Originally Posted by aron

Jesus had power and authority over death, sin, Hades, sickness, pain, and suffering. None of these could withstand Him, but all gave way to the kingdom of God. Yet, interestingly, He didn't exercise authority over men. "Who made Me judge over you?", He asked when people requested His adjudication. See e.g. Luke 12:14.

It seems to me that people who lord it over others are trying to hide their inadequacies. So they want an earthly covering, instead of one which comes from above. Jesus said of such, "They have their reward. They seek the glory of men" See e.g. His extended homily in Matthew 6. Ultimately, WL got a gravestone more ornamental than his fellows, and got his testimony read into the Congressional Register (no doubt paid for by a fat donation to a Representative's re-election campaign). So WL got his reward, and he got what he was after.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unfortunately for Lee, this is not what Jesus taught in regards to those who want power and authority.

Originally Posted by awareness

All the big corporations of the world are successful because they run from the top down. If you seek to build one you'll need to run your ship that way.

That is what Lee was doing; building a corporation. Yes he said it was organic, or an organism. That was the sales pitch. But make no mistake, to him, and LSM, it's a corporation (tax free). Don't support either one and you'll get fired. I got the boot over blowing my nose the wrong way.

Originally Posted by aron

I sense two complimentary sources for the deputy authority teaching. First is that, even though we crave freedom, we also want structure and security. We don't trust ourselves and want someone to tell us what to do. So all the hippies who fled the "square" denominations in the 1960s were like moths to the candle, for charmers like Lee. They soaked up his mantra of "poor, poor, Christianity" and how they were now out of the sheep pen and into the Good Land, into the pastures of plenty. Just call on Jesus and be one, and everything's fine. No more rules or regulations, just the Normal Christian Church Life.

The unholy twin of this desire to be led by the nose is the person who wakes up each morning convinced that the world would be a better place if everybody would just listen to them, and give them what they want. They're the leech who cries, "give, give!" and is never satisfied (Prov 30:15). Look at any HWFMR outline: full of phrases like "we should" and "we must" and "we have to" and "we need to". An unending stream of requirements which never can be satisfied.

I think Lee fit this profile to a "t". And voila! the teaching of deputy authority was born. The Deputy God - just do exactly what they say and everything will be fine. And in spite of their attempts to masquerade as being "God's humble little servant", if you hang around with them for long enough someone like RG (to Bill Mallon) will make it plain: "We do what we're told." Or MP (to awareness): "When I say 'blow your nose', you only ask me which nostril."

Originally Posted by Nell

I believe deputy authority is a faithless teaching. A teaching manufactured by fallen men who don't have enough faith in our living Lord Jesus to let him be the Lord of our lives, or their own lives. It's not their job.

Originally Posted by Terry

Fitting verses for this thread Nell. In local church practices especially with this damaging teaching of deputy authority, it's really alien to a normal Christian. You would have to take Isaiah 5:20 and apply it to the local church leadership.
Submission one to another? It's not happening. In their view submission is only in one direction.
Clothed with humility? Clothed with pride is more appropriate for those who embrace the deputy authority teaching.

If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” John 13:14-20

Here in these verses from John 13 is an example of serving through footwashing. The deputy authority teaching does not advocate "footwashing", but to be served.

Originally Posted by Nell

Good question.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.


Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

Thank you.

I believe deputy authority is a faithless teaching. A teaching manufactured by fallen men who don't have enough faith in our living Lord Jesus to let him be the Lord of our lives, or their own lives. It's not their job.

Nell

Originally Posted by Freedom

My perspective on why so many want to adhere to the teaching on deputy authority is because they have been convinced that it’s a solution to a problem, or a protection from a problem. Quite often I heard brothers talk about how “rebellious” our nature is, or how fallen we are. I never though much of them saying these things, but in retrospect, it was them establishing a problem of humans having a particularly rebellious nature.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...Looking back, these experiences can be among the most valuable we ever have. Not that I in the least condone what happened to Nell or to others. LC leaders would pride themselves in their unique way of "perfecting" the saints by harsh treatment, as supposedly Nee was "raised up" in this manner. I'm not buying it. It's basically the same type of "perfecting" grace which the apostles received while being lashed 40 times save one. Even worse is the fact that it comes from those we trusted.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "problem" existed because LSM leadership was corrupt, and had much to hide, needing to preempt anyone who might call out for righteousness.

Originally Posted by Freedom

When you look at LC members, I don’t see many at all who have a problem with authority. So where is the big problem? Why do they need to be under such a teaching on authority? Since the problem isn’t there to begin with, so the whole system works off of members with misconceived notions about authority.

Originally Posted by Nell

I cried from beginning to end. Every meeting. I cried and cried and cried. I tried to talk to the Lord about what had happened, but I didn't really know what was so wrong with me that the elders had to talk to me in such a way...without warning. My accusers got there first, so they won.

I did experience God's infinite grace and mercy as a result of the unholy deeds of those men. In His mercy, God protected me from becoming shipwrecked in my faith because of these deputies. God counted my tears. My tears meant something to Him. Not everyone who has experienced the sharp end of deputy authority has survived in their faith.
Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

Good question.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

It seems to me that if Christian leaders concern themselves with deputy authority, especially to the extent that Nee did, then Lee, then the LSM/LC, this could be among the first indications that something is not right. Something is fundamentally wrong. I experienced it first-hand.

Originally Posted by HERn

Okay...so apparently the BBs practice of covering the deputy authority extends to the those possibly under the influence of a demon? And the reason the BBs want to protect the "foamer" is what? Isn't one function of true shepherds to protect the flock? So the BBs protect the "foamer" at the expense of the flock? Dear LC-ers do you perceive anything wrong with this?

Originally Posted by Nell

I lied. I was too scared to tell them they were wrong. I didn't believe these deputy authorities were interested in the truth. I later learned the pattern is, whoever goes to the elders first, wins. Whoever is accused first is always guilty.

Originally Posted by Freedom

.... If deputy authority is a teaching that is so easily debunked, then why are so many still practicing it?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Terry

and foam came out of his mouth..

Originally Posted by Freedom

The verse that Nell points out, 1 Tim 5:20, presents a completely different view of authority than how those in the LC view it. I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.

Originally Posted by Terry

Why is not there a New Testament counterpart?
One can make the case as regenerated believers we all have authority only in Jesus.
Consider Matthew 10:1 and Luke 9:49

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.”

This would debunk the LC concept and upset the system by which control is vested in the hands of the minority by asserting only they as coworkers, elders, etc have authority.

If one tries to apply the 1 Timothy 5:20 & Matthew 18 approach of making elders accountable, the are summarily under so-called church discipline.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "Moses Model" of authority is also widely used by others to abuse.

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

• There is no direct NT counterpart to Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, or any other notable OT person except for Jesus Christ Himself.
• Jesus Himself instructs us never to rule as the Gentiles. He never even hinted that Peter, or John, or James would one day rule the church.
• NT leadership is always a plurality. There is no justification whatsoever for a Pope, MOTA, the oracle, the acting god, etc.
• The concept that Paul, the senior worker, ruled all the other workers in "the work," is nothing more than a convenient circumvent to modern day popery.
• I Tim 5.20 stresses accountability by the elders who have "sinned" publicly for all to learn. Matthew 18 instructs us in some cases to tell "it to the church."
• The concept of "covering" is rife with dangers because "absolute power corrupts absolutely." When do we stop covering "nakedness," and start covering up serious "sins?"
• The concept that "God alone will deal with His deputy" has no basis in the scripture or in history -- just read up on the popes.

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a house of mirrors and veils.

Originally Posted by Nell

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

Instead:
1 Timothy 5:20 (NIV)
20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Nell

Originally Posted by OBW

And why did Nee start off by declaring that "Nothing is greater than authorityin the universe; nothing can surpass it" yet not have even referenced a verse with the word authority in it? And through the whole first chapter, he never does. He just changes power to authority and moves on. "For thine is the kingdom and the authority and the glory . . . ."

Then, having everyone eating from his empty hand, he has "established" that it is so and goes on to the next chapter. One by one he makes assertions as if they are fact, but if you stop at each one, you will say "huh? really?" and scratch your head in wonder. This was my first dive into one of Nee's books after leaving the LCM and suddenly I realized that Nee was every bit as much an abuser of scripture to make it fit a preconceived premise as Lee was. Nee just makes statements and expects everyone to accept them.

And so far, too many people do just take whatever he says. Many of them don't read the books like Spiritual Authority, but it is there in less egregious ways in the inner life books.

But the point is that he establishes his first principle based on reasoning which makes assertions that need support. But none is given. And I (an may be just I) can not see where that support comes from. Yet, having said it (without support) he just moves on to the next chapter to layer on another point. And point by point he makes bare assertion after bare assertion. Like saying that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was to go against God's authority (which was stated as being Aaron), therefore man cannot deal with their sin . . . only God. Eventually this gets switched around to where Nadab and Abihu also had some authority, and that is the reason that only God could deal with them.

Suddenly, whoever manages to lay claim to God's deputy authority is above rebuke by man.

It is a house of mirrors and veils.

Originally Posted by Freedom

With doctrines such as deputy authority, I don't think it's always immediately clear what is a bad doctrine and what isn't. For starters, there are thousands of people in the LC who buy into such a doctrine, and I'm sure that many would be willing to justify their doctrine if called upon to do so.

You are right, deputy authority is a construct invented by Nee, however, he made a case for this doctrine. For example, in the CFP version of Spiritual Authority, Nee references the case of Ham being cursed as an example of what happens when someone disobeys the the "deputy authority" (Noah). Another example Nee gives is that of Nadab and Abihu overstepping Aaron to offer up strange fire. The point is that Nee attempted to make an argument for his doctrine and even if it was a little bit of a stretch, its hard to throw it out immediately as bad doctrine. Nee saw these cases as issues of authority. I see these cases more than just a black and white issue of overstepping authority. Either interpretation has its merits.

I think there are several issues that have to be considered. Some of the questions that come to mind in evaluating a doctrine like deputy authority are 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

• There is no direct NT counterpart to Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, or any other notable OT person except for Jesus Christ Himself.
• Jesus Himself instructs us never to rule as the Gentiles. He never even hinted that Peter, or John, or James would one day rule the church.
• NT leadership is always a plurality. There is no justification whatsoever for a Pope, MOTA, the oracle, the acting god, etc.
• The concept that Paul, the senior worker, ruled all the other workers in "the work," is nothing more than a convenient circumvent to modern day popery.
• I Tim 5.20 stresses accountability by the elders who have "sinned" publicly for all to learn. Matthew 18 instructs us in some cases to tell "it to the church."
• The concept of "covering" is rife with dangers because "absolute power corrupts absolutely." When do we stop covering "nakedness," and start covering up serious "sins?"
• The concept that "God alone will deal with His deputy" has no basis in the scripture or in history -- just read up on the popes.

Originally Posted by Nell

Your points are well taken. With all the "unknowns" both of you make, it further weakens the case for Nee's "deputy authority". There is not enough scriptural justification for a "deputy authority".

"Deputy authority" is a convenient means to "spiritualize" men's attempt to control the members of the Lord's church.

Whose church is it, anyway?

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem: We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

Instead:
1 Timothy 5:20 (NIV)
20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Nell

Originally Posted by Ohio

We are not told whether other factors drove Ham to act in such a way. Was he just a "punk kid," or was he retaliating for something prior? We have no way to know. What we do know was that Noah took it very serious, and proceeded to judge Canaan, which presents us with another problem: was Canaan his son, or just another name for Ham?

Originally Posted by Nell

Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem: We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

Instead:
1 Timothy 5:20 (NIV)
20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Originally Posted by Nell

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Freedom

... 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.

Originally Posted by OBW

What I am trying to get at is whether it is clearly bad doctrine. The verse you quote starts by making reference to "different doctrine." Then Paul continues by making reference to things about the kind of person who would engage in teaching such different doctrines.

But before you get to the nature of the person doing it (and that nature should be a significant warning sign), Paul is suggesting to Timothy that he already knows it is a different doctrine. The rest is to make it clear that the ones pushing the kind of different doctrines that are being discussed is not some legitimate difference of understanding of the truth, but of a serious character flaw of the ones holding that doctrine. They are trying to create controversy in which they are ready to stand out as the ones with the answers. To become something in such a way that they gain from the desire of others to be godly.
...
But Paul already knew the doctrine was bad before he started pointing out the fruit. It was bad because it was incorrect. It was a misaiming of the gospel. It was misapplication of the words of Christ. Paul didn't need to wait for the stench of the rotten fruit to know it. Before the frit began to form on the tree, the doctrine was wrong.

My question to this entire thread is whether there is actually an example of deputy authority in the form that Nee and Lee taught in the Bible. They used examples from mostly OT stories. But do the stories support and align with the doctrine they got when they threw it into the fire? Or is it just another golden calf formed by sleight of hand, whether intended or just from their ignorance? Did they rightly consider the scripture when they said it supported their nonsense? It is obvious what I think about it.

So the real question is whether the thing that Nee and Lee taught was ever actually practiced in the Bible. Is there actually one example? Not saying that there were not prophets raised up. Leaders. Kings. And so on. But were any of them what Nee/Lee described as deputy authority? If the answer is "no," then RK and the others have nothing to stand on now. You don't need a fruit-o-meter to know that they are wrong because they are already tied to positions through a bad doctrine.

Originally Posted by Terry

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:3-5

Practice of deputy authority is a different doctrine. It produces "envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions", etc. Other behavior traits produced is pride, arrogance, unaccountable, etc.

The teaching and practices of deputy authority results in damage. It's a tool that enables and pardons bad behavior due to removing checks and balances from the church. If the practices of a deputy authority doesn't bring out the worst of a person, it at least dulls the heart and causes the heart to be calloused and insensitive. Practices of a deputy authority creates an inability to distinguish between opinion and fact.
If a brother is truly wanting to be a servant to the brothers and sisters, he's not going to care if he's a coworker, elder, deacon, serving brother for the young people, or the janitor of the meeting hall.
By contrast I had heard Ron speak at a Puget Sound blending conference a few years ago where Ron said, he's not going to step aside for anyone. To me that's an indication of a brother concerned about his position and about his status. That's not serving.

Originally Posted by OBW

Terry,

Does the fruit of a practice really dictate how to understand it? Are we really sure that the practice is the problem? Or is it something else?

My point is not to let Deputy Authority off the hook. But it could be argued that certain other issues are the cause of the fruit and that Deputy Authority could not fix it.

Originally Posted by Nell

Without Scriptural backing, any teaching put forth as "Christian teaching" is in fact false, fantasy, even heretical. Bad fruit is a symptom of false teaching.

Originally Posted by OBW

The real issue is whether there is really such a construct or it is a fantasy devised first by Nee and then strengthened by Lee that just does not represent anything that the Bible actually teaches, directly or indirectly. If it is garbage teaching, then there is no reason to need to argue over what is responsible for the fruit in question. It doesn't deserve a hearing on the fruit issue. It gets booted on the truth issue.

Originally Posted by Terry

Greetings Nell, my point in this thread is not to support the teaching. So many people have bought into it as a non-essential item of faith when in fact as I answer your question, the fruit of the practice of deputy authority is division.

Originally Posted by Nell

What is the fruit of the practice of deputy authority?

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Terry,

Here's my question: Why would anyone want to take deputy authority as a biblical teaching? To what end?
...
According to the Word, we are known by our fruit. What is the fruit of the practice of deputy authority?

Nell

Originally Posted by Terry

Those that want to take deputy authority as a Biblical teaching, you could say the kings of Israel and Judah were types of deputy authority. The first king in 1 Samuel 15 is Saul.

Originally Posted by Terry

Being raised in the local churches it was ingrained in me, even if I disagree with brothers or sisters older than me, they're always right. So suppress my opinions.
On the topic of deputy authority, the two churches I have met with extensively since leaving the local churches (Calvary Baptist and ERCC) you never hear the topic of deputy authority.

Originally Posted by Freedom

In my experience, I never heard the topic of deputy authority brought up much within the LC, but there was always a clear chain of command. I could almost say that I don't even where I got the notion that authority was to not be questioned. It was basically an ingrained notion that I picked up somewhere along the way.