The book of James and the LRC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority." This deputy authority had no peers and answered to no one. He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders. He used distorted teachings, such as Noah's curse on Ham, to hold the adherents in fear. That distortion provided the cover of darkness for every failure of Lee, including those of his profligate sons. His teachings provided the sole interpretation by which scripture could be read. In case of conflict, Lee's interpretations always superseded the plain words of scripture.

Coupled with this was the notion that the MOTA could "see" things no one else could. He was a "seer" of the unseen. Whereas mere mortals could see abuse, manipulations, unrighteousness, distortions, man-pleasing, hypocrisy, etc. at LSM, the MOTA would "see" rebellious lepers attacking God's Economy to bring the kingdom of the heavens to this earth, and the leader He raised up to bring His people into the New Jerusalem.

Or so, as I was taught to believe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority." This deputy authority had no peers and answered to no one. He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders. He used distorted teachings, such as Noah's curse on Ham, to hold the adherents in fear. That distortion provided the cover of darkness for every failure of Lee, including those of his profligate sons. His teachings provided the sole interpretation by which scripture could be read. In case of conflict, Lee's interpretations always superseded the plain words of scripture.

Coupled with this was the notion that the MOTA could "see" things no one else could. He was a "seer" of the unseen. Whereas mere mortals could see abuse, manipulations, unrighteousness, distortions, man-pleasing, hypocrisy, etc. at LSM, the MOTA would "see" rebellious lepers attacking God's Economy to bring the kingdom of the heavens to this earth, and the leader He raised up to bring His people into the New Jerusalem.

Or so, as I was taught to believe.

This is the connection between "the ground of the church" and the sins we were looking for.

The implication of "the ground of the church" is that WL has no peers. Everyone else is disqualified due to their stand on divisive ground.

Second, it implies WL sees things others don't hence he doesn't answer to anyone since he has the vision and they don't.

Once you have WL all alone you have rejected "plurality". This eliminates accountability -- who should he be accountable to, they don't have the vision, their stand was/is wrong, and he has no peers.

Therefore, if you take this away by exposing the fallacy of "one church one city" everything else falls as well.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority."
He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders.

I emphasized the last sentence because it wasn't from a lack of brothers trying.
Truly the doctrine of deputy authority has muted I not discarded accountability. I do believe brothers would and will say in the recovery we do have safeguards of plurality and scripture. Can you say there is a safeguard to impartiality?