[OBW]

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.

Don't just jump deep into the book. Look at it from its groundwork in the earliest chapters and see if some of the things that Nee is saying as givens are really given. I did it several years ago. Just read the first chapter and noticed that Nee created an importance for authority out of verses that do not mention it. He simply replaced "power" with "authority" wherever it appeared, saying they were synonyms. But they are not. Not saying there is no relationship. But if God, or the human writer, had wanted to say "authority," then why did he use "power"?

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.