David, Saul, and Deputy Authority

[Unsure]

So today, my mom (who's on children's service) is giving a lesson on David and Saul. She originally needed my help, but the number of kids here today is really low. The topic?

Basically the first 2.5 pages of Authority and Submission Chapter 4.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=8Hl...bs_toc_r&cad=4

I've seen the term "deputy authority" used a lot on this site as one of the more damaging aspects of the LC's doctrine. From what I understand, it's the concept that "God puts certain people in positions of Authority (anoints them); to defy them is to defy the anointing, and by extension God.

David was one who knew God’s authority from his heart. He was chased by Saul many times, yet he still submitted to God’s authority. He considered Saul as lord the anointed of God. This speaks of an important matter. Submission to authority is not submission to a person. It is submission to the anointing upon the person for that anointing was upon him when God set him up as authority. David knew of the anointing on Saul. He acknowledged that Saul was God’s anointed. Therefore, he could only seek for his own escape. He could not put forth his hand to hurt Saul. Saul was disobedient to God’s command. He was rejected by God. This was something between Saul and God however. As for David, he submitted to God’s anointed. This was David’s responsibility before God.

I'm probably stating the obvious here, but I smell a rat. Or am I just being paranoid?

Having been taught this as a child (without knowing what it's called), I'm having trouble seeing where this is wrong doctrinally, but in practice, this raises tons of red flags. Isn't this basically a Carte Blanche for the higher ups to do whatever they want, with God being the sole judge of their actions and them being untouchable by those below them?

I know of at least one kid who won't like to hear that.

[awareness]

This teaching about God anointing an authority on earth, in every age, is nothing more than an eisegesis of the Bible coming from the minds of megalomaniacs.

And both Nee and Lee, in my IMHO, should be laugh at into silence for teaching it, and dismissed out of hand completely, and all else they've got to say should be disregarded and discredited as nonsense.

[aron]

A & S is the manual for discipline in an oriental Christian church, and came from reading the Bible with an oriental cultural predisposition. It obviously met some need of the indigenous Chinese church known as the Little Flock, but its success in being exported to other lands has been dubious at best - storm after storm. As a point of comparison with the LC, I don't think Stephen Kaung used this methodology in his church, but I may be wrong. Certainly in the LC it's led to unending turmoil.

Here's my question: if absolute submission to authority was so important, why didn't Watchman Nee repent when he discovered this idea, and return to the authority of the Methodists from whence he'd come? No, Nee only discovered the principle of God's Deputy once his association with the foreign devils was severed, and he needed to maintain order in his own church. Suddenly submission to authority became a crucial matter; suddenly autonomy and independence were forgotten, and centralization and control became the new foci.

Probably the biggest challenge facing the Chinese Christian church in the early decades of the 20th century was not sin, or God, or faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; it was affiliation with the Western barbarians. Watchman Nee's Exclusive Brethren-redux model resonated with the natives, such that thousands of them left Western church affiliates in the 1930s, and came to Nee's Little Flock. So A & S met the cultural imperatives of these new Chinese assemblies. But it isn't universally relevant, as its proponents want you to think. If it was universal, then Nee et al should have repented of their 'rebellion' and gone back to the Protestant church which they'd left. As it was, they conveniently discovered the principle of submission to God's Deputy only after they'd removed themselves from the unpleasant odor of foreign domination. Timing is everything, as they say.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Unsure

So today, my mom (who's on children's service) is giving a lesson on David and Saul. She originally needed my help, but the number of kids here today is really low. The topic?

Basically the first 2.5 pages of Authority and Submission Chapter 4.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=8Hl...bs_toc_r&cad=4

I've seen the term "deputy authority" used a lot on this site as one of the more damaging aspects of the LC's doctrine. From what I understand, it's the concept that "God puts certain people in positions of Authority (anoints them); to defy them is to defy the anointing, and by extension God.


I'm probably stating the obvious here, but I smell a rat. Or am I just being paranoid?

Having been taught this as a child (without knowing what it's called), I'm having trouble seeing where this is wrong doctrinally, but in practice, this raises tons of red flags. Isn't this basically a Carte Blanche for the higher ups to do whatever they want, with God being the sole judge of their actions and them being untouchable by those below them?

I know of at least one kid who won't like to hear that.

The interpretation of David's interaction with Saul encapsulated in the teaching of Deputy Authority is faulty and has been misused to protect leaders from all evaluation and accountability. That's not what David did. What David did was "not kill Saul". If you read the interactions between David and Saul, David has no hesitation in exposing Saul's unrighteousness, although he did it in a way couched in grace and mercy. This is consistent with principles set forth in the New Testament where we are told to confront leaders when they sin.

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

Matthew 18:15
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The interpretation of David's interaction with Saul encapsulated in the teaching of Deputy Authority is faulty and has been misused to protect leaders from all evaluation and accountability. That's not what David did. What David did was "not kill Saul". If you read the interactions between David and Saul, David has no hesitation in exposing Saul's unrighteousness, although he did it in a way couched in grace and mercy. This is consistent with principles set forth in the New Testament where we are told to confront leaders when they sin.

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

Matthew 18:15
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."

Thank you for your sensible post.

On the point that "David did not kill Saul", but did expose his unrighteousness, yet couched in grace and mercy, this was the attitude of each former leader toward Witness Lee in my contact with them.

Although they were indeed killed by brother Lee, they would not kill him. They were very soft instead, caring for their spirit and remembering him with a grateful heart, understanding who he was to them and to the churches for so many years.

Unquestionably to most, Witness Lee's contribution to the church was invaluable, as was Watchman Nee's before him. But these were men; not gods; they had certain failures that seriously impacted the whole Body of Christ, as their weaknesses became manifest.

To the poster "Unsure", in the following link is a history of the deputy authority teaching and practice, including its early development in China with Watchman Nee, where authoritarian behavior, as seen in the Local Churches today, took root.

http://twoturmoils.com/DeputyAuthori...dofOneness.pdf

[OBW]

I find the story of David relative to Saul to be of little value in modern terms. Saul was specifically anointed by God to reign over the Children of Israel. While God cut off his offspring from inheriting the position, Saul was left as king.

Where is there any evidence that God has anointed anyone from the time of Paul to this day to stand in such a high position that a righteous man would not dare to strike out against him? Surely not Nee or Lee. And I daresay, not anyone.

Just like the arguments concerning the prophecies and promises specifically to Israel, how does anything about the anointed King of Israel have anything to do with self-appointed leaders of modern Christian sects?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think David and Jonathan is far more interesting than Saul. David loved Jonathan like many today say we should love the Lord. That can speak to today, methinks.

Might not be good for marriages but the LGBT community loves it.

The problem here is that "love" is much more than sex and lust. But that is all anyone hears when they use that word now.

It was not so from the beginning.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Where is there any evidence that God has anointed anyone from the time of Paul to this day to stand in such a high position that a righteous man would not dare to strike out against him? Surely not Nee or Lee. And I daresay, not anyone.

And note the natural corollary of presuming "to stand in such a high position" in the modern church - the advisement to "touch not mine anointed" (1 Chron. 16:22 etc) can be ignored by the modern apostle, or his deputies. I've seen many a Deputy God in the LC reach out from the dias or lectern or podium to touch the rank-and-file.

The idea of "such a high position" within the flock entails a two-tier, or even multi-tier church life. Those who are anointed (all of us) and those who have the untouchable extra something.

So like the classic dystopian novella, we realize that we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. We're all priests and kings, but some are more priestly and kingly than others. We're all anointed, but some of the anointed can be touched, and some cannot. It's a strange kind of wink-wink, nod-nod world where we preach one thing, but (wink-wink) eventually you'll get it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

And note the natural corollary of presuming "to stand in such a high position" in the modern church - the advisement to "touch not mine anointed" (1 Chron. 16:22 etc) can be ignored by the modern apostle, or his deputies. I've seen many a Deputy God in the LC reach out from the dias or lectern or podium to touch the rank-and-file.

The idea of "such a high position" within the flock entails a two-tier, or even multi-tier church life. Those who are anointed (all of us) and those who have the untouchable extra something.

So like the classic dystopian novella, we realize that we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. We're all priests and kings, but some are more priestly and kingly than others. We're all anointed, but some of the anointed can be touched, and some cannot. It's a strange kind of wink-wink, nod-nod world where we preach one thing, but (wink-wink) eventually you'll get it.

I understand that we are all priests and kings. And at the same time there are those who are given charge over flocks. And more is required of them.

But nowhere is there an edict to ignore their sins. Paul was adamant to the opposite. They are to be made examples of for the flock when they fail. This "cover your DA/MOTA" stuff is absolutely contrary to NT teaching.

I don't need to discuss what they actually did with it. The fact that they presumed something so outlandish from a claim of inference when the scripture directly says the opposite — well there is no reason to continue to debate the issue. They are simply wrong.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem here is that "love" is much more than sex and lust. But that is all anyone hears when they use that word now.

It was not so from the beginning.

As if David had no part of sex and lust ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand that we are all priests and kings. And at the same time there are those who are given charge over flocks. And more is required of them.

But nowhere is there an edict to ignore their sins. Paul was adamant to the opposite. They are to be made examples of for the flock when they fail. This "cover your DA/MOTA" stuff is absolutely contrary to NT teaching.

I don't need to discuss what they actually did with it. The fact that they presumed something so outlandish from a claim of inference when the scripture directly says the opposite — well there is no reason to continue to debate the issue. They are simply wrong.

But if you take away deputy authority the whole local church system falls down.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Unsure

So today, my mom (who's on children's service) is giving a lesson on David and Saul. She originally needed my help, but the number of kids here today is really low. The topic?

Basically the first 2.5 pages of Authority and Submission Chapter 4.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=8Hl...bs_toc_r&cad=4

I've seen the term "deputy authority" used a lot on this site as one of the more damaging aspects of the LC's doctrine. From what I understand, it's the concept that "God puts certain people in positions of Authority (anoints them); to defy them is to defy the anointing, and by extension God.



I'm probably stating the obvious here, but I smell a rat. Or am I just being paranoid?

Having been taught this as a child (without knowing what it's called), I'm having trouble seeing where this is wrong doctrinally, but in practice, this raises tons of red flags. Isn't this basically a Carte Blanche for the higher ups to do whatever they want, with God being the sole judge of their actions and them being untouchable by those below them?

I know of at least one kid who won't like to hear that.

What do you tell the kids now that "deputy authority" has been disseminated throughout a bunch of "blended" brothers? Might I suggest, "according to the last deputy authority, God has cancelled the eternal principle that there is one man who is deputy authority in every age, kids. Now we have the authority of the "blended brothers" a principle you won't find anywhere in the Bible. Don't try to understand this kids. Just shout "Amen, Hallelujah", hang in there and follow whatever we tell you next."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The interpretation of David's interaction with Saul encapsulated in the teaching of Deputy Authority is faulty and has been misused to protect leaders from all evaluation and accountability. That's not what David did. What David did was "not kill Saul". If you read the interactions between David and Saul, David has no hesitation in exposing Saul's unrighteousness, although he did it in a way couched in grace and mercy. This is consistent with principles set forth in the New Testament where we are told to confront leaders when they sin.

There are some good replies in this thread, this one may be the best. The salient point being "This is consistent with principles set forth in the New Testament". Witness Lee was very fond of using Old Testament "principles", such as the Deputy Authority teaching, and bring them forth into the Church age without regard for the history of the Church. This is what happens when men throw off all the wisdom and experience garnered by wise scholars, teachers and Christian leaders over the past 2,000 years. The results are usually false teachings, and even worse, the abuse of God's people. Unfortunately, the history of the Local Church is replete with such false teachings and abuse of God's people, and as some have pointed out, the abuse continues to this very day, principally by the leadership of the Living Stream Ministry, the "blended brothers".

One of the most insidious aspects of this Deputy Authority teaching is the notion that spiritual authority can somehow be bequeathed from one Christian leader to another. This is a foreign concept to the New Testament. In fact, the teachings of Christ and the early apostles illustrate quite the opposite. One could give a lot of examples from the Gospels and in the epistles of Paul, Peter and John, but I'll let what I have posted here just stand alone for now.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Unfortunately, the history of the Local Church is replete with such false teachings and abuse of God's people, and as some have pointed out, the abuse continues to this very day, principally by the leadership of the Living Stream Ministry, the "blended brothers".

One of the most insidious aspects of this Deputy Authority teaching is the notion that spiritual authority can somehow be bequeathed from one Christian leader to another. This is a foreign concept to the New Testament. In fact, the teachings of Christ and the early apostles illustrate quite the opposite. One could give a lot of examples from the Gospels and in the epistles of Paul, Peter and John, but I'll let what I have posted here just stand alone for now.

You won't find deputy authority teaching in the New Testament Ministry, but you will find deputy authority teaching in European history aka divine rights of kings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

But if you take away deputy authority the whole local church system falls down.

Very true Awareness. Without the deputy authority teaching, pride and verbal abuses (aka perfecting) won't be tolerated.
So-called responsible brothers wouldn't be able to run roughshod over brothers and sisters. Instead of abuses going unchecked, one might find himself being crosschecked.
Without deputy authority, there's no control to ensure churches lineup with headquarters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

You won't find deputy authority teaching in the New Testament Ministry, but you will find deputy authority teaching in European history aka divine rights of kings.

Bro Zeek put it succinctly on AltVs:

Deputy Authority Delusional Disorder is very rare. There's one case in every Age.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Zeek put it succinctly on AltVs:

Deputy Authority Delusional Disorder is very rare. There's one case in every Age.

Actually, every exclusive congregation can claim their own Deputy Authority. We could have lots of these guys running around. Rome has one, the Peebs have one, who knows how many have been officially "deputized."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Zeek put it succinctly on AltVs:

Deputy Authority Delusional Disorder is very rare. There's one case in every Age.

If only it was rare. Now we have the blended-fold intensified deputy authority trove. They have expounded upon Lee's MOTA teaching, and probably pushed it even more than he ever did. They wanted to promote Lee to a even higher status, and secondly to promote themselves as his heir.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If only it was rare. Now we have the blended-fold intensified deputy authority trove. They have expounded upon Lee's MOTA teaching, and probably pushed it even more than he ever did. They wanted to promote Lee to a even higher status, and secondly to promote themselves as his heir.

If Saul is a type of the minister of the age that explains a lot about Nee and Lee.

The Chinese cried out to God, "Give us a king," and God gave 'em Nee. We Americans cried out to God, "Give us a king." and God gave us Lee.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Chinese cried out to God, "Give us a king," and God gave 'em Nee. We Americans cried out to God, "Give us a king." and God gave us Lee.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The Chinese wanted a Chinese king. They were tired of Methodists and Presbyterians and Catholics from the West. They wanted one of their own. So God gave them Watchman Nee.

40 years later, the Americans were also in a Crisis. Cuba was going over to the commies, and nuclear war was hard upon. Bay of Pigs. The Closing Circle (Barry Commoner).

http://www.amazon.com/The-Closing-Ci.../dp/039442350X

And so on. I could list a dozen things. Vietnam. Civil Rights... A hundred if you gave me time. The West was in crisis, so many of the (naive) younger folks looked to the wisdom of the East for a rising star. And they got Witness Lee and Daystar.

"Meet the new Boss..."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

You won't find deputy authority teaching in the New Testament Ministry, but . . . .

Can we just say that there is a New Testament. When we capitalize "Ministry" we make it into a defined term. I know you don't mean it that way. But just like inerrant, something so special as to warrant capitalization tends to infer that there is a spin on what that means.

The LCM uses the term New Testament Ministry all the time and they don't mean the same thing. Better to just say that you don't find deputy authority in the New Testament. If that is true, then no matter what you think is the New Testament Ministry, it shouldn't be part of it. Meanwhile, the LCM says that DA is in the New Testament Ministry.

[awareness]

Good correction on New Testament Ministry.

Originally Posted by OBW

Meanwhile, the LCM says that DA is in the New Testament Ministry.

Do they say where in the New Testament?

They can't say Paul was the minister of his age, cuz there were plenty of other apostles back then, obviously.

None of the apostles claimed to be the MOTA, even tho Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom, and made his brother James leader of the C. in Jerusalem. Try as they may I can't see Nee, Lee, or LSM being able to say that there was a MOTA, or DA, in the early development of Christianity.

I'm lost on that one. Someone educate me. (Untohim agrees I really need it ... and lots of it). Where is the local church able to find DA in the NT? I'm assuming they do find NT justification for DA in the NT. But that just tells me how important the DA is to maintain their personality (or personalities) Lee cult.

Wasn't the MOTA/DA notion born with the idea and practice of the Pope of Rome, made official in the 11th c.? They do teach that Peter was the MOTA/DA, in their terms tho. Was Peter THE minister or DA of his age?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

If Saul is a type of the minister of the age that explains a lot about Nee and Lee.

The Chinese cried out to God, "Give us a king," and God gave 'em Nee. We Americans cried out to God, "Give us a king." and God gave us Lee.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I think people want to have leaders, but they don't always know what kind of leader they want. People thus end up with both good bad ones. As leaders rise and fall, they can be evaluated by weighing their good and bad. That process should help people to narrow down what kind of leaders they want. Within the LC, a critical assessment of Lee and his blended enlargement is sorely needed. Without that, everything in the LC reeks of being similar to somewhere like North Korea where Kim Jong-un is the supreme leader and cannot be critiqued. This image accurately depicts how LCers view their hero-leaders:


To me, the problem is not so much the fact that there is a leader, but is the question of whether or not the leader is held accountable. The big trap LCers fell into was to hold Lee as being infallible ("even when he's wrong, he's right").

Some have said that they were helped by his ministry in some way or another. The problem is, that because this "help" can't be separated from the dross of Lee's ministry, it ultimately has devalued his ministry for all but the blindest of his followers. When his ranting and raving is given the same weight as his Biblical exposition, it ultimately negates any benefit of his ministry. The only thing gained by promoting Lee as the supreme leader is that members view Lee and his successors as kings. To anyone outside of the LC, this is viewed as being suspiciously cult-like (as it should).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Within the LC, a critical assessment of Lee and his blended enlargement is sorely needed. Without that, everything in the LC reeks of being similar to somewhere like North Korea where Kim Jong-un is the supreme leader and cannot be critiqued. This image accurately depicts how LCers view their hero-leaders:


To me, the problem is not so much the fact that there is a leader, but is the question of whether or not the leader is held accountable. The big trap LCers fell into was to hold Lee as being infallible ("even when he's wrong, he's right").

I believe many in the local churches want to be led spiritually, but is that conditionally or absolutely? When there's a culture where the leaders don't consider themselves accountable to anyone but God, that's when brothers and sisters in the local churches must ask themselves, "do we want to be led or do we want to be lorded over?"

To often it seems when the LC leadership are brought under scrutiny, under examination, that's when tendencies rise up to lord over the saints. "We're the authority!" That's when decisions are made which saints are not to be received.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Do they say where in the New Testament?

They can't? Are you sure? They sure seem to be doing it.

Now the fact that they don't have actual NT basis for it is a trivial thing to them. Lee said it and that is the Newer Testament.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee said it and that is the Newer Testament.

That's a hoot! That's what some of the hard core Lee followers believe, that Lee's writings are the definitive commentary to interpreting the New Testament.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

That's a hoot! That's what some of the hard core Lee followers believe, that Lee's writings are the definitive commentary to interpreting the New Testament.

From where do these hard core Lee followers believe Lee gets his interpretation of the NT?

[aron]

Like most things in the human realm, we all have subjective impressions. Looking at a painting in a museum, three people might "see" three different things, or aspects, or interpretations. Perhaps all three (or more) impressions woven together might make more of the story. So what follows are my subjective impressions.

If Deputy Authority was so crucial, then why did Nee leave the Anglicans? His grandfather was an Anglican minister, and Nee went to an Anglican college. And Lee likewise was raised with the Baptists - if obeying those above you were such an issue, then why reject the admittedly imperfect Baptists?

Oh, because first we have to "recover" the local ground, which conveniently removes us from the taint of foreign control. Then, we look in the Bible and lo and behold! We discover the DA. But if we'd discovered the DA first, we never could have left the denominations. The timing is altogether too convenient (self-serving) for my liking.

Was ME Barber the so-called spiritual giant, the DA of the early 20th century, or was there another? If Nee was attached to her, and she had "rebelled" against some sending missionary authority, and gone to China on her own, and Nee joined her in rebellion, how is this? Conversely, how was she not subject to any authority, unless she was God's DA herself? Only the DA is exempt from getting in Nee's proverbial line - "Find out who's in charge, and get in line" - if MEB exempted herself from this, then either she was God's DA or she was in rebellion against God's DA.

Again, I find it far too convenient for my taste, to presume that God has restricted his move on the earth to you and you alone. (Not saying that this is what MEB taught, but that what WL et al seem to ascribe to her, to flesh out the DA idea, and the 'Barber-Nee-Lee' lineage thereof.)

Originally Posted by OBW

The LCM uses the term New Testament Ministry all the time and they don't mean the same thing. Better to just say that you don't find deputy authority in the New Testament. If that is true, then no matter what you think is the New Testament Ministry, it shouldn't be part of it. Meanwhile, the LCM says that DA is in the New Testament Ministry.

We can say that the DA is seen in the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings, but we can also see beheading repeatedly in the NT, e.g. in Luke's writings (9:9; Acts 12:2) which doesn't make it the universal norm. In order to tease out the DA motif from the letter of Paul (his writings), and give it some actuality, reality, or concreteness on your preferred manner, you need to violate the spirit of Paul, and the both spirit and the letter of Jesus. The Bible presents us an organic whole, a testimony undisturbed, and we can't overturn or ignore any part in order to make it say something we prefer.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

We can say that the DA is seen in the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings, but we can also see beheading repeatedly in the NT, e.g. in Luke's writings (9:9; Acts 12:2) which doesn't make it the universal norm. In order to tease out the DA motif from the letter of Paul (his writings), and give it some actuality, reality, or concreteness on your preferred manner, you need to violate the spirit of Paul, and the both spirit and the letter of Jesus. The Bible presents us an organic whole, a testimony undisturbed, and we can't overturn or ignore any part in order to make it say something we prefer.

I don't think you need to be concerned that Paul somehow might support deputy authority. While he does refer to responsibility and to the willingness of the believers to take all the good teaching and leadership that is given, he also refuses to suggest that there is ever a cause to "cover" the sins of any kind of leader. While he is careful to keep a single naysayer from making a charge that sticks, if there are two making the charge, it is accepted.

And then the leader is to be made an example of for the benefit of the body, not quietly swept away. I think of the debacle relating to BM when he was quitely sent out to East Texas for allegedly personal reasons — all at the insistence of Lee. That really worked well. It was the error that keeps on erring.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

If Deputy Authority was so crucial, then why did Nee leave the Anglicans? His grandfather was an Anglican minister, and Nee went to an Anglican college. And Lee likewise was raised with the Baptists - if obeying those above you were such an issue, then why reject the admittedly imperfect Baptists?

Oh, because first we have to "recover" the local ground, which conveniently removes us from the taint of foreign control. Then, we look in the Bible and lo and behold! We discover the DA. But if we'd discovered the DA first, we never could have left the denominations. The timing is altogether too convenient (self-serving) for my liking.

Was ME Barber the so-called spiritual giant, the DA of the early 20th century, or was there another? If Nee was attached to her, and she had "rebelled" against some sending missionary authority, and gone to China on her own, and Nee joined her in rebellion, how is this? Conversely, how was she not subject to any authority, unless she was God's DA herself? Only the DA is exempt from getting in Nee's proverbial line - "Find out who's in charge, and get in line" - if MEB exempted herself from this, then either she was God's DA or she was in rebellion against God's DA.

Again, I find it far too convenient for my taste, to presume that God has restricted his move on the earth to you and you alone. (Not saying that this is what MEB taught, but that what WL et al seem to ascribe to her, to flesh out the DA idea, and the 'Barber-Nee-Lee' lineage thereof.)

For both Nee and Lee, I think there were many reasons the deputy authority teaching was appealing. Part of it was cultural, some of it was the example of M.E. Barber, both men wanted to be recognized as having "new light", and Lee in particular, wanted to operate as a one man show. The deputy authority teaching was thus the perfect fit for a variety of reasons.

If we were to give both Nee and Lee the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't have ulterior motives, then above anything else, it would seem the deputy authority teaching was the necessary ingredient to make the ground of locality work. For Lee in particular, because the ground of locality became his pet doctrine, thus he needed it to work at any cost.

The more I've read, the more I've come to realize that the problems created by the ground of locality doctrine were visible and apparent even from Nee's time. Because the doctrine was something that both Nee and Lee felt was something they had received from the Lord, they were concerned with making it work, not with evaluating the doctrine itself. Everything was fine and dandy until "turmoils" started to happen. Deputy authority became the key to addressing these "turmoils". Whenever a problem came up, suddenly Nee or Lee would turn into the supreme leader and attempt to reorganize everything.

Without some type of headquarters or authority structure, I don't believe the ground of locality could have been practiced at all. Everything falls apart the minute you have two churches in a city both trying to say they are the church in X. In Nee's case, what happens when his own church excommunicates him? Deputy authority provided the quick-fix solution to those problems that should really have brought up questions about the doctrine of the ground of locality itself.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Without some type of headquarters or authority structure, I don't believe the ground of locality could have been practiced at all. Everything falls apart the minute you have two churches in a city both trying to say they are the church in X.

That may be the case if you want an LSM franchise in a city. There are cases of former LSM affiliated localities that go on without connections to a headquarters (Moses Lake, Rosemead, Toronto, etc). Of course as it's been discussed before only one can take the name as "The Church in ____".
Hypothetically take the Sandovals. They're not welcome in Vista because of the deputy authority hierarchy structure. Could always take the name as The Church in San Marcos. When LSM wanted to open up a franchise in San Marcos, they would need to take a different name or wait until the name became available.

[awareness]

This may be a segue but I noticed that deputy authority is not even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13. I guess Paul just forgot to mention it.

[micah6v8]

To understand the biblical teaching on submission to authorities, it is helpful to read Romans 13:1-7 which is set out as follows

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

From these verses, we understand that
1. We are to submit to authorities because they have been established by God.
2. Whoever rebels against God’s established authorities is rebelling against what God has established.

To get a complete picture, also read Peter’s exhortations in 1 Peter 2:11 to 3:8. The examples of submission that he urges Christians to adopt in their daily lives are:-
1. Christians to submit to emperors/governors
2. Slaves to submit to masters
3. Wives to submit to husbands

While urging Christians to submit to their authorities, Scripture also urges those in authority not to abuse their authority. Examples are as follows:-
1. 1 Peter 5:1-5:- Peter urges the church flock to submit to their elders, but at the same time, urges the elders not to lord it over them but to be good examples.
2. Col 4:1- Masters are to treat their slaves fairly because the masters have their own Master in heaven.
3. Eph 5:28 Husbands are to treat their wives as their own bodies.

In an ideal world, if everyone listened to God, we would submit to our human authorities while the human authorities, in turn, would also carry out their duties in a godly manner and not abuse their power. The difficulty raised by “Unsure” is when the authorities do not act in a godly manner. Do the Christians continue submitting to these authorities or not?

My view is that Christians are to submit to the authorities (which is God’s command) except in cases where submitting to the authorities would in turn violate God’s other commands. Two examples come to mind, one in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament:-

(I) Old Testament
1. God tells his people not to make idols nor to worship them. (God’s command)
2. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego live in Babylon where there is a law to worship the image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up (Human Authorities’ command)
3. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to obey the human authorities’ command to worship the idol. They are summoned to King Nebuchadnezzar.

Their response:- “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3:17-18).

Result: They are thrown into the furnace but God delivers them. King Nebuchadnezzar praises God and promotes the three of them in his kingdom.

(II) New Testament
1. Before ascending, Jesus teaches Peter (and the disciples) to disciple all the nations. (God’s command)
2. The Sanhedrin later instructed that Peter and the others not to teach anything based on Jesus. (Acts 4:18) (Human Authorities’ command)
3. Peter and the rest continue to do so (Acts 4 v 31) and are eventually hauled up before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:28)

Peter’s response: “It is necessary to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)

Result: Peter and the others end up getting beaten up by the Sanhedrin but rejoice afterwards because they suffered for Christ. (Acts 5:40-41).


Both examples show Christians not obeying the human authorities blindly when to do so would be to disobey God’s other commands.

One of the pressing needs of the church is to teach its members that obeying God may lead to suffering in this present age. Before being put into the fire, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego’s response had two limbs:- (i) God is able to deliver them but (ii) they also recognised that God may choose not to deliver them. While they were delivered and did not get burnt, Peter and the others were flogged. Yet Peter and the others rejoiced afterwards. In our present age, there is a culture of prioritising our personal comforts and wanting to avoid all kinds of suffering, viewing them as evil.


To go back to David’s case, a summary is as follows:-
1 Saul kept trying to harm David. This was a sin because David had done nothing to Saul to deserve this.
2. David had opportunities to take revenge against Saul but he did not do so. (E.g. in 1 Sam 24 and 26).


Why did David not act? He recognised that:-
1. Saul was God’s anointed
2. God will take the appropriate action against Saul at the appropriate time.

This is encapsulated in 1 Samuel 26:9-11

9 But David said to Abishai, “Don’t destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed and be guiltless? 10 As surely as the LORD lives,” he said, “the LORD himself will strike him, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish. 11 But the LORD forbid that I should lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed. Now get the spear and water jug that are near his head, and let’s go.”

David had taken a similar stance in 1 Samuel 24.
-1 Samuel 24: 6 & 10 - Recognising that Saul is God’s anointed
-1 Samuel 24: 12 & 15:- Letting God be the judge.

We too can follow David’s example. I had started this post with Romans 13 recognising that God establishes human authorities. With regards to David’s other point about letting God take the appropriate action, it is actually encapsulated in the Romans 12:17-21, which precedes Romans 13.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

With regard to Living Stream Ministry, God will be the Judge for whatever they have done. One could take the view that one need not submit to them and the elders in the localities because their teachings are so deviant that they are a false religion altogether and hence their leaders are not established by God.