by G. Richard Fisher
This article first appeared in the January-March, 1985 issue of the Personal Freedom Outreach newsletter (Vol. 5, No 1, page 5).
Many Christians uncritically accept the writings of Watchman Nee even though few know anything about his background. Many are impressed by the volume of his work and the dogmatism and feeling of deep spirituality that characterize his writings. His ideas and books still influence Charismatics, fundamentalists and people in between.
But one need not be a theologian to discover that his teachings call for scrutiny and caution by Christians. Much can be learned about Nee from a cursory reading of some of his books and the writings of others who were around him. These show that his theology developed through encounters with four different people and it was from these that he "borrowed" ideas extensively. Each new book seemed to develop from "discoveries" received from these teachers.
Nee's basic writings cover over 40 volumes and have been researched by Dana Roberts. His findings are not flattering to Nee and are presented in his book Understanding Watchman Nee. This writer is indebted to Roberts for much of the material in this article.
Nee was born Nee Shi-Tsu in November 1903. His mother, a Methodist mission convert, later changed his name to "Bell ringer," or Watchman, with all the Christian connotations. He claimed conversion to Christianity in April 1920. At a Bible school in Shanghai, he came under the influence of a female teacher, Miss Yu. Under her instruction he seriously sought a "second blessing." He later said he felt he had "recovered" truth for the church and taught four subsequent experiences after conversion.
Miss Yu directed Nee to Miss M.E. Barber, who taught him in the Keswick concept of the filling of the Spirit. In February 1922, Nee claimed, he was "baptized in the Spirit" and put himself under the continuing instruction of Barber. Barber then was responsible for the development of Nee's perfectionists theology. Barber also convinced Nee of the truth of the "partial rapture" theory assigning carnal believers to a kind of Protestant purgatory. Nee admitted that in his writings on the book of Revelation, he depended on a book from Barber's library by Robert Gonett [Govett] that teaches a partial rapture. Thus we see how he got these new "insights" that became the basis for new books.
Later, Barber allowed Nee to read the works of Jesse Penn Lewis when she thought he was "mature enough," Roberts says. Penn Lewis, a mystic with a Welsh Methodist background, saw many parts to man's inner nature. Her literaure, considered "holiness literature," is the main source for Nee's Spiritual Man series, in which he developed a gnostic view of man, Roberts says. Nee also got doses of Catholic mysticism through the writings of Madame Jeanne Guyon, as published in Penn Lewis' magazine.
Nee continued to read widely and when Barber exposed him to the writings of John Darby, he found the basis for his ecclesiology, or thoughts on the church. From that point, everything Nee wrote on the church is easily identified with the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren. He rejected clergy as unscriptural.
During this time Nee also professed to be led by inner leadings. He justified this subjective means of revelation by saying that the ways of God are not known by external means but by "internal registrations." Again, he was rejecting external authority.
Nee had his own eclectic system developed when he encountered another woman in 1935. Elizabeth Fischbacker introduced him to Pentecostal theology and speaking in tongues. Nee did not regard tongues as unbiblical but never spoke in tongues himself.
In 1942, Nee took over the running of his brother George's chemical factory. He consigned all the property to the church and sought to have the church members as the factory workers. As a result he contradicted previous positions he had taken regarding disassociation of the church and business. In 1949, Mao-Tse Tung came to power and Communist China was born. Nee, a factory owner, was seen as an imperialist and eventually was jailed. He remained in prison until his death in 1972.
The teachings that developed over Nee's lifetime and out of his encounters with these women and the teachings they directed him to are dangerous to Christians seeking clear guidelines to follow. Space allows a listing of only a few of the problems in Nee's teachings.
* Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.
One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.
* Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "The Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continued, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, or words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.
* Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."
When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.
Special Note: "[ ]" indicates correction to misspelled name in the body of text.
© 1985 by Personal Freedom Outreach
Personal Freedom Outreach P.O.B. 26062 St. Louis, MO 63136
(314) 388-2648
See also: Witness Lee's Local Church
Edition: Oct 24,2002
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Spiritual Authority: A Review
by Pat Knapp
My wife and I had spent 13+ years, 1970-1984, enraptured in an aberrant group called "Bethel Christian Fellowship." The group meet in various homes over the years, claimed to be a truly "New Testament" church, shunned outside believers, encouraged, and in most cases demanded separation from parents and friends outside the membership, heavily controlled peoples relationships within the group, and generally acted aberrant (see Aberrant Christianity for a definition of this term).
In January 84' we left and found ourselves very much in need of addressing "recovery" issues. In the years since we left, we've had to tackle many problems surrounding our involvement.
One of the key questions we have struggled with is why we involved ourselves in the first place. Looking back there were many unresolved dysfunctional family and co-dependent issues that we had never heard of, let alone addressed. There were also many issues as to what we believed about God and more particularly how He operates that brings me to the subject of this paper.
The central theological issue in this group was the nature of spiritual authority. The key book which was pushed within "Bethel" was Watchmen Nee's Spiritual Authority. My purpose in critiquing this book is two fold: 1) to build a more articulate framework for my own healing and 2) to develop a practical paper to help others who have been greatly harmed by many of the thoughts contained in this book.
I will critique this particular work from a perspective of what the logical consequences of the theology and teaching are, describing what I believe is an extremely dysfunctional way of relating to God and people. My purpose is not to address the book from a theological or Biblical approach, but from a psychological perspective. I will then present what I consider to be a healthier approach to addressing what is True "Spiritual Authority" and offer the reader some suggested texts for further reading.
Background
To understand the significance of Spiritual Authority it is helpful to have a brief overview of Watchmen Nee himself and the cultural climate he was effected by.
Nee To-Sheng, or Watchman Nee, was a Chinese Christian who lived from 1903 to 1972. He became a Christian in 1920 while attending college. Nee's disenchantment with the sterile formalism of his Christian education led him to help start a "house church" of the Plymouth Brethren in Foochow, China in 1922. In 1927 Watchman Nee founded a church movement which was called the "Little Flock." By 1949 the Little Flock had over 70,000 members in 500 assemblies.(1)
The cultural climate itself was essentially anti-intellectual and during Nee's early ministry years:Throughout China there were anti-foreign demonstrations and kidnappings. Most missionaries had returned temporarily to their home countries. The future of mission-founded churches was uncertain. Many Chinese pastors had severed their links with western missions....
On the 10th April, 1952, in the middle of the "Accusation period" in China when dozens of pastors and workers were falsely accused before vast crowds in the various city centres, Watchman Nee was condemned by a Communist court and sent to a small cell in the Shanghai First Municipal Prison.(2)
Spiritual Authority
It was prior to his imprisonment in 1948 in Guling and Fuzhou that he gave his addresses on "Spiritual Authority" in which we see the final evolution of his ecclesiology.
Nee states: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 (SA, p.71).
Note that 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 the direction, command or whatever. He sees both delegated authority and direct authority as having the same level of power and importance to the Christian.
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).
These two 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, nearly exclusive importance.
The latter is seen statements like: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).
He goes on further saying, "If this matter of authority remains unsolved, nothing can be solved" (SA, p.23).
While Nee has had much to offer in his example of uncompromising commitment to God in the area of obedience, he does a disservice when it comes to understanding human nature and its makeup.
Nee believed that human nature is tripartite (body, soul, and spirit). This emphasis in his teaching plays a major role in his determining how God works his grace in humanity. Because of his emphasis on the "spirit" of a person being the only source by which we can communicate/ relate with God, subjectivity reigns throughout this book.
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).
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). While inward revelations are certainly good and necessary, so is using our reason in order that we find Truth regarding our world in which we live.
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 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.
Our nature requires that we make extensive use of our mental capacities. Nee feels reason is to be cast aside, but uses reason throughout this book to prove his point. So when one is up against this inconsistency how can we respond but to distrust ourselves? 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")? One learns, in such situations, to mistrust others. 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 trust, 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).
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).
Let's pretend then our feelings don't matter, as well as making a distinction between what God requires from those "delegated authorities" and the "ordinary brothers." It sounds like a parent relating to very small children. The problem here is that with this system, people must always (if to be "in the Spirit") remain a dependent child never truly growing up and living a life of continually pretending.
How about our relationship with God, how does that suffer? Simply put, we learn that God does not require us to be fully responsible for our actions and that He expects "blind faith." Our servanthood, toward man and God becomes robotic, denying our very nature. As people are abused by such "delegated authorities" and yet hold to this theory of spiritual authority God becomes someone who hates a great deal or who just doesn't listen to his children's real thoughts and feelings. He becomes distant and a father figure to be avoided or actively fought (depending on the individual).
In working with many who have come out of groups advocating this form of spiritual authority, all have many resentments and fears toward God as well as authority figures. In addition, they carry the full blame for their "unspiritual feelings" until and if, they identify the real source. The real source is in a shared responsibility: 1) False beliefs being taught by those "delegated authorities" 2) perhaps some level of dysfunctionality originating from their family of origin and 3) choices are made by the individual himself.
On the Upside
What is the nature of True Spiritual Authority? While I have been very critical of Nee's Spiritual Authority I must in all fairness acknowledge the common ground I share with him. I would certainly acknowledge that "all authority comes from God" (Rom 13:1).
Second, I agree a high degree of self denial and servanthood is necessary, accompanied with an attitude of brokeness and dependence on God.
In SA pp.118-9, Nee clearly acknowledges this need, but he puts it in such a black/ white mindset that it gives little room for personal growth within this area of one's life. He also is inconsistent in his absolute insistence on the authority not being subjective yet denying the need of God revealing truth through our intellect and powers of rationale.
Third, Nee stresses the need for commitment to a consistent daily walk with the God of the universe. While with this I can agree, there are important items that Nee denies or neglects.
Fundamental to leadership is understanding how God works in us and how He works is not always identical with all people, in all times of our history. Central however, is the leaderships' view of God and humanity.
One who would exhibit true spiritual authority, I believe, would hold to a dichotomists view of human nature, thus valuing the whole person and not devaluating his soul (mind, will, and intellect). There would be a clear vision for balance in the life of one exhibiting this spiritual authority. A black/ white mindset would be seen as a weakness, not as strength. All of us, the "ordinary brother" as well as the "delegated authority" should be seen very much "in process."
Last, but certainly not least, a true leader has a passion for seeing genuine growth take place in others and an acknowledgement of God's grace at work in oneself. The concept of "Authority", as Nee presents it, is not at the heart of such an individual. Instead the desire for the discovery of truth: within the world; with others; with themselves and with God is the heart felt yearning. God speaking through the apostle Paul spoke of "pressing on" to full maturity in the faith (Phil. 3:12-14), and not remaining as "infants, tossed back and forth" by the waves of life (Eph. 4:14). Because God values all of our parts equally, such growth can and will take place.
"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6).
Suggested Bibliography for Further Reading
Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience, by Macaulay and Barrs. Intervarsity Press, 1978.
Good News for the Chemically Dependent, by Jeffrey Van Vonderen. Thomas Nelson, Publishers 1985.
Unleashing the Church, by Frank R. Tillapaugh. Regal Books, 1982.
Unleashing Your Potential, by Frank R. Tillapaugh. Regal Books, 1988.
Shepherds & Sheep, by Jerram Barrs. Intervarsity Press, 1983.
Paths of Leadership, by Andrew T. LePeau. Intervarsity Press, 1983.
True Spirituality, by Francis A. Schaeffer. Tyndale House Publishers, 1985.
Voices From the Fringe, by Ronald Enroth. Moody Monthly, Oct. 1989.
The Power Abusers, by Ronald Enroth. Eternity Magazine, Oct. 1979.
My wife and I had spent 13+ years, 1970-1984, enraptured in an aberrant group called "Bethel Christian Fellowship." The group meet in various homes over the years, claimed to be a truly "New Testament" church, shunned outside believers, encouraged, and in most cases demanded separation from parents and friends outside the membership, heavily controlled peoples relationships within the group, and generally acted aberrant (see Aberrant Christianity for a definition of this term).
In January 84' we left and found ourselves very much in need of addressing "recovery" issues. In the years since we left, we've had to tackle many problems surrounding our involvement.
One of the key questions we have struggled with is why we involved ourselves in the first place. Looking back there were many unresolved dysfunctional family and co-dependent issues that we had never heard of, let alone addressed. There were also many issues as to what we believed about God and more particularly how He operates that brings me to the subject of this paper.
The central theological issue in this group was the nature of spiritual authority. The key book which was pushed within "Bethel" was Watchmen Nee's Spiritual Authority. My purpose in critiquing this book is two fold: 1) to build a more articulate framework for my own healing and 2) to develop a practical paper to help others who have been greatly harmed by many of the thoughts contained in this book.
I will critique this particular work from a perspective of what the logical consequences of the theology and teaching are, describing what I believe is an extremely dysfunctional way of relating to God and people. My purpose is not to address the book from a theological or Biblical approach, but from a psychological perspective. I will then present what I consider to be a healthier approach to addressing what is True "Spiritual Authority" and offer the reader some suggested texts for further reading.
Background
To understand the significance of Spiritual Authority it is helpful to have a brief overview of Watchmen Nee himself and the cultural climate he was effected by.
Nee To-Sheng, or Watchman Nee, was a Chinese Christian who lived from 1903 to 1972. He became a Christian in 1920 while attending college. Nee's disenchantment with the sterile formalism of his Christian education led him to help start a "house church" of the Plymouth Brethren in Foochow, China in 1922. In 1927 Watchman Nee founded a church movement which was called the "Little Flock." By 1949 the Little Flock had over 70,000 members in 500 assemblies.(1)
The cultural climate itself was essentially anti-intellectual and during Nee's early ministry years:Throughout China there were anti-foreign demonstrations and kidnappings. Most missionaries had returned temporarily to their home countries. The future of mission-founded churches was uncertain. Many Chinese pastors had severed their links with western missions....
On the 10th April, 1952, in the middle of the "Accusation period" in China when dozens of pastors and workers were falsely accused before vast crowds in the various city centres, Watchman Nee was condemned by a Communist court and sent to a small cell in the Shanghai First Municipal Prison.(2)
Spiritual Authority
It was prior to his imprisonment in 1948 in Guling and Fuzhou that he gave his addresses on "Spiritual Authority" in which we see the final evolution of his ecclesiology.
Nee states: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 (SA, p.71).
Note that 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 the direction, command or whatever. He sees both delegated authority and direct authority as having the same level of power and importance to the Christian.
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).
These two 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, nearly exclusive importance.
The latter is seen statements like: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).
He goes on further saying, "If this matter of authority remains unsolved, nothing can be solved" (SA, p.23).
While Nee has had much to offer in his example of uncompromising commitment to God in the area of obedience, he does a disservice when it comes to understanding human nature and its makeup.
Nee believed that human nature is tripartite (body, soul, and spirit). This emphasis in his teaching plays a major role in his determining how God works his grace in humanity. Because of his emphasis on the "spirit" of a person being the only source by which we can communicate/ relate with God, subjectivity reigns throughout this book.
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).
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). While inward revelations are certainly good and necessary, so is using our reason in order that we find Truth regarding our world in which we live.
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 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.
Our nature requires that we make extensive use of our mental capacities. Nee feels reason is to be cast aside, but uses reason throughout this book to prove his point. So when one is up against this inconsistency how can we respond but to distrust ourselves? 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")? One learns, in such situations, to mistrust others. 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 trust, 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).
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).
Let's pretend then our feelings don't matter, as well as making a distinction between what God requires from those "delegated authorities" and the "ordinary brothers." It sounds like a parent relating to very small children. The problem here is that with this system, people must always (if to be "in the Spirit") remain a dependent child never truly growing up and living a life of continually pretending.
How about our relationship with God, how does that suffer? Simply put, we learn that God does not require us to be fully responsible for our actions and that He expects "blind faith." Our servanthood, toward man and God becomes robotic, denying our very nature. As people are abused by such "delegated authorities" and yet hold to this theory of spiritual authority God becomes someone who hates a great deal or who just doesn't listen to his children's real thoughts and feelings. He becomes distant and a father figure to be avoided or actively fought (depending on the individual).
In working with many who have come out of groups advocating this form of spiritual authority, all have many resentments and fears toward God as well as authority figures. In addition, they carry the full blame for their "unspiritual feelings" until and if, they identify the real source. The real source is in a shared responsibility: 1) False beliefs being taught by those "delegated authorities" 2) perhaps some level of dysfunctionality originating from their family of origin and 3) choices are made by the individual himself.
On the Upside
What is the nature of True Spiritual Authority? While I have been very critical of Nee's Spiritual Authority I must in all fairness acknowledge the common ground I share with him. I would certainly acknowledge that "all authority comes from God" (Rom 13:1).
Second, I agree a high degree of self denial and servanthood is necessary, accompanied with an attitude of brokeness and dependence on God.
In SA pp.118-9, Nee clearly acknowledges this need, but he puts it in such a black/ white mindset that it gives little room for personal growth within this area of one's life. He also is inconsistent in his absolute insistence on the authority not being subjective yet denying the need of God revealing truth through our intellect and powers of rationale.
Third, Nee stresses the need for commitment to a consistent daily walk with the God of the universe. While with this I can agree, there are important items that Nee denies or neglects.
Fundamental to leadership is understanding how God works in us and how He works is not always identical with all people, in all times of our history. Central however, is the leaderships' view of God and humanity.
One who would exhibit true spiritual authority, I believe, would hold to a dichotomists view of human nature, thus valuing the whole person and not devaluating his soul (mind, will, and intellect). There would be a clear vision for balance in the life of one exhibiting this spiritual authority. A black/ white mindset would be seen as a weakness, not as strength. All of us, the "ordinary brother" as well as the "delegated authority" should be seen very much "in process."
Last, but certainly not least, a true leader has a passion for seeing genuine growth take place in others and an acknowledgement of God's grace at work in oneself. The concept of "Authority", as Nee presents it, is not at the heart of such an individual. Instead the desire for the discovery of truth: within the world; with others; with themselves and with God is the heart felt yearning. God speaking through the apostle Paul spoke of "pressing on" to full maturity in the faith (Phil. 3:12-14), and not remaining as "infants, tossed back and forth" by the waves of life (Eph. 4:14). Because God values all of our parts equally, such growth can and will take place.
"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6).
Suggested Bibliography for Further Reading
Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience, by Macaulay and Barrs. Intervarsity Press, 1978.
Good News for the Chemically Dependent, by Jeffrey Van Vonderen. Thomas Nelson, Publishers 1985.
Unleashing the Church, by Frank R. Tillapaugh. Regal Books, 1982.
Unleashing Your Potential, by Frank R. Tillapaugh. Regal Books, 1988.
Shepherds & Sheep, by Jerram Barrs. Intervarsity Press, 1983.
Paths of Leadership, by Andrew T. LePeau. Intervarsity Press, 1983.
True Spirituality, by Francis A. Schaeffer. Tyndale House Publishers, 1985.
Voices From the Fringe, by Ronald Enroth. Moody Monthly, Oct. 1989.
The Power Abusers, by Ronald Enroth. Eternity Magazine, Oct. 1979.
WATCHMAN NEE’S TEACHING ON SOUL AND SPIRIT: A FORM OF NEO-GNOSTICISM
A Review By Gordon Ferguson My Introduction To Watchman Nee and Witness Lee
In my first ministry job, I was one of several ministers on the staff of a local church. The main pulpit preacher was using terminology and concepts that were strange to my ears, which was significant, since I had just graduated from a very intense two year ministry training school in which we went through the whole Bible verse-by-verse and memorized hundreds and hundreds of Bible verses. What I was hearing sounded definitely different from biblical concepts and wording. Further inquiry led to discovering that the minister was reading books by Nee and Lee, and appeared to be rather drawn to what amounted to a “new teaching” in the churches of which I was a part.
I then purchased some of these books and read them, being struck quickly with the obviously allegorical approach to interpreting Scriptures. The allegorical approach to studying written documents certainly predated the Christian era, but it found its way into the Christian church fairly early. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 B.C. to 42 A.D.). is credited with introducing this method of biblical interpretation to the Old Testament Scriptures. Origen (182-251 A.D.) was quite influential in spreading this method of interpreting the New Testament, as one of the early “Church Fathers.” Augustine adopted a modified form of the system, and Jerome is said to be the main figure responsible for introducing it into the Roman church. But my most recent study, described in the following material, convinces me that Nee’s system is also a form of neo-Gnosticism. Actually, the allegorical system of interpretation is quite closely related in a specific way to the Gnostic approach of interpreting the Scriptures, as we shall see. Introductory Thoughts About Interpreting Nee
In Watchman Nee’s classic book, The Spiritual Man, he combines three volumes into one comprehensive work, which well represents the school of theology that he has developed. The total number of pages in this compendium of his work is 694 − hence a substantial work. The first chapter, Spirit, Soul and Body, forms much of the basis of what he writes later, and gives the reader the keys to interpreting and understanding the terminology used and the concepts they represent. It should be said that the terminology and concepts are unfamiliar to the average Bible reader, which suggests from the outset that we are being introduced to a system of interpretation developed by a man, rather than to the Bible itself. Instead of being taught biblical things in biblical terms, we are forced to learn a system before we can understand what is being taught about the Bible, and thus, this teaching must be run through the filter of the system of interpretation being employed.
A failure to learn the system makes reading Nee’s work confusing and not really understandable to the uninitiated. For example, terms like “soulish” and “soulical” (neither of which are in the Bible or the English Dictionary) are used repeatedly. Soulish essentially represents worldly or non-spiritual attitudes and behavior, while soulical represents spiritual attitudes and behavior. Had Nee simply used the biblical terms themselves rather than inventing other terms, the book would be far more helpful to the average reader, and its errors more obvious. The insistence of using non-biblical terminology to represent fundamental teachings in Nee’s system of theology is not only confusing and demands that the reader develop a familiarity with the system, it also introduces elements of Gnosticism − which will be explained later. Spirit, Soul and Body − the Biblical Passages
This first chapter of the book lays the foundation for the rest of the book, and thus all quotes used from Nee come from Volume One, mostly Chapter One. A failure to understand the terminology and basic assumptions upon which it is based insures the reader’s failure to grasp the rest of the book. With that in mind, I want to give a basic introduction to the theological system used by Nee. The main two passages which form the basis of the theology are the following:
1 Thessalonians 5:23: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
A few observations about these passages are in order: One, the mention of “soul” and “spirit” contained within one verse is only found in these two passages, and neither of them defines what is meant by the distinction. Hence, basing an entire system on one’s interpretation of only two passages which are left divinely unexplained should raise eyebrows at the outset. Most biblical scholars do not elaborate upon this distinction, since it doesn’t seem to be the focus of the passage, but they rather state what the overall emphasis of the passage appears to be (i.e., God saving us completely in 1 Thessalonians 5:23). The following comment by the College Press Commentary is typical of the type explanations given:
That idea is further underlined with the combination “spirit, soul and body.” Much discussion of this phrase has concerned whether it indicates that human beings are trichotomous, consisting of three distinct aspects described by these terms, or dichotomous, really consisting of two aspects, body and spirit. In favor of the former interpretation is the fact that all three terms are used here; in favor of the latter is the difficulty in distinguishing clearly between the meaning of “spirit” (pneuma) and “soul” (psychē). However, it must be conceded that Paul is not discussing the precise nature of humanity but is offering assurance of God’s protection. The combination of three terms here is probably only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, repeatedly indicates that God’s purpose is to save the whole person, not just some part.
A representative example of what biblical scholars say about Hebrews 4:12 is as follows (from Expositor’s Bible Commentary):
The Word of God is unique. No sword can penetrate as it can. We should not take the reference to “soul” and “spirit” as indicating a “dichotomist” over against a “trichotomist” view of man, nor the reference to “dividing” to indicate that the writer envisaged a sword as slipping between them. Nor should we think of the sword as splitting off “joints” and “marrow.” What the author is saying is that God’s Word can reach to the innermost recesses of our being. We must not think that we can bluff our way out of anything, for there are no secrets hidden from God. We cannot keep our thoughts to ourselves. There may also be the thought that the whole of man’s nature, however we divide it, physical as well as nonmaterial, is open to God. With “judges” we move to legal terminology. The Word of God passes judgment on men’s feelings (enthymeseon) and on their thoughts (ennoion). Nothing evades the scope of this Word. What man holds as most secret he finds subject to its scrutiny and judgment.
In other words, the main focus of these two passages is not to emphasize a distinction of soul and spirit, but to make a main point of practical application − namely that God can save us entirely and that the Word of God exposes our inmost thoughts and motivations. Building a theological system on passages intended to provide practical motivations is highly suspect, to say the least. However, Nee has not only chosen a suspect approach, he has deemed it absolutely essential to our understanding of the Bible. A couple of quotes will illustrate that point:
“It is an issue of supreme importance for it affects tremendously the spiritual life of a believer.” (page 22)“To fail to distinguish between spirit and soul is fatal to spiritual maturity.” (page 22)
It is obvious that Nee has not only developed a system of theology and interpretation, but it is equally obvious that he believes we cannot be spiritually healthy (or maybe spiritually saved) without seeing the Bible through the filter of his system. One brother, who came out of this background himself, said that it is not uncommon to hear the adherents to Nee’s doctrine say that this issue is a salvation issue. Certainly such strong assertions by Nee are both assumptive and arrogant, and insulting to the large body of believers who are either unaware of Nee’s system or who have studied and rejected it upon biblical grounds. And as stated before, one of these grounds is the inclusion of certain Gnostic elements.
Spirit, Soul and Body − the System Introduced and Defined
It is important that we introduce the basics of Nee’s theological approach and explanation of his terminology. Nee begins his explanation with the creation of man in Genesis 2:7, quoting from the American Standard Version: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The term soul is from the Hebrew nephesh, which will prove to be very important in this study. Nee says that God breathing into Adam the breath of life meant that the breath of life became man’s spirit, and when it came into contact with man’s body, the soul was produced. Hence, the soul is the combination of man’s body and spirit (and assumedly would not have been formed without the spirit).
He states: “In other words, soul and body were combined with the spirit, and spirit and body were merged in the soul” (page 24). Another quote: “Soul is the organ of man’s free will, the organ in which spirit and body are completely merged” (page 25). Thus, according to Nee, the soul chooses whether to go toward the flesh or the Spirit. We are told that the body gives us “world consciousness;” the soul gives us “self consciousness;” and the spirit gives us “God-consciousness.” This interesting observation was made on page 27: “Before man committed sin the power of the soul was completely under the dominion of the spirit…The spirit cannot itself act upon the body; it can only do so through the medium of the soul.”
However, this observation was followed up by quoting Luke 1:46-47, which reads: “And Mary said: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.’” This passage is typical of scores of passages which use soul and spirit interchangeably (which Nee denies strongly). In this case, we have a simple case of Hebrew parallelism, as any commentator will note. Hence, Nee uses a passage that makes a different case than the one he is trying to make. Nee’s threefold delineation of the supposed nature of both soul and spirit: Soul − the site of personality, consisting of will, intellect and emotions; Spirit − the site of conscience, intuition and communion (worship).
Biblical and Practical Inconsistencies
The word “soul” is used in a variety of ways biblically. Prior to Genesis 2:7, where man is said to be a “soul,” animals, fish, birds and creeping things were all said to be “souls” (from nephesh). (Yet, they had no spirits to unite with their bodies to form their souls!) See Genesis 1:20-26 on the point of other animate life besides humans being souls. The word “creature” is most often the term used to translate nephesh. Thus, living “being” is a good translation for all of created animate life, including man.
Further, God himself is a soul (and has a soul): Leviticus 26:11: “Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you.”Leviticus 26:30: “I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and heap your remains on the remains of your idols; for My soul shall abhor you.”Leviticus 26:43: “For the land shall be abandoned by them, and shall make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, shall be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes.”Psalm 11:5: “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.” Isaiah 42:1: “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights.” Isaiah 53:11: “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.”Zechariah 11:8: “Then I annihilated the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul also was weary of me.”
In the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, soul is often used to describe the inner part, or the spirit of man. Nephesh can describe only the man as a created being (like the animal, bird and fish world), or it can describe the part that is unique to man − the spirit.
Psalm 19:7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.”Psalm 23:3: “He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.”Psalm 25:1: “To Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.”Psalm 30:12: “That my soul may sing praise to Thee, and not be silent.”Psalm 33:20: “Our soul waits for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.”Psalm 34:2: “My soul shall make its boast in the Lord; The humble shall hear it and rejoice.”Psalm 35:9: “And my soul shall rejoice in the Lord; It shall exult in His salvation.” Psalm 42:1-2: As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for Thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; When shall I come and appear before God?” Psalm 71:23: “My lips will shout for joy when I sing praises to Thee; And my soul, which Thou hast redeemed.”Psalm 94:19: “When my anxious thoughts multiply within me, Thy consolations delight my soul.”Psalm 103:2: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget none of His benefits.” Psalm 108:1: “My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing, I will sing praises, even with my soul.” Psalm 119:81: “My soul languishes for Thy salvation; I wait for Thy word.”
Many other similar verses could be quoted, but why is this point important? The following quotes from Nee answer that question.
“The spirit lies beyond man’s self-consciousness and above his sensibility. Here man communicates with God.” (page 29)“The revelations of God and all the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition.” (page 32)“God is not apprehended by our thoughts, feelings or intentions, for He can only be known directly in our spirits.” (page 32)
Implications from the above quotes:
1. If the spirit lies beyond man’s self-consciousness” (his soul), and is the only place where man can communicate with God, the Psalmist was poorly informed of such.
2. If the revelations of God and all the movements of the Holy Spirit are only known through the intuition (which is a part of the spirit, not the soul − by Nee’s definition), then the Psalms are mistaken.
3. If God cannot be known directly through our souls, the Psalmist is again mistaken.
These kinds of contradictions will always occur when the Bible is forced into an artificial system of interpretation. Other contradictions:
1. Before conversion, one cannot distinguish between soul and spirit. (page 34)
2. Yet, on the same page we are told: “The New Testament does not consider those with a sensitive conscience, keen intellect or a spiritual tendency to be saved individuals.” (If conscience is a function of the spirit and is based on the intuition, which cannot be distinguished prior to conversion, how can the conscience become “sensitive?”)
3. If the revelations of God and the work of the Holy Spirit can only be known through his intuition, one’s personal insight is exalted above the statements of Scripture. (Dictionary definition of intuition: “knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. The power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.”) Such a conclusion is both unbiblical and dangerous.
The Soul and Spirit of Man in Normal Biblical Usage
Spirit refers to man’s inner being, made in the image of God. Soul may refer to the animate life itself, or to man’s inner being − depending on the context. Some OT verses use Hebrew parallelism to show the interchangeable nature of soul and spirit, when soul is used to refer to man’s inner being.
1 Samuel 1:15: But Hannah answered and said, "No, my lord, I am a woman oppressed in spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have poured out my soul before the Lord. Job 7:11: “Therefore, I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.”Isaiah 26:9: At night my soul longs for Thee, Indeed, my spirit within me seeks Thee diligently; For when the earth experiences Thy judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.
The NT is even clearer in its interchangeable usage of the terms soul and spirit:
Matthew 10:28: “And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (According to this passage, man cannot kill the soul.)Matthew 22:37: “And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’”Matthew 26:38: “Then He said to them, ‘My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.’”Luke 1:46: “And Mary said: ‘My soul exalts the Lord.’”Acts 2:27: “Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.”2 Corinthians 1:23: “But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth.” Hebrews 6:19: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil.” Hebrews 10:39: “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.”James 5:20: “let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.”1 Peter 2:11: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul.”2 Peter 2:8: “for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds.”3 John 1:2: “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”
Many observations could be made on the above passages, but a mere reading of them pretty much makes the point. Trying to force biblical terminology to fit a system imposed upon it always leads to confusion and false teaching.
Dangers of Watchman Nee’s Teaching (and Those Patterned After Him)
His teaching is a system which is based on his theology and terminology, and cannot be understood without first being trained in that terminology. Thus, instead of just studying the Scriptures, time must be taken to study the philosophy of a man. Many of his teachings are merely assumptions and opinions, and yet are emphatically declared by him to be Scriptural. The essential ingredients of Gnosticism are present in both subtle and blatant forms.
Gnosticism (which was present in incipient forms in many places in the New Testament) has the following characteristics: The name comes from the Greek word, gnosis, for knowledge. It is built upon the premise that anything material was bad. In the realm of personal practices, the NT contains two manifestations of it: asceticism (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and Colossians 2:20-23) and libertinism (see 2 Peter 2:13-22 and Jude). The reasoning was that since the flesh was inherently bad, either deny it or indulge it. In the latter viewpoint, as long as you had the right knowledge (gnosis), what you did with the body didn’t matter. In defining the nature of Christ, those with Gnostic tendencies denied that he could have come in the flesh. He just “seemed” to be in the flesh. We call this the Docetic doctrine. The Apostle John attacks this heresy in no uncertain terms in 2 John 1:7: “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
Further, and this is where Nee’s and Lee’s teachings especially converge with Gnosticism, those who succumbed to Gnosticism believed that they had a special insight to spiritual knowledge, and saw their insight (intuition) as more important that the Bible’s specific teaching. They were very prideful and looked down on those who just simply clung to the specifics of the Bible. They had the idea that in spite of what the Bible seemed to say on certain points, they had been given the illumination of the true will of God. (They could read between the lines to get the real meaning God intended.) This tendency is seen in some of the Christians in Thyatira, according to Revelation 2:24: “Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you).” In other words, these people claimed to have the “deep teachings of God,” but God said that they actually were holding to the “deep teachings of Satan!”
Nee’s form of Gnosticism comes through the development of a rather complicated system, with its own specific terminology, which means that the uninitiated cannot really grasp the “deep teachings” of God. The focus on the intuition as the real means of grasping truth, rather than through the specifics (including the wording) of Scripture is a definite type of Gnosticism, complete with its arrogance and exclusivity (regardless of intentions to the contrary). His claims that the conscience is based on one’s intuition opens wide the door for being directed by a supposed inner voice from God rather than taking God’s written Word as the true basis of conscience training. The conscience is only as accurate as the training upon which it is based. (See my recent article on this subject, entitled: “Matters of Conscience: a Deeper Look.”)
The allegorical approach to interpretation is a part of the discovery of so-called “deeper truths.” For one example, Nee on page 29 compares the three-fold nature of man to the three parts of the temple (outer court, Holy Place, Most Holy Place) − as if God had made the comparison. Such allegorization is common to Nee and Witness Lee. Mentioning Witness Lee, who picked up the torch of Nee’s theology, Lee is even more blatant in his Gnostic statements. Consider the following quotes from The All-Inclusive Christ:
“First of all, I would ask you to realize that according to the Scriptures all physical things, all the material things that we see, touch, and enjoy, are not the real things.” (Chapter 1, page 7)“…material objects: we are eating food, drinking water, putting on clothes; we are living in our houses and driving in our cars. I would ask you to realize and remember well that all these things are not real.” (Chapter 1, page 7)“What about the earth? There was chaos upon the earth. Waste and void and deep waters were upon it. It was buried under the deep. So God came in to work; God began to recover the earth...Then He divided the water from the earth, and the earth came out from the waters on the third day. It was the third day when the Lord Jesus Christ came out of the depths of death. So, you see, this is a type. On the third day God brought the earth out of the waters of death. From this type you can realize what the earth is. The earth, or the land, is a type of Christ.” (Chapter 1, page 10)“Whenever you want to do something, whenever you enjoy something, whenever you use something, you must immediately apply Christ. For instance, you are sitting on a seat. Do you realize that this is not the real seat? This is but a shadow, a figure point to Christ. Christ is the real seat. If you do not have Christ, it means that in your entire life you have never had a seat. There is no rest for you. You have nothing to rely upon. You have something false, for Christ is the real thing.” (Chapter 2, page 19) These quotes from Witness Lee show us two important pieces of this dangerous Gnostic-type teaching. One, the alleged lack of realness of material things is very Gnostic in nature. Two, the typology (allegorization, in this case) is merely speculative, but a part of so-called deeper truths. The only way we can be sure that an allegory is intended in Scripture is when the writer makes an allegorical application. For example, in Galatians 4:24-26, God inspires Paul to use the following allegory: These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
When God inspires a biblical writer to use an allegory and make an application that we might not have otherwise thought of, that is his prerogative. When non-inspired men do the same thing, they are assuming what God has not said and are in danger of adding to the Scripture and of being false prophets. Additionally, and this is not necessary Gnostic-related, Lee is clearly Premillennial in his interpretation of prophecy (which I believe to be false, in spite of its popularity in the Evangelical world).
Concluding Observations
Upon a close examination of the theology of Watchman Nee and those who ascribe to his theology, I believe it to be biblically erroneous in many ways and thus clearly dangerous. This is not to say that the faulty exegesis and danger was in any way intentional by him, nor is it to say that his followers are intentionally deceived and deceptive, or unspiritual in their overall desires or actions. However, regardless of intention, false doctrine is false doctrine and therefore dangerous.
Recently, I heard a disciple commenting on Nee’s books, saying that they were “deep” and contained things that he never would have thought of. I told him that there was a good reason for that − the Holy Spirit never thought of them either! But this brother provides a good example of how reading subtle but erroneous teachings can influence those without a real foundation of biblical knowledge. My hope and prayer is that this study can be profitable to those who have unknowingly ascribed to a false system of theology, and will help them to decide to adopt a much simpler and more accurate approach to Bible study by being willing to call Bible things by Bible names and accept the simple teachings of God’s plan of salvation.
In my first ministry job, I was one of several ministers on the staff of a local church. The main pulpit preacher was using terminology and concepts that were strange to my ears, which was significant, since I had just graduated from a very intense two year ministry training school in which we went through the whole Bible verse-by-verse and memorized hundreds and hundreds of Bible verses. What I was hearing sounded definitely different from biblical concepts and wording. Further inquiry led to discovering that the minister was reading books by Nee and Lee, and appeared to be rather drawn to what amounted to a “new teaching” in the churches of which I was a part.
I then purchased some of these books and read them, being struck quickly with the obviously allegorical approach to interpreting Scriptures. The allegorical approach to studying written documents certainly predated the Christian era, but it found its way into the Christian church fairly early. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 B.C. to 42 A.D.). is credited with introducing this method of biblical interpretation to the Old Testament Scriptures. Origen (182-251 A.D.) was quite influential in spreading this method of interpreting the New Testament, as one of the early “Church Fathers.” Augustine adopted a modified form of the system, and Jerome is said to be the main figure responsible for introducing it into the Roman church. But my most recent study, described in the following material, convinces me that Nee’s system is also a form of neo-Gnosticism. Actually, the allegorical system of interpretation is quite closely related in a specific way to the Gnostic approach of interpreting the Scriptures, as we shall see. Introductory Thoughts About Interpreting Nee
In Watchman Nee’s classic book, The Spiritual Man, he combines three volumes into one comprehensive work, which well represents the school of theology that he has developed. The total number of pages in this compendium of his work is 694 − hence a substantial work. The first chapter, Spirit, Soul and Body, forms much of the basis of what he writes later, and gives the reader the keys to interpreting and understanding the terminology used and the concepts they represent. It should be said that the terminology and concepts are unfamiliar to the average Bible reader, which suggests from the outset that we are being introduced to a system of interpretation developed by a man, rather than to the Bible itself. Instead of being taught biblical things in biblical terms, we are forced to learn a system before we can understand what is being taught about the Bible, and thus, this teaching must be run through the filter of the system of interpretation being employed.
A failure to learn the system makes reading Nee’s work confusing and not really understandable to the uninitiated. For example, terms like “soulish” and “soulical” (neither of which are in the Bible or the English Dictionary) are used repeatedly. Soulish essentially represents worldly or non-spiritual attitudes and behavior, while soulical represents spiritual attitudes and behavior. Had Nee simply used the biblical terms themselves rather than inventing other terms, the book would be far more helpful to the average reader, and its errors more obvious. The insistence of using non-biblical terminology to represent fundamental teachings in Nee’s system of theology is not only confusing and demands that the reader develop a familiarity with the system, it also introduces elements of Gnosticism − which will be explained later. Spirit, Soul and Body − the Biblical Passages
This first chapter of the book lays the foundation for the rest of the book, and thus all quotes used from Nee come from Volume One, mostly Chapter One. A failure to understand the terminology and basic assumptions upon which it is based insures the reader’s failure to grasp the rest of the book. With that in mind, I want to give a basic introduction to the theological system used by Nee. The main two passages which form the basis of the theology are the following:
1 Thessalonians 5:23: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
A few observations about these passages are in order: One, the mention of “soul” and “spirit” contained within one verse is only found in these two passages, and neither of them defines what is meant by the distinction. Hence, basing an entire system on one’s interpretation of only two passages which are left divinely unexplained should raise eyebrows at the outset. Most biblical scholars do not elaborate upon this distinction, since it doesn’t seem to be the focus of the passage, but they rather state what the overall emphasis of the passage appears to be (i.e., God saving us completely in 1 Thessalonians 5:23). The following comment by the College Press Commentary is typical of the type explanations given:
That idea is further underlined with the combination “spirit, soul and body.” Much discussion of this phrase has concerned whether it indicates that human beings are trichotomous, consisting of three distinct aspects described by these terms, or dichotomous, really consisting of two aspects, body and spirit. In favor of the former interpretation is the fact that all three terms are used here; in favor of the latter is the difficulty in distinguishing clearly between the meaning of “spirit” (pneuma) and “soul” (psychē). However, it must be conceded that Paul is not discussing the precise nature of humanity but is offering assurance of God’s protection. The combination of three terms here is probably only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, repeatedly indicates that God’s purpose is to save the whole person, not just some part.
A representative example of what biblical scholars say about Hebrews 4:12 is as follows (from Expositor’s Bible Commentary):
The Word of God is unique. No sword can penetrate as it can. We should not take the reference to “soul” and “spirit” as indicating a “dichotomist” over against a “trichotomist” view of man, nor the reference to “dividing” to indicate that the writer envisaged a sword as slipping between them. Nor should we think of the sword as splitting off “joints” and “marrow.” What the author is saying is that God’s Word can reach to the innermost recesses of our being. We must not think that we can bluff our way out of anything, for there are no secrets hidden from God. We cannot keep our thoughts to ourselves. There may also be the thought that the whole of man’s nature, however we divide it, physical as well as nonmaterial, is open to God. With “judges” we move to legal terminology. The Word of God passes judgment on men’s feelings (enthymeseon) and on their thoughts (ennoion). Nothing evades the scope of this Word. What man holds as most secret he finds subject to its scrutiny and judgment.
In other words, the main focus of these two passages is not to emphasize a distinction of soul and spirit, but to make a main point of practical application − namely that God can save us entirely and that the Word of God exposes our inmost thoughts and motivations. Building a theological system on passages intended to provide practical motivations is highly suspect, to say the least. However, Nee has not only chosen a suspect approach, he has deemed it absolutely essential to our understanding of the Bible. A couple of quotes will illustrate that point:
“It is an issue of supreme importance for it affects tremendously the spiritual life of a believer.” (page 22)“To fail to distinguish between spirit and soul is fatal to spiritual maturity.” (page 22)
It is obvious that Nee has not only developed a system of theology and interpretation, but it is equally obvious that he believes we cannot be spiritually healthy (or maybe spiritually saved) without seeing the Bible through the filter of his system. One brother, who came out of this background himself, said that it is not uncommon to hear the adherents to Nee’s doctrine say that this issue is a salvation issue. Certainly such strong assertions by Nee are both assumptive and arrogant, and insulting to the large body of believers who are either unaware of Nee’s system or who have studied and rejected it upon biblical grounds. And as stated before, one of these grounds is the inclusion of certain Gnostic elements.
Spirit, Soul and Body − the System Introduced and Defined
It is important that we introduce the basics of Nee’s theological approach and explanation of his terminology. Nee begins his explanation with the creation of man in Genesis 2:7, quoting from the American Standard Version: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The term soul is from the Hebrew nephesh, which will prove to be very important in this study. Nee says that God breathing into Adam the breath of life meant that the breath of life became man’s spirit, and when it came into contact with man’s body, the soul was produced. Hence, the soul is the combination of man’s body and spirit (and assumedly would not have been formed without the spirit).
He states: “In other words, soul and body were combined with the spirit, and spirit and body were merged in the soul” (page 24). Another quote: “Soul is the organ of man’s free will, the organ in which spirit and body are completely merged” (page 25). Thus, according to Nee, the soul chooses whether to go toward the flesh or the Spirit. We are told that the body gives us “world consciousness;” the soul gives us “self consciousness;” and the spirit gives us “God-consciousness.” This interesting observation was made on page 27: “Before man committed sin the power of the soul was completely under the dominion of the spirit…The spirit cannot itself act upon the body; it can only do so through the medium of the soul.”
However, this observation was followed up by quoting Luke 1:46-47, which reads: “And Mary said: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.’” This passage is typical of scores of passages which use soul and spirit interchangeably (which Nee denies strongly). In this case, we have a simple case of Hebrew parallelism, as any commentator will note. Hence, Nee uses a passage that makes a different case than the one he is trying to make. Nee’s threefold delineation of the supposed nature of both soul and spirit: Soul − the site of personality, consisting of will, intellect and emotions; Spirit − the site of conscience, intuition and communion (worship).
Biblical and Practical Inconsistencies
The word “soul” is used in a variety of ways biblically. Prior to Genesis 2:7, where man is said to be a “soul,” animals, fish, birds and creeping things were all said to be “souls” (from nephesh). (Yet, they had no spirits to unite with their bodies to form their souls!) See Genesis 1:20-26 on the point of other animate life besides humans being souls. The word “creature” is most often the term used to translate nephesh. Thus, living “being” is a good translation for all of created animate life, including man.
Further, God himself is a soul (and has a soul): Leviticus 26:11: “Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you.”Leviticus 26:30: “I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and heap your remains on the remains of your idols; for My soul shall abhor you.”Leviticus 26:43: “For the land shall be abandoned by them, and shall make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, shall be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes.”Psalm 11:5: “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.” Isaiah 42:1: “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights.” Isaiah 53:11: “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.”Zechariah 11:8: “Then I annihilated the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul also was weary of me.”
In the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, soul is often used to describe the inner part, or the spirit of man. Nephesh can describe only the man as a created being (like the animal, bird and fish world), or it can describe the part that is unique to man − the spirit.
Psalm 19:7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.”Psalm 23:3: “He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.”Psalm 25:1: “To Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.”Psalm 30:12: “That my soul may sing praise to Thee, and not be silent.”Psalm 33:20: “Our soul waits for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.”Psalm 34:2: “My soul shall make its boast in the Lord; The humble shall hear it and rejoice.”Psalm 35:9: “And my soul shall rejoice in the Lord; It shall exult in His salvation.” Psalm 42:1-2: As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for Thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; When shall I come and appear before God?” Psalm 71:23: “My lips will shout for joy when I sing praises to Thee; And my soul, which Thou hast redeemed.”Psalm 94:19: “When my anxious thoughts multiply within me, Thy consolations delight my soul.”Psalm 103:2: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget none of His benefits.” Psalm 108:1: “My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing, I will sing praises, even with my soul.” Psalm 119:81: “My soul languishes for Thy salvation; I wait for Thy word.”
Many other similar verses could be quoted, but why is this point important? The following quotes from Nee answer that question.
“The spirit lies beyond man’s self-consciousness and above his sensibility. Here man communicates with God.” (page 29)“The revelations of God and all the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition.” (page 32)“God is not apprehended by our thoughts, feelings or intentions, for He can only be known directly in our spirits.” (page 32)
Implications from the above quotes:
1. If the spirit lies beyond man’s self-consciousness” (his soul), and is the only place where man can communicate with God, the Psalmist was poorly informed of such.
2. If the revelations of God and all the movements of the Holy Spirit are only known through the intuition (which is a part of the spirit, not the soul − by Nee’s definition), then the Psalms are mistaken.
3. If God cannot be known directly through our souls, the Psalmist is again mistaken.
These kinds of contradictions will always occur when the Bible is forced into an artificial system of interpretation. Other contradictions:
1. Before conversion, one cannot distinguish between soul and spirit. (page 34)
2. Yet, on the same page we are told: “The New Testament does not consider those with a sensitive conscience, keen intellect or a spiritual tendency to be saved individuals.” (If conscience is a function of the spirit and is based on the intuition, which cannot be distinguished prior to conversion, how can the conscience become “sensitive?”)
3. If the revelations of God and the work of the Holy Spirit can only be known through his intuition, one’s personal insight is exalted above the statements of Scripture. (Dictionary definition of intuition: “knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. The power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.”) Such a conclusion is both unbiblical and dangerous.
The Soul and Spirit of Man in Normal Biblical Usage
Spirit refers to man’s inner being, made in the image of God. Soul may refer to the animate life itself, or to man’s inner being − depending on the context. Some OT verses use Hebrew parallelism to show the interchangeable nature of soul and spirit, when soul is used to refer to man’s inner being.
1 Samuel 1:15: But Hannah answered and said, "No, my lord, I am a woman oppressed in spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have poured out my soul before the Lord. Job 7:11: “Therefore, I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.”Isaiah 26:9: At night my soul longs for Thee, Indeed, my spirit within me seeks Thee diligently; For when the earth experiences Thy judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.
The NT is even clearer in its interchangeable usage of the terms soul and spirit:
Matthew 10:28: “And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (According to this passage, man cannot kill the soul.)Matthew 22:37: “And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’”Matthew 26:38: “Then He said to them, ‘My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.’”Luke 1:46: “And Mary said: ‘My soul exalts the Lord.’”Acts 2:27: “Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.”2 Corinthians 1:23: “But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth.” Hebrews 6:19: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil.” Hebrews 10:39: “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.”James 5:20: “let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.”1 Peter 2:11: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul.”2 Peter 2:8: “for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds.”3 John 1:2: “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”
Many observations could be made on the above passages, but a mere reading of them pretty much makes the point. Trying to force biblical terminology to fit a system imposed upon it always leads to confusion and false teaching.
Dangers of Watchman Nee’s Teaching (and Those Patterned After Him)
His teaching is a system which is based on his theology and terminology, and cannot be understood without first being trained in that terminology. Thus, instead of just studying the Scriptures, time must be taken to study the philosophy of a man. Many of his teachings are merely assumptions and opinions, and yet are emphatically declared by him to be Scriptural. The essential ingredients of Gnosticism are present in both subtle and blatant forms.
Gnosticism (which was present in incipient forms in many places in the New Testament) has the following characteristics: The name comes from the Greek word, gnosis, for knowledge. It is built upon the premise that anything material was bad. In the realm of personal practices, the NT contains two manifestations of it: asceticism (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and Colossians 2:20-23) and libertinism (see 2 Peter 2:13-22 and Jude). The reasoning was that since the flesh was inherently bad, either deny it or indulge it. In the latter viewpoint, as long as you had the right knowledge (gnosis), what you did with the body didn’t matter. In defining the nature of Christ, those with Gnostic tendencies denied that he could have come in the flesh. He just “seemed” to be in the flesh. We call this the Docetic doctrine. The Apostle John attacks this heresy in no uncertain terms in 2 John 1:7: “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
Further, and this is where Nee’s and Lee’s teachings especially converge with Gnosticism, those who succumbed to Gnosticism believed that they had a special insight to spiritual knowledge, and saw their insight (intuition) as more important that the Bible’s specific teaching. They were very prideful and looked down on those who just simply clung to the specifics of the Bible. They had the idea that in spite of what the Bible seemed to say on certain points, they had been given the illumination of the true will of God. (They could read between the lines to get the real meaning God intended.) This tendency is seen in some of the Christians in Thyatira, according to Revelation 2:24: “Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you).” In other words, these people claimed to have the “deep teachings of God,” but God said that they actually were holding to the “deep teachings of Satan!”
Nee’s form of Gnosticism comes through the development of a rather complicated system, with its own specific terminology, which means that the uninitiated cannot really grasp the “deep teachings” of God. The focus on the intuition as the real means of grasping truth, rather than through the specifics (including the wording) of Scripture is a definite type of Gnosticism, complete with its arrogance and exclusivity (regardless of intentions to the contrary). His claims that the conscience is based on one’s intuition opens wide the door for being directed by a supposed inner voice from God rather than taking God’s written Word as the true basis of conscience training. The conscience is only as accurate as the training upon which it is based. (See my recent article on this subject, entitled: “Matters of Conscience: a Deeper Look.”)
The allegorical approach to interpretation is a part of the discovery of so-called “deeper truths.” For one example, Nee on page 29 compares the three-fold nature of man to the three parts of the temple (outer court, Holy Place, Most Holy Place) − as if God had made the comparison. Such allegorization is common to Nee and Witness Lee. Mentioning Witness Lee, who picked up the torch of Nee’s theology, Lee is even more blatant in his Gnostic statements. Consider the following quotes from The All-Inclusive Christ:
“First of all, I would ask you to realize that according to the Scriptures all physical things, all the material things that we see, touch, and enjoy, are not the real things.” (Chapter 1, page 7)“…material objects: we are eating food, drinking water, putting on clothes; we are living in our houses and driving in our cars. I would ask you to realize and remember well that all these things are not real.” (Chapter 1, page 7)“What about the earth? There was chaos upon the earth. Waste and void and deep waters were upon it. It was buried under the deep. So God came in to work; God began to recover the earth...Then He divided the water from the earth, and the earth came out from the waters on the third day. It was the third day when the Lord Jesus Christ came out of the depths of death. So, you see, this is a type. On the third day God brought the earth out of the waters of death. From this type you can realize what the earth is. The earth, or the land, is a type of Christ.” (Chapter 1, page 10)“Whenever you want to do something, whenever you enjoy something, whenever you use something, you must immediately apply Christ. For instance, you are sitting on a seat. Do you realize that this is not the real seat? This is but a shadow, a figure point to Christ. Christ is the real seat. If you do not have Christ, it means that in your entire life you have never had a seat. There is no rest for you. You have nothing to rely upon. You have something false, for Christ is the real thing.” (Chapter 2, page 19) These quotes from Witness Lee show us two important pieces of this dangerous Gnostic-type teaching. One, the alleged lack of realness of material things is very Gnostic in nature. Two, the typology (allegorization, in this case) is merely speculative, but a part of so-called deeper truths. The only way we can be sure that an allegory is intended in Scripture is when the writer makes an allegorical application. For example, in Galatians 4:24-26, God inspires Paul to use the following allegory: These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
When God inspires a biblical writer to use an allegory and make an application that we might not have otherwise thought of, that is his prerogative. When non-inspired men do the same thing, they are assuming what God has not said and are in danger of adding to the Scripture and of being false prophets. Additionally, and this is not necessary Gnostic-related, Lee is clearly Premillennial in his interpretation of prophecy (which I believe to be false, in spite of its popularity in the Evangelical world).
Concluding Observations
Upon a close examination of the theology of Watchman Nee and those who ascribe to his theology, I believe it to be biblically erroneous in many ways and thus clearly dangerous. This is not to say that the faulty exegesis and danger was in any way intentional by him, nor is it to say that his followers are intentionally deceived and deceptive, or unspiritual in their overall desires or actions. However, regardless of intention, false doctrine is false doctrine and therefore dangerous.
Recently, I heard a disciple commenting on Nee’s books, saying that they were “deep” and contained things that he never would have thought of. I told him that there was a good reason for that − the Holy Spirit never thought of them either! But this brother provides a good example of how reading subtle but erroneous teachings can influence those without a real foundation of biblical knowledge. My hope and prayer is that this study can be profitable to those who have unknowingly ascribed to a false system of theology, and will help them to decide to adopt a much simpler and more accurate approach to Bible study by being willing to call Bible things by Bible names and accept the simple teachings of God’s plan of salvation.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Solving The Hebrews 13:17 Dilemma
Heb 13:17, partially quoted and incorrectly translated, has been used by countless authoritarian pastors as a hammer to put their congregations into blind subjection to their personal vision for how they feel that the church should operate and behave. This is contrary to the clear teachings of the Scriptures.
The first part of Heb 13:17 is one of the most glaringly mistranslated verses in all of Scripture (in most Bible translations). Depending on which translation you have, it goes something like this: “Obey those that have the rule over you and submit to their authority.” The dilemma is the fact that many Christians refuse to accept the Bible's teaching against authoritarianism in the church based on this and a few other similarly mistranslated verses.
The actual non-word-for-word understanding of this partial verse in context with what the rest of the Bible teaches on the same subject is as follows:
“Heed the warning of those who watch over you and when they tell you to obey the Scriptures, obey the Scriptures.” Some Christians might even quickly summarize the first part of Heb 13:17 as “Obey the Bible as properly taught”. Either view is correct.
The problem is this: the popular incorrect translation of the original Greek as “Obey those who have the rule over you” simply does not square with (reconcile or harmonize) with the rest of the Scriptures and seems to empower certain men to have authoritarian rule in the church. But we know that the Bible forbids the authoritarian rule of men in the Church. Just look at the following four short passages:
Mark 10:42-45
42But Jesus called them to him, and said unto them, You know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister [servant]: 44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest [greatest], shall be servant of all. 45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Summary: Do not lord over, control or exercise authority over each other as the gentiles do.)
1Pet 5:1-3
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
(Summary: Feed the flock of God but do not Lord over or control God's people.)
Matt 6:24
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
(Summary: You cannot obey two masters. Although the context here is referring to money, the principle remains the same for anyone or anything that would attempt to master you. Also see Luke 16:13)
Matt 23:8-12
8But be you not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brothers. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be you called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased [humbled]; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(Summary: We have One Master Christ and we are all brothers. Do not give or receive titles)
Furthermore the short one-chapter book of 3rd John shows the evil of authoritarianism and the trouble it causes in the church:
3John 1:1-3
9I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not.10Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church. 11Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Even a child could see that the popular yet totally incorrect rendering of Heb13:17 from the Greek into English cannot in any way be reconciled with the passages above because it teaches the exact opposite. And, these are just a few of the many verses that Hebrews 13:17 and other similarly mistranslated “leadership and authority” verses do not square with.
Thank God that we have the Bible in its perfect infallible form in the original languages. Also, thank God that we have many good translations that are at least about 98.5% accurate with no translation error affecting any major doctrine of salvation.
Often times, when faced with a dozen or more possible definitions of what a particular New Testament Greek word might mean in English, we see translators selecting the worst possible potential English equivalent for a given Greek Word. There are a number of reasons for this. (Please see the Appendix at the end of this article.)
The result is some translators have “read into a verse” that which is simply not there. Some make literal the few things in the Bible that are figurative and make figurative or symbolic the many things in the Bible that are clearly literal.
Not surprisingly, the area of leadership and authority is often where we see the most mistranslated verses in even good translations of the Bible. This is likely because this is the power base by which men gain control over other men by subjugating the teachings of the Scriptures to manmade traditions. Therefore:
Well-meaning translators with the best of intentions, being human, are subject to the temptation of influence by their own denominations, church leaders, church traditions, personal opinions, etc.
False teachings in the area of leadership and authority are nothing new. Further, as we see in Mark 7:10-13, Jesus exposed the common practice among the Pharisees of giving precedence to their own teachings and traditions over the Word of God.
Mark 7:10-13
10For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curses father or mother, let him die the death: 11But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever you might have profited by me; he shall be free. 12And you suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.
By “Corban” the Pharisees meant that by giving money to the temple treasury that a man’s financial obligation to his aged parents (who could not take care of themselves) was already paid and their obligation was already fulfilled. Who was the direct beneficiary of this false teaching? You probably guessed it, the Pharisees. Who got robbed? The parents who were in need.
This passage establishes, as an age-old practice, the substituting of the teachings of men for what the Scriptures say.
Case Study:
Now let’s look at a quick case study of just one of the individual mistranslated words within Heb 13:17. As I plan to post an extensive teaching on this in the future, I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on this right now. But just to “wet your whistle”, let’s take a look at the list of thirteen potential English equivalents for the Greek word “peitho” that many translators chose to translate simply as “obey”:
- Be convinced
Give assent [agreement]
To rely on (by inward certainty)
Agree with
Be assured by
Believe
Have confidence in
Become content with
Make friends with
Obey
Be persuaded by
Trust
Yield to
(Isn’t it quite interesting that of all the possibilities on this list, the translators chose to translate “peitho” into English as just “obey”, while the central theme and nuances of the true meaning in the Greek are totally lost? The essence of the meaning of this fragrant Greek word cannot possibly be conveyed in English by the single word “obey”.)
It is clear, when taken in context with the rest of this Scripture and with the other words properly translated, (as well as what the rest of the Bible teaches on the subject), that “peitho” simply means believing, trusting, obeying and accepting. The question is believing…and accepting what? The answer from the context is this: believing, trusting, obeying and accepting God’s Word as accurately or faithfully presented by true elders.
It is assumed or implied that these are true not false elders. When the Bible mentions things in passing like the subject of elders, it is always assumed that these things are genuine and true. So we know the Bible is not allowing or endorsing false elders.
This word “peitho” here does not in any way suggest or license some type of blind obedience to a self-proclaimed dictator or groups of co-dictators. There is a similar translation problem with the words “rule”, etc. and God willing we will look at that another time.
Heb 13:17 is clearly not a license for men to dictate, rule, control, command, dominate, and otherwise exercise authority over others in the church. We know this first and foremost because Jesus and His Apostles told us that such things are forbidden!
A true elder, commonly called pastor is a servant-guide protector not a dictatorial lording leader. A true elders is not a CEO corporate America mover and shaker but rather one who truly feeds and protects the sheep, not for their own personal gain or to support heir own personal agendas
The thing that sparks us to do this study in the first place, in addition to our desire to know and obey God’s will, is recognizing and accepting the truth that nothing in the Bible contradicts. And we see a glaring contradiction here between Heb 13:17 (and 7) compared to what the rest of the Bible teaches on the very same subject.
It is important to mention that some discerning Christians with a sufficient working knowledge of the Bible would not even need to look at the Greek in order to be convinced of the truth here. They would simply read the first part of Heb 13:17 as saying “Obey the rule of Christ as men who watch over you faithfully teach the Word” or “Heed the warning of those who watch over you and when they tell you to obey Christ, obey Christ.”, etc. (Beware however that some false teachers claim that anything they dream up is Christ giving His commands through them. Of course we know that this is not true.) As I mentioned above, some Christians might even quickly summarize the first half of Heb 13:17 correctly as “Obey the Bible as properly taught”. If these more mature Christians look at the Greek at all, it is usually just to be properly armed so that they can prove the true meaning of poorly translated verses like these to those who need convincing.
Let me also say that for your own edification, you might want to do your own word study of Heb 13:17, specifically the words “obey”, “rule”, “submit” and “authority” using a good Greek concordance, lexicon, etc. If you study with a mind that is open to God’s truth and you keep things in proper context believing that no Scripture conflicts with any other Scripture, then you will undoubtedly be in for an eye opening revelation.
Appendix A
Some of the more likely reasons that translators mistranslate the Scriptures are:
- Failure of translators to recognize the true obvious literal context of a verse in close context with other nearby Bible verses and passages.
- Failure of translators to translate some verses in context with the whole Bible, carefully taking into account what the rest of the Bible teaches on the same subject.
- Failure of translators to look for the harmony and agreement of all Scriptures. This is usually a result of some translators not believing in the total inerrancy of the Scriptures in the original languages.
- Failure of translators to resist political pressure and their own personal bias.
- Last but not least, failure of translators to recognize the overall leading of the Holy Spirit who never contradicts the Scriptures.
Appendix B
It is important to include the following statements in any discussion of mistranslated verses:
- The Bible is infallible and without error in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We look to the tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts to prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is Divinely inspired and totally reliable.
- Translations of the original manuscripts into other languages can and often do contain some (usually very minor) translational errors. Thankfully, in any good translation of the Bible, these errors do not affect any major doctrine of salvation.
- We must be aware that no Scripture conflicts with any other Scripture. Knowing this fact along with an overall knowledge of the Bible, we can quickly detect any mistranslated verse by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
- We must beware that there are many dangerous people today who say that soundly translated verses are mistranslated in order to try and get the Bible to say whatever they want. This is a very common practice today, especially among many cults.
- There are a number of very bad “translations” circulating today that are really no translations at all, such at Eugene Peterson’s personal commentary put to chapter and verse and passed off as a real Bible. It’s called The Message. It is no Bible and is actually quite dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that people who own one of these false Bibles actually think that they have the real Scriptures in their hands. Among many other things, Peterson often substitutes things that are sometimes true in the world in place of actual Bible truths.
- Good fairly reliable translations include: NASB, KJV, NKJV, AMP, and others.
More could be added to this list, but I think this is good for now.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Governo por Consenso
“Então estamos combinados, por nove a um: vamos dizer que todos os votos anteriores foram unânimes!”
Por que Jesus escolheu a palavra “igreja” para descrever Seus seguidores (Mateus 16:16-18)? “Igreja” é a tradução portuguesa da palavra original grega ekklesia. Fora do Novo Testamento (NT) ekklesia era uma palavra secular que carregava forte conotação política. Existiam outras palavras gregas com conotação religiosa ou não políticas (como sunagogue) que Jesus poderia ter usado, mas significativamente, ele não o fez!
A Igreja Moderna
De acordo com o Novo Dicionário Aurélio da Língua Portuguesa, a palavra “igreja” é usada hoje no nosso idioma para designar “templo cristão” (ou edifício para cultos cristãos), autoridade eclesiástica (o clero ou administração das igrejas), a comunidade dos cristãos (o corpo de crentes), o conjunto de fiéis ligados pela mesma fé e sujeitos aos mesmos chefes espirituais (uma congregação ou denominação). Ainda que “igreja” seja usada para significar ekklesia (como diz o próprio dicionário citado), na realidade igreja é a tradução de um adjetivo grego completamente diferente, kuriakos, que significa “do Senhor” ou “pertencente ao Senhor”, que provavelmente é uma forma abreviada de uma frase tal como kuriakos doma ou kuriakos oikos (“a casa do Senhor”). Assim, kuriakos, usada como igreja, pode se referir àqueles que pertencem ao Senhor (Seu povo) ou à casa do Senhor (o edifício de uma igreja). O substantivo grego que mais se aproxima do significado do conceito de “igreja” em português é sunagogue (“sinagoga”). Ambas as palavras podem se referir tanto ao povo de Deus quanto ao edifício especial no qual se reúnem. O problema com isso tudo é que, todas as vezes que deparamos com “igreja” no NT, ela traduz a palavra grega ekklesia. Diferentemente das palavras sunagogue ou kuriakos, a expressão grega ekklesia jamais se refere ao edifício ou lugar de culto, mas apenas a uma reunião, uma assembléia ou um encontro!
A Igreja Original
Fora do NT, ekklesia foi usada quase que sem exceção para se referir a uma assembléia política que era periodicamente convocada para tomar decisões. De acordo com o dicionário Thayer’s (em inglês), ela era uma “reunião do povo convocado para um lugar público de conselho, para deliberações”. O dicionário BAGD define ekklesia como uma “assembléia regularmente convocada do corpo político”. No dicionário de Colin Brown New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ekklesia, nos tempos do Novo Testamento, era “claramente caracterizada como um fenômeno político, repetido de acordo com certas regras e com certas estruturas. Era a assembléia dos cidadãos, funcionalmente embasada na constituição da democracia, uma assembléia na qual as decisões fundamentais, políticas e judiciais, eram tomadas... a palavra ekklesia, através das áreas gregas e de influência helênica, sempre conservou essa referência às assembléias do povo”. Nas ekklesia, todo cidadão do sexo masculino tinha “o direito de falar e de propor matérias para discussão” (percebe-se que às mulheres não era permitido falar nas ekklesia gregas).
Por que Jesus escolheu (em Mateus 16:13-20 e 18:15-20) uma palavra tão politicamente “carregada” como ekklesia (ou invés de algo como sunagogue) para descrever Seu povo e suas reuniões? Evidentemente por Jesus ter em mente que as reuniões dos cristãos fossem idênticas às assembléias dos legisladores gregos, no aspecto de que aos crentes cabe decidir as coisas e no aspecto de que os cidadãos do Reino podem falar e propor assuntos para discussão. Se Jesus meramente desejasse descrever um encontro, ele poderia ter usado sunagogue, thiasos ou eranos. Significativamente, porém, Ele escolheu ekklesia. O povo de Deus, quando se reúne, tem um mandato de “tomadores de decisão”. Uma “igreja” é fundamentalmente uma assembléia (ou reunião) de cidadãos do Reino, aos quais é autorizado (e esperado) que tomem decisões, emitam julgamentos e considerem assuntos. Ainda que essas tomadas de decisão não tenham que necessariamente ocorrer em todas as reuniões (pode não existir assuntos pendentes), entende-se que a igreja tem autoridade e obrigação de resolver se algo é bastante importante para demandar decisão coletiva. Qualquer igreja cujas reuniões se concentrem apenas em louvores musicais e em pregações, excluindo um apego corporativo à solução de problemas e à análise dos assuntos de sua alçada, pode estar falhando no preenchimento de seus propósitos como ekklesia.
Que Jesus esperava decisões tomadas pela ekklesia é visto em Mateus 16:13-20. Depois de prometer construir Sua ekklesia na rocha da revelada confissão de Pedro, Jesus imediatamente falou das chaves do reino dos céus e de ofertar e perder. Chaves representam a capacidade de abrir ou fechar algo. “Reino” é um termo político e ofertar e perder envolve a autoridade de tomar decisões. Em Mateus 18:15-20, a ekklesia (18:17) é forçada a emitir um veredicto a respeito de um alegado pecado de um irmão e, mais uma vez, a decisão é conferida à igreja. Em Atos 1:15-26, Pedro encarregou a igreja de Jerusalém como única responsável por encontrar um substituto para Judas. Em Atos 6:1-6, os apóstolos se voltaram para o corpo da igreja para encontrarem quem deveria administrar o sistema de assistência social da igreja. Atos 14:23 narra que certas igrejas elegiam seus próprios anciãos. Em Atos 15:1-4, a igreja de Antioquia decidiu enviar Paulo, Barnabé e outros irmãos a Jerusalém para arbitramento e então ali toda a igreja se envolveu na resolução do conflito (15:4, 15:12 e 15:22). Finalmente, Paulo continua essa idéia em I Coríntios 14:29-30, onde fica claro que as tomadas de decisão deveriam ser realizadas por revelação profética, quando “toda a ekklesia se reunir no mesmo lugar” (14:23).
Como forma de compensação, é importante notarmos que a igreja, na sua tarefa de decidir, é mais judicial do que legislativa. Esse é um ponto no qual a ekklesia do povo de Deus é diferente da ekklesia das cidades gregas.Nossa tarefa não é criar leis – apenas Deus pode corretamente faze-lo! Ao contrário, nossa missão é aplicar e fazer respeitar a lei de Jesus Cristo da forma correta como está no Novo Concerto. Assim sendo, os membros da igreja devem ser como cidadãos que se reúnem para deliberar e decidir coisas ou para fazer julgamentos (quando necessário). Essa forma de governo funciona toleravelmente bem quando aplicada numa igreja (doméstica) pequena, onde as pessoas se amem o bastante para trabalharem através de quaisquer desentendimentos. É virtualmente impossível operacionalizar esse modelo numa grande (institucional) igreja.
Sombras do Hábito
A palavra ekklesia (“igreja”) é usada de seis diferentes formas pelos escritores do Novo Testamento. Uma é encontrada em Atos 19:23-41 (especialmente 19:25 (final), 19:32, 19:39 e 19:41). Essas ocorrências de ekklesia (“assembléia” convocada, “assembléia legal” e “assembléia”) referiam-se a um encontro de artesãos (19:24) os quais foram “convocados” por Demétrius para o teatro da cidade (19:31) para decidir o que fazer sobre Paulo (19:25-27 e 38), embora, pela confusão havida, a maioria nem soubesse por que havia sido convocada (19:32). Este é um exemplo de ekklesia usada para se referir à convocação regularmente efetuada de um segmento político da sociedade (no caso, artesãos em prata e aqueles com os quais mantinham negócios). Eles foram convocados (como numa espécie de sindicato) para decidir quanto aos danos causados à imagem da categoria e aos negócios perdidos (Atos 19:27). A situação degenerou e eles exorbitaram de sua jurisdição ao desejarem se entender com Paulo. Então, o escrivão da cidade sugeriu que o assunto deveria ser levado à ekklesia “legal” (Atos 19:37-39) (ao invés de à ekklesia da categoria profissional).
Outro uso é visto em Atos 7:38 e Hebreus 2:12, onde ekklesia é usada para designar a reunião dos israelitas no deserto, no Monte Sinai, onde eles receberam as leis de Deus através de Moisés (Atos 7:38 e Êxodo 24:3-7). Além disso, ekklesia foi usada para designar reuniões dos israelitas no templo, durante os tempos de Davi (Hebreus 2:12 e Salmos 22:22).
Um terceiro uso é encontrado em Mateus 18:17, I Coríntios 11:17-18, 14:4-5, 14:18-19, 14:23, 14:28 e 14:34-35. Nesses versos, ekklesia refere-se a assembléias cristãs regularmente agendadas e convocadas em tempo hábil. Em Mateus 18:17 eles se encontram para emitir uma decisão sobre pecado. I Coríntios 11 diz respeito a uma reunião da ekklesia para comer a Ceia do Senhor e em I Coríntios 14 ela é um encontro para discussão aberta (com a edificação como principal objetivo).
A quarta maneira pela qual ela é empregada está em Atos 8:1, Romanos 16:1, I Timóteo 1:1 e Apocalipse 2:1, 2:8, 2:12 e 2:18. Aqui, ekklesia aparentemente é usada para designar não um encontro mesmo, mas a totalidade dos cristãos vivendo em um lugar. Os autores do Novo Testamento escreveram a uma “igreja” (singular) em Jerusalém, uma em Roma, uma em Tessalônica, uma em Éfeso, uma em Esmirna, uma em Pérgamo, etc.
Entretanto, a “igreja” em alguma cidade talvez nunca tenha reunido toda em um único lugar. A palavra “igreja” foi usada para a totalidade dos crentes de uma cidade, mas não necessariamente para algum imenso aglomerado de fiéis de uma grande cidade. Assim, há apenas uma igreja em Atlanta hoje (apenas uma totalidade de cristãos em Atlanta). Não obstante, a igreja em Atlanta talvez jamais seja capaz de abrigar uma reunião plenária (a não se que voltasse aos anos 1840, quando era bem menor). A igreja única de Atlanta é composta de centenas de igrejas menores que se encontram separadamente. (Uma cidade que deu conta de conduzir uma reunião plenária [de cidade grande] foi Jerusalém) (Atos 15:12-22).
O uso número cinco ocorre em Romanos 16:5, I Coríntios 16:19, Colossenses 4:15 e Filemom 2. Como evidenciado nesses textos, ekklesia pode se referir a assembléias regularmente convocadas em casa de membros. Essas igrejas domésticas, quando consideradas como um todo, constituem a igreja da cidade onde estão localizadas, embora elas possam jamais ter se reunido todas no mesmo lugar.
Finalmente, em Mateus 16:18, Atos 9:31, Efésios 1:22, 3:10, 3:20-21, 5:23, 5:25-27, 5:29, 5:32, Colossenses 1:18 e 1:24, ekklesia se refere à totalidade dos cristãos em todos os lugares e através de todos os tempos (a igreja universal). Uma reunião dessa igreja universal não ocorrerá antes da segunda vinda de Jesus.
Aplicação
Assim, a palavra ekklesia é usada de seis diferentes maneiras no Novo Testamento. O emprego mais fundamental é aquele que se refere a um grupo de pessoas reunidas com o propósito de tomar decisões. O significado mais real de ekklesia não é o da reunião do povo de Deus, mas do que ocorre quando ele se reúne. Nós somos autorizados pelo Senhor a tomar decisões quanto à correta aplicação das Escrituras. Deus espera que nós façamos respeitar a lei de Cristo (dentro da família de Deus) e que resolvamos os assuntos quando eles surgirem. Isso é uma parte do que ocorre em nossas reuniões, que são abertas e participativas. Problemas não podem ser escondidos em baixo do tapete. Problemas de conduta correta têm que ser resolvidos. Claro, espera-se que não existam assuntos como esses na pauta todas as semanas, mas o povo de Deus precisa manter na mente sua obrigação de funcionar como uma ekklesia quando necessário.
Esse entendimento do completo significado de ekklesia tem uma conexão direta com o governo da igreja. Em sua organização humana, a igreja não deve ser uma pirâmide com o poder concentrado no topo, em um ou em poucos homens. As decisões não devem ser tomadas atrás de portas fechadas e depois divulgadas para que a igreja as siga. A igreja assemelha-se mais a um senado ou congresso, no aspecto de que a assembléia como um todo deve deliberar e decidir assuntos. Os líderes da igreja devem facilitar esse processo e servir à igreja providenciando o necessário ensinamento e a orientação, mas eles não são os senhores da igreja!
Consenso ou Governo da Maioria?
A palavra “consenso” significa “concordância geral, tendência representativa ou opinião”. Ela é relacionada às palavras “consentir” e “consensual”. Governo da maioria pode representar uma ditadura de 51% e geralmente tende a influir contra a unidade. Consenso trabalha pela unidade. Tomados como princípio, o que os textos seguintes sugerem sobre governo da maioria (democracia) versus consenso na tomada de decisões?
“Quão bom e quão suave é que os irmãos vivam em união” (Salmos 133:1)
“Rogo-vos, irmãos, em nome de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, que sejais concordes no falar, e que não haja dissensões entre vós; antes sejais unidos no mesmo pensamento e no mesmo parecer” (I Coríntios 1:10).
“Assim, pois... sois concidadãos dos santos e membros da família de Deus, edificados sobre o fundamento dos apóstolos e dos profetas, sendo o próprio Cristo Jesus a principal pedra da esquina; no qual todo o edifício bem ajustado cresce para templo santo no Senhor, no qual também vós juntamente sois edificados para morada de Deus no Espírito” (Efésios 2:19-22).
“Procurando diligentemente guardar a unidade do Espírito no vínculo da paz. Há um só corpo e um só Espírito, como também fostes chamados em uma só esperança da vossa vocação; um só Senhor, uma só fé, um só batismo; um só Deus e Pai de todos, o qual é sobre todos, por todos e em todos” (Efésios 4:3-6).
“Portanto, se há alguma exortação em Cristo, se alguma consolação de amor, se alguma comunhão do Espírito, se alguns entranháveis afetos e compaixões, completai o meu gozo, para que tenhais o mesmo modo de pensar, tendo o mesmo amor, o mesmo ânimo, pensando a mesma coisa” (Filipenses 2:1-2).
“Revestí-vos, pois, como eleitos de Deus, santos e amados, de coração compassivo, de benignidade, humildade, mansidão, longanimidade, suportando-vos e perdoando-vos uns aos outros, se alguém tiver queixa contra outro; assim como o Senhor vos perdoou, assim fazei vós também. E, sobre tudo isto, revestí-vos do amor, que é o vínculo da perfeição. E a paz de Cristo, para a qual também fostes chamados em um corpo, domine em vossos corações; e sede agradecidos” (Colossenses 3:12-15).
Provisão de Deus
A fim de que o governo por consenso não pareça muito utópico, considere o que o Senhor forneceu ao Seu povo para ajuda-lo a alcançar a unidade. Primeiro, é importante relembrarmos que o processo através do qual a igreja caminha para encontrar o consenso é habitualmente tão importante quanto o consenso que ela finalmente encontra. Isso toma tempo, compromisso, edificação mútua e uma enorme quantidade de amor fraternal. Ele verdadeiramente pode funcionar numa igreja pequena, de dimensões de igreja doméstica. Cada um de nós precisa amar aos outros o bastante para que nos amoldemos a cada um deles! Outra palavra para consenso, pode ser unidade, harmonia ou acordo mútuo. Nós realmente confiamos no Espírito Santo para operar em nossas vidas e igrejas?
Além disso, nosso Senhor pessoalmente orou pela Sua igreja “... para que eles sejam um, assim como nós... e rogo... que todos sejam um, assim como tu, ó Pai, és em mim, e eu em ti... para que eles sejam perfeitos em unidade, a fim de que o mundo conheça que tu me enviaste, e que os amaste a eles, assim como me amaste a mim” (João 17:11 e 17:20-23). Desde que Jesus orou assim por nós, a unidade é certamente acessível.
Outra provisão que Deus fez para nós reside na Ceia do Senhor. De acordo com I Coríntios 10:17, “Pois nós, embora muitos, somos um só pão, um só corpo; porque todos participamos de um mesmo pão”. Evidentemente, o adequado compartilhar do mesmo pão durante a Ceia do Senhor não apenas ilustra a unidade, como também a cria!
Finalmente, como mencionado antes, Cristo deu vários ministérios e dons de liderança para a igreja (como apóstolos, profetas, evangelistas e mestres), “até que todos cheguemos à unidade da fé e do pleno conhecimento do Filho de Deus, ao estado de homem feito, à medida da estatura da plenitude de Cristo” (Efésios 14:11-13). Líderes são necessários para auxiliar a igreja a alcançar o consenso.
Agradecimentos especiais a Tim Wilson, de Gig Harbor, Oregon, quem primeiramente me introduziu à verdade da igreja como um corpo de tomada de decisões.
Por que Jesus escolheu a palavra “igreja” para descrever Seus seguidores (Mateus 16:16-18)? “Igreja” é a tradução portuguesa da palavra original grega ekklesia. Fora do Novo Testamento (NT) ekklesia era uma palavra secular que carregava forte conotação política. Existiam outras palavras gregas com conotação religiosa ou não políticas (como sunagogue) que Jesus poderia ter usado, mas significativamente, ele não o fez!
A Igreja Moderna
De acordo com o Novo Dicionário Aurélio da Língua Portuguesa, a palavra “igreja” é usada hoje no nosso idioma para designar “templo cristão” (ou edifício para cultos cristãos), autoridade eclesiástica (o clero ou administração das igrejas), a comunidade dos cristãos (o corpo de crentes), o conjunto de fiéis ligados pela mesma fé e sujeitos aos mesmos chefes espirituais (uma congregação ou denominação). Ainda que “igreja” seja usada para significar ekklesia (como diz o próprio dicionário citado), na realidade igreja é a tradução de um adjetivo grego completamente diferente, kuriakos, que significa “do Senhor” ou “pertencente ao Senhor”, que provavelmente é uma forma abreviada de uma frase tal como kuriakos doma ou kuriakos oikos (“a casa do Senhor”). Assim, kuriakos, usada como igreja, pode se referir àqueles que pertencem ao Senhor (Seu povo) ou à casa do Senhor (o edifício de uma igreja). O substantivo grego que mais se aproxima do significado do conceito de “igreja” em português é sunagogue (“sinagoga”). Ambas as palavras podem se referir tanto ao povo de Deus quanto ao edifício especial no qual se reúnem. O problema com isso tudo é que, todas as vezes que deparamos com “igreja” no NT, ela traduz a palavra grega ekklesia. Diferentemente das palavras sunagogue ou kuriakos, a expressão grega ekklesia jamais se refere ao edifício ou lugar de culto, mas apenas a uma reunião, uma assembléia ou um encontro!
A Igreja Original
Fora do NT, ekklesia foi usada quase que sem exceção para se referir a uma assembléia política que era periodicamente convocada para tomar decisões. De acordo com o dicionário Thayer’s (em inglês), ela era uma “reunião do povo convocado para um lugar público de conselho, para deliberações”. O dicionário BAGD define ekklesia como uma “assembléia regularmente convocada do corpo político”. No dicionário de Colin Brown New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ekklesia, nos tempos do Novo Testamento, era “claramente caracterizada como um fenômeno político, repetido de acordo com certas regras e com certas estruturas. Era a assembléia dos cidadãos, funcionalmente embasada na constituição da democracia, uma assembléia na qual as decisões fundamentais, políticas e judiciais, eram tomadas... a palavra ekklesia, através das áreas gregas e de influência helênica, sempre conservou essa referência às assembléias do povo”. Nas ekklesia, todo cidadão do sexo masculino tinha “o direito de falar e de propor matérias para discussão” (percebe-se que às mulheres não era permitido falar nas ekklesia gregas).
Por que Jesus escolheu (em Mateus 16:13-20 e 18:15-20) uma palavra tão politicamente “carregada” como ekklesia (ou invés de algo como sunagogue) para descrever Seu povo e suas reuniões? Evidentemente por Jesus ter em mente que as reuniões dos cristãos fossem idênticas às assembléias dos legisladores gregos, no aspecto de que aos crentes cabe decidir as coisas e no aspecto de que os cidadãos do Reino podem falar e propor assuntos para discussão. Se Jesus meramente desejasse descrever um encontro, ele poderia ter usado sunagogue, thiasos ou eranos. Significativamente, porém, Ele escolheu ekklesia. O povo de Deus, quando se reúne, tem um mandato de “tomadores de decisão”. Uma “igreja” é fundamentalmente uma assembléia (ou reunião) de cidadãos do Reino, aos quais é autorizado (e esperado) que tomem decisões, emitam julgamentos e considerem assuntos. Ainda que essas tomadas de decisão não tenham que necessariamente ocorrer em todas as reuniões (pode não existir assuntos pendentes), entende-se que a igreja tem autoridade e obrigação de resolver se algo é bastante importante para demandar decisão coletiva. Qualquer igreja cujas reuniões se concentrem apenas em louvores musicais e em pregações, excluindo um apego corporativo à solução de problemas e à análise dos assuntos de sua alçada, pode estar falhando no preenchimento de seus propósitos como ekklesia.
Que Jesus esperava decisões tomadas pela ekklesia é visto em Mateus 16:13-20. Depois de prometer construir Sua ekklesia na rocha da revelada confissão de Pedro, Jesus imediatamente falou das chaves do reino dos céus e de ofertar e perder. Chaves representam a capacidade de abrir ou fechar algo. “Reino” é um termo político e ofertar e perder envolve a autoridade de tomar decisões. Em Mateus 18:15-20, a ekklesia (18:17) é forçada a emitir um veredicto a respeito de um alegado pecado de um irmão e, mais uma vez, a decisão é conferida à igreja. Em Atos 1:15-26, Pedro encarregou a igreja de Jerusalém como única responsável por encontrar um substituto para Judas. Em Atos 6:1-6, os apóstolos se voltaram para o corpo da igreja para encontrarem quem deveria administrar o sistema de assistência social da igreja. Atos 14:23 narra que certas igrejas elegiam seus próprios anciãos. Em Atos 15:1-4, a igreja de Antioquia decidiu enviar Paulo, Barnabé e outros irmãos a Jerusalém para arbitramento e então ali toda a igreja se envolveu na resolução do conflito (15:4, 15:12 e 15:22). Finalmente, Paulo continua essa idéia em I Coríntios 14:29-30, onde fica claro que as tomadas de decisão deveriam ser realizadas por revelação profética, quando “toda a ekklesia se reunir no mesmo lugar” (14:23).
Como forma de compensação, é importante notarmos que a igreja, na sua tarefa de decidir, é mais judicial do que legislativa. Esse é um ponto no qual a ekklesia do povo de Deus é diferente da ekklesia das cidades gregas.Nossa tarefa não é criar leis – apenas Deus pode corretamente faze-lo! Ao contrário, nossa missão é aplicar e fazer respeitar a lei de Jesus Cristo da forma correta como está no Novo Concerto. Assim sendo, os membros da igreja devem ser como cidadãos que se reúnem para deliberar e decidir coisas ou para fazer julgamentos (quando necessário). Essa forma de governo funciona toleravelmente bem quando aplicada numa igreja (doméstica) pequena, onde as pessoas se amem o bastante para trabalharem através de quaisquer desentendimentos. É virtualmente impossível operacionalizar esse modelo numa grande (institucional) igreja.
Sombras do Hábito
A palavra ekklesia (“igreja”) é usada de seis diferentes formas pelos escritores do Novo Testamento. Uma é encontrada em Atos 19:23-41 (especialmente 19:25 (final), 19:32, 19:39 e 19:41). Essas ocorrências de ekklesia (“assembléia” convocada, “assembléia legal” e “assembléia”) referiam-se a um encontro de artesãos (19:24) os quais foram “convocados” por Demétrius para o teatro da cidade (19:31) para decidir o que fazer sobre Paulo (19:25-27 e 38), embora, pela confusão havida, a maioria nem soubesse por que havia sido convocada (19:32). Este é um exemplo de ekklesia usada para se referir à convocação regularmente efetuada de um segmento político da sociedade (no caso, artesãos em prata e aqueles com os quais mantinham negócios). Eles foram convocados (como numa espécie de sindicato) para decidir quanto aos danos causados à imagem da categoria e aos negócios perdidos (Atos 19:27). A situação degenerou e eles exorbitaram de sua jurisdição ao desejarem se entender com Paulo. Então, o escrivão da cidade sugeriu que o assunto deveria ser levado à ekklesia “legal” (Atos 19:37-39) (ao invés de à ekklesia da categoria profissional).
Outro uso é visto em Atos 7:38 e Hebreus 2:12, onde ekklesia é usada para designar a reunião dos israelitas no deserto, no Monte Sinai, onde eles receberam as leis de Deus através de Moisés (Atos 7:38 e Êxodo 24:3-7). Além disso, ekklesia foi usada para designar reuniões dos israelitas no templo, durante os tempos de Davi (Hebreus 2:12 e Salmos 22:22).
Um terceiro uso é encontrado em Mateus 18:17, I Coríntios 11:17-18, 14:4-5, 14:18-19, 14:23, 14:28 e 14:34-35. Nesses versos, ekklesia refere-se a assembléias cristãs regularmente agendadas e convocadas em tempo hábil. Em Mateus 18:17 eles se encontram para emitir uma decisão sobre pecado. I Coríntios 11 diz respeito a uma reunião da ekklesia para comer a Ceia do Senhor e em I Coríntios 14 ela é um encontro para discussão aberta (com a edificação como principal objetivo).
A quarta maneira pela qual ela é empregada está em Atos 8:1, Romanos 16:1, I Timóteo 1:1 e Apocalipse 2:1, 2:8, 2:12 e 2:18. Aqui, ekklesia aparentemente é usada para designar não um encontro mesmo, mas a totalidade dos cristãos vivendo em um lugar. Os autores do Novo Testamento escreveram a uma “igreja” (singular) em Jerusalém, uma em Roma, uma em Tessalônica, uma em Éfeso, uma em Esmirna, uma em Pérgamo, etc.
Entretanto, a “igreja” em alguma cidade talvez nunca tenha reunido toda em um único lugar. A palavra “igreja” foi usada para a totalidade dos crentes de uma cidade, mas não necessariamente para algum imenso aglomerado de fiéis de uma grande cidade. Assim, há apenas uma igreja em Atlanta hoje (apenas uma totalidade de cristãos em Atlanta). Não obstante, a igreja em Atlanta talvez jamais seja capaz de abrigar uma reunião plenária (a não se que voltasse aos anos 1840, quando era bem menor). A igreja única de Atlanta é composta de centenas de igrejas menores que se encontram separadamente. (Uma cidade que deu conta de conduzir uma reunião plenária [de cidade grande] foi Jerusalém) (Atos 15:12-22).
O uso número cinco ocorre em Romanos 16:5, I Coríntios 16:19, Colossenses 4:15 e Filemom 2. Como evidenciado nesses textos, ekklesia pode se referir a assembléias regularmente convocadas em casa de membros. Essas igrejas domésticas, quando consideradas como um todo, constituem a igreja da cidade onde estão localizadas, embora elas possam jamais ter se reunido todas no mesmo lugar.
Finalmente, em Mateus 16:18, Atos 9:31, Efésios 1:22, 3:10, 3:20-21, 5:23, 5:25-27, 5:29, 5:32, Colossenses 1:18 e 1:24, ekklesia se refere à totalidade dos cristãos em todos os lugares e através de todos os tempos (a igreja universal). Uma reunião dessa igreja universal não ocorrerá antes da segunda vinda de Jesus.
Aplicação
Assim, a palavra ekklesia é usada de seis diferentes maneiras no Novo Testamento. O emprego mais fundamental é aquele que se refere a um grupo de pessoas reunidas com o propósito de tomar decisões. O significado mais real de ekklesia não é o da reunião do povo de Deus, mas do que ocorre quando ele se reúne. Nós somos autorizados pelo Senhor a tomar decisões quanto à correta aplicação das Escrituras. Deus espera que nós façamos respeitar a lei de Cristo (dentro da família de Deus) e que resolvamos os assuntos quando eles surgirem. Isso é uma parte do que ocorre em nossas reuniões, que são abertas e participativas. Problemas não podem ser escondidos em baixo do tapete. Problemas de conduta correta têm que ser resolvidos. Claro, espera-se que não existam assuntos como esses na pauta todas as semanas, mas o povo de Deus precisa manter na mente sua obrigação de funcionar como uma ekklesia quando necessário.
Esse entendimento do completo significado de ekklesia tem uma conexão direta com o governo da igreja. Em sua organização humana, a igreja não deve ser uma pirâmide com o poder concentrado no topo, em um ou em poucos homens. As decisões não devem ser tomadas atrás de portas fechadas e depois divulgadas para que a igreja as siga. A igreja assemelha-se mais a um senado ou congresso, no aspecto de que a assembléia como um todo deve deliberar e decidir assuntos. Os líderes da igreja devem facilitar esse processo e servir à igreja providenciando o necessário ensinamento e a orientação, mas eles não são os senhores da igreja!
Consenso ou Governo da Maioria?
A palavra “consenso” significa “concordância geral, tendência representativa ou opinião”. Ela é relacionada às palavras “consentir” e “consensual”. Governo da maioria pode representar uma ditadura de 51% e geralmente tende a influir contra a unidade. Consenso trabalha pela unidade. Tomados como princípio, o que os textos seguintes sugerem sobre governo da maioria (democracia) versus consenso na tomada de decisões?
“Quão bom e quão suave é que os irmãos vivam em união” (Salmos 133:1)
“Rogo-vos, irmãos, em nome de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, que sejais concordes no falar, e que não haja dissensões entre vós; antes sejais unidos no mesmo pensamento e no mesmo parecer” (I Coríntios 1:10).
“Assim, pois... sois concidadãos dos santos e membros da família de Deus, edificados sobre o fundamento dos apóstolos e dos profetas, sendo o próprio Cristo Jesus a principal pedra da esquina; no qual todo o edifício bem ajustado cresce para templo santo no Senhor, no qual também vós juntamente sois edificados para morada de Deus no Espírito” (Efésios 2:19-22).
“Procurando diligentemente guardar a unidade do Espírito no vínculo da paz. Há um só corpo e um só Espírito, como também fostes chamados em uma só esperança da vossa vocação; um só Senhor, uma só fé, um só batismo; um só Deus e Pai de todos, o qual é sobre todos, por todos e em todos” (Efésios 4:3-6).
“Portanto, se há alguma exortação em Cristo, se alguma consolação de amor, se alguma comunhão do Espírito, se alguns entranháveis afetos e compaixões, completai o meu gozo, para que tenhais o mesmo modo de pensar, tendo o mesmo amor, o mesmo ânimo, pensando a mesma coisa” (Filipenses 2:1-2).
“Revestí-vos, pois, como eleitos de Deus, santos e amados, de coração compassivo, de benignidade, humildade, mansidão, longanimidade, suportando-vos e perdoando-vos uns aos outros, se alguém tiver queixa contra outro; assim como o Senhor vos perdoou, assim fazei vós também. E, sobre tudo isto, revestí-vos do amor, que é o vínculo da perfeição. E a paz de Cristo, para a qual também fostes chamados em um corpo, domine em vossos corações; e sede agradecidos” (Colossenses 3:12-15).
Provisão de Deus
A fim de que o governo por consenso não pareça muito utópico, considere o que o Senhor forneceu ao Seu povo para ajuda-lo a alcançar a unidade. Primeiro, é importante relembrarmos que o processo através do qual a igreja caminha para encontrar o consenso é habitualmente tão importante quanto o consenso que ela finalmente encontra. Isso toma tempo, compromisso, edificação mútua e uma enorme quantidade de amor fraternal. Ele verdadeiramente pode funcionar numa igreja pequena, de dimensões de igreja doméstica. Cada um de nós precisa amar aos outros o bastante para que nos amoldemos a cada um deles! Outra palavra para consenso, pode ser unidade, harmonia ou acordo mútuo. Nós realmente confiamos no Espírito Santo para operar em nossas vidas e igrejas?
Além disso, nosso Senhor pessoalmente orou pela Sua igreja “... para que eles sejam um, assim como nós... e rogo... que todos sejam um, assim como tu, ó Pai, és em mim, e eu em ti... para que eles sejam perfeitos em unidade, a fim de que o mundo conheça que tu me enviaste, e que os amaste a eles, assim como me amaste a mim” (João 17:11 e 17:20-23). Desde que Jesus orou assim por nós, a unidade é certamente acessível.
Outra provisão que Deus fez para nós reside na Ceia do Senhor. De acordo com I Coríntios 10:17, “Pois nós, embora muitos, somos um só pão, um só corpo; porque todos participamos de um mesmo pão”. Evidentemente, o adequado compartilhar do mesmo pão durante a Ceia do Senhor não apenas ilustra a unidade, como também a cria!
Finalmente, como mencionado antes, Cristo deu vários ministérios e dons de liderança para a igreja (como apóstolos, profetas, evangelistas e mestres), “até que todos cheguemos à unidade da fé e do pleno conhecimento do Filho de Deus, ao estado de homem feito, à medida da estatura da plenitude de Cristo” (Efésios 14:11-13). Líderes são necessários para auxiliar a igreja a alcançar o consenso.
Agradecimentos especiais a Tim Wilson, de Gig Harbor, Oregon, quem primeiramente me introduziu à verdade da igreja como um corpo de tomada de decisões.
Uma Igreja Integralmente Bíblica
Quais são os requisitos mínimos para que uma igreja seja bíblica?
Demonstramos sempre que as práticas legadas pelos apóstolos tinham força de determinações bíblicas. Isso é verdade, por exemplo, no que se refere às pessoas trabalharem e não ficarem ociosas e à maneira de funcionamento das igrejas (como o os irmãos que devem fazer quando reunidos). Do Novo Testamento como um todo, podemos descortinar juntos um claro panorama de como eram realmente essas igrejas apostolicamente dirigidas. Podemos, assim, definir o seguinte:
• Os crentes se reuniam como igreja no primeiro dia da semana (É relevante que se note que esta é a única prática apostólica com a qual os dirigentes da igreja primitiva não desorganizaram nem modificaram. E a razão clara para tal é que isso, de nenhuma forma, toca na real natureza do que é a igreja e, portanto, não afeta os ensinamentos errados e mudanças nas práticas da igreja que eles introduziram uma ou outra vez. Eles conseqüentemente deixaram isso intocado e permaneceu como os apóstolos originalmente estabeleceram).
• Quando as igrejas se reúnem, isso é feito em residências.
• Quando elas se reuniam nos lares, o louvor comum e a participação coletiva eram completamente abertos e espontâneos (I Coríntios 14:26 descreve o procedimento como “o que cada um tem”), sem que ninguém esteja liderando do púlpito.Os cristãos primitivos não nada que sequer se aproximasse de um culto atual.
• Como parte desses procedimentos, eles comiam a Ceia do Senhor como uma refeição completa, certamente como a principal do dia, comumente se referindo a ela como banquete.
• Eles entendiam que cada igreja seria uma extensão da unidade familiar (a idéia de igrejas como instituições ou organizações provavelmente era totalmente alheia a eles) e praticavam uma liderança não hierárquica, plural e masculina, através de anciãos que emergiam da própria igreja. Esses líderes locais (anciãos, pastores e bispos são sinônimos, no Novo Testamento) tentavam liderar o mais consensualmente possível e estava claro que suas funções eram meramente funcionais e de nenhuma maneira posicionais.
Vimos que a Bíblia claramente revela sobre como os apóstolos (que receberam pessoalmente de Jesus as revelações e ensinamentos) agiam para estabelecerem as normas de funcionamento e operação das igrejas. Mas, a questão que se nos apresenta é: “Quanto da ‘receita’, poderia ser modificado, sem que a igreja deixasse de ser bíblica, quanto à sua natureza e funcionamento?”. (Eu me expresso dessa forma pelo fato de que natureza e funcionamento são totalmente relacionados, sendo as duas faces de uma mesma moeda. Como em tudo mais na vida, a forma segue a função – aqui, também isso ocorre. Pais e filhos, por exemplo, interagem de forma diferente daquela usada entre colegas de trabalho e é a diferença em natureza que faz a diferença em função tão importante. Uma família onde pais e filhos se relacionem mais como colegas de trabalho do que como parentes do mesmo sangue será um exemplo, não de uma família normal, mas de uma família disfuncional [cujas funções se manifestam de maneiras anômalas]. Da mesma forma, igrejas que funcionam como instituições ou organizações, muito mais do que como extensões da família de Deus, são exemplos de igrejas disfuncionais e, biblicamente falando, não são normais)”.
Vamos então procurar responder à indagação acima e descobrir quais as partes do modelo apostólico que não são essenciais (se existirem) para a manutenção da natureza e da função da igreja bíblica. Começaremos com o assunto referente ao dia no qual a igreja deve se reunir.
Já que natureza e função são na verdade relacionadas, isso é inteiramente neutro e os pais da igreja primitiva então entenderam isso, de maneira a não verem necessidade de fazer modificações. Eles viram que se pode alterar o funcionamento e a natureza das igrejas sem interferência do dia em que ela se reúne e, a esse respeito, deixar as coisas como no status quo apostólico. E, contrariamente, uma igreja bíblica pode mudar o dia em que se reúnem e continuar a praticar e funcionar da mesma maneira em todos os outros aspectos.
Eu desejaria ser o primeiro a dizer que ser (natureza) e fazer (função) uma igreja bíblica é mais importante do que o dia no qual se reúne. Eu preferiria ser parte de uma igreja que fosse bíblica em prática e função e que se reunisse, digamos, às terças ou quintas feiras, do que pertencer uma igreja que se reunisse aos domingos mas que não fosse bíblica de acordo com nossa definição anterior. Mas, aqui está minha questão: Quando os pioneiros da igreja pessoalmente escolheram não mudar o dia das reuniões dos crentes, em que bases e por quais possíveis razões o fizeram?
Contudo, eu afirmo novamente que aceito sem reserva alguma que reuniões da igreja em outro dia da semana que não o domingo possam ser inteiramente bíblicas. Ainda mais, se um dia se tornasse ilegal reunir-se aos domingos, mas não às quintas-feiras, então eu iria, sob as circunstâncias extremas, sentir-me inteiramente feliz em fazer as necessárias mudanças. Mas, fora essas circunstâncias atenuantes (e eu vou retornar a essa hipótese depois), por que mudar o dia no qual a igreja primitiva, sob a orientação e os cuidados dos apóstolos, se reunia?
Deixe-me também responder agora a uma colocação legítima feita no Novo Testamento, a de que os judeus começavam um novo dia ao entardecer e de que isso significa que o primeiro dia da semana para eles começava ao pôr-do-sol do sábado. Assim, se alguma igreja se reúne nas tardes dos sábados, especificamente por essa razão, então eu aceitaria isso como uma coisa biblicamenrte correta.
Entretanto, precisamos também dizer que isso pareceria ilógico em países onde o dia é reconhecido como começando pela manhã. Como, para a maioria de nós, o primeiro dia da semana é o período de tempo que vai desde que levantamos no domingo pela manhã, até irmos para a cama outra vez, então eu manteria que as reuniões das igrejas aos domingos mantém-se como a norma bíblica, até onde podemos ver. Mas, voltemos à questão das reuniões em residências.
Ninguém, com um mínimo de conhecimento bíblico, poderá negar que as igrejas cristãs primitivas se reuniam em domicílios, nem a natureza e a forma dessas reuniões. Isso prova que nunca houve necessidade de que fosse diferente. Por definição, pode-se supor que os membros de cada igreja fossem em pequeno número, assim como as reuniões fossem interativas, sem ninguém na direção e com boa comida. Isso seria perfeito para p ambiente domiciliar. Depois de tudo, que melhor lugar poderia haver? E, mais uma vez, vimos que forma acompanha a função, como sempre ocorre no Novo Testamento. (Atribuímos aos pais da igreja primitiva a eventual mudança dos cultos, das residências para edifícios especialmente santificados. É interessante também que se note que essa foi a última modificação que eles fizeram no projeto apostólico. Na realidade, de tudo o que foi originalmente estabelecido pelos apóstolos, as reuniões em domicílios foram as que sobreviveram por mais tempo à reinvenção da igreja cristã por eles promovida).
Agora, vamos considerar a situação de vinte esquimós em uma pequena vila próxima ao Pólo Norte, que acabam de se tornar cristãos e desejam formar uma igreja. Mas, a maior moradia de que dispõem, acomoda no máximo oito pessoas. Então, se eles por isso decidem alugar um iglu maior com o propósito específico de usá-lo para suas reuniões como igreja, assumimos que eles ainda obedecem ao que a Bíblia requer e não mudam a natureza que deva ter suas reuniões. Assim, eu não vejo problema algum. Na verdade, eu preferiria ser parte de uma igreja que se reunisse fora das casas (assumindo que todas as outras práticas bíblicas estivessem corretas), a pertencer a uma igreja que se reunisse em domicílios, mas que fosse antibíblica nos demais aspectos. Se for mesmo necessário, você pode manter a natureza e as práticas de uma igreja ainda que se reúnam em algum lugar distinto de uma casa. De fato, a igreja da qual faço parte, às vezes aluga um salão para nossa reunião, quando desejamos o tempero especial dos cânticos. Fazemos isso por amor aos nossos vizinhos, que se queixam do barulho que fazemos nessas ocasiões especiais. Porém, nos sentamos em círculo, como fazemos quando em casa e tudo o que fazemos nesse salão é inteiramente aberto à participação espontânea de cada um e jamais temos alguém liderando as atividades. Depois dessas atividades, retornamos a uma de nossas casas para o banquete do amor. Desejo, porém, evidenciar o que disse sobre ter que realmente usar outro lugar que não uma casa para as reuniões, pois não devemos permitir desvios dos padrões bíblicos, o que seria permissível apenas dentro de circunstâncias atenuantes, o que não as transformaria em normas. Deixe-me ilustrar o que digo usando o exemplo do que a Bíblia ensina sobre o batismo.
O batismo bíblico, como assim como a tradição apostólica de funcionamento de uma igreja, é mandamento do Senhor. Embora sua forma real não esteja em nenhuma página das Escrituras, nós conhecemos a maneira como a igreja primitiva fazia as coisas (tradição apostólica de novo): de que deveria ser feito imediatamente após a conversão, sem um nenhum período de espera e em água. (E a inferência de por imersão, pelo simples fato de que a palavra batismo, em português, deriva da palavra grega baptizo, o que quer dizer, literalmente, afundar, imergir ou submergir). Muitos de nós estaríamos grandemente preocupados frente a qualquer idéia de que somos livres para introduzir modificações, seja com respeito a quem deva ser batizado, ao modo do batismo ou ao tempo certo para ele – e ficamos dolorosamente conscientes de como a igreja tem massacrado cada uma dessas formas. Assim, nossa posição é a de que cada pessoa deva ser batizada imediatamente após sua profissão de fé em Jesus e sendo submergida em água por completo.
Falemos agora de alguém que chegue ao Senhor, mas que está prostrado em uma cama, por enfermidade. O batismo, como biblicamente determinado e exemplificado no Novo Testamento, está claramente fora de questão no que respeita àquela pessoa. Então não nos competiria encontrar algum modo apropriado de resolver o problema?A resposta certamente seria sim! Em tais circunstâncias, estaríamos tecnicamente em desacordo com os ensinamentos das Escrituras com referência ao modo de batismo, ainda que em completa harmonia com sua intenção e espírito.
Mas, este é o ponto vital: nada do que acabo de afirmar poderia ser aplicado à conversão de uma pessoa fisicamente capaz, situação na qual o modo normal deveria ser usado, para que as coisas fossem feitas como o Senhor as quer. Também ninguém poderia argumentar em defesa do batismo de alguém que não houvesse se achegado a Jesus pela fé, pois isso feriria frontalmente a verdadeira natureza do batismo, ainda que sua aparência estivesse de acordo com as Escrituras.
É isso o que quero dizer quando afirmo que não devemos transformar em norma os desvios biblicamente permitidos devido a circunstâncias atenuantes. Se a igreja da qual faço parte aqui na Inglaterra tivesse acesso a casas maiores, como outras igrejas têm, como nos Estados Unidos, nem em um milhão de anos poderíamos pensar em usar um salão como local para parte de nossa reunião. Retornemos por um instante aos nossos hipotéticos irmãos do Pólo Norte: se eles descobrissem que têm um iglu capaz de acolher a um número de pessoas igual ao de uma reunião de igreja, então que necessidade teriam de alugar um iglu maior para tal finalidade? Fica então nítido que a verdade é que qualquer processo de negociar algum desses fatores, que juntos formam parte de uma igreja bíblica, usualmente leva à implantação de alternativas espúrias a outras três áreas:
Demonstramos sempre que as práticas legadas pelos apóstolos tinham força de determinações bíblicas. Isso é verdade, por exemplo, no que se refere às pessoas trabalharem e não ficarem ociosas e à maneira de funcionamento das igrejas (como o os irmãos que devem fazer quando reunidos). Do Novo Testamento como um todo, podemos descortinar juntos um claro panorama de como eram realmente essas igrejas apostolicamente dirigidas. Podemos, assim, definir o seguinte:
• Os crentes se reuniam como igreja no primeiro dia da semana (É relevante que se note que esta é a única prática apostólica com a qual os dirigentes da igreja primitiva não desorganizaram nem modificaram. E a razão clara para tal é que isso, de nenhuma forma, toca na real natureza do que é a igreja e, portanto, não afeta os ensinamentos errados e mudanças nas práticas da igreja que eles introduziram uma ou outra vez. Eles conseqüentemente deixaram isso intocado e permaneceu como os apóstolos originalmente estabeleceram).
• Quando as igrejas se reúnem, isso é feito em residências.
• Quando elas se reuniam nos lares, o louvor comum e a participação coletiva eram completamente abertos e espontâneos (I Coríntios 14:26 descreve o procedimento como “o que cada um tem”), sem que ninguém esteja liderando do púlpito.Os cristãos primitivos não nada que sequer se aproximasse de um culto atual.
• Como parte desses procedimentos, eles comiam a Ceia do Senhor como uma refeição completa, certamente como a principal do dia, comumente se referindo a ela como banquete.
• Eles entendiam que cada igreja seria uma extensão da unidade familiar (a idéia de igrejas como instituições ou organizações provavelmente era totalmente alheia a eles) e praticavam uma liderança não hierárquica, plural e masculina, através de anciãos que emergiam da própria igreja. Esses líderes locais (anciãos, pastores e bispos são sinônimos, no Novo Testamento) tentavam liderar o mais consensualmente possível e estava claro que suas funções eram meramente funcionais e de nenhuma maneira posicionais.
Vimos que a Bíblia claramente revela sobre como os apóstolos (que receberam pessoalmente de Jesus as revelações e ensinamentos) agiam para estabelecerem as normas de funcionamento e operação das igrejas. Mas, a questão que se nos apresenta é: “Quanto da ‘receita’, poderia ser modificado, sem que a igreja deixasse de ser bíblica, quanto à sua natureza e funcionamento?”. (Eu me expresso dessa forma pelo fato de que natureza e funcionamento são totalmente relacionados, sendo as duas faces de uma mesma moeda. Como em tudo mais na vida, a forma segue a função – aqui, também isso ocorre. Pais e filhos, por exemplo, interagem de forma diferente daquela usada entre colegas de trabalho e é a diferença em natureza que faz a diferença em função tão importante. Uma família onde pais e filhos se relacionem mais como colegas de trabalho do que como parentes do mesmo sangue será um exemplo, não de uma família normal, mas de uma família disfuncional [cujas funções se manifestam de maneiras anômalas]. Da mesma forma, igrejas que funcionam como instituições ou organizações, muito mais do que como extensões da família de Deus, são exemplos de igrejas disfuncionais e, biblicamente falando, não são normais)”.
Vamos então procurar responder à indagação acima e descobrir quais as partes do modelo apostólico que não são essenciais (se existirem) para a manutenção da natureza e da função da igreja bíblica. Começaremos com o assunto referente ao dia no qual a igreja deve se reunir.
Já que natureza e função são na verdade relacionadas, isso é inteiramente neutro e os pais da igreja primitiva então entenderam isso, de maneira a não verem necessidade de fazer modificações. Eles viram que se pode alterar o funcionamento e a natureza das igrejas sem interferência do dia em que ela se reúne e, a esse respeito, deixar as coisas como no status quo apostólico. E, contrariamente, uma igreja bíblica pode mudar o dia em que se reúnem e continuar a praticar e funcionar da mesma maneira em todos os outros aspectos.
Eu desejaria ser o primeiro a dizer que ser (natureza) e fazer (função) uma igreja bíblica é mais importante do que o dia no qual se reúne. Eu preferiria ser parte de uma igreja que fosse bíblica em prática e função e que se reunisse, digamos, às terças ou quintas feiras, do que pertencer uma igreja que se reunisse aos domingos mas que não fosse bíblica de acordo com nossa definição anterior. Mas, aqui está minha questão: Quando os pioneiros da igreja pessoalmente escolheram não mudar o dia das reuniões dos crentes, em que bases e por quais possíveis razões o fizeram?
Contudo, eu afirmo novamente que aceito sem reserva alguma que reuniões da igreja em outro dia da semana que não o domingo possam ser inteiramente bíblicas. Ainda mais, se um dia se tornasse ilegal reunir-se aos domingos, mas não às quintas-feiras, então eu iria, sob as circunstâncias extremas, sentir-me inteiramente feliz em fazer as necessárias mudanças. Mas, fora essas circunstâncias atenuantes (e eu vou retornar a essa hipótese depois), por que mudar o dia no qual a igreja primitiva, sob a orientação e os cuidados dos apóstolos, se reunia?
Deixe-me também responder agora a uma colocação legítima feita no Novo Testamento, a de que os judeus começavam um novo dia ao entardecer e de que isso significa que o primeiro dia da semana para eles começava ao pôr-do-sol do sábado. Assim, se alguma igreja se reúne nas tardes dos sábados, especificamente por essa razão, então eu aceitaria isso como uma coisa biblicamenrte correta.
Entretanto, precisamos também dizer que isso pareceria ilógico em países onde o dia é reconhecido como começando pela manhã. Como, para a maioria de nós, o primeiro dia da semana é o período de tempo que vai desde que levantamos no domingo pela manhã, até irmos para a cama outra vez, então eu manteria que as reuniões das igrejas aos domingos mantém-se como a norma bíblica, até onde podemos ver. Mas, voltemos à questão das reuniões em residências.
Ninguém, com um mínimo de conhecimento bíblico, poderá negar que as igrejas cristãs primitivas se reuniam em domicílios, nem a natureza e a forma dessas reuniões. Isso prova que nunca houve necessidade de que fosse diferente. Por definição, pode-se supor que os membros de cada igreja fossem em pequeno número, assim como as reuniões fossem interativas, sem ninguém na direção e com boa comida. Isso seria perfeito para p ambiente domiciliar. Depois de tudo, que melhor lugar poderia haver? E, mais uma vez, vimos que forma acompanha a função, como sempre ocorre no Novo Testamento. (Atribuímos aos pais da igreja primitiva a eventual mudança dos cultos, das residências para edifícios especialmente santificados. É interessante também que se note que essa foi a última modificação que eles fizeram no projeto apostólico. Na realidade, de tudo o que foi originalmente estabelecido pelos apóstolos, as reuniões em domicílios foram as que sobreviveram por mais tempo à reinvenção da igreja cristã por eles promovida).
Agora, vamos considerar a situação de vinte esquimós em uma pequena vila próxima ao Pólo Norte, que acabam de se tornar cristãos e desejam formar uma igreja. Mas, a maior moradia de que dispõem, acomoda no máximo oito pessoas. Então, se eles por isso decidem alugar um iglu maior com o propósito específico de usá-lo para suas reuniões como igreja, assumimos que eles ainda obedecem ao que a Bíblia requer e não mudam a natureza que deva ter suas reuniões. Assim, eu não vejo problema algum. Na verdade, eu preferiria ser parte de uma igreja que se reunisse fora das casas (assumindo que todas as outras práticas bíblicas estivessem corretas), a pertencer a uma igreja que se reunisse em domicílios, mas que fosse antibíblica nos demais aspectos. Se for mesmo necessário, você pode manter a natureza e as práticas de uma igreja ainda que se reúnam em algum lugar distinto de uma casa. De fato, a igreja da qual faço parte, às vezes aluga um salão para nossa reunião, quando desejamos o tempero especial dos cânticos. Fazemos isso por amor aos nossos vizinhos, que se queixam do barulho que fazemos nessas ocasiões especiais. Porém, nos sentamos em círculo, como fazemos quando em casa e tudo o que fazemos nesse salão é inteiramente aberto à participação espontânea de cada um e jamais temos alguém liderando as atividades. Depois dessas atividades, retornamos a uma de nossas casas para o banquete do amor. Desejo, porém, evidenciar o que disse sobre ter que realmente usar outro lugar que não uma casa para as reuniões, pois não devemos permitir desvios dos padrões bíblicos, o que seria permissível apenas dentro de circunstâncias atenuantes, o que não as transformaria em normas. Deixe-me ilustrar o que digo usando o exemplo do que a Bíblia ensina sobre o batismo.
O batismo bíblico, como assim como a tradição apostólica de funcionamento de uma igreja, é mandamento do Senhor. Embora sua forma real não esteja em nenhuma página das Escrituras, nós conhecemos a maneira como a igreja primitiva fazia as coisas (tradição apostólica de novo): de que deveria ser feito imediatamente após a conversão, sem um nenhum período de espera e em água. (E a inferência de por imersão, pelo simples fato de que a palavra batismo, em português, deriva da palavra grega baptizo, o que quer dizer, literalmente, afundar, imergir ou submergir). Muitos de nós estaríamos grandemente preocupados frente a qualquer idéia de que somos livres para introduzir modificações, seja com respeito a quem deva ser batizado, ao modo do batismo ou ao tempo certo para ele – e ficamos dolorosamente conscientes de como a igreja tem massacrado cada uma dessas formas. Assim, nossa posição é a de que cada pessoa deva ser batizada imediatamente após sua profissão de fé em Jesus e sendo submergida em água por completo.
Falemos agora de alguém que chegue ao Senhor, mas que está prostrado em uma cama, por enfermidade. O batismo, como biblicamente determinado e exemplificado no Novo Testamento, está claramente fora de questão no que respeita àquela pessoa. Então não nos competiria encontrar algum modo apropriado de resolver o problema?A resposta certamente seria sim! Em tais circunstâncias, estaríamos tecnicamente em desacordo com os ensinamentos das Escrituras com referência ao modo de batismo, ainda que em completa harmonia com sua intenção e espírito.
Mas, este é o ponto vital: nada do que acabo de afirmar poderia ser aplicado à conversão de uma pessoa fisicamente capaz, situação na qual o modo normal deveria ser usado, para que as coisas fossem feitas como o Senhor as quer. Também ninguém poderia argumentar em defesa do batismo de alguém que não houvesse se achegado a Jesus pela fé, pois isso feriria frontalmente a verdadeira natureza do batismo, ainda que sua aparência estivesse de acordo com as Escrituras.
É isso o que quero dizer quando afirmo que não devemos transformar em norma os desvios biblicamente permitidos devido a circunstâncias atenuantes. Se a igreja da qual faço parte aqui na Inglaterra tivesse acesso a casas maiores, como outras igrejas têm, como nos Estados Unidos, nem em um milhão de anos poderíamos pensar em usar um salão como local para parte de nossa reunião. Retornemos por um instante aos nossos hipotéticos irmãos do Pólo Norte: se eles descobrissem que têm um iglu capaz de acolher a um número de pessoas igual ao de uma reunião de igreja, então que necessidade teriam de alugar um iglu maior para tal finalidade? Fica então nítido que a verdade é que qualquer processo de negociar algum desses fatores, que juntos formam parte de uma igreja bíblica, usualmente leva à implantação de alternativas espúrias a outras três áreas:
- Louvor aberto e participativo, sem ninguém dirigindo
- Ceia do Senhor como uma refeição completa e
- Liderança local não hierárquica, plural e masculina
Gostaria de deixar bem claro que, com as três características acima, estamos tratando dos requisitos básicos, não negociáveis e irredutíveis, que produzem o que se chama uma igreja bíblica. Quero também afirmar que isso não quer dizer que tudo estará em seus exatos lugares, desde que se diga “faça-se”. É preciso, primeiro, haver instrução, desenvolvimento e crescimento espiritual. Estas sim, são as coisas as quais a igreja deve ter como seu alvo, seu norte, mesmo que ainda não tenha chegado a esse ponto. Claro que a Ceia do Senhor como refeição completa deve ser implantada desde o início, pois não haveria nenhuma razão aparente para ser diferente, ainda que a liderança normativamente se levante depois. Pode ocorrer também que alguém precise liderar inicialmente as reuniões semanais até que outros aprendam a fazer suas partes. Mas o que se deve evidenciar é em que direção a igreja está sendo orientada, no que tange a como ela funciona e como as coisas são feitas.
O cerne dessa questão é que tudo ou todos que tocam nessas três coisas, de fato abalam a própria natureza do que seja a igreja. Mude-se alguma dessas coisas e teremos igrejas funcionando de maneira que não só é diferente do preconizado pelo Novo Testamento, mas chega mesmo a ser um organismo alienado e virtualmente o oposto ao que deveria ser. Voltando ao exemplo do batismo, dizemos que temos aqui o equivalente a batizar a um ateu. A natureza mesma da coisa é transformada e a intenção do Senhor é invalidada, cancelada – de fato, ela virtualmente desaparece. E tudo se reduz ao seguinte: por que alguém que entende essas três últimas partes do plano quereria brincar com as duas primeiras, a menos que se tratasse das circunstâncias mais atenuantes que efetivamente o forçara. Ainda estou para ouvir uma maneira melhor de expressar isso, do que a usada pelo meu amigo Steve Atkerson: “a questão não é tanto por que devemos fazer as coisas da mesma maneira como o fizeram os apóstolos, mas por que quereríamos fazer algo diferente?”
Eu creio que isso diz tudo!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Is Tithing Biblical?
Is tithing Biblical? Sure, if you happen to be a non-Christian Jew who is still erroneously living under Old Testament law**. But tithing is not Biblical for Christians.
As shocking as this may sound, tithing is a literal fraud (mostly unintentional) that has been perpetrated for many years upon most of Christianity in general. Christians have been literally robbed by people that are so deceived in this area that they think it is God’s will and mandate for them to do so. Very few modern tithe teachers realize that they have no rights whatsoever to exact a tithe from Christians. And very few are open to a warning on the subject. Many have become so entangled in “needing” this money, among other things, to pay massive building debts (debts they had no Biblical right to incur in the first place).
Tithing is strictly for the non-Christian Jew and many Jewish scholars will gladly tell you this. Jewish people who have become Christians (Judeo Christians or Messianic Jews) are actually free from the tithe and from all Old Testament ceremonial law although some of them may not realize this. While the moral law and much of the civil law remains (such as in ethical standards), Christians are not under the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. According to Galatians 3, those who try and keep any part of the ceremonial law must keep the whole law. It is a vain and futile thing to attempt.
In brief, tithing is never once taught in the New Testament, which is the blueprint for the Church and for Christian living. Some argue that Jesus upheld tithing in the New Testament. But what they fail to recognize is when Jesus told various men in the New Testament that they should not neglect the tithe is because those men were Jews, not Christians and Jesus had not yet died and rose from the dead redeeming us in general from ceremonial Jewish law.
Malachi 3:8-12 is widely used as a hammer by church authoritarians who are determined to fund their grand ambitions, but these Old Testament verses were written specifically to Israel not to Christians.
8"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In (tithes and offerings. 9"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! 10"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. 11"Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the LORD of hosts. 12"All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land," says the LORD of hosts. Malachi 3:8-12 NASB
There are very few Christians who are unfamiliar with the ungodly misapplied pounding of the above verses into their heads. Many unbelievers are also quite familiar with these verses from Malachi as well, often more familiar than any other verses in the Bible. That should tell you something! The tithing error is big business. This is what funds lunatic false teachers in the pulpit. We as Christians are commanded to not give under compulsion but rather as cheerful givers. But here’s the thing:
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Bible’s command to not give under compulsion while believing that we owe a compulsory tax of 10% of our income to some charlatan to spend any way that he wants.
Tithing is a system of policed and enforced “giving”, which is not voluntary giving at all but an involuntarily taxation. This is not remotely close to cheerful givers commanded to not give “under compulsion” as the Bible clearly teaches in 2Cor 9:7. “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2Cor 9:7 NASB
But how can one do as he has purposed in his own heart if he or she is at the same time forced to tithe? Well, some tithing advocates who pound Malachi 3 claim that the voluntary aspect of 2Cor9:7 pertains only to additional offerings or choosing where to tithe. But if the “where” was optional, then why does Malachi 3 set the storehouse as the exact “where” or place where the tithe must be given? The where is not optional. The problem is Malachi 3 does not apply in any way to Christians but rather only to Israel. Many of these tithe teachers mix Old and New Testament Scriptures together in a random haphazard way in order to try and get the Bible to say whatever they want it to say. This erroneous approach to Bible interpretation is often quite evident in many of their other teachings as well.
Briefly, you should NOT tithe. But, this is one of the hardest false teachings and false “church” habits to break. The reason is because we have been so utterly pounded with endless fear tactics and other mental gymnastics in order to keep us tithing. We think we’ll lose our job or our car will break down or some other fear based lunacy that these guys teach. It’s all unbiblical nonsense. Who is the direct beneficiary of the tithe teaching? You guessed it. The tithe teacher!
A few quick bullet points (but there is much more to be said on this subject):
- Tithes were never collected in cash (livestock and crops only).
- Tithes were collected only by Levitical priests.
- A Levitical priest must be Jewish.
- A Levitical priest must own no personal property. (Have you seen any pastors lately who own no personal property?)
- There are presently no more of these priests in existence today so we know we have lots of counterfeit Levitical priests running around.
- Tithes were often mandated by God for other uses such as giving to the poor. Tithes were sometimes to be used for the personal needs of the person who tithed. (When have you ever seen a pastor give the tithe back to the giver?)
The same men who teach the tithe gladly eat pork (which is OK for any Christian to do). But anyone who keeps any Old Testament ceremonial law (such as tithing) must keep all the Old Testament ceremonial laws (including the law that states that eating pork is forbidden). We also do not see these tithe teachers slaughtering bulls and goats as sacrifices to God (not that any Christian should). The point is, these men pick and choose to pull forward from the Old Testament law whatever they want and they have chosen to keep the tithe and throw out what is inconvenient (such as the prohibition on owning personal property, the prohibition on eating pork, animal sacrifices, etc.) in a nutshell whatever they don’t like and whatever does not suit them.
This is only a brief introduction to the tithing error. Again, much more could be said on this subject.
**Tithing is only "biblical" per se for an unbelieving Jew strictly from the perspective of and within their religion and theology of Judaism. The Old Covenant with its laws, ordinances and observances has passed away and is no longer is in force for anyone. Jewish people are not actually under the Old Covenant and of course they too need Christ in order to be saved. A Jewish person is not even Abraham's descendant without faith in Christ: Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham...And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Gal 3: 7, 29
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)