God's economy vs Deputy authority

Indiana · 03-24-2012, 01:00 PM

In my fellowship here in Southern California the last three months, a sister gave me a copy of this revolutionary word on Deputy Authority. Can she be challenged based on the Bible, or not? In other words, is the prevailing deputy authority concept manifestly and demonstrably wrong in the Local Churches?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD’S NEW TESTAMENT ECONOMY
VS.
DEPUTY AUTHORITY

The Definition of
God’s New Testament Economy

What, specifically, is God’s New Testament economy in this age? This term has been used much--but what truly, according to the pure word of God, does this terminology mean?

Economy is, of course, the way a person or thing operates in order to obtain its goal or go about its business. Is there, specifically, a difference in the way God “goes about His business” in the New Testament than He did in the Old Testament? We are told in precise words that there is (Jer. 31:31 –34; Ezek. 36:26 –29; Heb. 8:8–12).

God foretold to His people that He would establish a new covenant with His people in the latter days. He even told His people what the details of that covenant would be (Jer. 31:31-34) and reiterated the items of that very covenant after it was effected (Heb. 8:8-12). Not only so, but that covenant was,and had to be, effected at the price of the precious blood of Christ. Therefore, that covenant is to us no more just a covenant--but it is a testament, a will, effected by the death of Christ.

How very significant the elements of that New Testament must be to us since they necessitated the highest price in the universe to secure for us! Surely, as Christians, there is nothing more paramount than this for us to guard and pay our allegiance to in this age. That will or covenant is what God Himself declares to be the precise statement of His New Testament economy.

Furthermore that will is directed at specifically one thing: that is, to restore the direct headship of God over His people by supplanting all rules, laws, principles, and speakings of man, whether they be by prophets or any other men. Therefore, to the extent that any man attempts to establish himself or his ministry as God's unique spokesman in this age, he is coming directly against the heart of God's New Testament economy and setting aside one of the most distinct elements for which Christ died.

A Contrast Between
the Old and New Testament

The book of Hebrews, the most distinct book in the Bible comparing and contrasting the believer's New Testament inheritance with the inferior substitutes in the Old Testament begins by announcing:

"In many portions and in many ways, God, having spoken of old to the fathers in the prophets,has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (Heb.1: 1-2a)

This means that in the New Testament age, God's mode of speaking has changed. We no longer need to go to one man to learn the mind and heart of God. Not only do we not need to go to one man, but the very
concept of going to one man as the oracle of God is directly opposed to what Christ shed His blood to produce for us as New Testament children of God.

The Element of
God's New Testament Economy

The primary elements of what Christ died to purchase for us as our New Testament inheritance are listed in Hebrews 8:10-12. They are:

(1) That God would impart His laws directly into the mind and heart of every believer (rather than necessitating them to either read them off a tablet of stone somewhere or hear them from an external spokesman).

(2) That the believers would no longer teach their fellow servants to know the Lord because all shall know Him (no longer necessitating a spiritual mentor because He now indwells us all).

(3) That God would be our God and we would be His people.

(4) The forgiveness of sins.

Coming against point one or two is just as definite a violation of the New Testament as coming against point four; that is, coming against Christ having shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins. What a serious sin it is to set up any man as the unique spokesman for God in the New Testament age!

Elevating Leaders is
An Affront to
God's New Testament Economy

The Apostle Paul unquestionably realized this fact, therefore, when the Corinthian believers divided themselves against one for another by boasting, "I am of Cephas," "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," he neither explained to them the sequence of "first order apostle, second order apostle, third order apostle," etc., nor did he initiate a doctrine of "deputy authority" and claimed that there was only one "unique oracle" in every age, and that, of course, he himself happened to be that one. Instead, he declared, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God made to grow; so that neither is the one who plants (I, Paul) anything, nor the one who waters (Apollos), but the One Who makes to grow, God" (1 Cor. 3:6-7).

Paul realized that the lifting up of any man (including himself), among the believers, was in direct violation of God's New Testament economy, a damage to the Body of Christ, and an affront to God Himself. No doubt, that is why Paul thanked God that he did not baptize any more than two believers among them. He surely did not want to compound their problem of boasting in men any more than it was already compounded, and possibly even suffer the judgment of God's jealousy upon himself, as well. Although it is absurd to compare anyone of our age to the stature of the Apostle Paul, through whom the majority of the New Testament was written, brothers with far less stature and even some of questionable character have been much quicker to take upon themselves a glory which Paul so wisely refused.

Nowhere in the New Testament is the concept of "deputy authority" even hinted at. To the contrary, Jesus stated,"The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 20:25b-26)

God Desired Direct Headship
Over His People
Even in the Old Testament Age

It appears that not just in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, also, it has been God's desire to be the direct ruler over His people,rather than allow them to submit to a visible "king". That is why, when Israel asked for a visible king (God being their invisible king) to judge them like all the nations, God told Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me" (1 Sam. 8:7).

Let us learn from the parable spoken by Jotham in Judges 9:7-15. No proper person of life (olive, fig or vine) will take any position of authority. Only one without life (thorn) will rule over others and eventually destroy them.

Even the leaders established in the Old Testament, such as Moses, Joshua and David, were types of Christ as God's uniquely Anointed One, leading all of God's people. We fall into much error today when we misapply the authority given to these figures to any so-called leaders in our present day. Not only so, but as previously stated, the elements of the New Testament for which Christ died are directed at just this point--to abolish all mediators, whether human or otherwise, between God and man, and re-establish the direct headship of God over every one of His chosen and redeemed people.

The Erroneous Teaching
of "Deputy Authority"

Let us lay to rest, once for all, the erroneous teaching of "deputy authority" as a governing principle in the New Testament--overriding man's individual conscience, sense of righteousness and holiness, and direct lordship by Christ Himself.

The Bible tells us nothing more clearly than the fact that human government must always bow to man's conscience and the direct rule of God over the individual.

Obedience directly to God is the only unqualified obedience a man can give. All men are fallen. Because of that, our obedience to any man can and must be limited and qualified to the extent each man's individual conscience can support it.

The Bible also makes clear to us that God is no respecter either of any man's person (Gal. 2:6; Acts 10:34; James 2:1) or any man's position.

We are, in the New Testament,told to submit to "elders" and also to submit "one to another" in love. This should indeed be our hearts' attitude toward every member of the Body of Christ--but only so far as our conscience and the direct rule of God support that submission.

We are told in plain words,"The head of every man is Christ" (1 Cor. 11;3), and "There is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the Man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5)

It is true that at the time of Noah, after man's conscience had failed as the unique governing agent, God established human government. However, whenever human government--whether that government is familial,secular, or spiritual—comes into conflict with the direct rule of man by God, the Bible shows us clearly that man pays heavily, even grievously, for not submitting to God and overthrowing that government.

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.

The Example of Moses and Aaron

Take for instance, the Old Testament example of Moses, so often cited by W. Lee and his followers as the epitome of deputy authority. No doubt Moses’ responsibility for God's people and his commission to lead them are substantiated in the scriptures more clearly than that of any other man. In that sense, Moses is far more a type of Christ, the uniquely Anointed One, than he is a type of any other man. The New Testament repeatedly substantiates this (John 5:46; Heb. 3:3; Luke 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:7-11). Due to that, I believe it is dangerous for any man in our age to liken himself or any other man to Moses.

Still, Moses, unlike Christ, did fail to perfectly fulfill God's representation among God's people. At that point, therefore, we are given a clear picture of what happens to a man or men who fail to act when even an unmistakably appointed minister of God fails in his representation of God's authority. (Interestingly enough, this is never cited by those who would like to use Moses as justification for lording it over God's people.)

Apparently, Moses was faithful to God's commission throughout the entire forty years in the wilderness, with the exception of misinterpreting God's feeling toward the people at the waters of Meribah (Num. 20:10-13). At that time Moses became angry and smote the rock before God's people, in spite of the fact that God had said simply to speak to the rock. For that single offense, Moses was not permitted to enter into the good land of Canaan, but was allowed to view the land.

However, for our purposes, we need to see what was done to Aaron for the sin which Moses committed but Aaron did not publicly separate himself from. Aaron lost both his life and his ministry when Moses committed the sin of misrepresenting God before the people. There is no record that Aaron committed any sin of his own other than failing to stand against Moses' sin of representing God before the people (Num. 20:24, 10-13).

God had said to Moses, "You shall be as God to him (Aaron)" (Exo. 4:16). Surely, if there is anything that resembles "deputy authority" in the Bible, it could not be stronger than Moses' God-appointed relationship to Aaron. Yet Aaron still faced a judgment greater than that upon Moses, when he failed to stand with God directly at the waters of Meribah.

Another incident which illustrates the same point of God's drastic judgment upon one of His people who failed to listen to Him directly, but obeyed a "delegated authority," instead, is the incident of the man of God and the old prophet (1 Kings 13). The man of God was told directly by God not to eat, drink or remain in that city (1 Kings 13:9-16). However the old prophet declared that he, too, was a prophet and had been told by an angel of the Lord to bring him back, feed him and give him drink. The man of God, therefore, hearkened to the elder "delegated authority," instead of the direct speaking of God--which,as with Aaron, cost him his life.

Consider, also, the New Testament example of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Surely, the husband has been appointed on earth as head over his wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). still, Sapphira lost her life for not separating herself from the sin of her husband in this matter, but "covering" him by lying to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the Scriptures give us numerous positive examples of men, either for God's sake of under His direct leading, overthrowing the rule of those originally appointed over them governmentally. As part of Gideon's original commission by God, God ordered Gideon to throw down the altar of Baal that belonged to his father (Judges 6:25).

When Nabal, Abigail's husband, despised David and his men and determined to do evil against them, Abigail rose and took loaves, wine, raisins, cakes and figs to him. She said to David concerning her husband, "Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, even Nabal" (which means 'fool'); for as his name is, so is he" (1 Sam. 25:25). For that "rebellious" deed of protecting David's interests (who is a type of Christ), Abigail was given the privilege of marrying David, and is presented to us in the Scriptures as a type of the church militant.

In the New Testament we are told concerning secular governments, "Let every person be subject to the authorities over them. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose will receive to themselves judgment" (Rom. 13:1-2).

Yet when the rulers charged Peter and John not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you judge; for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20).

Even secular governments which recognize the supreme authority of God over the individual. For instance, in America a man can be court-martialed and even executed for deserting or failing to bear his military responsibility in time of war. However, if he can prove that his unwillingness to bear arms is truly a matter of his conscience in answering directly to the all-sovereign God, the government will bow and not override that man's conscience.

Then, too, the international tribunal at Nuremburg established to judge the Nazi war crimes committed under Hitler declared that man is responsible for his own actions--in spite of any orders he may have received from a higher authority. They further declared that soldiers and citizens have a moral obligation to disobey orders and laws which violate their consciences in dealing with other men.

If an international, non- Christian tribunal recognizes and bows to the direct supremacy of God over man versus that of any "deputy authority," how much more we Christians must come to the same definite recognition.

- A.F.

********

* 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.This is the reason that the Lord Jesus said that we all are brothers and that only Christ is our Leader, Guide, Instructor, and Director. Although God's economy puts all believers in Christ on the same level, the natural concept is that in the church, as in any social group or organization,there should be a special class of leaders.
- L.S.of Ephesians p.348

* 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

* Others have asked me if the elders have authority. This question springs from the natural concept concerning rank. If we were not under the influence of the natural concept, we would not raise this question. I repeat, in the church there is no such thing as rank. Rather, we all are stewards of the grace of God,and we submit ourselves one to another.
- L.S. of Ephesians p.364

* None of us in the church life should hold to any personal standing. Of course, we must stand firm for the Lord's testimony. However, we should not claim any standing, title or position for ourselves.
- L.S. of Philippians p.93

* To control others means to make decisions for them and to tell them what to do or not to do. It is to put people under your direction. In the Lord's recovery, we must hate this kind of control. No one should exercise control, because we all are under the one Lord and have the one Spirit living in us and leading us.
- L.S. of Matthew p.655

* Exalting spiritual giants not only destroys the church; it also causes us to be self-deceived. ...In the Lord's recovery there must not be the exalting of any person.
- L.S. of 1 Corinthians p.291

* One should never be so mistaken as to consider oneself the authority. God alone has authority; no one else possesses it.
- Spiritual Authority p.120

(No. SA-01, free of charge)
The Word & The Testimony
P.O. Box 2185
Anaheim, CA. 92814

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZNPaaneah · 03-24-2012, 08:36 PM

What is the "working" definition for "Deputy authority"?

Obviously the NT talks about "authority". Ephesians talks about all authority was given unto Christ for the Church. The concept of head covering is related to authority and its practical application in the church life. Paul and Peter were both involved in counsels to hear their personal revelations before the church received the word. In Timothy it says that the Law is made for the lawless and disobedient, clearly the law has authority over the lawless and that would be administered by man. The entire concept of deputy authority was always taught with the analogy of a policeman and the uniform. 1Peter 5:5 exhorts the younger to submit to the elders. 1Pet 2:13 tells us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, not just laws but even things like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Probably the most relevant verse would be 1Cor 16:16 where Paul tells us to submit ourselves to all those who are similar to Stephanas (who was addicted to the ministry of the saints) and all others who help Paul and labor with him.

So without knowing what the definition of "deputy authority" is that this person is referring to I would have no way to respond other than the premise that the concept of "deputy authority is not in the NT" is clearly not true based on a standard dictionary definition of the terms.

Ohio · 03-25-2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is the "working" definition for "Deputy authority"?

Obviously the NT talks about "authority". Ephesians talks about all authority was given unto Christ for the Church. The concept of head covering is related to authority and its practical application in the church life. Paul and Peter were both involved in counsels to hear their personal revelations before the church received the word. In Timothy it says that the Law is made for the lawless and disobedient, clearly the law has authority over the lawless and that would be administered by man. The entire concept of deputy authority was always taught with the analogy of a policeman and the uniform. 1Peter 5:5 exhorts the younger to submit to the elders. 1Pet 2:13 tells us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, not just laws but even things like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Probably the most relevant verse would be 1Cor 16:16 where Paul tells us to submit ourselves to all those who are similar to Stephanas (who was addicted to the ministry of the saints) and all others who help Paul and labor with him.

So without knowing what the definition of "deputy authority" is that this person is referring to I would have no way to respond other than the premise that the concept of "deputy authority is not in the NT" is clearly not true based on a standard dictionary definition of the terms.

It was Roman Catholicism which first combined the elements of distorted oneness and Old Testament leadership. The result was a lineage of Popes bereft of godliness using twisted concepts of oneness to wield great power.

If the Apostle Paul had all of the "deputy authority" he was supposedly endued with, he would have been able to enact changes in Jerusalem. But he didn't and he couldn't.

The teachings of "deputy authority" have more roots in Chinese culture than in the Bible. How else could their dynasties exist for thousands of years? Like the Recovery, they have developed numerous teachings, as a system of error, which provide unlawful powers to its leaders.

ZNPaaneah · 03-25-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was Roman Catholicism which first combined the elements of distorted oneness and Old Testament leadership. The result was a lineage of Popes bereft of godliness using twisted concepts of oneness to wield great power.

If the Apostle Paul had all of the "deputy authority" he was supposedly endued with, he would have been able to enact changes in Jerusalem. But he didn't and he couldn't.

The teachings of "deputy authority" have more roots in Chinese culture than in the Bible. How else could their dynasties exist for thousands of years? Like the Recovery, they have developed numerous teachings, as a system of error, which provide unlawful powers to its leaders.

How do you work out issues between saints? If there is no authority to go to it seems that it would be very difficult to deal with offenses. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for going to court asking isn’t there someone among you who could have judged? He then told them that the destiny of the saints is to judge the world. The only way a judge can be effective is as a representative of the higher authority, or as a “deputy authority”. Matt. 18 recommends a progression in trying to deal with an offense that ultimately ends up with you “telling the church”. In that context Jesus said “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. That to me is the definition of the NT “deputy authority”.

This doesn’t mean that this authority rests with elders nor does it in any way suggest that there is a hierarchy in the church. Neither Paul or Jesus suggest that there is a hierarchy, only that there are reputable brothers that both of the parties could respect to judge according to righteousness. Also Jesus makes it very clear that He places a lot of faith in any two or three saints coming to together in His name and agreeing on anything. To me this demonstrates strongly that there is no hierarchy in this matter yet at the same time the church age is an age in which we are trained to exercise the Lord’s authority here on earth.

How about if there are problems with those who are taking the lead in the church? To me the authority is all about ownership. The "church of Christ" indicates that Christ has the ownership and therefore the authority to deal with the church. The "church of God" indicates that God also has the ownership and authority to deal with the church. Likewise the "church of the saints" indicates that the saints have the ownership, position and right to exercise authority over the church. There is no verse, however, that says the "church of the elders" or the "church of the apostles" etc. Having an equal standing to deal with issues also means we have an equal responsibility and equal accountability before the Lord. Basically, once you see sin or are aware of sin you are responsible to deal with it.

With that in mind, looking at how Paul recommends you choose an elder is very similar to how you would choose someone to judge between two saints. Obviously you want someone of good repute. If the problem is within a marriage I would much rather have a brother or sister that was married and had experience. If the problem was with the kids I would want someone who had done a good job raising kids to talk to. Although an elder may have been chosen as someone most saints would respect in most cases to judge between them, there is no rule that you would have to choose an elder to judge.

How about the example of the sons of Sceva. "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you" demonstrates that this authority is all about our relationship with the Lord. Compare this account with the Lord's word in Matthew "depart from me workers of iniquity for I never knew you". My understanding is that whatever we do in the Christian walk is based on our relationship with the Lord. We are not exercising our authority, we are one with Him, and we are exercising His authority, that is the meaning of "head covering". If we are speaking according to our own opinion our head is not covered, if our speaking comes out of our fellowship with the Lord or with the teaching of the Apostles then our head is covered.

Ohio · 03-25-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you work out issues between saints? If there is no authority to go to it seems that it would be very difficult to deal with offenses. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for going to court asking isn’t there someone among you who could have judged? He then told them that the destiny of the saints is to judge the world. The only way a judge can be effective is as a representative of the higher authority, or as a “deputy authority”. Matt. 18 recommends a progression in trying to deal with an offense that ultimately ends up with you “telling the church”. In that context Jesus said “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. That to me is the definition of the NT “deputy authority”.

There definitely is authority in the church, and the saints are commanded to obey and submit to them. (H.13.17) If we look at the New Testament as a whole, the weight of scripture speaks to the abuses of leaders and not to the submission of the saints. The scripture is balanced knowing man's lust for power.

Never does the N.T. point to some solitary and distinct individual, other than Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, the Lord Himself, as some designated deputy authority, neither as a chief spokesman, a designated oracle, a Minister of the Age, nor one unique individual invested with power, as some "acting God."

Some may think that Peter or Paul were such persons, but they definitely were not, and that's why the failures of each, more so than any other of the early apostles, were so well known and broadcasted to the church.

It is only a collection of people, removed from scripture by the twisted teachings of a ruling body, who would buy into the distorted concepts of a "deputy authority." Unfortunately, I have spent my entire life, first under Rome, and then under Cleveland and Anaheim, swallowing this "doctrine of demons."

ZNPaaneah · 03-25-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

There definitely is authority in the church, and the saints are commanded to obey and submit to them. (H.13.17) If we look at the New Testament as a whole, the weight of scripture speaks to the abuses of leaders and not to the submission of the saints. The scripture is balanced knowing man's lust for power.

Never does the N.T. point to some solitary and distinct individual, other than Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, the Lord Himself, as some designated deputy authority, neither as a chief spokesman, a designated oracle, a Minister of the Age, nor one unique individual invested with power, as some "acting God."

And this, to me, is what this age is all about. Learning to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus and respond accordingly. How do you respond when they quarantine TC? How do you respond when they threaten to quarantine you? How do you respond when you learn JI has left the LC?

Do you say "the elders should deal with this?" or do you stand up and speak? If you stand up, do you speak in your flesh?

Suppose you do speak up, suppose you don't bend when they threaten to excommunicate you, suppose you are bold and don't walk in your flesh. Well then they will lay traps, how do you respond to the traps? Does this cause you to turn more to your spirit and prayer? If so the response will be to intensify the attacks and even see expressed hatred.

Even if you are not "officially" quarantined you will still be "isolated". How do you deal with that? Does that cause the fellowship with the Lord to get deeper? Because after all that is what this age is all about.

TLFisher · 10-06-2015, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How about if there are problems with those who are taking the lead in the church? To me the authority is all about ownership. The "church of Christ" indicates that Christ has the ownership and therefore the authority to deal with the church. The "church of God" indicates that God also has the ownership and authority to deal with the church. Likewise the "church of the saints" indicates that the saints have the ownership, position and right to exercise authority over the church. There is no verse, however, that says the "church of the elders" or the "church of the apostles" etc. Having an equal standing to deal with issues also means we have an equal responsibility and equal accountability before the Lord. Basically, once you see sin or are aware of sin you are responsible to deal with it.

Generally in practice the attitude of elders is there is no democracy in the locality. Decision making begin and stop with them.
If you're an offended brother who is figuratively used as boxing bag by an elder or elders, you're the one who must apologize, repent, and get right with the brothers for the manner they have responded to you. All accountability lies with the offended one, not with the brothers.

Ohio · 03-26-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

In my fellowship here in Southern California the last three months, a sister gave me a copy of this revolutionary word on Deputy Authority. Can she be challenged based on the Bible, or not? In other words, is the prevailing deputy authority concept manifestly and demonstrably wrong in the Local Churches?

Indiana, who is A.F.?

Cal · 03-26-2012, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Indiana, who is A.F.?

Don't know, but "The Word and the Testimony" is the same entity that published "Speaking the Truth in Love" by John Ingalls back in 1990.

cf. http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=411

Ohio · 03-26-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't know, but "The Word and the Testimony" is the same entity that published "Speaking the Truth in Love" by John Ingalls back in 1990.

Yes.

And there were several other papers printed besides JI's, which should be made available.

TLFisher · 05-28-2015, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

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.

Coworkers, Elders, etc view themselves as being God's Deputy authority. In one moment an elder is a responsible brother for a locality and a deputy authority. Once he falls out of favor with LSM, he's no longer a deputy authority?
For those reading who really cling onto this teaching, what would you say the basis of the deputy authority is? Teaching has been to say it's Christ, but practice has been to indicate an allegiance to a ministry. It also seems the base is on personal preferences, improper AND impure motives or ambitions.

Freedom · 05-28-2015, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Coworkers, Elders, etc view themselves as being God's Deputy authority. In one moment an elder is a responsible brother for a locality and a deputy authority. Once he falls out of favor with LSM, he's no longer a deputy authority?
For those reading who really cling onto this teaching, what would you say the basis of the deputy authority is? Teaching has been to say it's Christ, but practice has been to indicate an allegiance to a ministry. It also seems the base is on personal preferences, improper AND impure motives or ambitions.

With both Nee and Lee, I believe authority was the main means by which they promoted their image and ministry. They both had the capability to have some form of ministry, but I don't think either should have been involved in such a large scale ministry as they each ended up with. Both men had weaknesses and rather than accepting these weaknesses, they needed a way to insulate themselves from their inevitable failures. That was accomplished through establishing themselves as authorities who answered to no one. I would note it is my view that these weaknesses would not have been so much of a problem if they had surrounded themselves with peers who they could work with and hold them accountable.

When Nee was alive, Lee was his "apprentice", not someone who could really hold Nee accountable. When Lee's ministry was underway he had his own set of minions. Never was there anyone that he answered to. Lee best said it himself:
When I went to Taipei, he said, I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do. He continued: None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden.

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

When Nee was alive, Lee was his "apprentice", not someone who could really hold Nee accountable. When Lee's ministry was underway he had his own set of minions. Never was there anyone that he answered to. Lee best said it himself:

"When I went to Taipei, he said, I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do. He continued: None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden."

For many decades Titus Chu did his best to cover for Witness Lee, claiming him as his "spiritual father," and portraying all those over the years who surrounded Lee as bumbling idiots.

This quote makes it clear that Lee was involved with and initiated everything that came from LSM. No excuses should be made for Lee due to all the nonsense that has emanated from LSM in its endless "flows," "moves," and "new ways."

Freedom · 05-28-2015, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This quote makes it clear that Lee was involved with and initiated everything that came from LSM. No excuses should be made for Lee due to all the nonsense that has emanated from LSM in its endless "flows," "moves," and "new ways."

Agreed. It's interesting how Lee insulated himself. He accused others of not being "perfected". Obviously that is true, because no one except God is perfect. Lee forgot to mention that he wasn't perfect as well (he did say that at the end of his life, but very generically). Of course in the LC, no one would dare to question something like that. To anyone on the outside, Lee's talk would sound like utter nonsense, but for someone who has spent time in the LC, the notions put forth in that statement are all too familiar. In fact, if I had heard a BB or elder say something like that several years ago, I would have swallowed it without a second thought.

TLFisher · 05-29-2015, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Agreed. It's interesting how Lee insulated himself. He accused others of not being "perfected". Obviously that is true, because no one except God is perfect. Lee forgot to mention that he wasn't perfect as well (he did say that at the end of his life, but very generically). Of course in the LC, no one would dare to question something like that.

First let's talk about what it is to be "perfected". In the Local Churches, it's supposed to have "positive" implications. In plain English for everyone to understand, it is to verbally abuse with the expectation the recipient of your "perfecting" work will be submissive. In normal Christian fellowship brothers are spoken to as men and treated as men. In normal Christian fellowship the LC concept of "perfecting" will result in a Matthew 18:15 fellowship. Being raised in the local churches occasionally my dad would take me aside and say, "be constructive and not destructive". That being said, as an adult I tend to view myself as a nice brother with a very bad temper. I'm sure there are other brothers with my temperament who wouldn't take kindly to the LC concept of "perfecting" (verbal abuse).

When Witness Lee had his memorial service, it was video recorded and at least replayed in the locality I met with. I recall the brothers speaking regarding Witness Lee as "being perfected". Perhaps due the "shouting from the rooftops" we have been doing on this forum currently and previously on thebereans.net, the brothers have reversed their stance. At least Ron Kangas has in his visits to the NW. I have listened to Ron backtracking saying Witness Lee did make mistakes. It's much more changing their tune, than questioning what was previously uttered.

03-24-2012, 01:00 PM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	God's economy vs Deputy authority In my fellowship here in Southern California the last three months, a sister gave me a copy of this revolutionary word on Deputy Authority. Can she be challenged based on the Bible, or not? In other words, is the prevailing deputy authority concept manifestly and demonstrably wrong in the Local Churches? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOD’S NEW TESTAMENT ECONOMY VS. DEPUTY AUTHORITY The Definition of God’s New Testament Economy What, specifically, is God’s New Testament economy in this age? This term has been used much--but what truly, according to the pure word of God, does this terminology mean? Economy is, of course, the way a person or thing operates in order to obtain its goal or go about its business. Is there, specifically, a difference in the way God “goes about His business” in the New Testament than He did in the Old Testament? We are told in precise words that there is (Jer. 31:31 –34; Ezek. 36:26 –29; Heb. 8:8–12). God foretold to His people that He would establish a new covenant with His people in the latter days. He even told His people what the details of that covenant would be (Jer. 31:31-34) and reiterated the items of that very covenant after it was effected (Heb. 8:8-12). Not only so, but that covenant was,and had to be, effected at the price of the precious blood of Christ. Therefore, that covenant is to us no more just a covenant--but it is a testament, a will, effected by the death of Christ. How very significant the elements of that New Testament must be to us since they necessitated the highest price in the universe to secure for us! Surely, as Christians, there is nothing more paramount than this for us to guard and pay our allegiance to in this age. That will or covenant is what God Himself declares to be the precise statement of His New Testament economy. Furthermore that will is directed at specifically one thing: that is, to restore the direct headship of God over His people by supplanting all rules, laws, principles, and speakings of man, whether they be by prophets or any other men. Therefore, to the extent that any man attempts to establish himself or his ministry as God's unique spokesman in this age, he is coming directly against the heart of God's New Testament economy and setting aside one of the most distinct elements for which Christ died. A Contrast Between the Old and New Testament The book of Hebrews, the most distinct book in the Bible comparing and contrasting the believer's New Testament inheritance with the inferior substitutes in the Old Testament begins by announcing: "In many portions and in many ways, God, having spoken of old to the fathers in the prophets,has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (Heb.1: 1-2a) This means that in the New Testament age, God's mode of speaking has changed. We no longer need to go to one man to learn the mind and heart of God. Not only do we not need to go to one man, but the very concept of going to one man as the oracle of God is directly opposed to what Christ shed His blood to produce for us as New Testament children of God. The Element of God's New Testament Economy The primary elements of what Christ died to purchase for us as our New Testament inheritance are listed in Hebrews 8:10-12. They are: (1) That God would impart His laws directly into the mind and heart of every believer (rather than necessitating them to either read them off a tablet of stone somewhere or hear them from an external spokesman). (2) That the believers would no longer teach their fellow servants to know the Lord because all shall know Him (no longer necessitating a spiritual mentor because He now indwells us all). (3) That God would be our God and we would be His people. (4) The forgiveness of sins. Coming against point one or two is just as definite a violation of the New Testament as coming against point four; that is, coming against Christ having shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins. What a serious sin it is to set up any man as the unique spokesman for God in the New Testament age! Elevating Leaders is An Affront to God's New Testament Economy The Apostle Paul unquestionably realized this fact, therefore, when the Corinthian believers divided themselves against one for another by boasting, "I am of Cephas," "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," he neither explained to them the sequence of "first order apostle, second order apostle, third order apostle," etc., nor did he initiate a doctrine of "deputy authority" and claimed that there was only one "unique oracle" in every age, and that, of course, he himself happened to be that one. Instead, he declared, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God made to grow; so that neither is the one who plants (I, Paul) anything, nor the one who waters (Apollos), but the One Who makes to grow, God" (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Paul realized that the lifting up of any man (including himself), among the believers, was in direct violation of God's New Testament economy, a damage to the Body of Christ, and an affront to God Himself. No doubt, that is why Paul thanked God that he did not baptize any more than two believers among them. He surely did not want to compound their problem of boasting in men any more than it was already compounded, and possibly even suffer the judgment of God's jealousy upon himself, as well. Although it is absurd to compare anyone of our age to the stature of the Apostle Paul, through whom the majority of the New Testament was written, brothers with far less stature and even some of questionable character have been much quicker to take upon themselves a glory which Paul so wisely refused. Nowhere in the New Testament is the concept of "deputy authority" even hinted at. To the contrary, Jesus stated,"The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 20:25b-26) God Desired Direct Headship Over His People Even in the Old Testament Age It appears that not just in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, also, it has been God's desire to be the direct ruler over His people,rather than allow them to submit to a visible "king". That is why, when Israel asked for a visible king (God being their invisible king) to judge them like all the nations, God told Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me" (1 Sam. 8:7). Let us learn from the parable spoken by Jotham in Judges 9:7-15. No proper person of life (olive, fig or vine) will take any position of authority. Only one without life (thorn) will rule over others and eventually destroy them. Even the leaders established in the Old Testament, such as Moses, Joshua and David, were types of Christ as God's uniquely Anointed One, leading all of God's people. We fall into much error today when we misapply the authority given to these figures to any so-called leaders in our present day. Not only so, but as previously stated, the elements of the New Testament for which Christ died are directed at just this point--to abolish all mediators, whether human or otherwise, between God and man, and re-establish the direct headship of God over every one of His chosen and redeemed people. The Erroneous Teaching of "Deputy Authority" Let us lay to rest, once for all, the erroneous teaching of "deputy authority" as a governing principle in the New Testament--overriding man's individual conscience, sense of righteousness and holiness, and direct lordship by Christ Himself. The Bible tells us nothing more clearly than the fact that human government must always bow to man's conscience and the direct rule of God over the individual. Obedience directly to God is the only unqualified obedience a man can give. All men are fallen. Because of that, our obedience to any man can and must be limited and qualified to the extent each man's individual conscience can support it. The Bible also makes clear to us that God is no respecter either of any man's person (Gal. 2:6; Acts 10:34; James 2:1) or any man's position. We are, in the New Testament,told to submit to "elders" and also to submit "one to another" in love. This should indeed be our hearts' attitude toward every member of the Body of Christ--but only so far as our conscience and the direct rule of God support that submission. We are told in plain words,"The head of every man is Christ" (1 Cor. 11;3), and "There is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the Man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5) It is true that at the time of Noah, after man's conscience had failed as the unique governing agent, God established human government. However, whenever human government--whether that government is familial,secular, or spiritual—comes into conflict with the direct rule of man by God, the Bible shows us clearly that man pays heavily, even grievously, for not submitting to God and overthrowing that government. 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. The Example of Moses and Aaron Take for instance, the Old Testament example of Moses, so often cited by W. Lee and his followers as the epitome of deputy authority. No doubt Moses’ responsibility for God's people and his commission to lead them are substantiated in the scriptures more clearly than that of any other man. In that sense, Moses is far more a type of Christ, the uniquely Anointed One, than he is a type of any other man. The New Testament repeatedly substantiates this (John 5:46; Heb. 3:3; Luke 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:7-11). Due to that, I believe it is dangerous for any man in our age to liken himself or any other man to Moses. Still, Moses, unlike Christ, did fail to perfectly fulfill God's representation among God's people. At that point, therefore, we are given a clear picture of what happens to a man or men who fail to act when even an unmistakably appointed minister of God fails in his representation of God's authority. (Interestingly enough, this is never cited by those who would like to use Moses as justification for lording it over God's people.) Apparently, Moses was faithful to God's commission throughout the entire forty years in the wilderness, with the exception of misinterpreting God's feeling toward the people at the waters of Meribah (Num. 20:10-13). At that time Moses became angry and smote the rock before God's people, in spite of the fact that God had said simply to speak to the rock. For that single offense, Moses was not permitted to enter into the good land of Canaan, but was allowed to view the land. However, for our purposes, we need to see what was done to Aaron for the sin which Moses committed but Aaron did not publicly separate himself from. Aaron lost both his life and his ministry when Moses committed the sin of misrepresenting God before the people. There is no record that Aaron committed any sin of his own other than failing to stand against Moses' sin of representing God before the people (Num. 20:24, 10-13). God had said to Moses, "You shall be as God to him (Aaron)" (Exo. 4:16). Surely, if there is anything that resembles "deputy authority" in the Bible, it could not be stronger than Moses' God-appointed relationship to Aaron. Yet Aaron still faced a judgment greater than that upon Moses, when he failed to stand with God directly at the waters of Meribah. Another incident which illustrates the same point of God's drastic judgment upon one of His people who failed to listen to Him directly, but obeyed a "delegated authority," instead, is the incident of the man of God and the old prophet (1 Kings 13). The man of God was told directly by God not to eat, drink or remain in that city (1 Kings 13:9-16). However the old prophet declared that he, too, was a prophet and had been told by an angel of the Lord to bring him back, feed him and give him drink. The man of God, therefore, hearkened to the elder "delegated authority," instead of the direct speaking of God--which,as with Aaron, cost him his life. Consider, also, the New Testament example of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Surely, the husband has been appointed on earth as head over his wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). still, Sapphira lost her life for not separating herself from the sin of her husband in this matter, but "covering" him by lying to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the Scriptures give us numerous positive examples of men, either for God's sake of under His direct leading, overthrowing the rule of those originally appointed over them governmentally. As part of Gideon's original commission by God, God ordered Gideon to throw down the altar of Baal that belonged to his father (Judges 6:25). When Nabal, Abigail's husband, despised David and his men and determined to do evil against them, Abigail rose and took loaves, wine, raisins, cakes and figs to him. She said to David concerning her husband, "Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, even Nabal" (which means 'fool'); for as his name is, so is he" (1 Sam. 25:25). For that "rebellious" deed of protecting David's interests (who is a type of Christ), Abigail was given the privilege of marrying David, and is presented to us in the Scriptures as a type of the church militant. In the New Testament we are told concerning secular governments, "Let every person be subject to the authorities over them. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose will receive to themselves judgment" (Rom. 13:1-2). Yet when the rulers charged Peter and John not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you judge; for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). Even secular governments which recognize the supreme authority of God over the individual. For instance, in America a man can be court-martialed and even executed for deserting or failing to bear his military responsibility in time of war. However, if he can prove that his unwillingness to bear arms is truly a matter of his conscience in answering directly to the all-sovereign God, the government will bow and not override that man's conscience. Then, too, the international tribunal at Nuremburg established to judge the Nazi war crimes committed under Hitler declared that man is responsible for his own actions--in spite of any orders he may have received from a higher authority. They further declared that soldiers and citizens have a moral obligation to disobey orders and laws which violate their consciences in dealing with other men. If an international, non- Christian tribunal recognizes and bows to the direct supremacy of God over man versus that of any "deputy authority," how much more we Christians must come to the same definite recognition. - A.F. ******** * 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.This is the reason that the Lord Jesus said that we all are brothers and that only Christ is our Leader, Guide, Instructor, and Director. Although God's economy puts all believers in Christ on the same level, the natural concept is that in the church, as in any social group or organization,there should be a special class of leaders. - L.S.of Ephesians p.348 * 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 * Others have asked me if the elders have authority. This question springs from the natural concept concerning rank. If we were not under the influence of the natural concept, we would not raise this question. I repeat, in the church there is no such thing as rank. Rather, we all are stewards of the grace of God,and we submit ourselves one to another. - L.S. of Ephesians p.364 * None of us in the church life should hold to any personal standing. Of course, we must stand firm for the Lord's testimony. However, we should not claim any standing, title or position for ourselves. - L.S. of Philippians p.93 * To control others means to make decisions for them and to tell them what to do or not to do. It is to put people under your direction. In the Lord's recovery, we must hate this kind of control. No one should exercise control, because we all are under the one Lord and have the one Spirit living in us and leading us. - L.S. of Matthew p.655 * Exalting spiritual giants not only destroys the church; it also causes us to be self-deceived. ...In the Lord's recovery there must not be the exalting of any person. - L.S. of 1 Corinthians p.291 * One should never be so mistaken as to consider oneself the authority. God alone has authority; no one else possesses it. - Spiritual Authority p.120 (No. SA-01, free of charge) The Word & The Testimony P.O. Box 2185 Anaheim, CA. 92814 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-24-2012, 08:36 PM	#2
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: God's economy vs Deputy authority - A. F. What is the "working" definition for "Deputy authority"? Obviously the NT talks about "authority". Ephesians talks about all authority was given unto Christ for the Church. The concept of head covering is related to authority and its practical application in the church life. Paul and Peter were both involved in counsels to hear their personal revelations before the church received the word. In Timothy it says that the Law is made for the lawless and disobedient, clearly the law has authority over the lawless and that would be administered by man. The entire concept of deputy authority was always taught with the analogy of a policeman and the uniform. 1Peter 5:5 exhorts the younger to submit to the elders. 1Pet 2:13 tells us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, not just laws but even things like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Probably the most relevant verse would be 1Cor 16:16 where Paul tells us to submit ourselves to all those who are similar to Stephanas (who was addicted to the ministry of the saints) and all others who help Paul and labor with him. So without knowing what the definition of "deputy authority" is that this person is referring to I would have no way to respond other than the premise that the concept of "deputy authority is not in the NT" is clearly not true based on a standard dictionary definition of the terms.