Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

OBW · 06-08-2015, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Greetings Nell, my point in this thread is not to support the teaching. So many people have bought into it as a non-essential item of faith when in fact as I answer your question, the fruit of the practice of deputy authority is division.

Terry,

Does the fruit of a practice really dictate how to understand it? Are we really sure that the practice is the problem? Or is it something else?

My point is not to let Deputy Authority off the hook. But it could be argued that certain other issues are the cause of the fruit and that Deputy Authority could not fix it.

I wouldn't buy it, but it can be made.

The real issue is whether there is really such a construct or it is a fantasy devised first by Nee and then strengthened by Lee that just does not represent anything that the Bible actually teaches, directly or indirectly. If it is garbage teaching, then there is no reason to need to argue over what is responsible for the fruit in question. It doesn't deserve a hearing on the fruit issue. It gets booted on the truth issue.

Nell · 06-08-2015, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The real issue is whether there is really such a construct or it is a fantasy devised first by Nee and then strengthened by Lee that just does not represent anything that the Bible actually teaches, directly or indirectly. If it is garbage teaching, then there is no reason to need to argue over what is responsible for the fruit in question. It doesn't deserve a hearing on the fruit issue. It gets booted on the truth issue.

You are correct. Without Scriptural backing, any teaching put forth as "Christian teaching" is in fact false, fantasy, even heretical. Bad fruit is a symptom of false teaching. In that sense, the fruit isn't the problem. The problem is the junk teaching.

Nell

aron · 06-09-2015, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Without Scriptural backing, any teaching put forth as "Christian teaching" is in fact false, fantasy, even heretical. Bad fruit is a symptom of false teaching.

Where the string of bad fruit comes in, is that it helps us re-evaluate the teaching. When WL had us convinced that the teaching was the Truth with a capital "T", then we could pass off all the bad fruit as the bumbling efforts of mooing cows that couldn't dance while he played piano. (I think that was the imagery). So the bad fruit was the fault of the bumbling disciples and not the teacher. We ignored the bad fruit and continued to cling to the bad teaching that produced it.

But eventually the fruit stunk so much that we reconsidered and came back to the word anew, and lo and behold! The teaching was at best tenuously attached to scriptures. Some verses, carefully selected according to human notions, with the rest of scripture either judiciously ignored or explained away. The illogic of this ideational construction (i.e. teaching) suddenly became glaring to us, and something like scales fell from our eyes, and we began to see the Word afresh; fuzzy at first but little by little we began to see again. "For He says, 'Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there.' Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue..." Little by little the truth began to re-emerge from the Word, and our experiences, many unpleasant, began to point to the truth through the Word.

So it turns out the teaching had no legs. But it was the bad fruit that caused us to critically examine it and find that out. Like Jesus said, "By its fruit the tree is known." Sure enough, man, sure enough.

Here's an example: if it was all about the Glorious Church, then why did Luther leave the RCC? Or why did WN leave the Protestants? WN and WL only discovered their Precious Church teaching after it was under their thumb. Then the Precious Church suddenly became an all-important Truth. Before that, it was about following their conscience, or the leading of the Spirit, or obeying the Word of God, etc. But once they had a flock, suddenly everything was about the Precious Spotless Church, the Bride of Christ. Christ loved the Church and died for it; the Church is the Body of Christ, etc. etc. You can't go on without the Church, right? But if you can't be saved apart from the Church, then why did Luther leave in the first place? Disconnect, much?

To me it seems inconsistent and illogical. I see different themes and different purposes at different times, according to different situations and needs. And unfortunately, the fruit of the tree of knowledge is that we thought we were seeing Truth and Light, in all of those themes and purposes and motives, when in fact we were blind, and groping, and being struck by forces we couldn't comprehend. We thought we saw but our blindness remained. (John 9:41) But God isn't like that. With God there's no shadow cast by turning. With human agents (including myself, I freely admit) there are shadows and turnings galore. And our ideas, thoughts, and teachings should be held at arms' length, until we find out of what sort they are. Believe me, in time the fruit makes them known. Experience is a hard teacher, but it doesn't lie.

TLFisher · 06-09-2015, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Terry,

Does the fruit of a practice really dictate how to understand it? Are we really sure that the practice is the problem? Or is it something else?

My point is not to let Deputy Authority off the hook. But it could be argued that certain other issues are the cause of the fruit and that Deputy Authority could not fix it.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:3-5

Practice of deputy authority is a different doctrine. It produces "envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions", etc. Other behavior traits produced is pride, arrogance, unaccountable, etc.

The teaching and practices of deputy authority results in damage. It's a tool that enables and pardons bad behavior due to removing checks and balances from the church. If the practices of a deputy authority doesn't bring out the worst of a person, it at least dulls the heart and causes the heart to be calloused and insensitive. Practices of a deputy authority creates an inability to distinguish between opinion and fact.
If a brother is truly wanting to be a servant to the brothers and sisters, he's not going to care if he's a coworker, elder, deacon, serving brother for the young people, or the janitor of the meeting hall.
By contrast I had heard Ron speak at a Puget Sound blending conference a few years ago where Ron said, he's not going to step aside for anyone. To me that's an indication of a brother concerned about his position and about his status. That's not serving.

OBW · 06-10-2015, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:3-5

Practice of deputy authority is a different doctrine. It produces "envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions", etc. Other behavior traits produced is pride, arrogance, unaccountable, etc.

The teaching and practices of deputy authority results in damage. It's a tool that enables and pardons bad behavior due to removing checks and balances from the church. If the practices of a deputy authority doesn't bring out the worst of a person, it at least dulls the heart and causes the heart to be calloused and insensitive. Practices of a deputy authority creates an inability to distinguish between opinion and fact.
If a brother is truly wanting to be a servant to the brothers and sisters, he's not going to care if he's a coworker, elder, deacon, serving brother for the young people, or the janitor of the meeting hall.
By contrast I had heard Ron speak at a Puget Sound blending conference a few years ago where Ron said, he's not going to step aside for anyone. To me that's an indication of a brother concerned about his position and about his status. That's not serving.

I understand all that you are saying and do not disagree with it. But my question was whether just trying to tie good or bad fruit to a singular thing in the midst of many things is always clearly linked.

Whether someone is concerned about his status does not necessarily make bad fruit found in the vicinity linked to that bad doctrine v another one.

What I am trying to get at is whether it is clearly bad doctrine. The verse you quote starts by making reference to "different doctrine." Then Paul continues by making reference to things about the kind of person who would engage in teaching such different doctrines.

But before you get to the nature of the person doing it (and that nature should be a significant warning sign), Paul is suggesting to Timothy that he already knows it is a different doctrine. The rest is to make it clear that the ones pushing the kind of different doctrines that are being discussed is not some legitimate difference of understanding of the truth, but of a serious character flaw of the ones holding that doctrine. They are trying to create controversy in which they are ready to stand out as the ones with the answers. To become something in such a way that they gain from the desire of others to be godly.

I am not suggesting that there is not plenty of bad fruit littering the ground, rotting on our sidewalks and even roofs of our cars. Rather that you don't have to wait for fruit to know the doctrine is bad. The fruit is the result of the people who hold to it. Or to some bad doctrine/practice.

But Paul already knew the doctrine was bad before he started pointing out the fruit. It was bad because it was incorrect. It was a misaiming of the gospel. It was misapplication of the words of Christ. Paul didn't need to wait for the stench of the rotten fruit to know it. Before the frit began to form on the tree, the doctrine was wrong.

My question to this entire thread is whether there is actually an example of deputy authority in the form that Nee and Lee taught in the Bible. They used examples from mostly OT stories. But do the stories support and align with the doctrine they got when they threw it into the fire? Or is it just another golden calf formed by sleight of hand, whether intended or just from their ignorance? Did they rightly consider the scripture when they said it supported their nonsense? It is obvious what I think about it.

So the real question is whether the thing that Nee and Lee taught was ever actually practiced in the Bible. Is there actually one example? Not saying that there were not prophets raised up. Leaders. Kings. And so on. But were any of them what Nee/Lee described as deputy authority? If the answer is "no," then RK and the others have nothing to stand on now. You don't need a fruit-o-meter to know that they are wrong because they are already tied to positions through a bad doctrine.

Freedom · 06-10-2015, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

What I am trying to get at is whether it is clearly bad doctrine. The verse you quote starts by making reference to "different doctrine." Then Paul continues by making reference to things about the kind of person who would engage in teaching such different doctrines.

But before you get to the nature of the person doing it (and that nature should be a significant warning sign), Paul is suggesting to Timothy that he already knows it is a different doctrine. The rest is to make it clear that the ones pushing the kind of different doctrines that are being discussed is not some legitimate difference of understanding of the truth, but of a serious character flaw of the ones holding that doctrine. They are trying to create controversy in which they are ready to stand out as the ones with the answers. To become something in such a way that they gain from the desire of others to be godly.
...
But Paul already knew the doctrine was bad before he started pointing out the fruit. It was bad because it was incorrect. It was a misaiming of the gospel. It was misapplication of the words of Christ. Paul didn't need to wait for the stench of the rotten fruit to know it. Before the frit began to form on the tree, the doctrine was wrong.

My question to this entire thread is whether there is actually an example of deputy authority in the form that Nee and Lee taught in the Bible. They used examples from mostly OT stories. But do the stories support and align with the doctrine they got when they threw it into the fire? Or is it just another golden calf formed by sleight of hand, whether intended or just from their ignorance? Did they rightly consider the scripture when they said it supported their nonsense? It is obvious what I think about it.

So the real question is whether the thing that Nee and Lee taught was ever actually practiced in the Bible. Is there actually one example? Not saying that there were not prophets raised up. Leaders. Kings. And so on. But were any of them what Nee/Lee described as deputy authority? If the answer is "no," then RK and the others have nothing to stand on now. You don't need a fruit-o-meter to know that they are wrong because they are already tied to positions through a bad doctrine.

With doctrines such as deputy authority, I don't think it's always immediately clear what is a bad doctrine and what isn't. For starters, there are thousands of people in the LC who buy into such a doctrine, and I'm sure that many would be willing to justify their doctrine if called upon to do so.

You are right, deputy authority is a construct invented by Nee, however, he made a case for this doctrine. For example, in the CFP version of Spiritual Authority, Nee references the case of Ham being cursed as an example of what happens when someone disobeys the the "deputy authority" (Noah). Another example Nee gives is that of Nadab and Abihu overstepping Aaron to offer up strange fire. The point is that Nee attempted to make an argument for his doctrine and even if it was a little bit of a stretch, its hard to throw it out immediately as bad doctrine. Nee saw these cases as issues of authority. I see these cases more than just a black and white issue of overstepping authority. Either interpretation has its merits.

I think there are several issues that have to be considered. Some of the questions that come to mind in evaluating a doctrine like deputy authority are 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.

Nell · 06-10-2015, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

... 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.

Here's my scrutiny of Genesis 9:19-27:
Genesis 9
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

So these are the verses that support “deputy authority” according to W Nee’s book Spiritual Authority, both printings.
To summarize:
1. Noah drank too much wine and became drunk.
2. He was drunk and naked in his tent and uncovered.
3. Ham 1) saw Noah naked and 2) told his brothers. Two problems for Ham.
4. His brothers covered Noah’s nakedness without laying eyes on him.
5. Noah woke up and “knew what his younger son had done to him”, that being 1) he saw Noah naked and 2) told someone about it.
6. For this Ham, the father of Canaan was cursed by becoming a servant to his brothers.

Out of this account, Nee comes up with “deputy authority”:
* Noah apparently is not personally accountable for being drunk and naked in his tent. This fits Nee’s premise that elders are not personally accountable for their sins.
* Nee’s premise is that either Ham should not have seen his father’s nakedness; or, Ham should not have told his brother’s about Noah’s naked condition, or both.
* Regardless, according to Nee, the sins of “deputy authorities” should be covered and not exposed.

Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem: We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

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

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Nell

Freedom · 06-10-2015, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Sure, that debunks it, at least it should be a reasonable argument for most people. But it raises a question. If deputy authority is a teaching that is so easily debunked, then why are so many still practicing it? In the LC, they call all the rank and file members "dumb sheep", so you could claim that they just don't know any better. The other explanation that is just as likely is that LCers might feel that such a teaching holds value according to the scripture (the Noah story can certainly be interpreted that way), and it is tricky to conclusively debunk some of the interpretations that Nee made. Another factor with the deputy authority teaching is the issue of the superstition that Nee imposed by making reference to the calamities that would supposedly fall upon those who didn't submit to a supposed authority.

Nee is read outside the LC, not to a large extent, but still read nonetheless. I haven't heard much criticism of his teachings. In fact, I hear a lot of this nonsense about him being under-appreciated. So teachings like deputy authority have flown under the radar even outside the LC. That is what concerns me the most, not whether it has been debunked. I would make the argument that a teaching like deputy authority isn't really of concern to someone until they find themselves under an abusive authority or an abusive system. Since the Bible talks about authority, it's not all that unlikely that someone would come along and construct a teaching based on this. If it hadn't been Nee, it would have been someone else. And he wasn't the first one to talk about authority either.

So my point is simply this: yes deputy authority is a teaching can be challenged and debunked. That fact doesn't really matter to anyone in the LC, and it also probably doesn't matter to anyone outside the LC who has never been in contact with the LC. To someone who has never been in a system where authority is abused, it could seem like a good or reasonable teaching. Submitting to authority isn't necessarily bad, it's only bad when it's abused. If someone doesn't understand the fruit of the practice as it has been realized in the LC, it's not going to be viewed as much of a problem.

Nell · 06-17-2015, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

.... If deputy authority is a teaching that is so easily debunked, then why are so many still practicing it?

Good question.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

It seems to me that if Christian leaders concern themselves with deputy authority, especially to the extent that Nee did, then Lee, then the LSM/LC, this could be among the first indications that something is not right. Something is fundamentally wrong. I experienced it first-hand.

In my experience with the "deputy authorities" I was summoned into a little dark room with 5 men and I was terrified. Someone had accused me of doing several things which I had not done. Regardless, I told them I was guilty of everything (except for one thing). I lied. I was too scared to tell them they were wrong. I didn't believe these deputy authorities were interested in the truth. I later learned the pattern is, whoever goes to the elders first, wins. Whoever is accused first is always guilty.

They raised their voices at me and told me "this is going to STOP". What was going to stop? I had no idea.

There was no love. There was no nurturing or care for me as a person, much less as a member of the Body of Christ. There was no warning. It was an ambush. I was as terrified as I have ever been in my life. I was pretty sure the ground was going to open up and swallow me. I also had the thought that two young men would be outside the the door to take my dead body away. My life changed after that. Amazingly, I still went to meetings. However, I had nothing inside. I cried from beginning to end. Every meeting. I cried and cried and cried. I tried to talk to the Lord about what had happened, but I didn't really know what was so wrong with me that the elders had to talk to me in such a way...without warning. My accusers got there first, so they won.

I did experience God's infinite grace and mercy as a result of the unholy deeds of those men. In His mercy, God protected me from becoming shipwrecked in my faith because of these deputies. God counted my tears. My tears meant something to Him. Not everyone who has experienced the sharp end of deputy authority has survived in their faith. It would be better that these men have a millstone around their necks than to face what they have done to those saints for whom the Lord Jesus shed his life's blood.

For two years the deputies didn't talk to me. They didn't ask how I was doing in my exile. They didn't offer me a path back to their good graces, until one day... 2 years or so later. I actually met with all but one of these men. They repented for what they had done to me. They asked me if there was anything I would like to say to them. I looked them in the eye and told them everything the Lord brought to mind about the horror I experienced because of what they had done to me. I told them that the most devastating thing was that I had no idea that they were unhappy with me. It meant a lot to me that they admitted they were wrong. I don't believe my experience with their repentance is a common practice today.

Hopefully this will put some perspective on the topic. Deputy authority is so much more than an errant teaching. At the hands of fallen man, the teaching is indeed devilish and ruins people's lives. I'm sure there are many more stories like mine among those who read this forum. At least in one case, the deputies admitted they were WRONG.

Nell

Ohio · 06-10-2015, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem: We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

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

As a rule, we should learn from the OT judgments as Paul instructs us in I Corinthians 10.11, "these things were written for our admonition."

Noah's story, at first reading, seems to be about his son Ham's disrespect and mockery. We are not told whether other factors drove Ham to act in such a way. Was he just a "punk kid," or was he retaliating for something prior? We have no way to know. What we do know was that Noah took it very serious, and proceeded to judge Canaan, which presents us with another problem: was Canaan his son, or just another name for Ham?

For me this story is similar to Elisha cursing the 42 lads in Bethel who mocked him at the beginning of his ministry. (2 kings 2.23-25)

The "Moses Model" of authority is also widely used by others to abuse.

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

There is no direct NT counterpart to Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, or any other notable OT person except for Jesus Christ Himself.
Jesus Himself instructs us never to rule as the Gentiles. He never even hinted that Peter, or John, or James would one day rule the church.
NT leadership is always a plurality. There is no justification whatsoever for a Pope, MOTA, the oracle, the acting god, etc.
The concept that Paul, the senior worker, ruled all the other workers in "the work," is nothing more than a convenient circumvent to modern day popery.
I Tim 5.20 stresses accountability by the elders who have "sinned" publicly for all to learn. Matthew 18 instructs us in some cases to tell "it to the church."
The concept of "covering" is rife with dangers because "absolute power corrupts absolutely." When do we stop covering "nakedness," and start covering up serious "sins?"
The concept that "God alone will deal with His deputy" has no basis in the scripture or in history -- just read up on the popes.

awareness · 06-10-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

We are not told whether other factors drove Ham to act in such a way. Was he just a "punk kid," or was he retaliating for something prior? We have no way to know. What we do know was that Noah took it very serious, and proceeded to judge Canaan, which presents us with another problem: was Canaan his son, or just another name for Ham?

There's lots we can't know. As I read it Ham is the father of Canaan and since the story is being told long afterward the names are used interchangeably.

Another thing we can't know is: How in the world did Noah get magical powers enough to be able to curse a whole people, descendants and all? Must have been some whopping good heavenly wine. Where can I get some?

TLFisher · 06-12-2015, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "Moses Model" of authority is also widely used by others to abuse.

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

There is no direct NT counterpart to Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, or any other notable OT person except for Jesus Christ Himself.
Jesus Himself instructs us never to rule as the Gentiles. He never even hinted that Peter, or John, or James would one day rule the church.
NT leadership is always a plurality. There is no justification whatsoever for a Pope, MOTA, the oracle, the acting god, etc.
The concept that Paul, the senior worker, ruled all the other workers in "the work," is nothing more than a convenient circumvent to modern day popery.
I Tim 5.20 stresses accountability by the elders who have "sinned" publicly for all to learn. Matthew 18 instructs us in some cases to tell "it to the church."
The concept of "covering" is rife with dangers because "absolute power corrupts absolutely." When do we stop covering "nakedness," and start covering up serious "sins?"
The concept that "God alone will deal with His deputy" has no basis in the scripture or in history -- just read up on the popes.

Why is not there a New Testament counterpart?
One can make the case as regenerated believers we all have authority only in Jesus.
Consider Matthew 10:1 and Luke 9:49

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.”

This would debunk the LC concept and upset the system by which control is vested in the hands of the minority by asserting only they as coworkers, elders, etc have authority.

If one tries to apply the 1 Timothy 5:20 & Matthew 18 approach of making elders accountable, the are summarily under so-called church discipline.

UntoHim · 06-10-2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem: We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

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

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Nell

I think this is the most logical and wise interpretation of this biblical story. It also takes into account our experiences with the Local Church movement. Leave it to a sensible, experienced and wise SISTER/WOMAN to come up with such a helpful interpretation!
Thanks sis!

Nell · 06-17-2015, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think this is the most logical and wise interpretation of this biblical story. It also takes into account our experiences with the Local Church movement. Leave it to a sensible, experienced and wise SISTER/WOMAN to come up with such a helpful interpretation!
Thanks sis!

Thanks, Unto. This wasn't original with me. Jane pointed it out to me a few years ago. It does make sense. :-)

TLFisher · 06-11-2015, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages. It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered, we wouldn’t know about it.

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

Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.

What do you think?

Nell

Excellent Nell. Same case can be made for David and many others. If their sins were to be covered, we wouldn't be able to read about it.
As it is or at least was with Witness Lee, if one of "the brothers" was in sin, he was simply moved to another city. Presently if you're one to confront the so-called deputy authority and tell to the church if needed, you are simply removed from fellowship.
Ironically in the local churches, I can't say I ever heard a message on 1 Timothy 5:20. Though it's scriptural that would be contrary to their practices. That's what I call cherry-picking. Being selective which portions of scripture to adhere to and which ones to ignore.

OBW · 06-11-2015, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

With doctrines such as deputy authority, I don't think it's always immediately clear what is a bad doctrine and what isn't. For starters, there are thousands of people in the LC who buy into such a doctrine, and I'm sure that many would be willing to justify their doctrine if called upon to do so.

You are right, deputy authority is a construct invented by Nee, however, he made a case for this doctrine. For example, in the CFP version of Spiritual Authority, Nee references the case of Ham being cursed as an example of what happens when someone disobeys the the "deputy authority" (Noah). Another example Nee gives is that of Nadab and Abihu overstepping Aaron to offer up strange fire. The point is that Nee attempted to make an argument for his doctrine and even if it was a little bit of a stretch, its hard to throw it out immediately as bad doctrine. Nee saw these cases as issues of authority. I see these cases more than just a black and white issue of overstepping authority. Either interpretation has its merits.

I think there are several issues that have to be considered. Some of the questions that come to mind in evaluating a doctrine like deputy authority are 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.

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

And why did Nee start off by declaring that "Nothing is greater than authorityin the universe; nothing can surpass it" yet not have even referenced a verse with the word authority in it? And through the whole first chapter, he never does. He just changes power to authority and moves on. "For thine is the kingdom and the authority and the glory . . . ."

Then, having everyone eating from his empty hand, he has "established" that it is so and goes on to the next chapter. One by one he makes assertions as if they are fact, but if you stop at each one, you will say "huh? really?" and scratch your head in wonder. This was my first dive into one of Nee's books after leaving the LCM and suddenly I realized that Nee was every bit as much an abuser of scripture to make it fit a preconceived premise as Lee was. Nee just makes statements and expects everyone to accept them.

And so far, too many people do just take whatever he says. Many of them don't read the books like Spiritual Authority, but it is there in less egregious ways in the inner life books.

But the point is that he establishes his first principle based on reasoning which makes assertions that need support. But none is given. And I (an may be just I) can not see where that support comes from. Yet, having said it (without support) he just moves on to the next chapter to layer on another point. And point by point he makes bare assertion after bare assertion. Like saying that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was to go against God's authority (which was stated as being Aaron), therefore man cannot deal with their sin . . . only God. Eventually this gets switched around to where Nadab and Abihu also had some authority, and that is the reason that only God could deal with them.

Suddenly, whoever manages to lay claim to God's deputy authority is above rebuke by man.

It is a house of mirrors and veils.

Freedom · 06-11-2015, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And why did Nee start off by declaring that "Nothing is greater than authorityin the universe; nothing can surpass it" yet not have even referenced a verse with the word authority in it? And through the whole first chapter, he never does. He just changes power to authority and moves on. "For thine is the kingdom and the authority and the glory . . . ."

Then, having everyone eating from his empty hand, he has "established" that it is so and goes on to the next chapter. One by one he makes assertions as if they are fact, but if you stop at each one, you will say "huh? really?" and scratch your head in wonder. This was my first dive into one of Nee's books after leaving the LCM and suddenly I realized that Nee was every bit as much an abuser of scripture to make it fit a preconceived premise as Lee was. Nee just makes statements and expects everyone to accept them.

And so far, too many people do just take whatever he says. Many of them don't read the books like Spiritual Authority, but it is there in less egregious ways in the inner life books.

But the point is that he establishes his first principle based on reasoning which makes assertions that need support. But none is given. And I (an may be just I) can not see where that support comes from. Yet, having said it (without support) he just moves on to the next chapter to layer on another point. And point by point he makes bare assertion after bare assertion. Like saying that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was to go against God's authority (which was stated as being Aaron), therefore man cannot deal with their sin . . . only God. Eventually this gets switched around to where Nadab and Abihu also had some authority, and that is the reason that only God could deal with them.

Suddenly, whoever manages to lay claim to God's deputy authority is above rebuke by man.

It is a house of mirrors and veils.

I agree with you. It is significant that Nee didn't ever establish that authority in the Bible was important in the way he wanted it to be. I've seen this done in other books too. In The Latent Power of the Soul, Nee hastily jumps to a conclusion that based off of verses like Gen 1:26 that Adam had a power "a million times greater than ours", and he also makes the claim that this power was "immobilized" after the fall (but supposedly still remains "latent" within humans). It was quite a stretch. Because his conclusions are not verifiable, he introduced a dangerous teaching. Lee followed in Nee's footsteps as well, even making the claim that the subject of the entire Bible is "God's economy". Where does the Bible explicitly say that? It doesn't say that anywhere. So yes, Nee and Lee didn't give the necessary proof for the validity of some of their teachings.

The point that I have been trying to make, however, is that the issue is not so simple as debunking a teaching like deputy authority. That's the easy part. Yet it means almost nothing to those who are in the LC, or those who don't know to read Nee with a grain of salt. Those on this forum view Nee differently that anyone in the LC and also differently than Christians outside the LC view him. To outsiders, Nee is just a not-so-relevant teacher who they may have heard of before. Thus, if someone opens up one of Nee's books such as Spiritual Authority, they might approach it innocently. They are not necessarily approaching it with the intention of evaluating the teaching according to the truth. What that means is that the Nee's failure to prove his argument is not necessarily going to stand out to everyone, because they are not looking for that.

Spiritual authority might seem like a benign teaching to those who don't realize how it can be used. Someone might see a book on that subject and have their curiosity perked as it isn't a subject that is talked about much. I believe it's fair to say that Nee had certain intentions with his teaching on deputy authority. If someone doesn't understand those intentions or the way in which deputy authority can be used, then the problem still remains, regardless of whether the teaching has been debunked or not. I would draw an analogy to what Lee said about God's economy. He said that the whole Bible is about that. Okay, big deal, whatever. Most probably could have cared less at the time. But then he started saying things like the book of James was not written according to God's economy, the Psalms were not written according to God's economy, etc. That when it started raising red flags. When the intentions of the said teaching became clear, that's when debunking it became all the more important, and not just debunking it, but realizing the underlying purpose of the teaching and what its effects would be.

awareness · 06-11-2015, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a house of mirrors and veils.

That would be a house of glass and mirrors. Cuz if ya look real close you can see thru the illusions.

Both Nee and Lee had grandiose personality disorders. Add a little charisma, mix in Bible verses -- any verses, to make it sound like its founded on God --and you've got yourself God's one and only delegated authority on the earth.

Voila Nee and Lee.