Practice of Deputy Authority in the Bible

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

What do you think?

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

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

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