[UntoHim]

Ok, let’s try to get back a little closer to a discussion of the proposition set forth by the writer of this little paper, “God’s New Testament economy vs. Deputy Authority”. Of course this thing was not written in a vacuum – we all know the circumstances and atmosphere from which it came. I was given a copy of this booklet back in the early 90s during all the turmoil in So. Calif. There were a lot of these anonymous writings floating around at the time, and most of them had the general theme of “things have changed” and “wait a cotton pickin minute, I thought ‘In the New Testament economy there is no thought of hierarchy. On the contrary,God's economy in the New Testament makes all the believers of the same rank’(Lee)”

I do find it interesting that the writer’s description and definition of “God’s New Testament Economy” is rather different (almost diametrically opposed) to that which was taught by Witness Lee. I can only assume that she knew this and wanted to score some points with her readers right off the bat. Once she established what “God’s Economy” really was, it wasn’t hard to expose the bejeebers out of the whole “Deputy Authority” false teaching.

Actually, it’s a fact that this kind of teaching came from Watchman Nee, and it was no doubt one of his most crucial and damaging errors. The writer, to throw a little irony into the mix, made sure the readers knew about Lee’s quote: * I am sorry that some Christians utilize Brother Nee's book, Spiritual Authority, to make themselves an authority over others. This kind of authority is self assumed. - L.S. of Revelation p.742 Yikes! Only Witness Lee could have the gall to say something like this, with the kind of man he was, and how he wielded his self assumed power and authority over others.

I found this portion of the paper most poignant:
Man is always held accountable. He is held directly accountable to God whether his allegiance to the "deputy authority" was through his own ignorance, his own preference or personal loyalty, his own improper motive or ambition, or through the deceit of the one proclaiming that authority. The ramifications are generally disastrous. Not only so, but the judgment falling upon the mistakenly obedient one is far greater than that on the misleading "deputy authority." No man can shirk his individual responsibility and accountability to God.

Man oh man - “or through the deceit of the one proclaiming that authority”. That really hits home, doesn’t it? I think most of us would opt for this choice over “ignorance, his own preference or personal loyalty or his own improper motive or ambition”. In any case, she was right about the ramifications being generally disastrous.