Mass Exodus From The Church
Submitted by Clay Sikes

Dear List Members,

Those of you who attentively read the post to Lighthouse Prophecy are aware of Joseph Herrin's recent challenge to various aspects of what is written in the Viola transcripts, which were posted several weeks ago. Mr. Herrin meticulously covered his challenges to Frank Viola's teaching with both scripture and quotes from Watchman Nee.

As expected, there have been a number of responses to Mr. Herrin's challenge, including my own. I sense very strongly that these discussions are resulting in us rightly dividing the word by and through the counsel of many. I must publicly thank Mr. Herrin for taking the time to write, what I feel to be, an insightful and well-articulated point of view. I agree in principle with some of his points, but have some problem with what I felt to be a totally negligent view of what Mr. Viola's overall points are.

As you will see in my response, Mr. Herrin and I both agree that there is an established authority on earth invested in man by God, but we are light years apart in our understanding of the meaning of authority and leadership..

Let me first state that by no means do I feel that my experiences are anything except "my experiences." If in some way they apply or answer some of your questions or you witness some spiritual insight from these experiences, so be it. I share here for the sake of explaining my beliefs and understanding, and furthering our discourse on this most important topic.

One would indeed be foolish to downplay or diminish the fact that something major is going on in the Body of Christ today. Some are calling it rebellion against God appointed authority; others are calling it a move of God that is liberating men from the works of men.

With that said, I will briefly share some recent experiences that perhaps illustrate several points of this discussion. Summoned by what we felt to be the Lord' s instruction, Dickie Welch and I left the Institutional Church several years ago and began meeting in my home. Others soon joined us and we grew in size and later moved to a more accommodating facility, an old Doctor's office located in downtown Hinesville. For the first year and a half, either Dickie or I brought the word and encouraged participation from others in the group. Soon, we began to see the power of the Holy Spirit on a consistent basis, coupled with a level of spiritual growth individually and collectively such as we've never seen nor experienced as past church leaders.

What we amazingly realized was that the format allowed us to be completely obedient to the Holy Spirit's instructions; specifically allowing us to involve the entire group.

Our job as leaders was to insure that we did not make rules that in any way inhibited the Holy Spirit's freedom to do as He pleased. Since we had no model, had read no books, nor seen others as a model, we had no real understanding as to what we were doing, yet realized something was right because of the consistency in which the Spirit of God moved. The only instructions either of us had were to keep ourselves out of the way. More so now than ever, His instructions remain the same - "Stay out of the way."

Our job has been to recognize and call upon the gifts in others - to encourage and call upon the ministry God has placed in those in our meetings. Soon, an intimacy and love began to permeate the group as ministries developed right before our eyes. We all have begun to experience the burden to pray for each other as the Lord leads, often with astounding results. The gifts of the Spirit flow with freedom and richness. I myself have experienced two miraculous healings, as have others. We are seeing deep inner healing take place in individuals, marriages, between parents and children, speaking of which, who often sit mesmerized for the two to three hours that these services last. Astoundingly, young people comprehend the teaching and sharing that goes on from week to week.

The beauty of watching the gift of God come to life in a man or woman is an awesome thing to see. Different individuals now lead our meetings from week to week. There are weeks in which Dickie and I together may actually say very little, though we are certainly present. We are there to answer questions, assist and guide should the group get off course; however, I must say that very seldom are we needed in any of those capacities. The Holy Spirit is such an awesome teacher that when someone does get off course, we need not say a word - it is absolutely amazing to see them corrected, often on the spot by God's anointed and appointed teacher, the Holy Ghost.

What we are experiencing is a true living organism whose lifeblood is the breath of the Holy Spirit. New converts are reaching levels of spiritually understanding in short order. We all are being tested in the principles we are learning and I am happy to report, by His grace, we continuously here praise report after praise report.

What I submit to you through this writing is this: Can true authority and leadership ever be understood in the present system in which the Institutional Church operates? Can the gifts of God ever truly be recognized in God's people in a system that not only acknowledges, but also encourages the great divide - laity and clergy? How many wonderful and great gifts now sit idly in the pews of Institutional Churches, in a system that will not and cannot recognize these gifts? How wise of our enemy called "Church Tradition" to set himself up in God's own house to stymie and shut down the men and women of God who are gifted to change the world. While we are quick to recognize Satan in his other forms, we seldom see him in the innocence of tradition…IGNORANCE OFTEN COMES DISGUISED AS TRADITION!

The gifts of God must be exercised to come into use. A man may have enormous athletic ability, but without a coach to recognize his talent and without a playing field upon which to practice and use his talent, he is no different from any other man. The present church system will not recognize much less allow a gift to come forth in a mere pew sitter!

I further submit that as leaders of our small Hinesville group, we are different from many Institutional Church leaders. Our sole goal here is to serve the people, not be served by the people. We do not set ourselves apart from those we are joined to; we are there to submit to and serve those God has appointed us to.

Yes Mr. Herrin and others, I believe in God appointed authority, but not in the way you and others believe. In my humble opinion I do not think it possible for anyone who believes in the non-scriptural laity/clergy divide to possibly know the true meaning of leadership or true God inspired authority. Most have a 'big me' 'little you' mindset, furthered by an inner belief that they must hear God for the people.

While you were most adept at pointing out Nick's flaws in answering the question of family authority, which by-the-way, were his spoken testimony as opposed to our advantage of taking the time to articulate in writing our beliefs, I thought you were equally inept in not pointing out the numerous points that were correct in their discussions, especially regarding the errors in the present Institutional Church system.

To Clay Sikes, Frank Viola, Gene Edwards, Nick Vasiliades, Rudi Lopez and all those who seek to know the mind of the Lord, to discern the voice of the Spirit of God, and to rightly divide the word of God,

Greetings to you in the name of Jesus Christ, Yahshua the Messiah. I have read the articles "Straight Talk to Elders" parts one and two, as well as the follow-up comments that have been posted to the End Time Prophetic Vision website. Additionally, I have read Frank Viola's book "Rethinking the Wineskin", having done so a number of years ago along with several other ministers, and a little over a year ago I read some of Gene Edwards views on the same topic as I visited his website and read what material was available there. I have also studied Watchman Nee's "Rethinking the Work", "Spiritual Authority", and numerous other writings that touch on the issue of headship and authority in the church, such as the chapter on Headcovering found in the book "Love One Another".

I would like to speak to the issues raised by Gene Edwards, Frank Viola and others, and I would ask you to patiently consider that which I write. I know this will be to some length, but the issues here are foundational matters in the church and they cannot be treated lightly nor addressed in a few words. The writings that Clay Sikes has posted to the Internet entitled "Straight Talk to Elders" took over fifty pages to print out, and the books each of these men have written on church leadership are over one hundred pages, so I ask you to be patient in reading the words written here as well.

Nick Vasiliades made the following statement when speaking to the elders in Chile:

I appreciate this confession of openness, and I desire to do what this brother has invited the saints to do. I will base all that is said upon the word of God, not upon some other man's writing, nor upon an interpretation of history. I agree that it is good to know one's history correctly, but if one's interpretation of history does not agree with the counsel of scriptures and the witness of the Spirit, then one must abandon their historical interpretation, for it does not bear the same weight as the scriptures.

Those who are students of history know that interpretation plays a large part in recreating past events, particularly when one is looking for root causes of particular actions. We all know how the evolutionists have employed interpretation to great effect to attempt to get the fossil and historical evidence to fit their theories and hypotheses. They merely start with an assumption and then they try to find evidence to support their assumption. One of their own scientists who was formerly the head of a prestigious Chicago museum of natural history stated that the historical depictions offered by leading evolutionists are only limited by the imagination of the theorists and the gullibility of the listeners.

We would be wrong to assume that Christian church leaders and teachers are not prone to the same vagaries of interpretation when they seek to reconstruct images of early church life. One may not intentionally seek to deceive, but it is very easy to grasp hold of any item of evidence and to proclaim that it supports the thesis or model that is being propounded. This is what some have tried to share with Mr. Viola regarding his emphasis on historical reconstruction. It is not that history should be ignored, but that history is always subject to interpretation, and it should not be set on the same level as the words of scripture or the witness of the Spirit.

With this in mind, I will use only the Spirit and the Word as witnesses to what is shared. Paul declared to Timothy the following:

Frank Viola, Gene Edwards, or any other who would instruct the saints in these matters are offering teaching, reproof and correction. The scriptures are given as the foundation upon which any of these things should rest. When we teach we should teach from scripture. When we reprove, our reproofs should be based on the scriptures. When we correct, we should us the Word of God as our foundation. Beyond this, we also have these words:

The Spirit and the Word are the two witnesses that we must use for the foundation of all instruction to the saints. Anything else is shaky ground. If we use interpretations of history as our guide, then we are at the mercy of the one who claims the greatest historical understanding. We must not use historical analysis and interpretation to define the meaning of scripture, but rather allow scripture to bring us to the right understanding of history.

I would like to state one more thing before delving into the matters of church leadership. Frank Viola in his personal introduction to the elders in Chile made the following comment:

Although Mr. Viola did not state it, and I do not think he meant to mislead anyone, it would be wrong to infer from this comment that Stephen Kaung holds the same views as Watchman Nee, or that the church model that Mr. Viola and others are teaching is something that Watchman Nee also taught. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Mr. Viola, Mr. Edwards and others are disannulling the delegated authority of God within the church, and issues of authority and submission, through their teaching, while Watchman Nee sought to do just the opposite. Following are some of Watchman Nee's own comments.

Watchman Nee never made light of authority in the church. Instead he sought to magnify it and bring the saints to a place of understanding. He testified fervently that God has established authorities in the church, those who are described as ministers in Ephesians chapter four. This election of ministers is a sovereign act of Christ. It is not done according to the will of man, and all who would progress in the kingdom of God should recognize these authorities and honor them, not disannul them or explain their presence away.

Watchman Nee made so much of authority as to say that there were two important matters in the universe, and one of them is obeying God's authority, including the authority He has delegated to man and to those who are ministers and leaders in the church. That God has given such authority to men in the church is clearly seen in scripture.

Paul is declaring here that he has been given spiritual authority in the church. He goes on to say that he has been given a "measure" of authority. The word for measure in the Greek is "metron" and it means a portion, something that is meted out. Paul said he would not extend himself beyond the measure of authority given to Him, but His measure extended as far as the Corinthian church, for he had labored to establish the church in Corinth. A minister's measure of authority goes as far as the sphere of his labor. It would be error for a minister to interfere in the affairs of a body that he has not labored in, for his metron of authority does not extend that far. But it would be just as grievous to declare that there is no authority granted to men in the church, that Christ alone has the authority. Such a message appeals to the flesh of men, for the flesh is rebellious.

Christ is the Head of the body. He is the authority over the church. He has in turn given a measure of authority to men that He has appointed as ministers to the body. When Christ gives responsibility to man, He also gives authority. This is seen in all areas of life.

I am the father of my children and I have responsibilities as their father to train them up in the ways of Yahweh. I have therefore been given authority over my children and they are to honor that authority. It is not me that they honor, but the authority of God given to me as their father. This authority extends as far as my children, but it does not extend to other men's children.

In the county in which I live we have a Sheriff's department and the Sheriff and his deputies have authority to arrest criminals and to enforce the laws of the county. They are given responsibility to make sure the roads remain safe to drive and the neighborhoods are safe to live in. With this responsibility they are given authority. Those who resist this authority will suffer the consequences, for it is God who has established ALL authority.

Did you note that the word minister is used in this passage? When God appoints a minister He endows such a minister with His authority. God has established ministers in local and national governments. He has established ministers in the home. He has established ministers on the job. Why would we then conclude that He has not established any such ministers among the body of Christ? Why would we conclude that there are none among the body of Christ who have been granted a measure of authority that should be honored?

One of the elders in Chile raised this question with Frank Viola and Frank passed the question to Nick Vasiliades who in turn gave a rather disingenuous answer to the question. One of the elders desired to make a comparison between fathers having authority in their homes and elders having authority in the churches.

This is a remarkable exchange. This elder has asked a very good question that has great relevance to the subject at hand, and he is met with untruths and avoidance. How can one say that the New Testament is silent in regard to families? This is simply not true. Following are just a few of the scriptures that speak of families, and particularly how they are to relate to one another as regards authority and submission.

Does this sound like the New Testament is silent concerning the family? Why did Nick want to avoid this question? Why did he want to downplay its significance? Because to admit what the scriptures clearly teach about authority in the home and in the church would totally destroy the no-leadership model that he and others are espousing. Answering this question about authority in the family has great bearing upon what the scriptures teach about authority in the church, which is the family of God. We are even told that the family is the training and proving ground for those who would be elders and ministers.

This Chilean elder was not comparing apples and oranges. Paul himself made the same comparison that he desired to make. Will we tell the apostle, "Paul, you cannot compare a father's role in the home with the elder's role in the church. Paul, don't you know that the principles seen in the family don't extrapolate to the church?" How absurd to make such a statement. Where responsibility is given, authority always accompanies it. The man who has used his authority in his family to edify and build up his family, leading them to exemplify godliness, has been practicing the very thing that elders are called to do on a wider scale among the church of God.

The role of a father is very much akin to the role of an elder. Are fathers to be invisible in the family? No, and neither are elders and other ministers to be invisible in the church. Are men to declare to their wife and children that they do not need to honor his authority because they have Christ as their authority? No! The man is delegated authority in his home by Christ, and to fail to exercise that authority for the welfare of his family is gross irresponsibility. This authority includes carrying out discipline at times. It includes reproving and correcting and instructing. These are the very things that ministers are called to do among the flock.

Those who deny that God has delegated a measure of authority to men whom He has appointed as leaders in the church are akin to those who state that men have no authority in the home. There are many who deny the clear language of scripture that states:

Those who deny that God has delegated a measure of authority to men whom He has appointed as leaders in the church are akin to those who state that men have no authority in the home. There are many who deny the clear language of scripture that states:

Instead they teach that a marriage is to be conducted democratically and all should be done by consensus and agreement. If the husband and wife do not agree then the husband cannot act. This overturns the government of God and it removes honor from the home. I once asked God what would be wrong if I never made a decision or took an action without getting my wife's agreement first. I asked Him what would be the problem if I chose to treat our marriage as a 50/50 partnership. The Spirit answered suddenly and with great clarity, "Honor would be missing." Wives are told to honor their husbands, recognizing their headship and authority, while men are told to love their wives.

Now this same teaching that asserts that men and women are to be equal in the home, having Christ alone as their head, is spreading to the church. But woman does not have Christ alone as her head, she has man as her head. To deny this is to deny the word of God. Likewise, the church does not have Christ alone as head, it also has spiritual authorities that Christ has appointed until the body should come to the fullness of the stature of Christ. To deny this is also to deny the scripture.

Do husbands abuse their authority in the home? Yes they do. Does this mean that women should cast off the authority of their husband because he is disobedient to God? No! The scriptures are plain on this as well.

Should the church then cast off all the authorities delegated by God because many, even a majority of these leaders, have proven themselves to be disobedient to God? This is what is being espoused, but two wrongs do not make a right. Rebellion is not the answer to correcting a wrong authority, and saying such authorities do not legitimately exist is rebellion, even as it would be rebellion for a wife or child to declare that the husband and father has no legitimate authority in the family.

I know there are abuses, very grievous abuses, among leadership in the church. A large part of this is due to men adopting leadership that is not of God. They have taken to themselves self-appointed leaders, instead of God- appointed leaders. There is very little discernment in the body today regarding those whom Christ has called to stand as ministers and elders. The church has heaped up to itself teachers that will tickle their ears and tell them the things they desire to hear. They love a message of ease and prosperity and comfort. They loathe a message of the cross and of suffering.

The church has also adopted false teachings regarding the role of ministers. The ministers are to equip the saints. They are to prepare them for the works God has called them to do. The ministers are servants to the body, teaching them, correcting them, pointing them to God and a dependence upon hearing the voice of the Spirit that they might no longer be dependent upon men for guidance. Yet these things are not done because there are many men who love to be held up on a pedestal as the spiritual elite and there are many others who don't want to embrace the demands of discipleship. These two groups have formed a symbiotic relationship that feeds off of one another.

What is the answer? Is it to abolish leadership and to declare that only Christ is head? This sounds enticing and very spiritual, but it is very wrong. It is no different than declaring that men no longer are leaders in their homes, that Christ alone is the head of the home. The answer is not to cast off all human leadership, but to petition Yahweh that He would raise up godly leaders among the flock. Rebellion must be put far away, and the saints must clothe themselves with humility as they ask God to supply that which is sadly lacking.

Servants Versus Benefactors

One of the scripture passages that has been used to support the overthrow of all spiritual authority in the church is the following:

What does it mean to be a benefactor? A benefactor is one who derives benefit from another. Kings collect tribute and taxes, and they in many ways use the people to derive personal benefit. Yahshua was stating that this was not to be the pattern among the children of God. They were not to view leadership and authority as an opportunity to derive personal gain. Rather they were to see it as an opportunity to serve. Yahshua was not saying that there would be no authority among His disciples, nor that leaders would be absent. He said the leader must be as a servant. This is clearly seen in the fact that he used Himself as the example or pattern.

Did Christ have authority? Yes he did. One of the most common titles attributed to Him is Lord. A Lord is someone with authority. Someone who should be obeyed. He made this plain when He spoke the words: "Why do you call Me Lord, and do not do the things that I say" (Luke 6:46)? Yahshua never denied that He was Lord. He never denied that He was granted authority by the Father. Yet He did not use this authority as one who is a benefactor. He did not come to gratify Himself. He used this authority to serve others.

This then is the meaning of Christ's words. There are those who are granted authority in the kingdom of God, but they are to use that authority to edify others, not to satisfy their own selfish desires. This again is what Paul proclaimed:

Paul was granted authority to build up the church. In the exercise of this authority Paul devoted himself to teaching and to setting an example of godliness in all things. In the exercise of this authority he also reproved, rebuked, corrected, disciplined and gave firm instructions at times that were to be obeyed. This is the same as any father would do with his children, and Paul established that this was his relationship with the churches among which he ministered.

There is much wrong being done by those who stand as leaders in the church, but the answer is not to cast off all authority other than the direct authority of Christ. Submitting to God's authority in man does not invalidate Christ's authority. We must submit to the civil authorities, but when we do so does that invalidate Christ as our Head? No, it does not. Why then would it do so in the church?

There are many proclamations that were made in the conversations with these Chilean elders that are in error, and the error can easily be seen in scripture. I can understand the reluctance of these elders to receive what was said when very plain truths are being denied. One such instance is in the following exchange:

Frank goes on to declare that "the elders who labor well are to be respected, or valued by the church." Yes, it does bear this meaning, but Paul says they are to be considered worthy of "double honor". Respect is one type of honor, and material support is the second honor of which Paul speaks. This is clear from the context of the passage.

Frank makes the argument that the word for honor in the Greek means "honor or respect" and it is not the word for financial payment that he identifies as "misthos or opsonion". Yet misthos is used in this passage. It plainly states, "The laborer is worthy of his wages [misthos]." Furthermore, we can compare this passage written by Paul to another passage where he is also speaking about material compensation and we can see that his usage of the scripture regarding oxen is used to justify the right of ministers to receive support.

Paul goes on to conclude this passage, that is written specifically to address the matter of the compensation of ministers, with these words:

Frank continues to say the following:

Whereas it is possible for one to interpret Paul's words in I Timothy chapter 5 this way, if one really forces it, it is impossible to bring the same interpretation to I Corinthians chapter 9. Paul uses the same examples and the same scriptures in both passages, so it is really undeniable that he is speaking about elders receiving material compensation for their spiritual service.

Frank Viola, Nick Vasiliades, Gene Edwards, and others need not work so hard to get the scriptures to fit the model they have set forth. All they need do is adopt the correct model. The correct model does have men in the body who are set there by God as leaders. These men are worthy of respect and compensation, or as Paul put it, "The lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel." The correct model has Christ as the head of the church, and it also has men who have been granted a measure of authority and who should be honored.

This does not imply that these men should be followed and obeyed blindly, but their words should be given great weight and they should be shown respect as ministers who will one day give an account of their service on behalf of the souls of men.

As was pointed out in the writing "Straight Talk to Elders", the word for obey in the Greek carries the meaning of "let yourself be persuaded." Paul follows this by stating that the church should also submit, or yield themselves, to the leaders in the body. If these leaders are men approved by God, if they are filled with the Spirit and they are of good reputation, if they have proven themselves in their own families, if they labor among the saints in teaching, correcting, refuting, protecting, etc., then the body is to honor such men and act humbly before them. They are to listen attentively to their words and not be a grief to them.

The church today needs these leaders as badly as homes need fathers who will shepherd them and labor to build them up. The answer is not to deny that this calling exists, but to seek to see it fulfilled and restored after the heart of God. Again, we can learn much of the true calling of these leaders as we look to the role of fathers.

As a father, I desire to see my children come to maturity. I long to see them develop their own relationship to Christ, to hear and discern clearly the voice of the Spirit, and to respond in faithful obedience to all that they hear. I do not want my children to remain children forever. I do not want them to continue in dependence upon me. I want them to attain to the fullness of the stature to which they have been called.

As a minister I also desire the same thing among the household of God. I don't want the saints that I have been called to minister unto to develop a dependency upon me. I don't want to be established as the mouthpiece of God to them. I want them to discern the voice of the Spirit themselves. Ministers are given to the body until it comes to full stature. The body is not to remain in perpetual immaturity, nor should a minister be content with immaturity in order to justify his continued place among the body. John recorded these words:

Paul echoed these words in the following scripture:

This should be the goal of every church leader, to bring the body to maturity where they are being led of God in all things. The body is not yet mature, and new saints are entering the kingdom every day. These have need of father figures to lead and guide them. Yahshua was the ultimate example of this type of leader. For three years He lived with His disciples. He shared His life with them. He taught them. He corrected them. At times He sharply rebuked them. And in the end He released them that they might in turn disciple others.

This is the pattern in the body. Fathers in the faith instruct faithful men, bringing them to maturity, that they in their turn might do the same.

Is this pattern followed in the traditional church? No, it is not. But this is the pattern set forth in scripture. Yahshua was not invisible among His disciples. The disciples, turned apostles, were not invisible either. They were very evident among the saints. Paul was very visible everywhere he went. He did not try to hide among the body and make himself obscure, nor should leaders today. They are granted authority to edify the body, to build it up. They are called as servants, not benefactors, and they are visible servants.

It has been asserted that it is wrong for any saint to stand out among the others. It has been stated that it is wrong for any of the saints to be looked at differently due to their calling. This sounds like humility and sound reason, but it is not scripturally supported. In regard to the issue of support, Frank Viola spoke the following:

Did we not already read that an elder is worthy of double honor? If this is true, then do not elders stand out? Are they not set apart and presented as an example to the body of Christ? In this same talk Frank has stated that he believes that elders are worthy of double respect, that is, not the same respect as other brothers, but a special, double respect. It cannot be both ways. Elders cannot be given double honor and no honor at the same time. They cannot be treated with extra respect and with the same respect as everyone else at the same time. Many such difficulties are encountered by trying to make the scriptures fit a wrong model.

As a father, I stand out in my family. I am accorded respect. If we are having a discussion about some matter, all may be heard and voice their thoughts, but when the father speaks his words are given greater weight than the children, and even more than the wife and mother, for "man is the head of woman." Distinctions such as this are common in the kingdom of God. We may all have the same Spirit, the same salvation, and be partakers of the same promises, but in the government of God He has granted some a greater measure of authority than others, and that authority is to be honored.

Paul declared his apostleship when he wrote to the churches, as did Peter. They were not ashamed of their calling, nor were they concerned that they should stand out in an improper manner.

It sounds like humility to state that titles should never be used, but it is a humility that does not have its origin in God. I know families where the parents have adopted this attitude and they have instructed their children to call them by their first name and to not call them mother or father. This is nothing other than a denial of the established government of God, and it leads to dishonor. The same is true in the church of God when it is taught that no titles should be conferred or positions of leadership and authority acknowledged.

When Paul and Peter wrote to these churches they began by declaring the authority in which they wrote. They were not writing as Paul or Peter a brother. Or as Paul or Peter a fellow saint, but as an apostle. They were writing as one who had been given a measure of authority among the saints, and their words merited special honor and weight because of their authority. As we have seen, Paul also instructed the churches to show special honor to those who were leaders among them.

Let me share something that the Spirit has shown me regarding authority and government. Whenever a man or woman submits to the government of God it leads to a crucifixion of their flesh. Our flesh is rebellious by nature and wants to submit to no one. In order for a woman to submit to her husband and to manifest the things that are spoken of as attributes of a godly woman, a quiet and gentle spirit, a chaste and respectful attitude, even to the point of calling her husband her lord, she must die to her own soul and its desires. A crucifixion must take place. Whenever a man submits to the headship of Christ, becoming perfect in obedience, he must crucify his flesh first. In order for teenage children to honor their father and mother when their parents require something of them that they disagree with, it requires a crucifixion of the flesh.

It is the will of God that the flesh be crucified. The hard outer shell of the flesh must be broken and crushed in order for the life of Christ within to come forth and be released. Because of this fact, the Father has established His governmental order to bring about this crushing of the outer man. Those who are the most humble in God's hands will make the most progress in these things. If a man is hard and resistant toward authority, whether Christ's direct authority, or any authority delegated by Him, he will not make progress. The life of Christ will be dammed up and unable to be released. When a man is humble and submissive in the presence of authority, the life of Christ is released.

It is unthinkable then that God would not establish authorities in the church to be employed for the purpose of bringing the saints to a place of crucifixion of their flesh. When the saints are met with authority they must decide whether to submit and obey, or to harden themselves and rebel. One path leads to the life of Christ being manifested, the other leads to death.

The model for church leadership put forth by Frank Viola, Gene Edwards and others removes this very crucial function of leadership in the church. One could argue that the saints must still be subject to Christ, but in examining the following scripture we see a pattern God has established.

Man proves his relationship to God as he relates to other men. A man who hates his brother is deceived if he declares that he loves God. He proves his love of God through his love of man. In the same way, a man or woman who calls Yahshua Lord, but who fails to submit to the authorities established by Christ is deceived. One way we prove our submission to Christ is through submitting to the authority He has placed in man. If we say Christ is our head, yet we will recognize no authority but the authority in the person of Christ, then we are deceived and are not walking in truth. Remember again Paul's words:

If we honor those in civil government with our obedience, then how much more should we honor those men who have been set apart by Christ as ministers to the body and who labor to bring it forth to maturity? They are worthy of more than honor. They are worthy of double honor. May you allow yourself to be persuaded by these words.

Let me close with these words of Watchman Nee from his book "Spiritual Authority".

Joseph Herrin ~ email

Website: http://heart4god.8k.com

Clay,

In Joseph's eyes, I'm sure he has no doubt that with the abundance of scripture cited, the preponderance of evidence is clear and unmistakably in his favor. No other rational conclusion could be drawn that wouldn't adulterate the Word of God. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

His position is very similar to that brought forth by Mary previously, but in more detail. His article is an excellent representative of the institutional church teaching on leadership and authority, and can serve as a nice basis for understanding where they're coming from. For in the process of studying that position, one will clearly see it is not as solid as it portends to be.

He can label me as a heretic and my rebuttal as deluded and espousing a false gospel, but I strongly disagree with his overall conclusion about leadership and authority in the church.

There are 3 categories in which I would like to summarize my rebuttal:

1. Historical evidence;
2. Contextual application of scripture (misinterpretation) and using all relevant scripture; and
3. Jesus' own words.

Historical Evidence

As was with Mary, Joseph fails to accept the historical and cultural facts in understanding and interpreting scripture, erroneously stating that "history is always (emphasis mine) subject to interpretation....We must not use historical analysis and interpretation to define the meaning of scripture, but rather allow scripture to bring us to the right understanding of history."

First, history is not always subject to interpretation. A poignant example: on 9/11/02 the World Trade Centers in NY City were destroyed. No interpretation is necessary. It's a historical fact. Let me bring the argument a little closer to home. Joseph was born on a certain date. A little historical analysis will come up with the date he was born. That's a fact of history. Likewise, the historical evidence brought up by Frank Viola can be easily corroborated. No "interpretation" is necessary in understanding when these things occurred. To dismiss the historical evidence will blind one from seeing the truth. In my opinion, this is not ignorance that God will wink at, but comes dangerously close to hardening one's heart.

Second, historical analysis is an accepted tool to help understand the meaning of scripture, and it is patently ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

In his book entitled "The Case For Christ", Lee Strobel documents his search for the truth. He was a former atheist and legal affairs journalist for the Chicago Tribune with a Masters degree in law. He details his quest for determining the truth about Jesus using various categories of proof - eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence, corroborating evidence, rebuttal evidence, scientific evidence, psychological evidence, circumstantial evidence and even fingerprint evidence. Josh McDowell's (don't know if I spelled his name correctly) book "The Evidence Demands A Verdict" is another example of historical evidence in understanding the scripture.

The point is that the scriptures didn't get to be the scriptures out of thin air. They came to be as a result of much historical analysis, which defined what was going to be considered scripture and what was not! By simple extension of logic, if I take Joseph's contention that historical analysis and interpretation be removed from defining scripture, I must also remove it as the criterion for which the inerrancy of scripture was established. I don't think Joseph wants to go there, but he must if he throws out historical analysis as a legitimate tool for corroborating the scriptures.

Hopefully, I don't have to belabor the point much more, but I can't conceive of someone, especially a minister, state that a cultural and historical understanding of the City of Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Phillipi, etc., did not improve their understanding/interpretation of the New Testament. To ignore such is incomprehensible to me and disingenuous to knowing the whole truth. Enough said.

Contextual Application Of Scripture & Use Of All Relevant Scripture

The next point of discussion is over this statement "the basic lesson that all brothers and sisters need to learn is that we should never allow grace to interfere with God's government...God wants men to respect His government... As a matter of fact, the system of grace is for the sake of completing the system of government. The system of government is not for the system of grace, but grace is for the completion of government. The truth is that what God does in grace never alters God's government."

It's a dangerous position to use the words always and never because of their exclusiveness. It only requires one proof to disannul the statement. If it is true that what God does in grace never, never alters God's government, then we need to do some very creative backpedaling and scripture twisting to explain away Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Jewish government (ordained by God according to Rom 13:1). The very nature of who Jesus was (grace in the flesh) is an obstacle to the governing authorities. They said it was not lawful to heal on the Sabbath, but He did. They said He blasphemed by calling Himself God. In the book of Acts, the apostles defied a direct order not to preach about Jesus. Is this not grace in deference to God's government? There's many more examples that can be cited in both Old and New Testaments which question that validity of this statement.

Okay, on to another statement made by Joseph that has similar repercussions as with his statement about grace and God's government. "There are 2 important matters in the universe: trusting in God's salvation and obeying His authority." Although I hope Joseph was not intending this, but it implies that these are the only 2 important matters - forget about faith, hope and love; forget about becoming Christ minded; forget about loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; forget about loving your neighbor as you love yourself - these don't matter or if they do, not as much. I agree that they are important matters, but it's certainly debatable that they are the most important, especially the latter. The reason for mentioning this is because Joseph uses it as a preface for punctuating his argument on authority. However, the preface is in fact presumptuous; it's without substantiation.

Let's look at some of Joseph's quotes on authority, either his own or scripture. "To admit what the scriptures clearly teach about authority in the home and in the church would totally destroy the no-leadership model that he and others are espousing." Joseph has stated he's read Frank's book (I have not) and associated articles, Gene Edward's materials and Watchmen Nee. So, one can deduce he's not a new comer to this issue. What puzzles me then is how Joseph makes the same exaggerated claim that Mary did - Frank Viola did not say there is no leadership. Read the articles again. He's pointing out that the leadership role is of a different dimension than how we use it and see it today, and he tries to explain how we got our present top-down model if one is willing to examine the historical records! Why is it so difficult to get that to sink in? The leadership and authority just operate differently; why is it so hard to accept that. One seriously has to question why there is an inability to see this.

Eph 5:22 was used as one scriptural basis for explaining biblical authority. However, this context will bring into question Joseph's argument as a whole. The previous verses In Eph 5 need to be read to get the full picture. Verse 21 is a key verse: "Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God." The fact that this precedes verse 22 is significant, meaning that the submission is equal between all the brethren. The entirety of the church is being addressed in verse 21, which includes husband and wife, elders and leaders. Kind of throws a kink in the interpretation of authority doesn't it? We must include the entire tenant of relevant scriptures to ensure correct understanding of the subject at hand! So, we certainly have a dilemma with the present leadership system on this regard do we not? And, if memory serves me correctly, I believe Frank used this scriptural piece in discussing the matter with the Elders in order to help them understand that as long as there is one scripture that doesn't fit the leadership model, then the model needs to be evaluated for its legitimacy.

Furthermore, Gal 3:28 needs to be included in the discussion of authority: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Is Joseph going to postulate an argument that we are not equal in Christ? Obviously not. Then how can he possibly construe an argument that man and woman are equal in Christ, but not in authority? One way we can keep the scriptures consistent is if we come to grips with the fact that authority doesn't carry the connotation of "ruling over" but instead conveys a place of responsibility. If so, then we're getting somewhere. And fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon which side of the authority fence you're on, the tenure of Frank's position in his article should now be coming clearer, which is that we just may have an unbiblical view (or perhaps more accurately, an incomplete biblical view) of authority after all, that has been predominant in our families and the church for hundreds of years. If we just took the time to see how it originated....oops, I'm suggesting a historical review would bring some light on the subject; shame on me.

As a side note, Joseph's conversation with the Holy Spirit is eye opening to say the least. "I asked Him what would be wrong if I never made a decision or took an action without getting my wife's agreement first. I asked Him what would be the problem if I chose to treat our marriage as a 50/50 partnership. The Spirit answered suddenly and with great clarity 'Honor would be missing'." If a 50/50 partnership is not Godly, then what is a Godly partnership ratio? I wonder if Joseph asked the Holy Spirit about that, and if He gave him an answer and what scripture reference did He give with the answer? Personally, I do not bear witness with this conversation at all, so I am open to the Lord's correction and instruction to set me straight.

Finally, Joseph said "He (Jesus) never denied that He was granted authority by the Father...He used this authority to serve others." Very well put. Jesus never told his disciples to address Him as Lord, Master, Teacher or any other title, did He?. Then, why should we be any different? Is it possible that the scriptures Joseph cited regarding the apostolic authority of Paul and Peter may not have anything to do with the issue of title, but are merely conveying that they have been sent by God? That's what Apostle means, doesn't it? Is it possible that the term was used in the Epistles for clarity and understanding because it was a letter, but was something not used in personal contact? If so, that would be very consistent with what we know of Jesus, wouldn't it? And, it would bring harmony and understanding to the scriptures, wouldn't it? Finally, it would corroborate what Frank has stated in his articles that I concluded my remarks in deference to Mary's article with, and that is the original church and the leadership (when evidenced) was relationally focused first and at best doctrinally reactive! That is in far contrast to what we have in predominance today, and begs the questions of what changed, why and when. These questions are what Frank has attended to within his articles.

Jesus' Own Words

Mtt 13:14-15 "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Jn 5:30 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

There are some remarkable parallels to the religious system in Jesus day and today. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the "men in the know." They had the scriptures and built a very solid theology, in their opinion. Here comes this Jesus guy, a carpenter from Nazareth (can anything good come from there?), and He has the audacity to contradict the teaching of the Jewish rulers, but He also is drawing the people away from them, which is infuriating.

And, not only this, but Jesus performs many signs and wonders witnessed by the Jewish rulers. Yet, they refused to believe in Him because they were convinced, via the scriptures, that Jesus was not the Messiah. The tangible evidence could not bridge what they believed was the correct interpretation of the scriptures.

On the other hand, we have the multitudes, with little to no knowledge of the scriptures, believing on Jesus and having remarkable transformations in their lives.

Joseph started out by downplaying the role of historical analysis in interpreting scripture. He said that the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit will suffice. I'd like to give a little historical perspective anyway. The New Testament was no where in existence in the early church. Most of the people were uneducated, including some of the apostles. The growth of the church was based on word of mouth. The spiritual growth and maturity of individuals was achieved on the basis of relationship, not doctrinal knowledge. The New Testament came into being because of geographical separation. So, from time to time, a letter was needed to give some added direction, instruction, clarification, rebuke, etc., to the church. But, the letters were not the preferred basis for communication; personal interaction was the preference. Building relationships was the goal.

We've got to understand this as it is foundational to the discussion! I applaud the Frank Viola's of the world who are more interested in seeing Christ formed in people through personal relationship building than pouring doctrinal theology in them. This is the essential ingredient in the early New Testament church. One can refuse to look at the historical records which bear this out but that won't change the fact that it's the truth.

Clay, your statement: 'Spiritual ignorance often comes disguised as tradition', is a powerful truth we should all think about. What I've learned is that when my flesh gets all bent out of shape over a matter, and I'm not talking about being fired up and emotionally out of control, but just that it's eating at me and won't go away, most often God is behind it. I've seen a lot of flesh getting bent out of shape over this, which makes me wonder what God is up to with all of this. I'm convinced this is just the beginning of things to come; there's going to be a lot of tearing down traditions that we have previously held as scriptural truth.

This might surprise Joseph, but I am not wed to Frank's model. And, I wouldn't be surprised if Frank is not wed to his own model of leadership. It seems to me his primary focus and energy is building relationships and an environment that will foster the spiritual maturity of believers and move them into service. What's wrong with that? The goal is probably not dissimilar that what Joseph would attest to via Eph 4.

The correct scriptural model of what is authority and how it should be used is a big deal if your orientation is primarily doctrinal. And this is what the Joseph's of the world have been taught unfortunately, and it has blinded them from being able to see the bigger picture. I'll put what I'm saying in this analogy. I want a garden, because I want to harvest some vegetables come harvest time. It doesn't matter to me whether I plant the seeds in a row, or I plant them in a different pattern as long as I get my vegetables come harvest time. In other words, I'm interested in the results. And, I believe this is God's interest as well with us - what is the fruit? Yes, certain patterns of planting may yield faster and better fruit than others, but the point of the analogy is that fruit is manifested

So, if Joseph is comfortable with the results of the present system of leadership, stay with it. But, he needs to be careful that he does not put a stumbling block in the way of others who don't hold to that method. Let's judge the tree by it's fruit. As is most often the case in life, the results speak for themselves.

Clay, your previous article should provide some food for thought for Joseph and others of his persuasion - "Why the mass exodus from the church?" If the present model of leadership is fine and just needs "Godly leaders" as Joseph contends, why are so many people testifying on all kinds of different websites that the Holy Spirit has told them to leave the institutional church? Why are there so many discontented people within the church - they continue to go because they know of no alternative? Why are there hundreds of prophecies proclaiming a radical change is coming to the church? Are they all deluded or is something going on in preparation for what lies ahead? From what I've seen in scripture and evidenced in the lives of many believers, the time of preparation is proportional to the magnitude of the change forthcoming. If that holds true, we're in for a biggie.

Blessings to everyone,
Steve Liebherr
--------------------------------------------------------------

Clay,

I'd like to express my appreciation for Mr. Herrin's comments on the Viola Transcripts. When I read the transcripts I too was concerned about Viola's avoidance of the question on parallels between the authority in the family and that in the church. It seems to me that as husbands are exhorted to love their wives and wives respect their husbands, that elders are also urged to tenderly care for the flock and the flock is urged to show honor and respect to the elders. Pretty clear parallel, in my view.

While I think Mr. Herrin's views on authority in the church are more Biblically sound than Mr. Viola's, I would like to know if Mr. Herrin repudiates all of Mr. Viola's views contained in his book "Rethinking The Wineskin" and in the aforementioned transcripts, or just the portions on authority and parallels to the family?

Mr. Viola raised some serious (and I believe valid) points on the artificial constructs overlaid on the Western church, which have led to a sharp clergy/lay distinction, a performer/audience style of worship, a passive congregation mentality and a priestly caste of paid church workers of all sorts, none of which do I read in the N.T. What does Mr. Herrin say to the points Mr. Viola raises on these topics?

Bill Mech
Milwaukee, WI
--------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Clay,

Mr. Herrin's response comprehensively answered many of the concerns I have had over the years as I attempted to live Gene Edward's idea of Church Life (and was considered obnoxious and rebellious by many of my church-going brothers and sisters). He did not address, however, the unscriptural role of the pastor as he/she operates in most of today's global churches.

Paul never addressed a letter to a "Senior" Pastor (which he would have to in today's chuch if he wanted it read) and the word pastor itself is misinterpreted in scripture by our historical relationship with the word as we define it today. We read "pastor", we think top dog, head guy, spiritual leader, authority. The pastor did not gain that role until Martin Luther released ex-priests into this newly defined position (sort of in the same way we have carelessly defined the word "apostle" and release them into today's Charismatic Church). Because of this, Watchman Nee's writing on spiritual authority must be interpreted by his definition of the pastor...the same unscriptural job description as assigned by Martin Luther. I think if you asked your subscribers how many pastors have abused Watchman Nee's book on Spiritual Authority by using it for manipulation and control of a congregation, then we might see the real power of this book.

It is the idea that the Body of Christ has been relegated to only two body parts that frustrates men like Gene Edwards and Frank Viola. We have become, in many cases, a global body made up of multitudes of little ears directed toward a seminary-trained minority of Big Mouths. That Mr. Herrin is indeed clearly not supported by scripture and continues to separate the body into two distinct groups: Laymen and Clerics. We can preach "the priesthood of the believer" till we are blue in the face, but it is still the man serving in the unscriptural role of "pastor" that has the majority of Christ's body in bondage.

Respectfully submitted,
Ray Bewley
--------------------------------------------------------------

Clay,

The basic premise is in error! I see no one advocating overthrowing the church. That is attributing wrong motive and creating more division, rather than fostering brotherhood. Those who have been called out by YHVH are the ones who are now joining HOME CHURCHES. "Sheep-stealing" is not happening. It is apparent to anyone who is searching that only the hungry searchers will fit into YHVH'S NEW WAY.

Watchman Nee, YHVH'S SECOND DAY servant, had a right on time message for the second day. That was a SECOND DAY TIME, and it's time came to an end. Most of us are well aware of what happened. YHVH'S timing is perfect and we need to learn to follow HIM alone.

WE are now in THE THIRD DAY, and the home church in China, the land of Watchman Nee, is the prototype for the world. I find it amazing that YHVH spoke to me, just this morning, about China and the home church. HE is so very awesome!

The underlined statements are from (Joseph Herrin's) challenge.

"So the system of grace and the system of government are two separate matters. This is the problem today -- all government and no grace! The humbler a person is, the more he progresses in the governmental system."

Where can those who fit this prototype be found? I'd love to meet just one of them.

Magdala,
Doorkeep for THE ARK
--------------------------------------------------------------

Clay,

I read with great interest the articles by Joseph Herrin. I agree that Nick appears to have missed it when he made the statement about "family/church authority". Joseph states that he has a family and is a father to his children. My question is this to Joseph...How much are your children paying you to be a father to them?

Do your children provide YOU with a home? Do your children provide YOU a car? Do your children provide YOU with an expense account? Or are YOU the provider? In the traditional church system that we are experiencing today, the "children" are carrying the financial load for buildings, homes, cars, 401(k)s and expense accounts while the fathers "feed" us twice a week.

I agree with Joseph in the matter of Godly authority and I believe that Frank and Gene do, too. However, my father is my father because my father is my father. Authority does not come because someone has "tax-exempt" status.

Authority comes through relationship. How much relationship can there be when we walk into a building; sit for two hours and walk out.

How in the world can authority be established when there is no relationship?

Jerry Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Clay,

Looking forward to a "Meet with the Lord", and the extended "Body of Christ" in Hinesville, GA.

A word of encouragement to you, Frank, Gene, Nick and the workers in this other field.

There is always a cost in "pioneering a fresh work". It is not that churches are "out" and "passing away". There will always be those that will keep them alive or at least propped up to look alive. And they are useful to our Lord Jesus. I don't believe it is an "either/or" issue. Not because of Our Fathers' "will for us", BUT because of our will, or lack of total surrender.

There is a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit descending on those that will cry out for more of Him.

It has always been available to those that will avail themselves to "More of Thee and less of Me". It's called "Revival". I remember the Lord speaking to me, at a time of great sorrow and near despair in my life. He said, "You forgot, REVIVAL is NOT the top coming off, BUT "the bottom falling out....AND YOUR BOTTOM JUST FELL OUT."

Jesus meets us where we are at, at the time and place of our need. He can meet us in a bar room, train station or an empty cathedral. He will also meet us with the "quality and depth" of relationship with Him, that we are willing to commit our lives to Him.

Ask the David Hallowells, Marlene Howards and the Gene Edwards' that labors throughout the world, to come "Into His Rest" and lead others into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. Read and reread Rees Howell's book by Norman Grubb, The Intercessor".

In final thought, "Jesus wasn't accepted in His hometown either". Jesus said, as reported in Luke 4:24..."I tell you the truth, no prophet is accepted in his hometown." So be encouraged Brothers and Sisters, you are in good company.

Blessings in your fields,
Nancy Deane
Melbourne, FL
God Is Love Ministries International
--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Clay

I was not moved from the church because I was dissatisfied with the institution. The Lord literally moved me from the area to move me. I had a full life there, some of us were drawn to each other and He led us to gather in homes and we spent many many hours together in prayer and praise along side what we were doing in the church. I could not understand just why the Lord would move me from there but He did; it was not my doing.

I came to the place He sent me to live and tried to continue to travel back to that church; it would not work for that is not where Abba wanted me, so for years I have been waiting on Him. All He would tell me is I have you here for a purpose in My time not yours. So during this time things happened to separate me from the church and He brought people to me and me to people that He used to allow me to have a larger view of Him.

Now he is leading me to a group of people; I have not met any of them yet, only spoken to one of them. They live close to me yet I do not know anything about them, but He is leading me there. The exciting thing is that no matter what the reasons for being called to come out of the church WE ARE BEING CALLED.

Now he is leading me to a group of people; I have not met any of them yet, only spoken to one of them. They live close to me yet I do not know anything about them, but He is leading me there. The exciting thing is that no matter what the reasons for being called to come out of the church WE ARE BEING CALLED.

I am open to wherever the Father leads me and whatever He is wanting me to do. When He calls me to move it always is hard and saddens me but I have no choice but obey. Sometimes it is because another hears His voice to move and takes the action and I have no choice. I had a ministry online with another person. He was called to leave it - I had no choice because my partner left. Then the Lord used what He taught us together in that ministry and opened another door for us. We did not lose as it appeared but gained and all Glory to Him.

My point is we are where we are at the moment to prepare us for what is to come, what is His next step, His next assignment. I think part of what we are feeling is that excitement of the anticipation of what is next. We are together for a reason and blessed by that. We are blessed to see the Lord moving. We are blessed to be hearing His Voice. We are blessed to be open to obey Him. We are blessed to be patient while He is having us wait for His move (and with me there has been a lot of waiting on His direction). We are blessed indeed.

In Him,
Catherine Helms
--------------------------------------------------------------

Visit us at  www.lighthouseprophecy.com    To Top