Authority 101

[j_graz (j_graz)]

Some scatterings to consider maybe?

This book was used throughout the years by GGWO as a ‘staple’ to reinforce the position on the ‘authority of the pastor’was Watchman Nee's "Spiritual Authority".
I thought reviewing some thoughts about it would shed some light on our current situation; it does.
While I certainly appreciate the unapologetic tone, which embraces the need for authority in the church, I find much room for error, imbalance and abuse.
Certainly one of the most poignant statements of the book is found on page 71:

If God dares to entrust His authority to man, then we can dare to obey. Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us. The obedient one needs only to obey. The Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience, rather He will hold the delegated authority responsible for his erroneous act.

This paragraph basically encompasses the tone for the entire teaching.
One is to follow unconditionally as unto God himself. That following need not concern itself with ethics, morals or doctrines. God will be gracious only to the obedient follower, never the questioner.

When Nee speaks here of God delegating authority, he is speaking of it as an absolute form. It is as if God Himself where giving direction or command. Nee sees both delegated authority and direct authority as having the same level of power and importance to the Christian.

The Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience? This is such terrible imbalance! If I know a leader is wrong, and I do nothing, say nothing, I will most certainly be held accountable.

Moreover, he states, "We should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil; rather should we know who is the authority above us" (SA, p.23).

There is certainly place to submission and obedience, such as in Heb 13:7, not leaving out however: “whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct”.

These kinds statements sum up what Nee defines as true "Spiritual Authority." Authority (delegated and direct authority by God) is given not only top billing but absolute and exclusive importance.

Earlier in the book:
Sin against power is more easily forgiven than sin against authority, because the latter is a sin against God Himself. God alone is authority in all things; all the authorities of the earth are instituted by God. Authority is a tremendous thing in the universe—nothing overshadows it. It is therefore imperative for us who desire to serve God to know the authority of God (SA, p.10).

Nee is speaking very plainly here and saying that sin against those in authority is sin directly against God.
The verse commonly quoted in Ro 13:1 refers to the Christians responsibilities as a citizen. Believers must obey the laws of the state and do so for conscience sake. Paul is in no way teaching absolute and unconditional submission to all forms of authority. If that were the case, Paul would have obeyed the authorities at that time and stopped preaching.
Nee goes on further saying, "If this matter of authority remains unsolved, nothing can be solved" (SA, p.23).

When determining how authority is to be expressed he says, "there must be subjection. If there is to be subjection, self needs to be excluded; but according to one' self-life, subjection is not possible This is only possible when one lives in the Spirit. It is the highest expression of God's will" (SA, p.14).

This takes submission to a completely subjective level apart from the faculties of reason and ethics. The inference here is anyone who is not in subjection is simply not living in the Spirit.

How does one acknowledge and recognize authority? It "requires a great revelation" (SA, p.16) and again "not a matter of outside instruction but of inward revelation" (SA, p.38).

The term revelations seem a bit ambiguous. Our understanding is that the Revelation of God is – the Scriptures. Using the Scriptures as our guide in concert with our intellect and reason – is the order in which we find the Will of God regarding our relationship with those in authority.

But, Nee further states, "It is very true that we need to have the eyes of our reason put out in order to follow the Lord. What governs our lives? Is it reason or is it authority? When one is enlightened by the Lord he will be blinded by the light, and his reason will be cast aside" (SA, p.93).
His supposed eradication of reason is again expressed in saying:
I am beginning to learn that God often acts without reason. Even though I do not understand what He does I still learn to worship Him, for I am but a servant. Had I understood all His ways, I myself would have sat on the throne. But once I see He is far above me—that He alone is the God on high—I prostrate in dust and ashes, all my reasonings disappearing. Henceforth authority alone is factual to me; reason and right and wrong no longer control my life. He who knows God knows himself and therefore is delivered from reason (SA, p.97).
The logical consequence of this teaching is that you receive the distinct message of, do not think or think only so far as to obey the one who is your "delegated authority," and don't seriously question him. So according to Nee, "inward revelation" has priority over the rational mind as God cannot use our soul (rational mind) as it is part of our fallen nature.
God designed us to make extensive use of our mental capacities. Nee feels reason is to be cast aside, or at least secondary...but uses reason throughout this book to prove his point. (nice)

When facing an inconsistency in leadership, under this kind of understanding, there is produced a serious dilemma. This breeds confusion. If my leader is wrong, or in sin, how do I respond? When this supposed inward revelation contradicts reason, my only appropriate reaction would be to consult the truth and go in meekness (Gal 6:1-5) What is suggested, is that I ignore the behavior or inconsistency of my leader and let God alone deal with him.

Under this system, if I lack maturity and objectivity my only response will be to distrust myself. When we are hurt by those "delegated authorities" over us, emotionally, physically, financially, or spiritually how can we respond but in submission (if we are to be acting "in the Spirit")?
We are also given the direct or indirect message that we really can't trust ourselves and must rely on others to interpret our reality and become well-behaved little "codependents'."

Don't think and don't question, certainly what follows is don't talk about the conflict as you will be as Korah (Numbers 16) or Miriam (Numbers 12). Nee uses the rebellions of Miriam and those at Korah as prime examples of what happens when one doesn't submit to those that God has set up as "delegated authorities."

Nee writes further, "Authority being the most central thing in the whole Bible, reviling against it constitutes the gravest sin. Our mouth should not talk inadvertently. As soon as we meet God our mouth will be under restraint; we will not dare rail at authorities" (SA, p.91).

It is as though questioning authority would be equal to blaspheme!

Reviling can then be considered anything that the leader disagrees with.

In order to cope with the don't think, don't trust, and don't talk you must, of necessity, learn not to feel to survive in the group.
Nee acknowledges a devaluation of ones feelings when he states:
Authority is set up to execute God's order, not to uplift oneself. It is to give God's children a sense of God, not to give a sense of oneself. The important thing is to help people to be subject to God's authority.... Let us too be delivered from personal feeling, for the presence of it will damage God's affairs and bind God's hand (SA, p.131).
More significant yet, Nee denies the necessity of legitimate emotions in describing the role of those who are "delegated authorities."
Nee writes:
Let us therefore have a thorough dealing before God with respect to our being sanctified from the rest of the people. The world and ordinary brothers and sisters may continue their family affections, but God's delegated authorities must maintain the glory of God. They ought not set loose their own affections and act carelessly or rebelliously; rather, they must praise the Lord for seeing His glory.
Those who serve are anointed by God. They should sacrifice their own affections, denying even legitimate ones. All who would maintain God's authority must know how to oppose their own feelings, how to lay aside the deepest of their affections towards their relatives, friends, and loved ones. The demand of God is exacting: unless one lays aside his own affections he cannot serve God (SA, p.183).
Yes, our emotions and affections must take a back seat to truth. The Cross almost never makes me initially happy. However, human authority, no matter how sincere, how experienced, or how successful in the past – is just that: HUMAN

I am thankful for the portions in the book that fearlessly elevate the necessity of Spiritual Authority. The world rejects most all forms of authority as a whole. But, there must be balance and accountability to truth. Nee is simply imbalanced.

[newface (newface)]

Thankyou for posting that. It does explain some of the concepts in the church. I am very concerned even about the affiliates. It is difficult to have perspective when all of the affiliates have grown out of the same teaching. Maybe it started out genuine and centered on Christ,we have some of the first members in our congregation. I can't understand how things went so far off in Baltimore. Is it possible that the branches are OK ? Thanks for listening

[jim_kennedy (jim_kennedy)]

Authority 101:

"You know that the rulers of the gentiles (the Romans) exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. Whoever will be great among you let him be your minister, and whoever will be chief among you let him be your servant. Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Ephes. 6:1-4 (ESV)
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2] "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), [3] "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." [4] Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.


Here is the institution of ALL human authority. Note that Paul says--IN THE LORD.

Note that my quote is from the NEW Testament, Paul is emphasising a commandment which is still in force and beneficial to believers.

We evangelicals in America often react to the Decalogue like cockroaches react to the lights being turned on. How many times have we heard CHS say something like this, "When David says he loves the law of God, you take out the word law and insert the word "doctrine!" What a lot of hogwash! If that isn't taking away from the Word of God and adding to it, what is? Here is a short excerpt from the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Fifth Commandment and its meaning. It affords a much more beneficial understanding than Nee's book.:

Q. 123. Which is the fifth commandment?
A. The fifth commandment is, Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

<font color="0000ff">Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.</font>

Q. 125. Why are superiors styled father and mother?
A. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.

Q. 126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
A. The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.

Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors?
A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections;fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of,and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels,commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government.

Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending,and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting,and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors?
A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, and inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favouring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.

Q. 131. What are the duties of equals?
A. The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honour to go one before another; and to rejoice in each others’ gifts and advancement, as their own.

Q. 132. What are the sins of equals?
A. The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement of prosperity one of another; and usurping pre-eminence one over another.

Q. 133. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, in these words, That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is an express promise of long life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good, to all such as keep this commandment.

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

Pastor G, thanks for the exposition of that area of Nee influence. I've stepped over to my bookshelf just now to take a look at my requisite copies of Nee's booklets, and am enjoying going over my own marginalia... what always struck me about Nee's work is its solidarity with much of eastern religion's elimination of the self...

[jim_kennedy (jim_kennedy)]

God Save the Queen!

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

In practical terms, how do we explain the relationship between the existence of stop signs and the Decalogue?

What would happen if there were no stop signs--particularly where there should be a 4 way stop?

Scripture tells us that we should NOT murder. This commandment implies that we should seek to protect life, correct? There is a benefit to us if we keep this commandment.

Who is responsible for teaching us the commandments?

Deut. 6:6-7 (ESV)
And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. [7] You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Parents are to teach children right and wrong. Do we not still need the enforcement of laws? We do. So the civil government (parents) puts up stop signs to aid us in keeping from killing one another. There are stop signs because of the sixth and fifth commandments.

(Message edited by Jim Faucett on May 04, 2005)

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

I thought I'd get a rise out of you, JK!

(In that era of the 17th century there was a King on the throne, but he ended up losing his head.)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Pastor Graziano writes:

'The term revelations seem a bit ambiguous. Our understanding is that the Revelation of God is the Scriptures. Using the Scriptures as our guide in concert with our intellect and reason is the order in which we find the Will of God regarding our relationship with those in authority.'

Is the Holy Spirit not to be involved then? Thought He was supposed to lead us into all truth. I believe that the Spirit wields our intellect as His own instrument, showing us what He desires of us and when. Sometimes He speaks through others, often using the written Word; but it is Him that I am leaning on and not my own intellect. My intellect apart from Him is nothing.

This is not to quibble with the other things you've written above. Just this one point. Many here have seemingly left the Spirit no part in their lives other than 'illumination' of the written Word because they've been burned before in the Spirit's Name. But He is to us in Jesus' own place. Jesus Himself said so. He speaks to you and I, from the 'greatest' to the least. Are we listening?

[j_graz (j_graz)]

How does one acknowledge and recognize authority? It "requires a great revelation" (SA, p.16) and again "not a matter of outside instruction but of inward revelation" (SA, p.38).
Was the context of my comment - the common mistake being made here of using the term; Revelation, interchangeably with other more appropriate terms. Then of course he minimizes 'outside' or really objective instruction...

Nee seems to be implying that in order to discover the blessings and specifics of 'authority', one needs a 'revelation' - a mystical waking up, or a spiritual dawning. in the heart. A subjective relationship with authority that replaces the objective and rational.

I think we learn from the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the agent of illumination an intruction, but always in concert with and towards (into all truth) the Word of God. While it is true that sometimes I see the irrational in His Word...'pick up your cross', 'love your enemies'....they don't make much sense, yet they are truth, and I understand them with my mind.

In the next paragraph Nee suggeest that we replace our reason (cast it aside) with AUTHORITY..
- But, Nee further states, "It is very true that we need to have the eyes of our reason put out in order to follow the Lord. What governs our lives? Is it reason or is it authority? When one is enlightened by the Lord he will be blinded by the light, and his reason will be cast aside" (SA, p.93).

[lee (lee)]

In our BS days, we noticed the students devouring the writings of Nee. We did as well.
BUT, it is wrong for all the above reasons that PG has pointed out. It took a long while for us to get that thinking out of our heads. The christians I now know, have read Nee's stuff as well but they read with their critical thinking skills, thus ending up with far different conclusions and understanding.

I think its good to point out the error, as it has been done here. I hope the students that are listening to so many voices, will read this thread and begin to understand. Seems as though confusion and fear are still present.

[anova (anova)]

j_graz,

Thanks so much for bringing up this crucial issue!!

Since leaving TBS, I have cringed every time I have seen Nee's Spiritual Authority on a pastor's bookshelf.

Also, I have come to disagree with many other things that Nee has written. He had some good things to say. But so much was just simply wrong. His use of scripture was so often utterly irresponsible. Take for instance his book espousing the value of the Word, "Ye Search The Scriptures." Even that title was taken completely out opf context! Those words were a rebuke by Jesus to the Pharisees!

I have never wanted to go back to critique Spiritual Authority because of the distaste I came to have for it through my TBS experience. I do remember, however, that he used a preponderance of Old Testament examples/metaphors to the exlusion of New Testament directives about the church. Didn't he even use the situation with Miriam and Moses as a type of the present day congregant and pastor? That kind of teaching is dangerous.

[anova (anova)]

Another thought,

"All who would maintain God's authority must know how to oppose their own feelings..."

There are, indeed, times when we must ignore our feelings. To make a lifestyle of it is to court with disaster. God made us emotional beings. He, Himself, has emotions. To utterly deny them is to deny part of his nature and His creation. Read through the entire Bible. It is a book FILLED with emotions, expressed through emotion.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Other scriptures taken out of context:

"line upon line, precept upon precept"

This was Isaiah taunting the teachers in babytalk:

Hebrew: tsav tsav, kav kav.
English: Nannynannybooboo.

"Without a vision the people perish"

It has nothing to do with having a vision for ministry, the future etc. It has to do with unrestrained behavior. See the whole verse:

Proverbs 29:18 (ESV)
Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint,
but blessed is he who keeps the law.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

One memory I have of Nee's book is that he thought that if two believers were in a room, then one of them would have authority over the other. He thought that if you entered a room or situation, you should go in looking to find 'the authority' and seek to submit to it. My take on this is that it throws personal communion with the Holy Spirit out the window. You're relying on someone else's communion with Him rather than having it yourself. Jesus heard from the Father and spoke what He heard. He did what the Father 'showed' Him. He is our example. We have the same Spirit Who raised Jesus from the dead. It is through Him and the Word that we know Jesus, and through others who bear witness of Him.

The written Word does not directly cover every decision you face as an individual. God wants us to talk to Him and to 'listen'. 'Today, if you will hear His voice'. This isn't about having God give you direct direction in every detail. Obviously He allows us to make decisions. But He wants us to have an attitude of waiting on Him and an availability to follow His inner direction when He does give it. God has the authority to speak whenever he wants to, whether it lines up with our doctrinal understanding or not.

If people in positions in the Church are walking in the Spirit and speak the truth, then they have a measure of authority. But it has certain jurisdiction and boundaries and can be subject to other considerations or jurisdictions of authority. Ultimately, you yourself are responsible to God to obey Him. You can't rely on people in positions to always be spiritually accurate for your life or current situations.

[anova (anova)]

"One memory I have of Nee's book is that he thought that if two believers were in a room, then one of them would have authority over the other."

Dear God in Heaven Above, that book was even crazier than I remembered!!

Your absolutely right in what you said, Bob.


JF,

I have to check out the baby talk thing. If that is true, I will be totally blown away!

Anovus

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Here is the passage in context:

Isaiah 28:7-13 (ESV)
These also reel with wine
and stagger with strong drink;
<font color="0000ff">the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink,
they are swallowed by wine,
they stagger with strong drink,
they reel in vision,
they stumble in giving judgment.
[8] For all tables are full of filthy vomit,
with no space left.</font>
[9] "To whom will he teach knowledge,
and to whom will he explain the message?
<font color="0000ff">Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?</font>
[10] For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little."


[11] For by people of strange lips
and with a foreign tongue
the Lord will speak to this people,
[12] to whom he has said,
"This is rest;
give rest to the weary;
and this is repose";
yet they would not hear.
[13] And the word of the Lord will be to them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little,
that they may go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken.



The Hebrew word for 'precept' in this case is tsav:

command, ordinance, oracle (meaning dubious)
used in mocking mimicry of Isaiah's words and thus not a true divine command

The Hebrew word for 'line' meaning a cord for measuring is qav:

Brown, Driver, Briggs says this is an onomatapoetic mimicry of Isaiah's words, perhaps senseless.

Isaiah is mocking the drunken priests and prophets with babytalk. Thus: "To whom will he teach knowledge,
and to whom will he explain the message?
<font color="0000ff">Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?</font>

(i.e. babies)

The passage sounds like this:
Tsav, tsav. Qav, Qav. Zeheyr, Zeheyr.

That's why I said: Nannynannybooboo.

Paul quotes part of this passage in his instructions on tongues used in the congregation.

See 1 Cor. 14:21 (ESV)
In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord."

[anova (anova)]

jf,

Thanks! Now THAT is truly amazing! Really.

Seems like for all of Junior's hours of study, he couldn't bother to read the verses before and after the verse he wuold quote.

Anovus

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

I trust you are sufficiently blown away.

So was I when I studied the passage. To be fair, a lot of evangelicals have their pet passages with twisted meanings. Even Kay Arthur named her ministry "Precept" based on the passage.

Don't get me going on the 'still small voice' thing.

(Message edited by Jim Faucett on May 05, 2005)

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

So what's the implication, Jim? The vast majority of GG preaching, from what I have seen, is of the topical, not the verse-by-verse sort prevalent in most evangelical churches. I think that it is this distinction in methodology that allowed for the private interpretation of doctrines to become canon for GGWO, whereas the verse-by-verse system tends to keep the student of scripture accountable. When I left the GG system, it was precisely this difference - between so-called "catagorical" and what I understood to be "line-by-line" teaching - that was hard for me to get over. The topical-catagorical method allows for the charisma of the messenger to get in the way of the message, since he is seen as the "unlocker" and "revealer" of "new" truths. In standard evangelical churches, as you know, this is not the case.

So, since it seems to me that most of GG teaching is not constructed in this way, what is the implication for GGWO teachings in your elucidation of this text? I realize that you were just taking aim at the buffoonery of Junior, but I'm wondering what the broader application might be. How do you see the verse-by-verse method?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

OTP, as you are aware, CHS and many others build their doctrines around Authorized Version terminology and they have something they want to say which they think is 'scriptural' then they pick a scripture to launch from. Therein lies the danger.

There is nothing wrong with 'topical' preaching. Scripture often deals with 'topics' particularly in the epistles. Sometimes the verse-by-verse guys can get lost in their sermons by analyzing every word in the text to death. It would be like taking a magnifying glass to examine all the bark on every tree in the forest--you miss the walk and don't enjoy it.

The author(s) both human and divine had something to say when the message was originally given. Our job as expositors is to see what that is. We are also instructed by Christ that he is the overarching subject of all the Scriptures. Someone noted that Christ was not visible in Schaller's latest drivel. I agree.

Scripture is not formed illogically. It is an unveiling of God.

Someone (and this is not an attack on the person, just an observation) recently quoted Ps.2:3 as the reason we post on FN.

Psalm 2:3 (ESV)
"Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us."

Hey sounds good, right? But does context matter? Can we just pick our verses to fit our circumstances and feelings--as if we were in some Scriptural cafeteria? Look at the context and see who it is that is saying this:

Psalm 2:2-6 (ESV)
<font color="0000ff">The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,</font>
[3] "Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us."
[4] He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
[5] Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
[6] "As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

These are rulers of the world who want nothing to do with God or with His Son Jesus Christ who would break off HIS bonds--which is impossible because God has established his kingdom. Do we want to be the ones saying we'll have nothing to do with the government of Christ?

OTP, let's say I want to study the Kingdom of God. That is a topic. There are eschatalogical passages on the kingdom, there are doctrinal passages, gospel passages, wisdom and poetic passages, etc. I need to be careful to understand the genre of literature I am studying as well as the context and purpose of the passage. I don't want to feed in meaning, I want to draw it out. At the end of the study, preaching, teaching, talking, etc. I have to ask--how have I seen the Lord Jesus Christ in all this. What has God revealed of himself which I must believe and what does God require of me now that I have heard it?

There is a good book out there OTP, called 'Exegetical Fallacies' by D.A. Carson that helped free me up from a lot of evangelical cliches and Carlisms. One of them was concerning the word 'power' which many evangelicals say "this is the greek word 'dunamis' which is where we get our word for dynamite!" So this 'power' is God's 'dynamite' in our lives!" Sounds deep. Does God want to blow us up? Is God's power destructive or constructive mainly? Is the illustration anachronistic? You get the drift.

[lee (lee)]

Sheesh Jim, You got me! We went to a different church this Sunday.....a pretty famous one here in Boston. This scripture was part of the 'program'. I even carried out the handout they gave us so I could remember the verse. At the time, and from what I heard, it sounded perfect to describe my desire for those still stuck in GGWO.
So, I guess I'll scratch that church off my list!!

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

Thanks for the exposition, Jim.

This whole thing reminds me of good ol' J. Vernon McGee... i found a hilarious site about him being a false prophet a while ago...

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Nice, balanced post Jim. I find that some pastors tend to always preach topically; and perhaps that should be a warning signal. And, in my hearing, the ones who always preach that way seem to misuse Scriptures somewhat regularly.

At the same time, topic is one kind of context.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

WOW... j vernon mcgee! haven't thought of him in years. i used to hear him on the radio in the morning while milking cows. didn't inspire me much but the cows seemed to like it.

[steve_quinlan (steve_quinlan)]

Jim,
While we may not see eye to eye on some things, I think you really nailed this one. Excellent explanation and illustration of the importance of context in Biblical interpretation. Thanks.
SQ

[karen (karen)]

Joel,

It's hard to imagine you milking cows. Where was that, if you don't mind my asking? Now, if it were Anovus, I'd have no problem believing it. Milking cows, mucking stalls--it's all within the realm of possibility. I see Anovus now, baling hay while listening to Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, the Pastorale. It is almost too poignant for words.

[anova (anova)]

Et tu brutina?

[karen (karen)]

Anovus,

Is this another one of your "prepared" statements? Put the book down and step away from it.

[anova (anova)]

Karen,

Just a thorough grounding in the classics and the great languages.

[karen (karen)]

You are truly a Renaissance man. In that case, all I can say is "Then fall Anovus. Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead! Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets."

[anova (anova)]

Uh, would that be from Die Hard III?

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

ahhh so sorry i missed this little conversation.

well karen, yes i do know how to milk a cow, muck a stall and bale hay. all things that anovus has N0 idea of what is even vaguely involved. makes me think of eddy albert and eva gabor on green acres!!!!

(Message edited by C_la_verite on May 05, 2005)

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Lee, I wouldn't necessarily scratch off the church--just the company that prints the bulletins (unless they actually misused the verse in the sermon)! Sometimes those things are really whacky--Drago has more examples.

SQ, thanks. I am really enjoying the "how to start a cult" psychological evaluation as well. The feelings boiled up again.

[lee (lee)]

Jim
The verse was taken and used out of context.....not the fault of the printer. Also, not reason enough to scratch the church off the list. There are other reasons for doing so.
No big deal. There's got to be a church for us, right?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Lee,

"Welcome
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, this church opens wide her doors and offers welcome to all who sin and need a Savior; to all who are spiritually weak and seek rest; to all who mourn and long for comfort; to all who struggle and desire victory; to all who are strangers and want fellowship; to all who hunger and thirst after righteousness; and to whomsoever will come."

http://www.ctkboston.org/

How's that sound to you?

[cordell]

Read carefully above. Great insight from J. Graziano. And an incredibly warm moment when the otherwise head-banging duo of Quinlan and Cordell agree on something!!!

[rocketman]

Nee was the first book I read faithfully, besides the word. Every six months. It was the foundation for everything that came after, it was perfect for maintaining that ol' One Mind of Christ bs. Who knows, my ragged copy may still be banging around in the attic... ah for the sweet life of a simpleton!

[johncollins]

Glad you bumped this thread, RM.

Jerry - GREAT stuff!

Question: by what means can the person in the pew know and have confidence that the "leader" indeed has been given authority from God? Because he says so? Because he has a paper that says so?

I understand the use of Rom. 13, but as has been pointed out, even Paul didn't slavishly submit to every authority of man.

[j_graz]

Mark 10:42-45 "But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

It's interesting to swith the order of the words "Spiritual Authority" to "Authority (which is) Spiritual".

We've seen authority excersiced in a self-serving self-induldging manner. Men who loved to be served, instead of loving to serve.

That I believe is what Christ described in the above passage...those who serve...(and who is served!) is how we measure 'authority that is spiritual' in nature.

[sidethorn]

Carl would switch words and twist Scriptures to control people with his doctrines about authority. He presumed that God specially appointed him as a special present day apostle with special wisdom and specially delegated authority that is never to be questioned. He assumes that when God appointed pastors that he himself is included in that and has been heading GGWO by divine appointment. Then he assumes that the Bible's teaching about submission means total blind, unwavering, unquestioning submission to his every command whether they're Biblical or not. People thinking for themselves and consulting God outside the direct supervision of the GGWO pastor-teacher heirarchy are presumed to be in rebellion to divine authority delegated through GGWO pastor teachers. Carl selfishly appointed himself and his inner circle as direct intermediaries between Christ and the people so he could control them and use them for his own purposes!! Carl equates submission to Christ's authority to complete, unquestioning submission to his own authority. There's no balance in Carl's kingdom where people are free to obey God rather than corrupt men or follow God's instructions for them directly. Blind obedience to GGWO pastors is a requirement no matter what! All that so Carl and his henchmen could take from the people and trap them into permanent submission to their every whim. Talk about lording it over the people!! All these twisted teachings about authority and other subjects were very cleverly designed to keep people in bondage to the GGWO leadership for the rest of their lives. No wonder there were teachings like these.

Leave GGWO and you're leaving God's will and risk divine judgement against you like cancer or death.

Each person is appointed a GGWO pastor teacher for life by God.

What that pastor commands is always God's will.

That pastor teacher will present you to Christ so you better obey him and serve him well.

Questioning that pastor teacher is questioning God.

Disobeying that pastor teacher is disobeying God.

Speaking anything negative about any GGWO pastor or GGWO itself will bring divine judgement upon you.

Thinking for yourself is rebellion and evil.

Any information that's contrary to Carl's teaching or negative about GGWO or its pastors is always a false, evil, negative report that must always be ignored.

GGWO pastor teachers are God's specially anointed ones so you better not touch them or anger them in any way. You're supposed to blindly serve them.



You get the picture. GGWO leaders lure people into their cult and reprogram them to be docile, robotic servants to them that never question anything or leave. Its all about people serving these leaders who claim they're only accountable to God but demand that everyone be fully accountable to them!! Sickening how these manipulators use peoples' love against them to enslave them to their corrupt, unaccountable leadership!! The bondage goes on!!

[j_graz]

An example mentioned by sidethorn was derived at from 2 Jn 1:8.
Affectionately called the ‘Doctrine of the Full Reward’.

Here’s the passage ; "Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward."

This was taught to mean that if one left the 'ministry' they would lose the rewards that the entire ministry earned. I could potentially be rewarded for work in Africa, even though I never went. A nice way to keep people around who do ‘squat’ for Christ. (?)
But, a nice sentiment for the co-laborer – although you just can’t draw the conclusion for this from this passage alone.

There is a measure of truth for this as with many troubling teachings.
A good example was the businessman who supported Hudson Taylor. I’m sure God was very pleased with his giving.

'Full Reward' - The word misqov" (misqos) is the term for a workman’s wage, the payment he is due in exchange for his labor. There is a threat to believers if the false teachers of verse 7 are allowed to infiltrate the church - Loss of rewards!
Rewards are mentioned in 1 Cor 3:8-10, Matt 5:12, 10:22, Mark 9:41; 13:13, and Luke 19:11-27...so there's no problem there.
However if the heretics or false teachers have an impact, then there is no basis for rewards in the future, since my doctrine would be corrupted. By the way, the following verse reveals what specific area of doctrine is being corrupted - Christology.
“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”

The threat of loss is leaving the doctrines of Christ, not finding another church!

1. Do I lose what I've earned, as a result of something I do or don't do after I've earned it?(God is just, and these are wages)
2. Does changing my relationship with a church, mean I lose the rewards I participated in earning with those believers?

So our rewards are not based upon my affiliation with a church, but my personal investment in the work of God AND my faithful maintenance of proper theology, especially regarding the character and nature of Christ.

(Message edited by j_graz on December 22, 2006)

[sidethorn]

This whole rewards and loss of rewards thing is yet another twist of Scripture that Carl Stevens used to keep people under his control. Carl preaches about supposed group rewards for all who stay at GGWO under his thumb. That's just another of his methods to discourage people from leaving GGWO!! God actually rewards people on an individual basis, not a group or church basis. Changing churches does not result in the loss of rewards either. Sometimes changing churches is very helpful to finding a much stronger relationship with Christ. That stronger relationship also has a lot of greater reward potential too. A great way to having a better relationship with Christ is to be free of meddling pastors like GGWO's that want to act as go-betweens between people and Christ. Christ wants direct relationships with people, not indirect ones through GGWO pastor-teachers!!! A true pastor will nuture peoples' direct relationships with Christ instead of try to get in the middle of it!!!

[sister_mary]

Finland: Tampere GGWO Church (Armon Viesti ry) unnamed speaker preaches in his sermon Siunattu_pelko 4.3.2007:

ANALYSIS OF SERMON “BLESSED FEAR”

The preacher says that the Holy Spirit produces fear, that is good for us, but in this view I do not agree. Fear is only for the ungodly sinners, not to those who are members of Gods family. I agree with the preacher that Holy respect will be a better term for Christians. Of course we must fear the consequences of our sin, if we do that and Lords (Fathers) fear draws us to the grace of Jesus Christ and after repentance we receive the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 9: 31. So the assemblies throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, and were built up. They were multiplied, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

Fear does not belong in Christian fellowship. That is why love should create trust and respect, not fear among brethern and sisters:

1 Cor. 16: 10. Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without fear, for he does the work of the Lord, as I also do.


2 Chron. 19: 7. Now therefore let the fear of Yahweh be on you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with Yahweh our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes.

The unnamed preacher explains this that Jesus in us do not sin, but we sin and do all those sins mentioned above without letting the Holy Spirit work in us creating holy fear.

The preacher continues the sermon from Proverbs 8: 13. The fear of Yahweh is to hate evil. I hate pride, arrogance, the evil way, and the perverse mouth.

He also teaches to live in modest life that produces peaceful life: Proverbs 37: 16. “Better is a little that the righteous has, Than the abundance of many wicked.” And: Proverbs 15: 16. “Better is little, with the fear of Yahweh, Than great treasure with trouble.” The preacher describes the agony of stock market sellers when they try to gain money etc.

Ef. 5: 21. “subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” is explained to respect each other because of the consequences before Christ.

1 Peter 1: 17. “If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man's work, pass the time of your living as strangers here in reverent fear:” Christians are ecouraged to live as strangers. Does it mean to separate believers to “us” and “they”, “insiders=strangers” and “outsiders=worldly people”....

1 John 4: 18. “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love.” The preacher ends his sermon stating the the right godly fear does not create fear that sinners experience. We are objects of Jesus Perfect Love and that drives fear away.

http://raamattupuhuutre.pp.fi/Saarnoja/Siunattu_pelko.saarna.4.3.07.mp3

[sister_mary]

Continuation to previous text:

So what do you thinks about GGWO:s doctrine of Holy Fear? If this is taught every week the listeners will be subjected to selfguilt and alienate themselves totally from all that they suspect to be outsiders, because they teach that they are holy strangers in the world and must fear all evil. It is not normal and of course I believe they do not have this subject every month. The sermon was rather clear and good. Still I was pondering that we cannot close all evil out from our lives. We face evil everyday in life: sickness, death, jealousy, gossips, misunderstanding, disapointments, wrong judgements and accidents and the devils attacks. But if we learn to face them as lifes reality from childhood, we become inured and can protect ourselves in trusting God and living in love and putting by prayers His holy armour (Ephesians 6: 10-20) in tribulation times and be WINNERS. I believe in WINNER Gospel: God wins always, Jesus won death and Satan and WE ARE THE WINNERS because we are in Jesus mercy as Gods children!

One thing: is the preacher so afraid of the world that his name is not told to the listeners. Nor the visitors in the web do not know, who is the pastor in Tampere, Finland and that does not increase credibility.

[sister_mary]

The Finnish Tampere Congregations pastor operates without name like this minister:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmJjVsObjY

Also the GGWO Finnish Bible School (Pohjoismainen Raamattukoulu = Nordic Bible School) has no mention on the internet about its pricipal, teachers and goals, course program and examination, prices or correspondence between churches... only address and e-mail address and telephone number, how weird!

http://www.raamattukoulu.net/