SUGGESTION: read all of this not to argue it, but to see if you can understand it all, then make a judgment. In red letters at the bottom I will show what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me about the hidden agenda, that which is deep within the recesses of Pat Knapp's heart, what he is really truly going on about, and what he really has against Watchman Nee, the person, as well as he word of God. It will surprise you as it did me, when I had come near to the end and finished reading Pat's ideas, and responding to Pat Knapp.
Pat Knapp: It was prior to his imprisonment in 1948 in Guling and Fuzhou that he gave his (Watchman Nee) addresses on "Spiritual Authority" in which we see the final evolution of his ecclesiology.
Watchman Nee: 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).
My Response: Let’s say there is disobedience to God by the delegated authority. Like Saul. If David is obedient to Saul, God will not punish David for that disobedience that arises in his obedience to Saul because any such erroneous act is covered by David’s submission, and David need not worry. This affords Saul to change and David subjection to the delegated authority. To the extent Saul goes really bonkers, David still can not touch Saul. The Bible is clear on this. Why? Because truly Saul was anointed by God. We know this and David’s sensitive spirit knew this. Praise the Lord!
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: But God IS giving the commands. God is holding all in place. God is in charge of all these authorities. Both these authorities have equal importance. That is why David never laid a hand on Saul. This is a very special truth.
Nee writes on p. 43 of Spiritual Authority - David was one who knew the authority of God in his heart. Although repeatedly chased by Saul, he submitted himself to God’s authority. He even addressed Saul as “my lord” or “the Lord’s anointed.” This reveals an important fact: subjection to authority is not a being subject to a person, but a being subject to the anointing which is upon that person, the anointing which came to him when God ordained him to be an authority. David recognized the anointing upon Saul and acknowledged that he was the Lord’s anointed. He would rather flee for his own life than stretch out his hand to kill Saul. True, Saul disobeyed God’s commandment and was rejected by God; this, however, was between Saul and God. David’s responsibility before God was to be subject to the Lord’s anointed.
Pat Knapp: 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).
My Response: Yes. This is more to God’s liking. Just like before the fall man had no knowledge just the obedience in the Lord. God was their right and wrong. But after the fall, man lived by his own right and wrong. That would not do. God in restoring man to him how He wants us to be in Him in obedience and Him as our authority in all things, it is from this position and this position alone that we are lead to the true right and wrong, not our own version. The pages surrounding page 23 make this clear.
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: Nee wrote a book on Spiritual Authority. That is the subject matter, and so instances of authority in the Scriptures are the subject matter. One needs to ask why one does not give God's direct authority prime importance, and why God would not want His delegated authorities to not be submitted to? We need to be careful not to have an unsubmissive spirit to God's delegated authorities. Often the reason we are unsubmissive is because we don't even know who has delegated authority. It is wonderful to see this in scripture between David and Saul, and David knowing that Saul was a delegated authority.
Pat Knapp: The latter is seen in 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).
My Response: Everything breaks down if we do not adhere to authority. If you don’t adhere to the correct authority, then chaos increases. You don’t listen to your boss at work, you get fired. If you don’t listen to your mother, you are grounded. If you want to be friends with someone, but you are too pushy, you lose them. If you don’t listen to God’s Word, there are consequences, from both delegated and direct authority. The consequence is real. If the Earth’s rotation did not abide in the authority of the solar system’s authority then we would not be alive today, so on and so forth.
Pat Knapp: He goes on further saying, "If this matter of authority remains unsolved, nothing can be solved" (SA, p.23).
My Response: How true, indeed, this is. If obedience is not subject to authority and God as the ultimate authority, then we have nothing. Nee cites several examples in scripture where authority was not resolved and the consequences were some of the most profound in scripture. Truly amazing.
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: The Word expresses objectively that we have a spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23) and to live by that spirit from which God communicates His life then from the spirit to the rest of man out to the soul and then to the body. It is always God’s way working from inner to the outer. Satan works from outer to the inner. What is spirit? Our inner man. Should we not draw form our inner man? The writer here is blaming the Word of God for man’s tripartite being? This is very wrong, indeed. The objective Word will always be confirmed as the Holy Spirit testifies in our spirit so that the subjective must align with the objective, otherwise it is a subjective experienced not backed by the Word of God. If man is only bipartite, Pat is limiting man and confusing what is of spirit with what is of the soul, and the evil spirit loves this confusion, so that the man can no longer walk after the spirit. It becomes a vital stratagem of his entry to find a foothold within the man in us thinking that our mind, will and emotion is the same thing as the functions in our inner man of intuition, communion and conscience. In the opening pages of The Spiritual Man we discover it is fallen man that holds this view.
Pat Knapp: 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).
My Response: Yes. Like 1 Sam 15.22 says “obedience is better than the sacrifice”. Saul did not destroy the Amalekites and so Samuel said to Saul these words. Saul wanted to keep these beasts and oxen to sacrifice. But he was doing it from the self of his soul. Self needs to be excluded. That is why we must live not in the self, but in the Spirit.
Pat Knapp: 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).
My Response: Mr. Knapp makes an obvious error thinking because Nee just said seek the spirit first in obedience that reason is irrelevant. See how mistaken assumption by men’s flesh gets them into trouble? See. At the end of the day, it is the intuitive knowing conscience that recognizes God’s delegated authority, not reason alone. The knowing does not come from reason, but a deep inner knowing from the spirit. Have you come across times when you reasoned something out till the cows come home, and you had 20 reasons for and 20 reasons against and you still could not decide, but then all of a sudden your spirit is moved, and it just “knows”. This is the difference. This truly only comes through inner revelation. Something very precious. It allows us to move forward with confidence. The 40 reasons just drop, just like that. Praise the Lord!
Pat Knapp: 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).
My Response: Nee is expressing here that God is above reason. He will not bow down to man’s reasoning and come down to that level. God does not say “for I am the Lord” in Leviticus 18-22, but he says with no reason other than Him alone, he says, “I am the Lord”. This is the reason. Reason has become the life principle of man. God’s life principle is authority. Pat Knapp is mistaking eradication of reasoning in place of receiving God’s strength as the source. This is never attainable through reasoning God out. If we do this we make Him one of us. How pitiful the Christian life if that is what our walk in Christ amounts to. Praise the Lord that it is not so, for His source is always higher, beyond all man's faculties. Reason, that is well pleasing to the Lord, therefore, fulfills the quickened spirit communication to the soul, though it never displaces the spirit's leading by the Holy Spirit.
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: By no means is Nee saying the mind is a totally useless thing. After all, how do we get to the moon, or how do find medical cures, or how do we create new inventions, or how do we perform the arts? What Nee is saying is simply, reasoning God out isn't going to be the ticket to walking in His life. There is more. That more involves obedience and authority spiritually. Like Paul when he went blind. What happens if reasoning is the guiding principle in a man? He becomes like Miriam a leper, or Ham showing his father’s nakedness, or Korah and 250 of his company burnt up (Numbers 16.27-35). All good examples of good reason like Dathan and Abiram suggesting Moses pluck out their eyes from the land of milk and honey. But yet all these reasons were unacceptable to God because of lack of obedience and authority to God directly and to delegated authority indirectly. There is not enough obedience and far too much rebellion, is the point of this whole exercise. Is this really so hard to understand, this rebellion of reason? The tree of knowledge of good and evil was a tree of reason. Eve thought God said “don’t touch”. God never said never to not touch. He said never to not eat. Pat Knapp is reading this all so negatively, a factor in emotion, needing to be served on the cross. Nee is not saying at all not to think or not even to seriously question. That is not what this is about. Inward revelation is definitely more important to one’s life for it guides the rational mind; it tempers it. It was our fallen mind that fell and therefore it should not be our guiding principle, but it is in so many of us, reasoning Christians too.
Pat Knapp: 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'."
My Response: These negative things will occur, if that is what Nee is saying, but he is not saying this at all in anywhere in Spiritual Authority. Nee is showing that the very reasons for these errors that Pat Knapp has described here, is because of reason itself, that same reason Pat Knapp is now engrossed in in misreading, misunderstanding. Nee is revealing how to get in touch with God’s Spirit, not to throw one’s reason out the window, after all, we are thinking beings. It is that intuitive knowledge that guides us to correct delegated authorities and even shows us who we are under falsely, causing codependency and mistrust of others and ourselves. Pat’s reasoning is taking such things out of context. Where Nee is talking about matters of sensing God’s life, that very life God is imparting to us, Pat is caught up in legalizing everything Nee says for his own negative reading. This is proof you can read anything out of context negatively if you want. Nee is expressing obedience to those who have authentic authority, and that they will not be punished for following one who errs, like a David to an erring Saul. Even so, in that obedience to Saul, David did flee. Wow! A body complies with a head as well with other members of the body who have authority in other matters. We do not shoot after reason first, we shoot after authority first, in order to reach harmony in the body of Christ. God does not ask us to reason first then get saved later. He asks us to get saved first, reason later. Spend your time reasoning. But you will find, as always, if you spend too much time there, you are lost, because it was all done without obedience and authority like the Father and the Son. How disobedient the multitude of man's reasonings are.
Pat Knapp: 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."
My Response: Nee is not saying, don’t think and don’t trust and don’t talk. He is saying the reason why Miriam, Korah, or others faltered was because of their not trusting, not thinking, and talking too much, just the opposite. It was their reasoning that faltered, their words, their deceitful heart, the very reasoning Pat Knapp is using against Watchman Nee. This is what Watchman Nee wrote. It needs no defense. I am merely doing this as an exercise to see underneath Pat's hostilities in his own faulty reasonings of another. If someone reads this and gains benefit, then praise the Lord!
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: That is certainly a negative view Pat Knapp has. But that is certainly not what Watchman Nee is saying. He is simply saying that it is that rebellious talk, that out of place talk and contentious talk that is the problem. Railing accusations, and rampaging words are troublesome. Choose words carefully that reflect God, not diminish Him. Our mouth should not be the first working organ when we meet authorities as if we always know more. How important humility is.
Pat Knapp: 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).
My Response: Read carefully to observe how Pat Knapp has taken things out of context. I am not clear whether Pat Knapp is doing this with full premeditated awareness to deceive or if he is misreading, being deceived. I can't believe someone can read that badly so I must believe the former.. Nee is not devaluating personal feeling, but realizing where it causes error. As he stated in the previous paragraph on page 130, "Those who do not know how to control their hearts and lips are not fit to be authorities. But when Aaron pleaded with Moses, the latter cried out to the Lord. During the entire affair Moses acted as though he were nothing more than a spectator. He had no personal axe to grind; he neither murmured nor reproved. He had no personal feeling, no opinion of his own. He had no intention to judge or to punish. But as soon as God's purpose was accomplished, he quickly forgave". In the place where Pat left out after the first part and before the last sentence, Nee said, "....authority; it was therefore a small matter to Moses if he were rejected. So Moses cried to the Lord, "Hear her, O God, I beseech thee. Let us....". And, in the next paragraph after "God's hand.", Nee goes on to explain how Moses did not take advantage of God's vindication towards Marian or Aaron, nor defend himself nor sought revenge. His natural life had been dealt with, and thus he was so readily able to plead for Mariam's recovery. His actions were like that of Christ's when He asked God to forgive those who crucified Him. Moses proved himself to be God's authority, for he did not seek to protect himself, for he was able to empty himself, not an easy thing to do. People met God's authority in him.
Pat Knapp: 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.
My Response: Watchman Nee did not say "denies the necessity of legitimate emotions". Just the opposite. He said, "therefore have a thorough dealing before God". Dealing is responsible. Denying that which is legitimate is irresponsible. To explain this, Nee said on page 182, Then Moses said to Aaron: "This is what the Lord has said, 'I will show myself holy among those who are near me.'" Those who are near Him should never be careless. There is a much severer discipline applied to them than to people in general.
Let us continue to take from the Word of God. Watchman Nee further spoke of Scripture by saying, "What could Aaron do when two of his four sons, Nadab and Abihu, died one day? For he had a double relationship here: he was the priest before God but he was also the head of his family. Can a person serve God to the extent of forgetting his own son? According to the custom of the people of Israel, when there was a death in the family the members of the family would let their hair hang loose and rend their clothes. Yet in this instance Moses commanded that the bodies be carried out and forbade Aaron and his tow remaining sons to follow the custom of the day.
Mourning is a normal human affection and is perfectly legitimate. But to those Israelites who served God, as here, it was forbidden lest they die. How serious this is. Those who served God were judged differently from ordinary Israelites." You can go and continue to read the rest. There is a lot more to read here. No need for me to retype out the whole book, to prove how accurate this book is to the Word of God. It is truly one of the best, if not the best work ever done on authority and submission.
If you so want to overcome in Christ, the issue here is not over sin but sanctification. The opposition of holiness is commonness. Holiness means others may, but I cannot. What the disciples may do, the Lord does not. Even lawful affection needs to be put under control: otherwise death is the consequence. The anointing oil sanctifies us from our natural affections as well as from customary conduct. We should respect the anointing oil which god gives to us so that we may all overcome in Christ.
This chapter before us is on authority, and the section we are discussion is entitled, "To Be in Authority Requires Restraining One's Affections" (p.181). For that is sanctification, as Christ sanctified himself so others may be sanctified in truth (John 17.19).
Even legitimate emotions must be put under restraint for as the Bible says, all things are lawful but not all things are desirable. What a profound truth and strength to our spirit this statement resonates. Emotions can stir and cause a man to be ineffective as God's helper. For it is not more emotion that a person in need requires, but a proper emotion, and a proper thinking. To lay aside your own affections is to lay aside your own self-indulgence and anything that may hinder your helping others. Too many come to the aid of others only to make the matter worse.
The problem is that Pat is unwilling to recognize authority and the harmony in such, and prefers to remain independent, even hostile with his words, and thus his life to matters that are quite common sense. Pat Knapp goes to extreme reading into the text that which does not exist totally missing the point of this commentary. Pat says "pretend feelings don't matter" including that of God's responsibilities for delegated authorities. But you can not pretend these things away, so Pat is really being shallow here. This is not a matter of a parent relating to a child, but a delegated authority of God helping his own brothers and sisters in Christ. That why Watchman Nee said on page 181, "Even so, as regards being members of one another, whoever is in authority should be perfectly normal in maintaining fellowship with the body with all the brothers and sisters. Accordingly, in representing he must sanctify himself under the restraint of God that he may be an example to all; while as a member of the body he should serve with all his brethren in coordination, never assuming the false position of being in a special class." It would seem Pat is selectively quoting, reading into, misreading and telling a fib which is very shallow. I believe his is doing this premeditatively to deceive because Watchman Nee has some truth in him that Pat is not yet willing to accept in his heart. How can a man read only on the surface, and not go deeper, especially Pat Knapp who writes so much for other to read. I do not think it is a good idea to read anything from Pat Knapp because surely this shallowness in reading, misjudging and misrepresenting others is profuse in his life and his writings. Let us not waste our time on the unspiritual. For this who article by Pat Knapp is rift with the same common theme and perverse reading agenda.
Pat further denigrates these truths about the human condition as "a system" suggesting that the body of Christ must remain dependent never growing up, and somehow pretending. But that is based on Pat's own assumption that the body of Christ by virtue of God installing authorities in the body of Christ must remain dependant. How deceitful is such a suggestion. Here, the authorities of God have sacrificed and restrained their lives for to help others, to set an example, reaching the highest of spiritual plateaus, well appreciated by others, and Pat Knapp says their help is not counted worthy since it keeps God's children from growing up. We call that balarny! Does this making any sense at all? How negative a statement. It would seem without a doubt Pat Knapp is not in the harmony with God's authority and obedience in all things. That is what the Holy Spirit has given as the answer to me about Pat Knapp.
Pat Knapp writes - 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.
My Response - Pat Knapp is getting the better of himself. To deny God has authority set up is the gist of Pat Knapp's thoughts, even in as simple as things like a lamp that needs a cord and the cord needs an electric outlet and the outlet needs electricity from the electrical company. Pat Knapp is suggesting all kinds of things like blind obedience, complete dependence, roboticism, etc. His negative reading comes directly from his own flesh, for nowhere do you find in Spiritual Authority such a comment. Pat is still suffering from the various cults he was exposed to and in that suffering it is like pulling a 180. He went too far into dependency, and now he has gone too far into independency losing harmony with the body of Christ. His very own emotions are sabotaging his own thought processes. These reactions by Pat Knapp are due to at the core, mistaken assumptions and his own pain, but what he needs to do is come out of his own thoughts and allow the Holy Spirit in the Word of God to change him, giving him a change of mind, a positivity of truth, instead of emotionally reacting the minute he hears the word authority, spoken in such a deeply and profound and profitable way as Nee has provided for us in his book.
Pat, is really speaking about his own resentments by false authorities he falsely put himself under. He was unable to recognize true authority and thus he was deceived. Now he has gone to the extreme and rebukes all authority, even true authority. This is anarchist. Pat Knapp will be accountable for his rejection of God's authorities. It is good that he has come away from the cultic authorities he had put himself under before, but now he recognizes no authority. What a shame. It is but hostility to God Himself in rejecting God's delegated authorities.
Though point number 2 and number 3 are true, point number 1 is false. Why? Because the false beliefs taught by such men were never delegated authorities of God to begin with, but Pat Knapp is having, even now, a real hard time understanding that. Pat Knapp needs to realize that there will be false prophets and false prophets are never delegated authorities.
Pat Knapp writes - 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.
My Response - There is no black and white mindset, and Watchman Nee explains the matters of authority and submission in the most expansive and profitable way possible. What has occurred is that Pat Knapp read with a black and white mindset and could not see the depth of the principles of the Word of God and application of the Scriptures revealed. And I trust anyone who has read my response can see that in how Pat Knapp misread time and time again like clockwork for he was not speaking from the Holy Spirit. Something is dangerously amiss in his thoughts and his heart, so be careful in reading Pat. The way Pat Knapp reads another leaves no room for personal growth. Reading with a closed mind will carry onto all other areas of one's life. Pat blames Watchman Nee of all these other things like "inconsistency", "absoluteness", and the use of the "mind", but I trust as anyone who has given this document and my responses a full read must conclude that Pat Knapp is on an agenda of purposeful misrepresentation, and you come away with a belief that there is a spirit in him that is controlling him since Pat's work is consistently wrong. A question one might ask is where is his desire for the truth?
Pat Knapp writes - 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."
My Response - And here we have it. The promise I promised at the top of this write-up. Pat Knapp said one who holds spiritual authority must believe "a dichotomous view of human nature" saying that if you do not believe this that you are not "valuing the whole person" and his soul, mind and intellect of his soul. Whether Pat Knapp realizes it or not, he has just himself subscribed to the tripartite man because he defined the soul and mind, will and emotions which leaves the spirit as having the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. In reality, Pat Knapp is not valuing the whole person, confusing the soul with the spirit, nor the intellect of the man because intellectually he is unable to discern what is of the spirit and what is of the soul, making them the same thing. Where Pat Knapp does he believe that man being tripartite (spirit, soul and body) somehow devalues the whole person who can say, for Pat Knapp does not say, but certainly he makes it as the source of all his issues and his self-proclamation. This seems to be what he is really fighting and really what this article is all about. Amazing. If anyone reads Watchman Nee's The Spiritual Man, the best work ever done in the history of the human race on the dividing of spirit, soul and body, and if you let it work in you, you will realize spiritual benefit that so wonderful which I can testify to that is God's good pleasure. And in this good pleasure there is a spiritual jealousy that Pat Knapp does not have the same benefit. The proof is not even in Watchman Nee's words in The Spiritual Man, but the proof is in the Word of God, that man is without a doubt tripartite (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23). Watchman Nee merely showed the Scriptures clearly on the matter and how man's fallen nature is the cause of believing man is bipartite. Man is not bipartite. Man has God' consciousness (spirit - inner man), self-consciousness (soul - outerman), and world-consciousness (body - outer man). This is what Pat Knapp is fighting in his own simple confused version of man, and what he is suffering in such confusion makes him unable to recognize that which comes from our spirit, and that which is of the soul so that he can not walk after the spirit. The proof is fully documented in The Spiritual Man if anyone has an ear to hear. A good chapter on the vitality of the soul is The Mind Aiding the Spirit. Therefore, we can see Pat Knapp has no authority because of his black and white mindset and lack of spiritual understanding. He is without a spirit of wisdom and revelation. In Pat Knapp's own words, he himself is not "in process" with the delegated and the common brother, not the overcoming, nor the carnal, for you never can be if you misrepresent the truth and would be of no use to God, even though you are attempting mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. Note Pat Knapp goes into no detail of these last comments, but they are left as proclamations from the initial mistaken assumptions we have broken apart in this long response. At this point my recommendation to Patt Knapp is to understand the depths of the words of The Spiritual Man not with his analyzing but with his spirit so God may affect change in his life. There is where Pat Knapp will receive deliverance for it agrees with the Word of God on the dividing of his spirit, soul and body, and God never confuses what is of the spirit, with what is of the soul. I won't go so far as Pat Knapp to say an authority must know the dividing of our spirit, soul and body so we may walk after the spirit for some have the such a dividing already without even knowing it, but how better it would be to have the spiritual knowledge and not just the practice of that dividing. For eventually without the dividing, one could slip up because they were not grounded in the spiritual knowledge and wisdom of that dividing that is remembered and used for God.
Pat Knapp
- 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).
My Response - Pat Knapp has said here that as Nee presents authority he has no concern for the well being of another's growth and acknowledgement of God's grace at work in oneself, to which I reply that is exactly what the whole book is about for that is the very reason all the related Scriptures are put together so spiritually by Nee to help others, specifically. In order to love God you must love yourself, and if Pat Knapp thinks somehow in his reading the way he has read, that Watchman Nee is talking about self-uplifting and not the role of authority to uplift and bring others to truth, it is so erroneous on Pat Knapp's part, that I have to make the strong suggestion that I can not agree with the spirit in Pat Knapp, and even must in good conscience, wonder about his salvation. All of his writings have this type of shallowness to them, so I can no longer read them, nor do I need to argue them, since they are without any authority, none whatsover. Besides, Pat as you can see just made a self-proclamating statement, but never produced any quote of Watchman Nee to that effect. Pat Knapp has misread Watchman Nee, misrepresented him, and then draws a further conclusion that is erroneous all to protect his bipartite man. Since this is such an egregious piece of work by Pat Knapp, all I can say is that is that.
Spiritual Authority
Mar 10:35 And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.
Mar 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
Mar 10:37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on [thy] left hand, in thy glory.
Mar 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
Mar 10:39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mar 10:40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared.
Mar 10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John.
Mar 10:42 And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Mar 10:43 But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister;
Mar 10:44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.
Mar 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Watchman Nee writes -
Drink the Lord’s Cup and Be Baptized with the Lord’s Baptism
While on earth our Lord rarely taught people how to be in authority, for this was not His purpose in coming to the world. The clearest passage in which the Lord did instruct on authority is this one found in Mark 10. If anyone wishes to know how to be in authority he ought to read this passage. The Lord shows us here the way to authority. It all begins with James and John. They longed to sit on the two sides of the Lord in His glory. Knowing the inappropriateness of such a request, they dares not come out with it directly but subtly suggested that the Lord grant them anything they might request. They wished to first obtain a promise from the Lord.
But the Lord did not quickly comply; instead, He asked what they wanted Him to do for them. So they said, “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left, in thy glory.” Such a request carried two meanings: one, to be near to the Lord; two, to have more authority. It was right for them to desire nearness to the Lord, but their request went far beyond that in their desire for more authority in glory than the other ten disciples. How did the Lord answer them? As He had earlier wondered what they wanted Him to do, now He says that they themselves do not know for what they are asking.
The Lord did not reject the desire to be near Him or to be in a position of authority, nor did He find fault with the longing to sit at His right hand and left. He simply answered that they must drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism before they could sit at His right or left. James and John thought they could get what they wanted just by asking, yet the Lord replied that it was not for the asking but for the drinking the cup and receiving the baptism. It is therefore evident that except men drink in the Lord’s cup and receive the Lord’s baptism they can neither get near to the Lord nor possess authority (pp.169-170 Spiritual Authority, CFP).
Response - You can see in the first sentence by Watchman Nee above, that authority is not of the most prominent concern by Jesus Christ, and Watchman Nee concurs. The way to authority is not by seeking authority, but the humility in realizing we have no authority, we are unprofitable servants. On page 176, Watchman Nee writes, "Ministry comes from resurrection, service comes from ministry, and authority comes from service. May the Lord deliver us from high-mindedness". I believe Pat Knapp is seeking high-mindedness, someway to exalt himself above Watchman Nee, but has only made Pat Knapp, the person, look very foolish in his approach.
Conclusion
May I say that after the review of Pat Knapp's critique - Darkness to Light - I now know without a doubt that the evil spirit is well and good in the world today, for while writing this response, throughout, I could sense that spirit operating in every thought, sentence, and word upon Mr. Knapp as he conveyed his reasonings and misreadings willingly and openly. Pat Knapp does his best to bring darkness to the light of God's Word and those with words in Christ, but of course, he fails. How can we both be going to the same place is the question that presents itself to me? Lord, let me know of your spiritual mind. Does Pat misread because he is damaged goods, or is it because he is purposely going out of his way to denigrate through misrepresentation, slight of hand? Therefore, I believe his actions are not the actions of a man who is damaged goods, but a man who picks out quotes precisely out of context altering their intention. I suppose, in that picking, he is in actuality, also damaged goods. I do not want to believe man is that erroneous, so I must believe that Pat Knapp was constructing his words just as he intended knowing full well his delivery method. My immediate reaction is sympathy for Pat Knapp. He spokes of his own damage from previous cults (in other writings) that sedated him, which he had not overcome, and this commentary of his seems to be a reaction not to Watchman Nee at all, but those previous cults he had been associated with that owned him still, even after he left them. This is a case of mistook blame. He was in essence still fighting with his own strength looking for a cause of himself and his condition. We should remain blameless. Pat knew what he was doing (these were his works), and it was his choice to do them. But there is no Holy Spirit found there. I do pray that he is saved, but that is not my decision, for to lose a soul is never to be admonished. I can see your operations evil spirit. And you are nothing to me. And need to come out of the man Pat Knapp right now.
I believe this is all about the dividing of his spirit, soul and body and he never experienced it so he is unable to walk after the spirit in life and truth to know what is of the soul and what is of the body and what is of the spirit. He needs to read The Spiritual Man by Watchman Nee. For even without experiencing it is true, since we are not guided by experience alone, but in the subjective meeting the objective Word of God. That has been my spiritual assessment of the man, Pat Knapp. All of this is about Pat Knapp's mission in fighting a deep spiritual principle, of rejecting with himself the dividing of his own spirit, soul and body, confusing the spirit and soul in so doing in his fallen nature. And in that fruit of his, he is suffering from spiritual jealousy of spiritual authorities like Watchman Nee.
Troy Brooks