Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

[Nell]

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

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Nell

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

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?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

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.