Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee

[TLFisher]

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee would countenance no peers. His model of "the work" was himself as an apostle with the status of a Paul while his coworkers had the status of a Titus or Timothy who he could give dictates to and expect them to be followed. This practice was propped up with MOTA and deputy authority teachings.

And with this being said, maybe it's about time we start to explore a little more deeply the life and ministry practices of one Watchman Nee. After all, we know very well where Witness got many of his "MOTA" notions. Maybe Lee was a little more of a "chip off the ole block" than we have been willing to admit to ourselves over all these years. (ok, ok...maybe just speakin for myself here)

Far be it from me to take away any of the accolades and rewards due to our brother Nee, for he almost single-handedly turned a godless nation towards our Lord and Savior, and for this his rewards are in heaven, and so richly deserved. Nevertheless, we must learn from his history or we may very well be doomed to repeat it...at least in part. There is little doubt now that our brothers and sisters in the Local Church/LSM have already decidedly thrown in their lot with the whole "MOTA" fantasy - they are "all in". May God have mercy.

[TLFisher]

Learning and understanding Watchman Nee's ministry is much more available than learning and understanding Watchman Nee the person. We can read in Watchman Nee's ministry where Witness Lee and LSM had flagrant disregard not just what Watchman Nee ministered, but what the Bible says.

Two of Watchman Nee's disciples have ministered in the US since 1960 in Witness Lee and Stephen Kaung. Are they similar or are they different in relation to Nee's ministry?
I have the opinion Nee's disciples including Kaung aren't wanted in the LC fellowship because these ones did not and do not emphasize ground of locality, ministry of the age, deputy authority, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Page 43, Spiritual Authority, WN
"It was right for Martin Luther to rise up to speak for the basic principle of justification by faith. It is also right for us to leave the denominations to stand as the testimony of oneness in the local church. Since we have seen
the glory of Christ and the Body of Christ, we cannot have any other name apart from the name of the Lord. The Lord’s name is of foremost importance. Why is salvation not only through the blood of Christ but also through
the name of the Lord? This is because the Lord’s name means resurrection and ascension. God has only one way of salvation, and He has placed this under the name of the Lord. In baptism we are baptized into the name
of the Lord, and our meeting together is in the name of the Lord. Therefore, the cross and the blood alone cannot solve the problem of denominations. If a man sees the glory of ascension, he cannot insist on any name other than that of the Lord’s. We can only exalt the Lord’s name. There cannot be any other name. Today’s denominational organizations are overthrowing the Lord’s glory. This is a blasphemy to the Lord."

So, according to WN it is right for us to stand against any group that lifts up any name other than Jesus.

I would argue that the LRC does this on several levels.

The teaching of the "ground of the church" is a violation of this principle. The ground of the church is the name of Jesus, which appears to be WN's meaning in this paragraph as well. To say that the boundaries of a city trump Jesus' name is outrageous. To say that you need to receive LSM ministry to be a church is no different from being "baptized into a denomination". I think this word by WN clearly convicts the LRC and LSM of the sin of rebellion.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Quick break from sabbatical is in order for this thread.

I think Terry has it pretty close here. But I would restate his question as follows:

"Though full of scripture, does Nee faithfully analyze its meaning and thereby arrive at sound conclusions?"

When we started looking at this book a couple of years ago, I began to see Nee engaging in selective rewriting of scripture. If you actually read the verses that he uses in the first chapter of the book, you find that he consistently takes verses that speak of "power" and immediately carries on as if they say "authority." If you look in the fifth paragraph of the book, he does actually quote from the ending of the Lord's Prayer, then immediately restates it as referring to authority and glory.

Why? Maybe because he thinks it is true and sees no reason to provide a legitimate explanation.

Because of things like this, I cannot refer to his book as "scriptural" unless the term only means that there are a lot of verses cited and/or quoted. But to me, "scriptural" can only be attributed to a book outside of the scripture itself if it faithfully quotes, analyzes, and applies the scripture in a manner that clearly springs from that scripture.

And replacing one important term with a different one — one that does not mean the same thing — and then using that altered term as a foundation for insisting upon its importance is not "scriptural." It is mishandling the word of truth. It is the fabrication of a myth. And a myth that now underpins the unrighteousness of the leadership of yet one more exclusivist, remnant theology sect.

This is the beginning of the march to "discover" deputy authority.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?

Page 49, Scriptural Authority, WN
Since God is the One who establishes authority, there is no need for deputy authorities to try to build up their own authority. I know of a few brothers and sisters who were so foolish in the past that they thought they could direct others with their authority. They were trying to build up their own authority. This is foolish in the eyes of God. Hebrews 5:4 says, “No one takes the honor upon himself, but only as he is called by God.” The same is true with authority; no one can take authority upon himself. When God grants one to be an authority, he has authority. Hence, there is no need to demand obedience from others. If others insist on being wrong, let them be wrong. If others will not obey, leave them alone. If others want to take their own way, let them take their own way. We must never argue with others. If I am not appointed by God to be the authority, why do I have to demand obedience from others? On the other hand, if I am an authority appointed by God, why do I have to worry that others will not submit to me? If there is authority with me, others are disobeying God when they disobey me. So why do I need to be concerned with others’ disobedience? If authority is with me, others will be arguing with God when they argue with me. There is nothing more serious than this in the whole world. We do not need to force others to listen to us; we can give everyone the liberty to do what they want. If God backs up the authority, what more do we have to fear? Have you ever seen a king on earth backing up his ministers? No! However, if you are a deputy authority, God will sustain you, support you, and even back you up.

I think this is reasonable, but does not describe what we have seen in the LRC with LSM, WL, PL, and the Blendeds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Page 49, Scriptural Authority, WN

Since God is the One who establishes authority, there is no need for deputy authorities to try to build up their own authority. I know of a few brothers and sisters who were so foolish in the past that they thought they could direct others with their authority. They were trying to build up their own authority. This is foolish in the eyes of God. Hebrews 5:4 says, “No one takes the honor upon himself, but only as he is called by God.” The same is true with authority; no one can take authority upon himself. When God grants one to be an authority, he has authority.

This may sound good, but why teach it? It's like arming people with guns, teaching them gun safety, and then leaving the guns laying around for the wrong person to use them. Why not limit your teaching to the Bible? Why even discuss the authority of a "deputy?" Why not focus your teaching, as the Apostle Paul does, on the character of the Lord's servants and on the numerous warnings in the Bible about the abuse of authority. I daresay that the word "deputy" has never helped anyone but he who misused it for his own selfish gains. Paul called this filthy lucre.

Supposedly Witness Lee himself was there in person for all of Nee's messages on spiritual authority, and supposedly he should have been the one with the most fear of the abuse of authority. He claimed to be absolutely one with Watchman Nee and his ministry. Yet was he not the one who abused these teachings the most? Why did he teach others like the God-fearing John Ingalls these messages about deputy authority and then neglect to teach his own profligate sons?

Timothy and Philip Lee obviously knew what it meant to wield great authority over the brothers and sisters in the Recovery. I'm sure they witnessed daddy's public rebukes, humiliations, and chastisements for many years. They obviously lusted over the great adoration their father regularly received. By all accounts, Lee's own sons knew little about respect, morality, virtue, kindness, faith, godliness, decency, etc. yet Witness saw fit to place Philip over LSM and all the workers.

It's hard not to believe that the teaching of deputy authority in the Recovery had far more to do with Chinese culture than the Bible, especially since the Recovery has become little more than the Lee Dynasty.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This may sound good, but why teach it? It's like arming people with guns, teaching them gun safety, and then leaving the guns laying around for the wrong person to use them. Why not limit your teaching to the Bible? Why even discuss the authority of a "deputy?" Why not focus your teaching, as the Apostle Paul does, on the character of the Lord's servants and on the numerous warnings in the Bible about the abuse of authority. I daresay that the word "deputy" has never helped anyone but he who misused it for his own selfish gains. Paul called this filthy lucre.

It is Pandora's box, once it is opened you can't put it back. Once there are 350 million guns in the USA it is a little pointless to talk about getting rid of guns. Once Satan has rebelled it is too late to talk about how much better life would be if he had never rebelled. Jesus said that the believers would rule over cities. Therefore we are being trained in the matter of authority and should not shy away from this topic. Also, Hebrews talk about the word of righteousness which immature Christians are unable to deal with, so there are scriptural topics which are not suitable for all Christians.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Supposedly Witness Lee himself was there in person for all of Nee's messages on spiritual authority, and supposedly he should have been the one with the most fear of the abuse of authority. He claimed to be absolutely one with Watchman Nee and his ministry. Yet was he not the one who abused these teachings the most? Why did he teach others like the God-fearing John Ingalls these messages about deputy authority and then neglect to teach his own profligate sons?

Timothy and Philip Lee obviously knew what it meant to wield great authority over the brothers and sisters in the Recovery. I'm sure they witnessed daddy's public rebukes, humiliations, and chastisements for many years. They obviously lusted over the great adoration their father regularly received. By all accounts, Lee's own sons knew little about respect, morality, virtue, kindness, faith, godliness, decency, etc. yet Witness saw fit to place Philip over LSM and all the workers.

It's hard not to believe that the teaching of deputy authority in the Recovery had far more to do with Chinese culture than the Bible, especially since the Recovery has become little more than the Lee Dynasty.

I went straight to the chapter about "The Kind of Person God uses to be his deputy authority". He has 3 requirements which I found somewhat strange.

1. You need to recognize that all authority comes from God. So for example, the laws that regulated the formation of Daystar come from God. Skirting those laws and playing fast and loose with the laws is in essence thumbing your nose at God.

2. Must deny themselves. For example, if you had a profligate son that you wanted to be part of the ministry you would deny that desire and discipline him once his sins were manifested.

3. The third requirement is that you have constant, intimate communion with the Lord. You might wonder how you would know that someone does this? WN quotes (John 5:19) “I can do nothing from Myself; as I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because Ido not seek My own will but the will of Him who sent Me” (v. 30). He said that "a wild person who has no control of himself is far from God".

"Please give me the liberty to say a frank word. The problem with many of God’s servants today is that they are too bold, or to put it in a stronger way, they are too reckless."

So, it seems to me that the lawsuits were an example of a man who was not in constant, intimate communion with God.

[alwayslearning]

IMHO in regards to so called "spiritual authority" the question 2000+ years after the NT was written is: where does spiritual authority reside? If it resides in a certain person or select group of leaders than we are in trouble. Because this idea and practice allows this person or select handful of people to freely say and do whatever they want and everyone else is expected to submit to them regardless of what their own conscience says or what the Word of God says. The MOTA+ trumps all! And those who following their conscience speak out against some of their unsavory actions are considered rebellious, lepers, etc.

Martin Luther got this when he said at Worms the Bible and his conscience are his authority regardless of what the pope and his cohorts said or did past and present.

[TLFisher]

Concerning Husbands

The Bible teaches the wife to submit to the husband and the husband to exercise authority. However, there are requirements which the husband has to fulfill. Ephesians 5 mentions three times that the husband has to love the wife. He has to love his wife as himself. Although there is such a thing as authority in the family, those who are in authority should fulfill God’s requirements. The requirement of a husband as a deputy authority is to love his wife. There is a pattern for the husband’s love for the wife—Christ’s love for the church. Just as Christ loved the church, husbands should love their wives. The love that a husband has towards his wife should match that of Christ’s love towards the church. In order for a husband to maintain his authority in representing God, he must love his wife.

Concerning Parents

Children should obey their parents. But as deputy authorities, parents also have their responsibilities and requirements. The Bible says that parents should not provoke their children to anger. Although parents have authority over their children, they have to learn to control themselves before God. They cannot say that since their children have been begotten and are being raised up by them, they can treat them at will. God created us,
but He does not treat us at will. He gives everyone a free will. Hence, parents should not provoke their children to anger. Some people dare not do certain things before their friends, students, subordinates, or relatives, but they readily do them before their children without any hesitation at all. This is wrong. The greatest thing parents need to do is to exercise self-control. They have to control themselves through the Holy Spirit. Parents can deal with their children only to a certain extent. Their authority over their children is for the purpose of educating them only. They have to warn and nurture their children with the teaching of the Lord. There is no sense of domination or punishment here. A parent’s heart should be for education, not for punishment. Page 84

Interesting Watchman Nee included husbands and parents among various deputy authorities. As I had learned in the local churches, it was only the co workers who were deputy authority and elders are delegated authority. It was only selected brothers who could properly discern what the feeling of the Body was.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

in regards to so called "spiritual authority" the question [] is: where does spiritual authority reside? If it resides in a certain person or select group of leaders than we are in trouble. Because this idea and practice allows this person or select handful of people to freely say and do whatever they want and everyone else is expected to submit to them regardless of what their own conscience says or what the Word of God says...

here is a section from page 80 "Elder's training, book 9"

"The New Testament leadership in the Gospels was a person. That person was the Lord Jesus Himself. But from Acts to Revelation, the unique New Testament leadership became the teaching of the apostles. Thus, neither Peter nor Paul controlled any church, but their teaching controlled. We can see this in 1 Timothy where Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus in order that he might charge certain ones not to teach different things other than the economy of God (1:3-4). Different teachings are teachings which are different from the apostles' teaching concerning God's economy. This teaching is the unique leadership."

In this section Jesus, the subject, gets 2 quick sentences and the bulk of the attention goes to "teaching". Notice how easily Witness Lee turned the focus away from the leadership example of Jesus Christ. Jesus had led people back to their Father in heaven by doing: by serving (see John 13:12-17), by healing, feeding, comforting, and freeing people from oppression. Yes Jesus taught, but the focus, authority, and basis of his ministry was arguably "good works" --- see e.g. the declaration by one who was there with him: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." ~Acts 10:38

Lee transformed this "doing good" into being a talking head, and selling one's messages, or teachings, for lucre. This is an infection from the spirit which was operating in Simon Magus, and which clearly penetrated the souls of both Lee and his fellow merchandizer Dong Yu Lan. Good works were ignored in the rush to convert "grace" into "cash".