Cutting Straight the Word of the Truth on the Divine Order in the Church (Part 1)
Masculinism (Machismo) or the Pure Revelation
of the Word of God?
Of late, the dissenting sister has taken her teaching that it is unscriptural to say that sisters need to submit to the brothers a level higher by charging that the elders and co-workers, who do not agree with her different teachings and do no support her eccentric practices, have been practicing “machismo.” In various occasions she maliciously gave the other blending brothers an appellation “macho brothers.” By direct implications and crafty innuendos, the sister has consistently been creating a machismo straw man in the elders and co-workers with which she can attack them.
Despite our having published two articles on the subject [Cf. “Is it Unscriptural for Sisters to Submit to Brothers?” and “Women in the Divine Administration”] to correct her errors in fact and in truth, the sister continues to persist in her teachings. Following her three previous articles with regard to the alleged machismo: “Upholding the Universal Service,” “Cutting Straight the Word of the Truth,” and “Gender,” the sister put out an article on her website in May of 2010 entitled “Machismo Useless,” where she summarily concluded:
“Therefore being male is for the expression of the Son and for defeating the devil and not for a display of superiority over the female. Indeed is machismo useless.”
It is palpably clear that, while impugning an alleged practice of machismo by the brothers, the dissenting sister is also alarmingly introducing a different teaching of feminism into the church, a militant principle which strongly advocates equal rights of women.
For this reason, we devote a series of two articles of Cutting Straight the Word of the Truth on the Divine Order in the Church in relation to masculinism (machismo) and feminism. The first installment examines (1) whether or not the proper exercise of authority by the leading brothers is comparable to the practice of machismo, as the sister alleged, (2) whether or not the apostles who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, charged the women to submit to men and that the women are not allowed to teach and give their own interpretation of the truth, were “displaying male superiority over the female” and exuding “machismo” in the church, (3) by setting forth the principle of brothers taking the lead in the Lord’s testimony while the sisters follow, did brothers Nee, Lee and Liu practice machismo, and (4) is the God who ordained that man would rule over woman in the Old Testament, who Himself came in the form of a man and singled out that elders, who are His deputy authority in the church in the New Testament, ought to be male, and provided injunctions restricting functions of sisters in the church a God of machismo?
The second installment scrutinizes the word and works of the dissenting sister to see how they correspond to feminism in the light of the Scriptures as expounded by brothers Nee and Lee.
Machismo Defined
The word machismo is not a biblical term; it is not a biblical concept either. In the dictionary, it means a strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness. It also pertains to an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness.
By her own account, the definition of machismo under the sister’s poem of the same title as her article in her website is:
“Machismo: Proud of being male aggressively,
An exaggerated masculinity.
Creating an aura of anti-female,
Hair-raising for people whose dealings are fair.
Ignorant of God’s word, probably even dull,
Since all the services are universal.
Maelstrom that causes hindrance to God’s building,
Obdurate ones, for progress need repenting.
“Useless in the economy of our God,
Source of discord sown thus causing the devil glad,
Epitome of those with impure motive,
Leading the naïve to accept and believe,
Erring the pure who want to go on in the Lord,
Subduing the simple who do not know the word,
Satan exposed, defeated by the Spirit’s sword!”
From one single excerpt alone as cited above, it is undeniable that the elders and the leading brothers whom the sister accused of exhibiting machismo are, as far as she is concerned, proud, anti-female, ignorant of God’s word, dull, a maelstrom, obdurate ones, useless in God’s economy, an epitome of those with impure motive, leading the naïve, erring the pure, subduing the simple, and Satan exposed!
These constitute plain and outright slandering of the elders and leading brothers that fully expose through her writings what is in her heart and soul. They likewise manifest the rebellious spirit within her and her intention to infect others with the same. Let us countercheck the credibility of her allegations in the light of the revelation of the word of God as expounded by the healthy teaching of the apostles.
Machismo or Pure Revelation of the Word of God?
According to God’s Governmental Arrangement
In Genesis 3:2-6 we see how Eve, the woman, assumed the headship to deal with the serpent. Verses 2 and 3 says: “And the woman said to the serpent, of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, or shall you touch it, lest you die.’” And in verse 6: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make oneself wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.”
“Another cause of man’s fall was the woman’s assuming the headship (Gen. 3:2-3, 6). Originally, God created only one man. There was only one head, not two. Adam was the head; Eve was not. Eve was built out of the rib from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:22). Eve’s head was Adam. The reason Eve was tempted by the serpent was that she assumed the headship, made the decision on her own, and fell into Satan’s snare. Even before she ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she was already ensnared by the evil one. She passed over the man and assumed the headship to deal with the situation. This resulted in her being deceived. Thus, the Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but the woman being quite deceived was in transgression (1 Tim. 2:14).” (W. Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 1, Vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section 2, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
As a consequence, the Lord came to the woman and said to her verse 16, “To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in your childbearing; in pain you will bring forth children. And your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.'”
“The Lord also told Eve that her husband shall rule over her. According to this word, every sister should be under the rule of her husband. Why did Eve fall? Because she did not care for her husband and assumed his headship. Therefore, God seemed to say to her, ‘Eve, from now on I appoint Adam to rule over you.’ Although this is a difficult word to accept, the Bible tells us that a woman must be ruled by her husband. We all must take this word as a security and protection. The ruling of the husband is a genuine safeguard to the wife. Hence, in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Paul says, ‘Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.’ Paul's teaching on this matter is based upon God's ordination in Genesis 3:16. I hope that the sisters will take heed to this divine word of the Bible.” (W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, p. 274, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
It is clear that in God’s original intention in creating man, there is supposed to be only one head, which is why Eve was built out of the rib from Adam’s side. But due to the woman’s passing over the man and assuming the headship to deal with the enemy, man fell. As a result of the fall that came about after the woman assumed the headship contrary to God’s arrangement, God ordained that the man would rule over the woman (Gen. 3:16b). By so presenting, are we practicing machismo or cutting straight the pure revelation of the Word of God?
According to the Lord’s Practice
Mark 3:16-19 says, “And He appointed the twelve: and to Simon He gave the name Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, and He gave them the name, Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder; And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.”
Brother Lee said regarding the Lord’s appointing of the twelve disciples:
“He was burdened to select certain ones of them and appoint them to help Him in His ministry of the gospel. For this reason, He went to the mountain and prayed. The Gospel of Luke indicates that He prayed the whole night. The Lord must have prayed concerning the choosing of the twelve apostles. He prayed concerning the choosing of the twelve from among the many who had received His ministry of life…. The Lord made His choice according to His spiritual insight, not according to man’s natural view…. His appointing of the twelve was not natural, but was altogether in the spirit.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Mark, Message 11, Section 3, LSM)
From the Gospels, we learn that the Lord prayed the whole night to seek the Father’s will before choosing His twelve disciples to follow Him for the propagation of the gospel of the kingdom. The Lord handpicked the twelve disciples in spirit. Interestingly, after much prayers, all the disciples He chose were males.
In another incident: As in the case of Jehovah’s words to Moses in counting the number of the children of Israel to count only the number of male as recorded in Numbers 1:2, the Lord Jesus charged His disciples to count only the number of male of those who partook of His provision out of five loaves and two fish, which accounted for five thousand (Matt. 14:21). The same is true with the feeding of the four thousand (Matt. 15:38).
In not choosing female disciples to closely follow Him and in leaving out the number of women whom He fed in the wilderness, did the Lord discriminate against the female and was He a Lord of machismo?
According to the Apostle Paul
In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 Paul wrote, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they should be subject, even as the law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.”
“According to the New Testament principle, for women not to be permitted to speak in the church meetings means that women are not permitted to teach with authority concerning the defining of doctrine. In this sense they should be silent in the church meetings. They are not permitted to speak because they should be subject to man. This is related to the matter of authority ordained by God in His government. In God’s governmental ordination, women are not permitted to speak with authority over man. They may pray and prophesy, that is, mainly to speak for the Lord and speak forth the Lord. However, they must do this under the covering of the brothers because they are charged here to be subject.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Message 63, Section 3, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul said, “But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.”
“To teach here means to teach with authority, to define and decide the meaning of doctrines concerning divine truth. For a woman to teach in this way or to exercise authority over a man is to leave her position. In God’s creation man was ordained to be the head, and woman was to be in subjection to man (1 Cor. 11:3). This ordination should be kept in the church. The word quietness in verse 12 refers to silence from speaking.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 Timothy, Message 4, Section 2, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
In verse 13 Paul offers a word of explanation, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This brings us to the beginning. God always wants to bring us back to His beginning (Matt. 19:8).
“In verse 14 Paul goes on, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being quite deceived was in transgression.’ Verse 13 gives the first reason that a woman should subject herself to man. Here is the second. Eve was deceived by the serpent (Gen. 3:1-6) because she did not remain in subjection under the headship of Adam, but overstepped her position to contact the evil tempter directly without her head being covered. This is the strong ground for the apostle not to permit the sisters in a local assembly to teach with authority or to exercise authority over men, but to learn in silence and remain in all subjection. Man’s headship is woman’s protection.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 Timothy, Message 4, Section 2, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
In this portion of the word by the apostle Paul, we see that women are not permitted to teach, that is, teach with authority, so as to define doctrine, for teaching is related to the exercising of authority. Hence, according to the New Testament principle, for women not to be permitted to speak in the church meetings means that women are not permitted to teach with authority in relation to the defining of doctrine. In this sense they should be “silent” in the church meetings. They are “not permitted to speak,” because they should be subject to men. This is related to the matter of authority ordained by God in His government. In God's governmental ordination, women are not permitted to speak with authority over men. They may pray and prophesy, that is, mainly to speak for the Lord and speak forth the Lord. However, they must do this under the covering of the brothers (1 Cor. 11:3-5), because they are charged here to “be subject.” All these are due to the fall of man as a result of the weakness and disobedience of the woman against God’s ordination at the beginning.
In restricting the function of sisters in the church, was Paul speaking only his own mind or also God’s mind? Since this is also part of divine inspiration, we can undoubtedly say that the apostle Paul was speaking in accordance with God’s divine ordination from the beginning as revealed in the Scriptures. By so doing, is he to be branded as a “macho brother” or an “unashamed workman who cuts straight the word of the truth?”
According to the Apostle Peter
The apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 3:1, “In like manner, wives, be subject to your own husbands, that even if any disobey the word, they will be gained without the word through the manner of life of their wives.”
“The phrase ‘in like manner’ refers to the subjection of the household servants to their masters, as described in 2:18. Therefore, as a household servant submits himself to his master, so the wives should subject themselves to their own husbands. This kind of word is certainly contrary to the emphasis of the so-called women’s liberation movement. That movement is against the Bible, for it is against God’s ordination in His creation with respect to male and female. Using Peter’s expression (3:7), God created the females weaker vessels.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 Peter, Message 22, Section 2, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Peter’s words for the wives are consistent to Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord.”
“This is one of the kinds of subjection implied in verse 21. In the exhortations concerning married life, the apostle deals first with the wives, since the wives, like Eve in Genesis 3, more easily get out of line than the husbands.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Ephesians, Message 52, Section 1, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
According to Paul’s word in verse 22, wives are to be subject to their own husbands “as to the Lord.”
“The wives need to realize that in the eyes of the Lord the husband represents the Lord. The reason the wife must submit to her own husband is that in married life he is as the Lord. I doubt that many married sisters regard their husbands as the Lord. The situation regarding married life today is deplorable, filled with disobedience and rebellion. Nevertheless, as Christ is the Head of the church and the Savior of the Body, wives must be subject to their husbands as to the Lord. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was a good example of this. According to 1 Peter 3:6, ‘Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.’” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Ephesians, Message 52, Section 2, LSM)
Wives must also take their husbands as the head. Verse 23 says, “For a husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, being Himself the Savior of the Body.”
“As head of the wife, a husband typifies Christ as the Head of the church. In addition to being the Savior of the Body, Christ is also the Head of the church. The Savior is a matter of love, whereas the Head is a matter of authority. We love Christ as our Savior, but we must also be subject to Him as our Head. It ought to be the same in the relationship between wives and husbands.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Ephesians, Message 52, Section 2, LSM)
The proper married life of husbands loving their wives and wives subjecting themselves to their own husbands is a figure of the relationship between Christ and the church, which was typified by Adam and Eve, where the woman’s subjection to man cannot be overemphasized. This is according to the pure revelation in the Word of God. Is Peter, like Paul, to be branded a “macho apostle” for affirming the principle that was laid down by God?
According to the Apostle John
“First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching…. [I]t also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel.” (W. Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set 3, Volume 50, Messages for Building Up New Believers (3), p. 951, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
The main degradation of the church in Thyatira is that instead of rejecting the teaching of Jezebel, the church tolerated it and even accepted and followed it.
“The teaching of Jezebel is the teaching of the church at that time…. Thyatira is following the teaching of Jezebel…. Man thinks that it is obedience to God when he follows the teaching of Jezebel, but actually, Jezebel was not God's prophetess; she only called herself such. The saints should know that in the present church, as revealed to us from the Lord's letters, there are many who have rebelled and forsaken the Lord and who have added to and deleted from the Lord's word at will. Therefore, we must be careful whose teaching we are following now.” (W. Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 05: The Christian (3), Chapter 1, Section 7, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
While the content of Jezebel’s heretical teaching is alarmimg, it is evident that as far as John is concerned, the person teaching is equally important.
“There are three sins of Jezebel. First, she calls herself a prophetess. God's order is that a woman should not teach a man. Even if what is taught is the truth, it is still forbidden (1 Tim. 2:12). Since God considers her a woman, this shows that she does not have the right to teach the truth. Second, although the Jezebel mentioned here is not a physical woman, spiritually speaking, God considers her a woman, which means that she should never teach God's servants. Third, she teaches heresy. Hence, God's people should beware and should not think that they are safe. Even the most steady ones are liable to fall!” (W. Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 05: The Christian (3), Chapter 1, Section 7, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
The apostle John’s word in Revelation 2:20 strongly prohibits the teaching of Jezebel, the self-appointed prophetess, who presumes to be authorized by God to speak for God, but whose teachings actually brought in mixture, confusion, and degradation instead. Was John, like Paul and Peter, writing according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or is he another “macho brother”?
According to Brother Watchman Nee
“The sisters can do many good and precious things. But they have to take a few brothers as their covering so that both glory and shame will fall on these brothers…. All genuine women honor what God has done, and they honor the place and order that God has placed them in…. Sisters should always stand in a covered position. This does not mean that sisters should not work. It merely means that God has appointed the brothers to be the protector of the sisters. The ones who assume the headship should be the brothers; all the glory and shame should go to the brothers. This does not mean that the brothers covet the sisters' glory. Rather it means that the brothers protect the sisters and maintain the order God has established….” (W. Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 22, pp. 39-40, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Brother Nee’s word could not have been clearer. There is no doubt that sisters can be gifted and perform many functions, yet they should still take the brothers as their covering; they should always stand in a covered position, and let the brothers assume the headship. This principle holds true not only between a man and a woman in ethical human relationships, but more so, in the church:
“In the church, the woman also has to submit to the man.… God appointed man to be the authority as a type of Christ and the woman to submit as a type of the church. For this reason the woman ought to have authority on her head for the sake of the angels. Furthermore, the woman must submit to her husband.” (W. Nee, Authority and Submission, pp. 58-59, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
From the word “furthermore” in the last sentence, it is abundantly clear that Brother Nee recognizes the distinction between women submitting to men in the church from a woman submitting to her husband at home.
“This has nothing to do with whether God is greater or Christ is greater. It means that God is the Head of Christ in His government. Similarly, Christ is the Head of every man in God’s government, and man is the head of the woman in God’s government. This is God’s appointment and ordination.” (W. Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Volume 50, Chapter 44, Head Covering, pp. 753-754, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Brother Nee’s emphasis that man is the head of the woman in God’s government is irrefutable, as this is God’s appointment and ordination. By his faithfully following the pattern of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of the apostles, Brother Nee would have likely earned the tag “macho brother” from the dissenting sister as well.
According to Brother Witness Lee
“In the divine governmental ordination, woman is under the headship of man. God created the female in this way (Gen. 2:18-24; 1 Tim. 2:13). According to the nature (v. 14) created by God, woman is subordinate to man.” (Recovery Version of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:3, footnote 3, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
“God’s creation was corrupted by Satan through a woman (Gen. 3:1-6). In principle, the church that God redeemed also was corrupted by Satan through a woman. For this reason, God does not permit women to teach in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; cf. 1 Cor. 11:5). This is because, in principle, all heresies were brought in by a woman; it was a woman who brought in the leaven.” (W. Lee, What the Kingdom Is to the Believers, p. 136, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
“Therefore, when sisters or brothers come to ask why there is a difference between the brothers and sisters, or whether we feel the sisters should submit to the brothers, the only reply is to ask, ‘Do you take the headship of Christ? Do you submit yourself to the headship of Christ?’ This will solve the problem. If all the brothers and sisters with such a problem would go to the Lord to submit themselves to the Lord and take the headship of Christ, the problem is solved.” (W. Lee, Basic Principles of the Practice of the Church Life, p. 39, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Affirming the teaching of Brother Nee regarding the standing of women in the church in accordance with the biblical standard, Brother Lee likewise taught that woman is under the headship of man in the divine ordination of God [For a more detailed study, please refer to “Women in the Divine Administration” and “Is It Unscriptural for Women to Submit to brothers?”]. Is Brother Witness Lee, like the Lord Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and Watchman Nee, also another “macho brother?”
According to Brother Liu Chi Cheng
In an earlier article of the dissenting sister entitled “Upholding the Universal Service,” she presented in her conclusion a diagram by Brother Liu Chi Cheng illustrating the eight different ways the saints can carry the Ark of the Testimony. The eighth is the ideal illustration where we see four brothers and four sisters carrying the Ark together. The sister inferred that to mean that “both brothers and sisters should take part in ALL the services in the church and in the Lord’s work.”
Whether or not Brother Liu meant for brothers and sisters to take part in ALL the services as the dissenting sister interpreted from his illustration is not the emphasis of this article, as the principle propounded by the sister has already been taken up and refuted in our two earlier articles. What needs to be pointed out here is that in that diagram (as shown below), the four brothers carrying the Ark are in front, two on each side, leading the way, while the four sisters carrying the Ark are at the back, closely following the brothers in their direction and pace.
This illustration alone shows that in Brother Liu’s mind, while sisters are equally necessary to carry the Ark for His Testimony, they cannot and may not do all that the brothers are doing; at least the sisters cannot take the lead in the Lord’s work and His move. This principle was strengthened and put into practice with his arrangement for brothers to take the lead in the work in Northern Philippines instead of the dissenting sister and the sisters who follow her. Is Brother Liu advocating machismo in his teaching and his decision regarding the Lord’s testimony and work?
Moreover, in Brother Liu’s volumes of compilations of outlines Collection of Gleanings, on “Spiritual Leadership: God’s Kingdom Being God’s Sovereign Ruling,” he noted:
“Every person represents a spiritual principle. Woman represents a line, like Deborah represents a spiritual principle. Barak’s portion was ruling and arranging, she did not take that position of leadership; her portion was to move people to go out to fight for the Lord.” (Liu Chi Cheng, Volume 6, Book 2, Message 13, Outline 6)
Brother Liu’s words are in line with the teaching of Brother Lee that Deborah, regardless of how capable she may be, was very submissive and took a male as her covering:
“According to God’s creation, Deborah was a very capable person. By reading her song in chapter five, we can see that she was full of ability, capacity, insight, and foresight. But such an excellent person was very submissive. God made her the leader, yet she kept the proper order and took Barak as her covering (Judges 4:6-9; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3, 5-6, 10). She realized that she needed a man to be her covering…. [W]hen this excellent, extraordinary woman took the lead to practice the female submission to the man, the entire country came into the proper order. Everyone returned to his or her proper position.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Judges, Message 4, pp. 15-16, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
This portion of the word contains a marvelous example of an excellent female serving God in a proper coordination with God’s representative authority. In the time of the judges in the Old Testament, God raised up a female judge named Deborah. According to the record of the book of Judges, she was a remarkable person. Yet she took Barak as her covering in her service. This is in stark contrast to the case of Miriam who rebelled against God’s delegated authority, which Brother Liu also noted in “The Relationship Between Obedience and Words:”
“For example: In the Old Testament: (1) open grumbling to her brother, and (2) Miriam’s secret murmuring (Miriam said something that went overboard when she merely said ‘[does God] not speak to us the prophetess?’ She exuded insubordination, and God knew it all.)” (Liu Chi Cheng, Volume 10, Book 4, Message 36, Outline 12)
Brother Liu’s notes concur with Brother Lee’s words regarding the rebellion of Miriam:
“In speaking against Moses, Miriam and Aaron were speaking against the deputy authority of God. Although Moses was younger than Miriam and Aaron, God had appointed him to be His deputy authority, His representative authority. God had called Aaron and had raised up Miriam, but there is no hint that God charged them to be His representative. But God told Moses clearly that He had chosen Him to be His representative authority on earth (Exo. 3:10-17; 7:1). Because of Moses' timidity, God gave Aaron to Moses as his helper (Exo. 4:10-16; 6:30—7:1). However, this does not mean that He appointed Aaron to be His authority. According to God's governmental administration, Miriam and Aaron should have submitted themselves to Moses. But they rebelled.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Numbers, Message 19, Section 2, LSM) [Emphasis Added]
Conclusion
From the words of Brother Liu Chi Cheng: (1) in his diagram that vividly portrays the brothers taking the lead in the Lord’s testimony instead of the sisters, (2) in his arrangement for brothers to take the lead in the work in Northern Philippines instead of the sisters, and (3) in his published notes that contrasted Deborah who took Barak as her covering as against Miriam who spoke against her brother whom God had appointed to take the lead, we see that Brother Liu was clear with the pure revelation in the word of God, as conveyed to us through the ministry of brothers Nee and Lee, particularly in the matter of the divine order in the church for men and women. Because of insubordination, the woman failed and brought a curse upon mankind. God had put the woman under the authority of man for her protection, help, and guidance. This is not a display of male superiority over the female, as the dissenting sister contended.
The cited Scriptures and excerpts from the ministry show, without a doubt, that the proper exercise of authority by the elders in the church, especially in dealing with a rebellious sister, is not “machismo,” but the pure revelation of the Word of God. Ironically, the blow to the head against the dissenting sister’s allegations of “machismo” and “macho brothers” was right under her nose, because it was from her own article where she cited Brother Liu Chi Cheng’s diagram depicting a proper coordination in bearing the Ark of the Testimony. Moreover, the sister should be aware of Brother Liu’s words regarding Deborah and Miriam, for the compilation of notes of Brother Liu were printed and published by Literature Center at the time when she still served as one of its translators and editors.
Brother Liu’s diagram and notes on the subject matter could not be clearer, yet the sister still missed Brother Liu’s point showing how sisters need to follow the leading of the brothers both in the work and in the church, resulting in her false accusations of “machismo” or masculinism allegedly practiced by the leading brothers, and bringing in a divergent teaching of “feminism” which we shall analyze in the second installment of this series.
June 22, 2010
