Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

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.

[TLFisher]

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."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

Terry,

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

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

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

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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Terry,

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

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

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

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

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