As mentioned in our previous article, I believe Watchman Nee’s work on Spiritual Authority has played a pivotal role in specific contexts of the Pentecostal community regarding spiritual authority. Depending on one’s community and contextual background, the theological tenants of spiritual authority enjoy a varied spectrum of beliefs. 

This spectrum fluctuates between two extremes, with many seeking to discover a balance that reflects an integration of biblical exegesis and spirit-led leadership that approaches the challenges of cultural pitfalls and contexts with wisdom. 

This seems an insurmountable task for so many; that is to say, striking a balance between the two extremes. Some of this results from the contextual pressures one faces within their Pentecostal community, as one can fear being “too hard” or “too soft” regarding how one approaches leadership in the local context[1].  With the advent of social media, these pressures can be heightened due to the insipid nature of photo-driven gossip and the minefield of assumptive conversations[2]

As we address the spectrum of beliefs regarding spiritual authority, I believe it is necessary to work through aspects of Watchman Nee’s book on Spiritual Authority to try to understand “why” some principles may be hardwired within specific Pentecostal contexts. As I have stated, certain extremes of Spiritual Authority can easily find inspiration from Nee’s materials, especially if one reads and digests them through the context of their Pentecostal community. 

A Closer Look

In the last article, I quoted from page 71 of Spiritual Authority, where Nee navigates the overarching admonition that “Men should obey delegated authority.”[3] Under this primary heading, a subheading titled “Be Fearlessly Subject to Delegated Authority,” Nee writes: 

People will perhaps argue, “What if the authority is wrong?” The answer is, If God dares to entrust His authority to men, then we can dare to obey. Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us since he has to be responsible directly to God. The obedient needs only to obey; the Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience, rather will He hold the delegated authority responsible for his erroneous act.”

Depending on how one teaches this principle greatly influences where on the spectrum of spiritual authority one lands. From this, and I have heard it taught many times across a myriad of religious communities, one could easily promote an unhealthy “blind obedience” culture where the spirit of honest inquiry and discussion is blatantly condemned as rebellion. 

We see again what could quickly be seized upon by those who claim a more aggressive and extreme viewpoint of spiritual authority when Nee writes, “We should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil; rather should we know who is the authority above us.”[4] This is mirrored in his discussions on “God’s Glory Delivers us from Reason”[5] when he states, “Henceforth authority alone is factual to me; reason and right or wrong no longer control my life. He who knows God knows himself and therefore is delivered from reason.” [6]

This ideology promoted by Nee, often lacking the context of the second part of his book (which we will discuss), reflects a common issue found throughout the book’s first half that is sometimes supported by an elastic hermeneutic or a very esoteric philosophical view of scripture that comes across as circular reasoning.[7]

Many other aspects of Nee’s conversation on Old Testament examples of rebellion and his discussions on authority, submission, and obedience through the Old Testament are filled with some compelling insights. Still, something always feels “missing” throughout many of his lessons. In some senses, there are times when I want to say, “One can be so spiritually minded they are no earthly good!” In other words, while I understand the need to be wholly undiluted by humanity and to be filled with the Spirit of God, only Jesus Christ can embody the totality of what sometimes it appears Nee is describing we must each become.

This leads to my thoughts on chapter five. Avoid the chapter as it demonstrates the highest form of eisegesis seen in glimmers throughout some of Nee’s materials. An example of this is found in his discussion of the Godhead. 

“It seems as though at the beginning a council was held within the Godhead. God conceived a plan to create the universe. In that plan the Godhead agreed to have authority represented by the Father. But authority cannot be established in the universe without obedience, since it cannot exist alone. God must therefore find obedience in the universe. Two living beings were to be created: angels (spirits) and men (living souls). According to His foreknowledge God foresaw the rebellion of the angels and the fall of men; hence He was unable to establish His authority in angels or in the Adamic race. Consequently, within the Godhead perfect accord was reached that authority would be answered by obedience in the Son. From this come the distinctive operations of God the Father and God the Son.”[8]

Where do I stand with Nee

Thus far, I believe many of the examples and discussions in the first part of Nee’s book on Spiritual Authority lend compelling insights into spiritual authority, and some of these insights, coupled with God’s Word, will be brought into future conversations regarding spiritual authority in the church. 

That said, I also feel that too many read the book’s first part and spend little time reading the second part, which provides a bit more counterbalance to the extremes that can be seized upon from the first (we will discuss the second part in our next article). 

There is also a danger in laying the Old Testament down as the informer of Spiritual Authority in a New Testament church context. While the Old Testament is invaluable to our discussion on spiritual authority, there needs to be a simple reminder that Christ emulated the very best of what leadership looked like. 

I have long wrestled with our fascination with Elijah and Elisha as we navigate ministerial development in a New Testament context. Sometimes, I want to raise my hand and say to all the young men pursuing a ministry that models the Old Testament prophets, asking, “Did anyone remember that Jesus gave us an example of ministry and was far greater than either of those two men?” 

That, though, will be another time. 


[1] It should be noted that it is commonly pointed out that many men who had a reputation for being “hard-liners” in national conferences were seldom observed operating similarly in their local pulpits. 

[2] This remains a touchy topic that needs to be addressed. The Pentecostal community must discuss, promote, and teach a “digital ethic” for ministry on a national and organizational level. 

[3] Chapter 7

[4] Spiritual Authority, pg. 23

[5] His discussions on reason could be clearer as one cannot precisely understand what he views reason as. Does he argue against human logic as a whole? Elements of his discussions on the topic are like reading Heideggerian philosophy. 

[6] Ibid, pg. 97

[7] Many instances of Nee’s discussions on submission vs. obedience can seem at odds throughout the book, as though the material is trying to flesh out a principle that isn’t fully formulated. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the book being the “notes” of coworkers who were in attendance, where the lessons on Authority and Submission were taught in Kuling Mountain. 

[8] Spiritual Authority, p. 78