: 32-33). The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church, but a rebellious spirit can open its gates. One reason the church sometimes does not prevail is because of the presence of the rebellious. The earth will not open its mouth unless there is a rebellious spirit. All sins release the power of death, but the sin of rebellion releases it the most. Only the obedient can shut Hades' gates and release life.

Nee, Watchman (2009-09-11). Spiritual Authority (p. 37). Christian Fellowship Publishers. Kindle Edition.

"One reason the church sometimes does not prevail..." But, Mr. Nee, why do you invoke reason to persuade us when you have already taught us to abandon reason for obedience? It appears that having commanded us to give up reason, you are free to contradict yourself with impunity. For we without reason have no opinion in this matter or any other that concerns our delegated authority. Where did the embrace of irrationality lead you Mr. Nee? Where do you expect your followers to follow you to in blind obedience once they have abandoned reason? May all the witnesses and followers who knew you speak before it is too late. As for me, I'll let you reveal yourself through the writings you have left us. Thank you Living Stream Ministry and Christian Fellowship Publishers.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the ultimate mixture of leaven -- using the scripture to support cultural practices -- especially when they create nearly unlimited centralized power in one man -- doesn't this current scenario help to explain the formation of the Roman Papal system of old -- in an ancient culture which for centuries considered Caesar as God.

As others have written, the scriptural "power" to enforce these errant concepts of "deputy authority and submission" lie mainly in the story of Noah/Ham and secondarily in the story of Ananias/Sapphira. These continually reinforced the "fear of God" in all the saints.

The "curse of Ham" (or better Canaan, and Nigel did address this topic) was one of the most powerful control devices ever taught in the Recovery -- an entire race of blacks for just a few laughs at the drunken old man. I know I am being a little crude here for effect, but couldn't this be considered the "bottom line." Herein lies the problem -- what if one day I inadvertently "blow a little cold wind" of heartfelt "concern" about the direction things were going, I might be cursed forever.

For many years I remained silent under the effects of this warning. Most of the reason for my silence was godly fear. I was also genuinely ignorant of most things, and even part of that was my choice. LC leadership received the ultimate "free pass" in my heart and my life. I would still be there except for one thing -- people were getting hurt. The accumulation of "hurts" finally caught up to me. But how little did I really know! How much had been hidden away! How many more precious ones had been hurt in all the cover-ups!

The "curse of Ham" needs some serious balance in the leadership of the LC's. The program is skewed to the extreme. Actually I could "cover up" a few "drunken bouts" in Anaheim. Everybody has a bad day or two. Drinking too much wine in the privacy of your own "tent" is not an impeachable offense. Not a good habit, but understandable, all things considered ... but LC leadership has "cloaked" itself with this "curse" of protection far too long.

If the "curse of Ham" were so "God-ordained," then why didn't God Himself honor it with the case of David and Bathsheba? Couldn't David be considered the "acting God" of that age?

An equally troubling point is to consider how many consciences have been damaged and compromised over the years in the LC's by those who could not speak up as Nathan did, and rather remained silent and "one with the ministry."

I wish I had come upon this post 6 years ago. I also hope that I and our love ones who might have the same experience can one day be totally freed from it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nee, Watchman (2009-09-11). Spiritual Authority (p. 37) CFP-Kindle

Rebellion is a hellish principle . These people rebelled, and so the gate of Sheol was opened. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed up all the men who belonged to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their goods. Hence they and all which belonged to them went down alive into Sheol (Numbers 16: 32-33). The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church, but a rebellious spirit can open its gates. One reason the church sometimes does not prevail is because of the presence of the rebellious. The earth will not open its mouth unless there is a rebellious spirit. All sins release the power of death, but the sin of rebellion releases it the most. Only the obedient can shut Hades' gates and release life.

I'd say bro Nee was full of himself ... But on second thought bro Nee, at least in this statement, was full of it. This is cult thinking, teaching, and practice, plain and simple.

And this: "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church, but a rebellious spirit can open its gates."

Where's that in scripture?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

And this: "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church, but a rebellious spirit can open its gates."

Where's that in scripture?

The term rebellious or rebellion is a relative term. In what context is it a rebellious spirit? A brother is under the headship of Christ as isn't lining up with WN or WL, in their minds, the brother is rebelling against them when in fact he's being a faithful brother according to the VISION the Bible has opened to him.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

...Otherwise you risk being controlled by ones who are not being led of God.

You say that the Spirit alone can discern this kind of thing, i.e. whether the "one publication" edict is of God. I disagree. We have the Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that there is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all(Eph. 4:4-6). It does not say there is one publication. In fact, it gives us the prime example of "many publications". Did Paul try to shut down James and Jude? No, he never said only one person (Paul) can write to the saints. Mark wrote, John wrote, Peter wrote. Peter recommended Paul's ministry, even though he said it was hard for him to understand. There is clearly not "one publication" in the Bible. There are many publications, all testifying of Jesus.
...

Great insight.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd say bro Nee was full of himself ... But on second thought bro Nee, at least in this statement, was full of it. This is cult thinking, teaching, and practice, plain and simple.

Cult thinking? What is that? Do you have a couple of sociologists to back up your opinion? You heard the man, "No reasoning!" Rational=rebellion. Rebellion opens the gates of hell.

And this: "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church, but a rebellious spirit can open its gates."

Where's that in scripture?

It isn't. It's an implied deduction based on the rebellion story in Numbers 16. By engaging in deductive logic Nee is reasoning. However, Watchman Nee is a MOTA, therefore he outranks us. We are in rebellion by even scrutinizing his teaching critically.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Cult thinking? What is that? Do you have a couple of sociologists to back up your opinion?

Will a google search satisfy you?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cult+thinking

Originally Posted by zeek

You heard the man, "No reasoning!" Rational=rebellion. Rebellion opens the gates of hell.

We are in rebellion by even scrutinizing his teaching critically.

So is the earth is gonna open up and suck us directly into Sheol?

Maybe that was why you got a sinkhole in yer yard. Sheol is comin ta getchya.

That'll learn ya to use reason.

That's why I've become unreasonable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So is the earth is gonna open up and suck us directly into Sheol?

Maybe that was why you got a sinkhole in yer yard. Sheol is comin ta getchya.

That'll learn ya to use reason.

That's why I've become unreasonable.

Nothing is so definitive of God's judgment as a sinkhole in the back yard!

Sounds like a Lee-ism for sure.

We were not allowed to use reason cause then we could not be manipulated.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Will a google search satisfy you?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cult+thinking

There are blogs on both sides of the "cult" issue. Consequently, it doesn't make for a strong argument against Watchman Nee particularly for Local Churchers. Nee's position disqualifies all argument as disobedience and rebellion. But, Nee himself uses reason and argument to make his case. Even the method of presenting Bible stories and drawing principles for Christians to follow is a kind of reasoning which is central to both Nee and Lee. Thus, Nee and Lee by practicing reasoning while denying it to their subordinates created a double standard. One standard for authorities and another for underlings.

So is the earth is gonna open up and suck us directly into Sheol?
Maybe that was why you got a sinkhole in yer yard. Sheol is comin ta getchya. That'll learn ya to use reason.That's why I've become unreasonable.

I think you're committing a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. As applied by Nee, the "sinkhole" in Numbers symbolizes God's condemnation which is categorical for anyone who reasons contrary to delegated authority. By that criteria we are already condemned when we think critically about God's recovery. From the standpoint of reason, on the other hand, God's Recovery is untenable. Too bad I wasn't thinking critically when I was proselytized for the Local Churches. I could have avoided the whole Nee/Lee life cul de sac.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Too bad I wasn't thinking critically when I was proselytized for the Local Churches. I could have avoided the whole Nee/Lee life cul de sac.

Based on this, would you consider that it might not have been God's will that any of us went through the LRC? While God will use all things for our good, does it necessarily follow that he ordains or wills them?

This is an ongoing position with a lot of us former LRC members. We are convinced that God intentionally took us into the LRC as a stopover for something else. Might it be that there was something in us that was looking for something "better" and as a result we were open for change. But our openness to change also opened us up for something that was not what we really needed. It was appealing. It was not un-Christian. But not what we really needed.

And in taking this position, I tend to disagree that it was ever something really that good except to the extent that Lee did not impose all of his nonsense on it from the very beginning. The good was the people who are now either gone or dying on the vine. But the "church" that Lee brought us was always destined for where it ultimately went because that was what Lee was aiming for. The system was progressively corrupt. And its underpinnings were always corrupt.

The teachings (except to the extent that they were pretty much like everyone else's teachings) were questionable (at the minimum) to clearly error. And at this point, I think that it is reasonable to assert that it is a system of error. That does not make everything an error. But it means that anything that is worth keeping is burdened down with error. Sort of like trying to find that one undamaged wall in the midst of the destruction of an F5 tornado.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Might it be that there was something in us that was looking for something "better" and as a result we were open for change. But our openness to change also opened us up for something that was not what we really needed. It was appealing. It was not un-Christian. But not what we really needed.

Sounds to me like the experience of many dear folks in 2008 who voted for the current Prez.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Based on this, would you consider that it might not have been God's will that any of us went through the LRC? While God will use all things for our good, does it necessarily follow that he ordains or wills them?

Those are propositions that we can surmise, but I don't see how we can ever answer conclusively in this life. It is precisely our actual epistemological status of uncertainty about metaphysical matters like God's will that Witness Lee took advantage of when he claimed to KNOW God's eternal purpose. We were fools to relinquish our uncertainty for the pot of certain gold at the end of Lee's rainbow.

This is an ongoing position with a lot of us former LRC members. We are convinced that God intentionally took us into the LRC as a stopover for something else. Might it be that there was something in us that was looking for something "better" and as a result we were open for change. But our openness to change also opened us up for something that was not what we really needed. It was appealing. It was not un-Christian. But not what we really needed.

Of course we were looking for something better. Unity and spirituality have good aspects that were attractive. The Lord's Recovery has good aspects. There were worse ways we could have taken. "What we really needed" is a phrase that requires an ultimate answer. Our minds are too puny for more than intimations of such things at best. But, yes we could have done better.

And in taking this position, I tend to disagree that it was ever something really that good except to the extent that Lee did not impose all of his nonsense on it from the very beginning. The good was the people who are now either gone or dying on the vine. But the "church" that Lee brought us was always destined for where it ultimately went because that was what Lee was aiming for. The system was progressively corrupt. And its underpinnings were always corrupt.

"That good" implies that you have a yardstick with which to measure such things. My yardstick is full humanity or human rights as I will explain below.

The teachings (except to the extent that they were pretty much like everyone else's teachings) were questionable (at the minimum) to clearly error. And at this point, I think that it is reasonable to assert that it is a system of error. That does not make everything an error. But it means that anything that is worth keeping is burdened down with error. Sort of like trying to find that one undamaged wall in the midst of the destruction of an F5 tornado.

From this I take it that you are measuring the Recovery against "everyone else's teaching." That's a lot of teaching. It would probably take many lifetimes to read and understand all that. But yes, the Nee/Lee system has errors. And here is one error that I cannot ignore. The capacity to reason is a fundamental human right. Forbidding reason by the practitioners of a system prevents them from realizing their full humanity. That's was a fatal flaw in the Nee/Lee system. Any system that forbids reason makes an unreasonable claim on us that we are free to reject. That's why I left the local churches.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds to me like the experience of many dear folks in 2008 who voted for the current Prez.

I guess Witness Lee was our Obama ... Ha and ha again ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Those are propositions that we can surmise, but I don't see how we can ever answer conclusively in this life. It is precisely our actual epistemological status of uncertainty about metaphysical matters like God's will that Witness Lee took advantage of when he claimed to KNOW God's eternal purpose. We were fools to relinquish our uncertainty for the pot of certain gold at the end of Lee's rainbow.

. . .

Of course we were looking for something better. Unity and spirituality have good aspects that were attractive. The Lord's Recovery has good aspects. There were worse ways we could have taken. "What we really needed" is a phrase that requires an ultimate answer. Our minds are too puny for more than intimations of such things at best. But, yes we could have done better.

. . .

"That good" implies that you have a yardstick with which to measure such things. My yardstick is full humanity or human rights as I will explain below.

. . .

From this I take it that you are measuring the Recovery against "everyone else's teaching." That's a lot of teaching. It would probably take many lifetimes to read and understand all that. But yes, the Nee/Lee system has errors. And here is one error that I cannot ignore. The capacity to reason is a fundamental human right. Forbidding reason by the practitioners of a system prevents them from realizing their full humanity. That's was a fatal flaw in the Nee/Lee system. Any system that forbids reason makes an unreasonable claim on us that we are free to reject. That's why I left the local churches.

While I believe it is safe to say that we look at some of this differently, I don't think we really disagree.

As for "everyone else's teaching," I think that once you toss the outliers (like Nee and Lee) despite the somewhat broad variety in emphasis and even position on things like Calvinism v Arminianism, style of baptism, and a whole host of secondary issues, I may not prefer them all, but I do not have the problem with their teachings and their methods that I do with Lee and the LRC. And a lot of it can be wrapped into what you called the denial of the human right to think (my paraphrase). And that is a big one.

And once you are allowed to think for yourself, it becomes obvious that the reason they didn't want you to think because the only reasons you would pick them over almost any other Christian group were things that you would disagree with if given the opportunity to think.

So they had to shame you into thinking you were unspiritual if you even considered disagreeing with them.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess Witness Lee was our Obama ... Ha and ha again ...

Or Obama is our Blended brothers. Too many similarities in lack of transparency and tactics to dismiss.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or not holding Christ as their head. A big no-no in the LRC ... that's been reason (I've both seen it and experienced it) to kick bros & sisters out.

That's because "the ministry" (aka LSM publications) has replaced Christ as the head and Christ as the vision.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "that brother's not for the ministry" or "that sister's not for the ministry"?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I believe it is safe to say that we look at some of this differently, I don't think we really disagree.

As for "everyone else's teaching," I think that once you toss the outliers (like Nee and Lee) despite the somewhat broad variety in emphasis and even position on things like Calvinism v Arminianism, style of baptism, and a whole host of secondary issues, I may not prefer them all, but I do not have the problem with their teachings and their methods that I do with Lee and the LRC. And a lot of it can be wrapped into what you called the denial of the human right to think (my paraphrase). And that is a big one.

And once you are allowed to think for yourself, it becomes obvious that the reason they didn't want you to think because the only reasons you would pick them over almost any other Christian group were things that you would disagree with if given the opportunity to think.

So they had to shame you into thinking you were unspiritual if you even considered disagreeing with them.

As what we are conversing about is human freedom, the variety of positions one can choose seems limitless. Looked at that way freedom appears dizzying. But, freedom does not compel one to abandon one's Christian heritage. That characterization was a Witness Lee lie. If freedom is a human capacity, we can make choices as long as we live. If we are free; we are not compelled to make bad ones.

Interestingly, Lee contradicts Nee in The Present Turmoil in the Lord's Recovery and the Direction of the Lord's Move Today when he states:

This illogical and unreasonable rebellion is a test to the faithful ones. Any saint who knows the New Testament teachings logically and reasonably and who is faithful to the Lord according to His holy and unchanging Word would not care for the unbridled speakings in the present turmoil.

By invoking logic and reason, he contradicts Nee's principle that "None who follow reason can walk the spiritual pathway, because it is beyond and above human reasoning." Nee's principle made it disobedient to reason. Now Lee seems to recommend logic and reason despite counseling people against logic and reason and independent thinking many times. Inconsistency never seemed to bother him.