Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Orthopraxy - Christian Practice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2015, 08:10 PM   #1
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

"9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church." 3 John verses 9-10

In these verses from 3 John, is the most apparent display of practicing deputy authority than is presently active.

Several examples. First there's the case of Mario Sandoval in Hear the Cases
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3303

This brother and his wife left the locality of Ontario, Ca led by an abusive elder for Vista, California. Subsequently at the behest of a blended brother, the elder from Vista put them out of the church.

The second example was of Steve Isitt and the Church in Spokane. Steve was going on well positively with the Church in Spokane until elders from the Church in Seattle heard Steve was meeting in Spokane. Due to the Seattle elders, the Spokane elders would not receive Steve until he cleared up matters with the Church in Seattle. That would be fine if Seattle had the mutual desire to reach a resolution. Once again put out of the church.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 09:48 PM   #2
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

In my experience, I never heard the topic of deputy authority brought up much within the LC, but there was always a clear chain of command. I could almost say that I don't even where I got the notion that authority was to not be questioned. It was basically an ingrained notion that I picked up somewhere along the way.

I had to stop and think about it for a minute. What seems most likely to me is that the LC is a groupthink environment, and as such, no one needs to exert authority in an obvious way. If an elder stands up and criticizes Billy Graham as one who preaches the "low gospel", and it's met with a resounding "amen", the job is already done. What should have been a statement that he was called out for saying, instead became something that was accepted by taking advantage of groupthink. If an elder knew that his statements were not going to be automatically accepted, wouldn't he be more careful in what he says?

Another consideration is that LC elders function mostly as an "MC", so their job is to say things like "sisters sing verse 1, brothers declaring." Because they are in charge of all aspects of what is happening during the meeting, they are naturally viewed as an authority figure. Their job is mostly to say and do trivial things, so it might lead to the idea that everyone else is to stupid to do the same thing. It seems people are used to listening to elders in regards to every little detail of what goes on in LC meetings, so the idea of authority is well ingrained.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 10:28 PM   #3
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
In my experience, I never heard the topic of deputy authority brought up much within the LC, but there was always a clear chain of command. I could almost say that I don't even where I got the notion that authority was to not be questioned. It was basically an ingrained notion that I picked up somewhere along the way.
Being raised in the local churches it was ingrained in me, even if I disagree with brothers or sisters older than me, they're always right. So suppress my opinions.
On the topic of deputy authority, the two churches I have met with extensively since leaving the local churches (Calvary Baptist and ERCC) you never hear the topic of deputy authority.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2015, 09:30 PM   #4
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Being raised in the local churches it was ingrained in me, even if I disagree with brothers or sisters older than me, they're always right. So suppress my opinions.
On the topic of deputy authority, the two churches I have met with extensively since leaving the local churches (Calvary Baptist and ERCC) you never hear the topic of deputy authority.
With most of those I've been around in the LC, the chain of command is usually self evident. There is a age bias, but not always. To have any expectation of being able to provide input or an opinion, it usually involves being directly asked for such input by a brother who has seniority over you.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2015, 01:09 PM   #5
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Those that want to take deputy authority as a Biblical teaching, you could say the kings of Israel and Judah were types of deputy authority. The first king in 1 Samuel 15 is Saul.

"Then Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
4 Then Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah. 5 Saul came to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the valley. 6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
"
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2015, 10:56 PM   #6
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Those that want to take deputy authority as a Biblical teaching, you could say the kings of Israel and Judah were types of deputy authority. The first king in 1 Samuel 15 is Saul.
Hi Terry,

Here's my question: Why would anyone want to take deputy authority as a biblical teaching? To what end? Christ is the head of the Church, and as such, all authority was given to Him. Is Jesus Christ so incapable of righteously exercising the authority given to Him by God Himself that He had to deputize a few fallen men to do his job for him? I find no scripture to support this.

There are verses about apostles, prophets, deacons, etc., but these folks were, in context of scripture, SERVANTS. They were appointed to serve the saints in their practical needs in some cases, and in other cases teaching and preaching the Word, but all was done in love and to meet the needs of the saints, whether practical or spiritual. In matters of conflict resolution, Matt. 18 is clear.

Regarding the examples you mentioned of putting people out of "the church"...is this really the church for which Jesus died? Or, is it the equivalent of a Christian Club or a Home Owners Association type organization with a Board of Directors who have ultimate authority over the membership?

According to the Word, we are known by our fruit. What is the fruit of the practice of deputy authority?

Nell
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2015, 05:22 AM   #7
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 4,506
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Hi Terry,

Here's my question: Why would anyone want to take deputy authority as a biblical teaching? To what end?
...
According to the Word, we are known by our fruit. What is the fruit of the practice of deputy authority?

Nell
My own experience is this: the deputy authority idea lets the believer off the hook, so to speak. Just do whatever Maximum Brother says. Especially when you're a young believer and you don't know which way to turn - the "freedom in Christ Jesus" quickly becomes instability and backsliding into old ways if you don't know what to do. So you seek stability, guidance, mentorship.

That is the "initial fruit", if you will. Suddenly everything has its place. But the "long term fruit" as I experienced it is ultimately deadness. Nobody can listen to the Spirit. Maximum Brother has spoken; end of discussion. So one is in perpetual infancy, never being allowed to cultivate their talents. Don't be "ambitious"; don't stick out. Just say "amen" to whatever MB is saying.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2015, 12:31 PM   #8
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
What is the fruit of the practice of deputy authority?
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.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2015, 04:46 PM   #9
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,964
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
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.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2015, 09:47 PM   #10
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2015, 06:21 AM   #11
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 4,506
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2015, 07:23 AM   #12
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 07:21 AM   #13
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,964
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
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.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 10:21 AM   #14
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 12:08 PM   #15
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
... 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
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 12:44 PM   #16
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 03:06 PM   #17
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 04:37 PM   #18
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,953
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
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?
__________________

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 05:54 PM   #19
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,559
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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!
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 06:06 PM   #20
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Ohio and Awareness,

Your points are well taken. With all the "unknowns" both of you make, it further weakens the case for Nee's "deputy authority". There is not enough scriptural justification for a "deputy authority".

"Deputy authority" is a convenient means to "spiritualize" men's attempt to control the members of the Lord's church.

Whose church is it, anyway?

Nell
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 06:51 PM   #21
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Your points are well taken. With all the "unknowns" both of you make, it further weakens the case for Nee's "deputy authority". There is not enough scriptural justification for a "deputy authority".

"Deputy authority" is a convenient means to "spiritualize" men's attempt to control the members of the Lord's church.

Whose church is it, anyway?

Nell
Ohio does make a good point. The Old Testament shouldn't be evaluated in the absence of the New Testament. Perhaps that was Nee's problem. He came across Old Testament examples of what he thought supported his teaching, but he didn't go on to consider how the same issue is handled in the New Testament.

The verse that Nell points out, 1 Tim 5:20, presents a completely different view of authority than how those in the LC view it. I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2015, 07:24 PM   #22
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.
Unless he is president of a publishing house in CA.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2015, 06:50 AM   #23
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,964
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
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.


__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2015, 11:07 AM   #24
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2015, 01:10 PM   #25
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2015, 01:59 PM   #26
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,953
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post

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.
__________________

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2015, 01:39 PM   #27
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
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.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2015, 05:17 PM   #28
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
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.
Notice that we have authority over the unclean spirits, but not over the clean brothers and sisters. Only the Lord has that authority. He is the Son building God's house, just as Moses and Solomon, types of Christ, built God a house.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 12:58 PM   #29
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
The verse that Nell points out, 1 Tim 5:20, presents a completely different view of authority than how those in the LC view it. I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.
From Indiana's article of Hear the Cases, never is it so blatant.

To many cases of an elder's/coworker's (Samuel Liu) abuse to numerate here, but here is how it was resolved:

“James Lee said, we got the letter and we will take care of it. I waited and waited and nobody responded to me, to my May 18, 2005 letter sent over two years before. The brothers in Ontario saw how bad the situation was getting, so they called JL, and asked him if they could meet with him. Tom Serratti, Benjamin Liu, Damaso Flores, Samuel Liu and I from Ontario met with James Lee. Samuel Liu was forced by his flesh brother Benjamin Liu to come to this meeting. James Lee said; “I am only going to listen to you, since I can’t do anything”.

“I (Mario) said, this meeting is for brother Samuel Liu and I to be reconciled. Samuel Liu started doing the same thing, he said, “everything is in the hands of the blended co-workers”, cross his arms, bow down his head, close his eyes, and foam came out of his mouth. The meeting was over and nothing was done. His brother, Benjamin Liu, came to me and said, Mario this time we couldn’t do anything, maybe next time.
“After calling and calling Benjamin Liu for at least one month for us to meet again with James Lee, we were able to meet see if at this time SL would reconcile with me. We had the second meeting but sad to say the same thing happened. At the end of the meeting, SL said the same thing, “everything is in the hands of the blended co-workers”. SL would not talk to me and did not want to be reconciled with me.

“After the meeting was over brother James Lee came to me (Mario) and Damaso Flores, and said,
brothers, Samuel has a sickness; it is the same sickness that his two children have, and if you want to follow him in Ontario, that is up to you.” Also, he said that everything SL was doing in Ontario he didn’t believe, especially with the statistics. Samuel counted the brothers and sisters 4 times, the same people. Here again the second meeting with James Lee and nothing was done. And, still we have not received a response from our letter sent May 18, 2005 to the co-workers."

Point is here an elder is being confronted to reconcile. In this instance Samuel has his prerogative if he wants to reconcile. It's mind blowing the unwillingness to act by his peers (fellow responsible brothers). Even more when James Lee says: “Samuel has a sickness...." What's he doing in this capacity when there's not only a sickness, but an anger management issue. In my mind completely unqualified to be an elder by scriptural standards.
Who knows how many localities in the Inland empire has to kowtow to every little whim of Samuel Liu?
The end result for Mario Sandoval, well when James Lee said he couldn't do anything to help Mario, he could use his influence to keep Mario from meeting in Vista.
This is how bad things can go when an elder is challenged.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 03:20 PM   #30
HERn
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 740
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
and foam came out of his mouth..
Okay...so apparently the BBs practice of covering the deputy authority extends to the those possibly under the influence of a demon? And the reason the BBs want to protect the "foamer" is what? Isn't one function of true shepherds to protect the flock? So the BBs protect the "foamer" at the expense of the flock? Dear LC-ers do you perceive anything wrong with this? Oh wait a minute, you're not for right and wrong, right? Just for life and the "spirit", right? So tell me which "spirit" seeks to cover up the damaging deeds of the "foamer" so he can continue to abuse the flock just to protect the demonic hierarchical control practiced by the BBs? What would happen if the dear small potatoes together grabbed the "foamer" and tossed him out the door? Kind of like a couple of flesh brothers at a large family reunion grabbing and throwing out an old uncle who molested some of the nieces at the last reunion. What's the healthiest response? Cover the molester so he can continue to molest the children or throw him out on his ear?
HERn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 04:56 PM   #31
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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. :-)
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 06:08 PM   #32
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
.... 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
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:21 PM   #33
HERn
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 740
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Dear sister Nell, I am so sorry to learn of your suffering, but I am so glad you survived and are going on with our precious Lord! Benson Philips is not a truthful man to say that if one leaves the recovery they can't go on with the Lord.

Last edited by HERn; 06-17-2015 at 07:23 PM. Reason: Added one more sentence.
HERn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:33 PM   #34
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
I remember years ago Titus Chu complaining about how brothers would complain about him to Witness Lee saying, "Brother Lee would believe whomever got to him first."

Then I got burnt a few times myself, and being "slow of heart," I finally came to realize the pattern here. The problem is systemic to authoritarian systems. Dirt sells first! I labeled the action the "Law of First Complaint."

If you don't get it, let me explain. Abusive systems need "dirt" on everyone to maintain their "authority." The dirt don't need to be true, just so it sticks. The more "ammunition" we got on others, the more we can control them. By pitting the minions against each other, new avenues of "dirt discovery" are opened up to the leaders.

After many years I finally realized that LC leaders have no concern for fairness or righteousness. They have no desire to judge conflicts fairly, and get to the "bottom of things." It's a man-pleasing system that wields great power, keeping the underlings in subservience, lest the "dirt" come back out for all to see. Resistance is futile, lest they "go public" and sully your good name. Submit and come clean.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:39 PM   #35
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERn View Post
Okay...so apparently the BBs practice of covering the deputy authority extends to the those possibly under the influence of a demon? And the reason the BBs want to protect the "foamer" is what? Isn't one function of true shepherds to protect the flock? So the BBs protect the "foamer" at the expense of the flock? Dear LC-ers do you perceive anything wrong with this?
I have seen plenty of LC leaders who are unfit for their roles. It blows my mind to think that so many could blindly follow such leaders. At one point in time, I bought into all the nonsense about the LC not having any hierarchy, so it never occurred to me that there was anyone in particular exercising authority or control.

In the past, I might have said that if there was any major problem among LC leaders, it might be that they are overzealous. When you consider some of the things that have been brought to light on the internet, it is clear the overzealous leaders are probably the least of the problem. There are leaders who are utterly lacking in transparency, and as is seen from this excerpt, even demon possessed.

Every LC member should ask themselves, what kind of system enables these kinds of leaders? For the most part, those leading churches outside the LC are in a leadership position because that is what they are fit for. I don’t hear about the issue of authority coming up much outside the LC. It really makes you stop and think.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 08:07 PM   #36
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
First off, sorry to hear about what happened to you. Such a blatant abuse of authority can be utterly devastating. It really goes to show how ugly the abuse of authority can get.

My perspective on why so many want to adhere to the teaching on deputy authority is because they have been convinced that it’s a solution to a problem, or a protection from a problem. Quite often I heard brothers talk about how “rebellious” our nature is, or how fallen we are. I never though much of them saying these things, but in retrospect, it was them establishing a problem of humans having a particularly rebellious nature.

While people are naturally rebellious to a certain extent, I think the LC teaching blew it out of proportion, making it into a much bigger problem that it actually was. As a result, it lead to the notion that everyone needs to be under an authority. Thus, the door was opened for leaders to start exerting authority with little to no resistance by members.

When you look at LC members, I don’t see many at all who have a problem with authority. So where is the big problem? Why do they need to be under such a teaching on authority? Since the problem isn’t there to begin with, so the whole system works off of members with misconceived notions about authority.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 08:08 PM   #37
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
Nell
Perhaps the most difficult trials we have to endure are the ones that should never occur. It's hard to consider that the proving of our faith may take place by those who should love and shepherd us, treating us with the love of Christ. Unfortunately those closest to us might be the ones who betray us, as Judas betrayed the Lord Jesus.

I do believe as a man the Lord bore the full pain of that betrayal. The Bible says little nice about Judas, but I believe that since he had the "money," he acted as the Lord's personal valet, daily caring for His needs and those of the entourage. Psalms (41.9; 55.12-14) called him the close personal companion of Jesus who "kicked Him in the head" with a kiss. (my interpretation)

Looking back, these experiences can be among the most valuable we ever have. Not that I in the least condone what happened to Nell or to others. LC leaders would pride themselves in their unique way of "perfecting" the saints by harsh treatment, as supposedly Nee was "raised up" in this manner. I'm not buying it. It's basically the same type of "perfecting" grace which the apostles received while being lashed 40 times save one. Even worse is the fact that it comes from those we trusted.

That is the fiery trial that can shatter our faith. Persecution from outsiders is understandable, but abuse from insiders is not. It's like a child abused by a parent. It's not supposed to happen! The child may never recover which is too often the case.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 08:12 PM   #38
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post

When you look at LC members, I don’t see many at all who have a problem with authority. So where is the big problem? Why do they need to be under such a teaching on authority? Since the problem isn’t there to begin with, so the whole system works off of members with misconceived notions about authority.
The "problem" existed because LSM leadership was corrupt, and had much to hide, needing to preempt anyone who might call out for righteousness.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 09:14 PM   #39
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
The "problem" existed because LSM leadership was corrupt, and had much to hide, needing to preempt anyone who might call out for righteousness.
Or seeks to learn the other side of the coin; the side they want kept hidden. Otherwise it would be very exposing to their reputations. Image is everything.
As a result anyone who seeks to know the other side of the turmoils is put out of their fellowship.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 10:27 PM   #40
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
...Looking back, these experiences can be among the most valuable we ever have. Not that I in the least condone what happened to Nell or to others. LC leaders would pride themselves in their unique way of "perfecting" the saints by harsh treatment, as supposedly Nee was "raised up" in this manner. I'm not buying it. It's basically the same type of "perfecting" grace which the apostles received while being lashed 40 times save one. Even worse is the fact that it comes from those we trusted.
Ohio,

I agree with this. I had no one to go to but the Lord, which is the way it's supposed to be anyway. It was a difficult time, but now that it's long over with, I am grateful that the Lord opened my eyes about a lot of things. I read a book one time titled "Don't Waste Your Sorrows" by Billheimer. It expressed this thought pretty well..

Nell
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 11:00 PM   #41
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
My perspective on why so many want to adhere to the teaching on deputy authority is because they have been convinced that it’s a solution to a problem, or a protection from a problem. Quite often I heard brothers talk about how “rebellious” our nature is, or how fallen we are. I never though much of them saying these things, but in retrospect, it was them establishing a problem of humans having a particularly rebellious nature.
Thank you.

I believe deputy authority is a faithless teaching. A teaching manufactured by fallen men who don't have enough faith in our living Lord Jesus to let him be the Lord of our lives, or their own lives. It's not their job.

Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

Nell
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 07:13 AM   #42
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,873
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Thank you.

I believe deputy authority is a faithless teaching. A teaching manufactured by fallen men who don't have enough faith in our living Lord Jesus to let him be the Lord of our lives, or their own lives. It's not their job.

Nell
Great point, proven by the number of lawsuits Lee and LSM have filed.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 07:23 AM   #43
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,204
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.


Nell
Fitting verses for this thread Nell. In local church practices especially with this damaging teaching of deputy authority, it's really alien to a normal Christian. You would have to take Isaiah 5:20 and apply it to the local church leadership.
Submission one to another? It's not happening. In their view submission is only in one direction.
Clothed with humility? Clothed with pride is more appropriate for those who embrace the deputy authority teaching.

If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
John 13:14-20

Here in these verses from John 13 is an example of serving through footwashing. The deputy authority teaching does not advocate "footwashing", but to be served.
__________________
"Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 08:15 AM   #44
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 878
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Fitting verses for this thread Nell. In local church practices especially with this damaging teaching of deputy authority, it's really alien to a normal Christian. You would have to take Isaiah 5:20 and apply it to the local church leadership.
Submission one to another? It's not happening. In their view submission is only in one direction.
Clothed with humility? Clothed with pride is more appropriate for those who embrace the deputy authority teaching.

If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
John 13:14-20

Here in these verses from John 13 is an example of serving through footwashing. The deputy authority teaching does not advocate "footwashing", but to be served.
Terry,

I love your point. Jesus came, not to be served, but to serve. There's a really nice song titled "The Servant King". He washed the feet of his disciples. I'm sure there are instances of the deputies washing the feet of the saints, but by far, the remaining memorable moment in my LC life would be the one I described.

The Servant King
From heaven you came helpless babe
Entered our world, your glory veiled
Not to be served but to serve
And give Your life that we might live

This is our God, The Servant King
He calls us now to follow Him
To bring our lives as a daily offering
Of worship to The Servant King

There in the garden of tears
My heavy load he chose to bear
His heart with sorrow was torn
'Yet not My will but Yours,' He said

Come see His hands and His feet
The scars that speak of sacrifice
Hands that flung stars into space
To cruel nails surrendered

So let us learn how to serve
And in our lives enthrone Him
Each other's needs to prefer
For it is Christ we're serving

(Extra section added 2013)
We bring our lives to you
A sacrifice for you
In view of love so true
We are changed, renewed

Graham Kendrick

Nell
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2015, 08:32 AM   #45
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 4,506
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
I believe deputy authority is a faithless teaching. A teaching manufactured by fallen men who don't have enough faith in our living Lord Jesus to let him be the Lord of our lives, or their own lives. It's not their job.
I sense two complimentary sources for the deputy authority teaching. First is that, even though we crave freedom, we also want structure and security. We don't trust ourselves and want someone to tell us what to do. So all the hippies who fled the "square" denominations in the 1960s were like moths to the candle, for charmers like Lee. They soaked up his mantra of "poor, poor, Christianity" and how they were now out of the sheep pen and into the Good Land, into the pastures of plenty. Just call on Jesus and be one, and everything's fine. No more rules or regulations, just the Normal Christian Church Life.

The unholy twin of this desire to be led by the nose is the person who wakes up each morning convinced that the world would be a better place if everybody would just listen to them, and give them what they want. They're the leech who cries, "give, give!" and is never satisfied (Prov 30:15). Look at any HWFMR outline: full of phrases like "we should" and "we must" and "we have to" and "we need to". An unending stream of requirements which never can be satisfied.

I think Lee fit this profile to a "t". And voila! the teaching of deputy authority was born. The Deputy God - just do exactly what they say and everything will be fine. And in spite of their attempts to masquerade as being "God's humble little servant", if you hang around with them for long enough someone like RG (to Bill Mallon) will make it plain: "We do what we're told." Or MP (to awareness): "When I say 'blow your nose', you only ask me which nostril."
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2015, 12:53 PM   #46
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,953
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I sense two complimentary sources for the deputy authority teaching. First is that, even though we crave freedom, we also want structure and security. We don't trust ourselves and want someone to tell us what to do. So all the hippies who fled the "square" denominations in the 1960s were like moths to the candle, for charmers like Lee. They soaked up his mantra of "poor, poor, Christianity" and how they were now out of the sheep pen and into the Good Land, into the pastures of plenty. Just call on Jesus and be one, and everything's fine. No more rules or regulations, just the Normal Christian Church Life.

The unholy twin of this desire to be led by the nose is the person who wakes up each morning convinced that the world would be a better place if everybody would just listen to them, and give them what they want. They're the leech who cries, "give, give!" and is never satisfied (Prov 30:15). Look at any HWFMR outline: full of phrases like "we should" and "we must" and "we have to" and "we need to". An unending stream of requirements which never can be satisfied.

I think Lee fit this profile to a "t". And voila! the teaching of deputy authority was born. The Deputy God - just do exactly what they say and everything will be fine. And in spite of their attempts to masquerade as being "God's humble little servant", if you hang around with them for long enough someone like RG (to Bill Mallon) will make it plain: "We do what we're told." Or MP (to awareness): "When I say 'blow your nose', you only ask me which nostril."
All the big corporations of the world are successful because they run from the top down. If you seek to build one you'll need to run your ship that way.

That is what Lee was doing; building a corporation. Yes he said it was organic, or an organism. That was the sales pitch. But make no mistake, to him, and LSM, it's a corporation (tax free). Don't support either one and you'll get fired. I got the boot over blowing my nose the wrong way.
__________________

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2015, 12:24 AM   #47
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
All the big corporations of the world are successful because they run from the top down. If you seek to build one you'll need to run your ship that way.

That is what Lee was doing; building a corporation. Yes he said it was organic, or an organism. That was the sales pitch. But make no mistake, to him, and LSM, it's a corporation (tax free). Don't support either one and you'll get fired. I got the boot over blowing my nose the wrong way.
It's too bad that Lee misrepresented what he was doing as being something "organic". Like you say, he was running a corporation, and it goes without saying that was interested in the success of his corporation.

I think that Lee was power hungry, and running a corporation provided fulfillment to him in that respect. That is just fine in the business world. There are plenty of power hungry people out there. Unfortunately for Lee, this is not what Jesus taught in regards to those who want power and authority.

Mark 10:41-44
And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2015, 06:17 AM   #48
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 4,506
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
Unfortunately for Lee, this is not what Jesus taught in regards to those who want power and authority.
Jesus had power and authority over death, sin, Hades, sickness, pain, and suffering. None of these could withstand Him, but all gave way to the kingdom of God. Yet, interestingly, He didn't exercise authority over men. "Who made Me judge over you?", He asked when people requested His adjudication. See e.g. Luke 12:14.

It seems to me that people who lord it over others are trying to hide their inadequacies. So they want an earthly covering, instead of one which comes from above. Jesus said of such, "They have their reward. They seek the glory of men" See e.g. His extended homily in Matthew 6. Ultimately, WL got a gravestone more ornamental than his fellows, and got his testimony read into the Congressional Register (no doubt paid for by a fat donation to a Representative's re-election campaign). So WL got his reward, and he got what he was after.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2015, 12:12 PM   #49
Freedom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,445
Default Re: Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Jesus had power and authority over death, sin, Hades, sickness, pain, and suffering. None of these could withstand Him, but all gave way to the kingdom of God. Yet, interestingly, He didn't exercise authority over men. "Who made Me judge over you?", He asked when people requested His adjudication. See e.g. Luke 12:14.

It seems to me that people who lord it over others are trying to hide their inadequacies. So they want an earthly covering, instead of one which comes from above. Jesus said of such, "They have their reward. They seek the glory of men" See e.g. His extended homily in Matthew 6. Ultimately, WL got a gravestone more ornamental than his fellows, and got his testimony read into the Congressional Register (no doubt paid for by a fat donation to a Representative's re-election campaign). So WL got his reward, and he got what he was after.
I think you bring up a good point. The authority that Jesus possessed was not expressed through controlling or domineering others. This is in contrast to how humans usually use authority. With Jesus, it was quite the opposite, yet people still recognized him as a man having authority (Matt 8:9).

I was considering the following passage in John 19:10-12 - Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”

Between Jesus and Pilate, Jesus was the one who possessed far greater authority, however, he didn't see the need to make any particular display of that authority. In fact, he had remained silent to Pilate's questioning, and that bugged Pilate. Once Jesus did speak, I think that Pilate realized he was messing with something entirely out of his league. How did Pilate recognize Jesus' authority? It certainly wasn't because Jesus had been going around promoting himself as an authority figure.
Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 AM.


3.8.9