The Sin of Noah?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Awareness--

Before we can say these verses are an example of "Deputy Authority" we first have to provide evidence that the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is in fact Scriptural.

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it can lead to abuse of the membership.

This teaching makes a mockery of the gospel. In effect, this non-scriptural teaching answers the question "shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "Yes".

Is this your understanding of the teaching?

Nell

Is the teaching of Deputy Authority scriptural? Was it taught by Jesus and/or Paul? Is it New Covenant?

More than that, is the practice scriptural? Is the fruit of such authority scriptural?

So far, strictly speaking, in Christian circles, I haven't seen good scriptural fruit come from it.

Just look at the Roman Catholic church, when it had more authority than the standing government.

And look around at Protestant examples of the fruit of authority.

From my neck of the woods for 30+ years, there's the example of the 20,000 mega-church, Calvary Chapel, in South Florida. The governance model of that mega-church was called The Moses Model; in that, God spoke to Moses and Moses ran the show. So pastor Bob Coy's authority wasn't to be questioned, nor could the authority of the 200 pastors under Boy Coy be questioned. A year ago last April Coy had to step down, for affairs with sisters. And other pastors were exposed for affairs with sisters and brothers (gay). It was the non-questioning of authority that allowed such sins to abound. Ring a bell?

And bro Untohim has repeatedly brought up Mars Hill in the Northeast, and pastor Mark Driscoll. Driscoll's sin, as I understand it, was precisely that of his abuse of authority.

Then The Village Church (TVC), a mega-sized Dallas-area church, head pastor, Matt Chandler, who like Driscoll, heads up the Acts 29 network.

There the church wouldn't allow missionary Karen Hinkey to divorce her missionary husband after discovering he had a child porn addiction.

And even here locally, churches based upon authority figures, from what I've seen with family members, at an Independent Baptist Church, bears non-scriptural fruit.

So I have to ask. Is the fruit of Deputy Authority in the local church scriptural? I wouldn't know. I left circa 1980, when the deputy authority shoe began to drop here in America. I couldn't take it back then. I don't know how anyone since can stand it. It only got worse.

But like the Eurythmics sang in ""Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)":

Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

[OBW]

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

The sin of haranguing Ham and Canaan (if it actually was a sin) was after the sin of Ham which was the thing that Nee/Lee pointed at as the wrong of exposing the sins of the deputy authority. I think that I am questioning whether Noah being drunk in his own tent was truly a sin other than as we now have it from Paul's writings. (Or more rightly, how we have it as a heritage of our "don't even touch alcohol" evangelical, or more rightly, fundamentalist roots.) It would seem that Boaz was somewhat drunk if someone managed to come into where he was sleeping, uncover his feet, and then lay down nearby until he awakened. But no comment about a sin there.

While there are clearly reference to drunkards, that speaks of being in a fairly constant state of inebriation. Even the command of Paul to be filled with the Spirit rather being drunk with wine does not create an absolute state of sin for being drunk.

Now I am not one to consider being drunk as a good thing. But like a lot of things, there are sins that are a matter of degrees rather than simply black and white.

What I am getting out of this is that we American (mostly) evangelical Protestants tend to have a background of something like the old Southern Baptist position of "don't drink alcohol at all," coupled with a theology that says that the "wine" spoken of in the NT was actually just grape juice.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

If it is not, then there was no sin of Noah for which deputy authority excused him. The Bible never refers to him as having sinned. (Even with regard to his curse on Canaan.) Therefore the story is not a viable basis for saying that average followers of God should not expose the sins of their leaders. Further, Paul and others directly said the exact opposite, therefore the back-door, tell-a-story method does not create what is otherwise not there, and more importantly, does not override what actually is there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

The NT does say "be not drunk with wine, which is excess" (Eph 5:18). I think that is a principle which spans ages (Proverbs 20:1). I'm not against drinking (that would make me hypocrite), just excess in any form.

Now just what is excess, or being drunk, is a matter of judgment. But I think if you pass out naked and wake up so surly that you curse your grandson who did no wrong, then you probably got drunk by any reasonable measure.

To me, if you step back and consider human nature and your own human experiences it isn't hard to see what happened here. Noah screwed up, his screw-up became known, which embarrassed him, which made him angry, and he flew off the handle and took it all out on Canaan, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says Noah's curse was proper or honorable. Just that he did it and it resulted in the rebellious Canaanites. Did God want to produce that? If so maybe I should get drunk and naked and go around cursing people who have a problem with it and when they turn against God I can pat myself on the back for a job well done.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT does say "be not drunk with wine, which is excess" (Eph 5:18). I think that is a principle which spans ages (Proverbs 20:1). I'm not against drinking (that would make me hypocrite), just excess in any form.

Now just what is excess, or being drunk, is a matter of judgment. But I think if you pass out naked and wake up so surly that you curse your grandson who did no wrong, then you probably got drunk by any reasonable measure.

To me, if you step back and consider human nature and your own human experiences it isn't hard to see what happened here. Noah screwed up, his screw-up became known, which embarrassed him, which made him angry, and he flew off the handle and took it all out on Canaan, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says Noah's curse was proper or honorable. Just that he did it and it resulted in the rebellious Canaanites. Did God want to produce that? If so maybe I should get drunk and naked and go around cursing people who have a problem with it and when they turn against God I can pat myself on the back for a job well done.

Read Nell's response. I think that she has it right. Or at least she is not reading something into it that is not there.

I agree that Noah's response to Ham/Canaan might be something worthy of the title of "sin." But you are jumping past the alleged "sin" that set the whole thing in motion. Noah got drunk and was naked in his own tent. Without that being a sin, there is nothing sinful to be covered. Instead, the actions of the other brothers would be viewed as simply honoring their father. Not as covering a sin.

Leave what Noah did after he found out about the thing out of the equation. That was not the "sin" that Ham spoke about or that his brothers covered. It is not part of the discussion.

Unless you need to bundle it together with what went before to make Noah a sinner.

Ham didn't say anything about his dad cursing Canaan. And the brothers didn't cover that. It is not part of how we get to deputy authority. Deputy authority needs an ancient Biblical patriarch to sin and then have that sin be excused, or "covered" by some while exposed by others who are then cursed.

It didn't happen. The basis is a reconstruction of history and of the Bible's account.

This is one of the reasons that I have been so strong to ask what it actually says in so many places. Nee and then Lee were masters at telling us that certain things mean what they want them to mean and we swallowed it. Hook, line, and sinker. Just like Nee's declaration that power = authority (as the opening salvo for Spiritual Authority / Authority and Submission). It just isn't so. But he said it and so many of us believe it.

And to this day we are convinced that Noah being drunk and naked in his own tent was a sin that proves deputy authority. But it doesn't say that. Yet even here you are continuing to say it is so. Why? Because Nee/Lee said it.

And I know that will irk you because I know you do not do anything intentionally because either of them said anything.

But none of us ever did. At one time we were ignorantly believing it. We accepted it as true. We would never have admitted that it was because Nee or Lee said it. We would have said because the Bible says it.

But it doesn't.

Sometimes you have to stop and read it without thinking you know what it means. Look at where being drunk is labeled as sin. And see the examples where someone is drunk and it is not labeled. Find that Noah is never mentioned in relationship to any sin of his own.

Then look at the reconstruction of the Genesis account required to arrive at deputy authority.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And to this day we are convinced that Noah being drunk and naked in his own tent was a sin that proves deputy authority. But it doesn't say that. Yet even here you are continuing to say it is so. Why? Because Nee/Lee said it.

I haven't been back since I wrote my last post, so I'm just reading all this now.

OBW, where do you get that I am continuing to say that something proves deputy authority? Why would you gather such a thing? I neither believe, said, nor implied anything of the sort. And you think I'm saying "it" because Nee/Lee said "it?" Well, I never said "it."

All I said was that Noah had a certain status at the time, and that his words carried weight. Surely that was the case. He built the ark and was the leader of the human survivors of the earth. But that doesn't mean I believe in "deputy authority." You said we should read the passage without bias. When I try to do that, I see what I said I saw.

I can assure you I'm not confirming deputy authority. But I am saying that people who other people look up to should watch their words, because they carry weight in those that look up to them, especially in families. All my human experience says that speaking vicious personal negativity to children and young people often produces the very behavior you are trying stop. I have four step siblings. They were all verbally abused by their father, my stepfather. He called them stupid and dispirited them. I think he meant well, he just didn't understand that his approach was all wrong. All of them have dealt with self-esteem issues and issues with their father throughout their lives. I would say they all to some degree became what he accused them of being. His words were fulfilled because they believed him, because he was their father. He had some influence on me too, but not as much. I think my mother warned him about talking to me that way.

I doubt Noah wanted Canaan to be the father of a godless, rebellious tribe. But I believe his reckless words did nothing to prevent it and probably encouraged it. And I think most experts in human behavior analyzing this incident would agree with me.

And I'm not sure why you said we should leave Noah's cursing out of the discussion. Noah's cursing is the "teeth" of his ostensive deputy authority. The reason some people believe in this authority is because the curse seems to have come true. Canaan was indeed cursed, or so it seems. If Canaan had gone on to be a great godly patriarch in his own right, then the idea that this passage proves deputy authority could have never gotten wings. So the curse and what came after is an important part of the whole picture.

The fundamental question is: Did God approve of Noah's cursing and back him up? Some teachers have said that since it seems Canaan did become "cursed" that God did indeed back it up. That's what Lee believed, obviously. I don't.

So when Noah cursed Canaan, what was really going on? Was it the righteous judgment of a man defending the honor of God's deputy authority, with God applauding in the background? Or was it the rantings of a imperfect man who was simply unbearably embarrassed, with God sadly shaking his head in the background? Given all I know at this point and all I believe about what God is truly like, I have to believe it's the latter.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

The sin of haranguing Ham and Canaan (if it actually was a sin) was after the sin of Ham which was the thing that Nee/Lee pointed at as the wrong of exposing the sins of the deputy authority. I think that I am questioning whether Noah being drunk in his own tent was truly a sin other than as we now have it from Paul's writings. (Or more rightly, how we have it as a heritage of our "don't even touch alcohol" evangelical, or more rightly, fundamentalist roots.) It would seem that Boaz was somewhat drunk if someone managed to come into where he was sleeping, uncover his feet, and then lay down nearby until he awakened. But no comment about a sin there.

While there are clearly reference to drunkards, that speaks of being in a fairly constant state of inebriation. Even the command of Paul to be filled with the Spirit rather being drunk with wine does not create an absolute state of sin for being drunk.

Now I am not one to consider being drunk as a good thing. But like a lot of things, there are sins that are a matter of degrees rather than simply black and white.

What I am getting out of this is that we American (mostly) evangelical Protestants tend to have a background of something like the old Southern Baptist position of "don't drink alcohol at all," coupled with a theology that says that the "wine" spoken of in the NT was actually just grape juice.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

If it is not, then there was no sin of Noah for which deputy authority excused him. The Bible never refers to him as having sinned. (Even with regard to his curse on Canaan.) Therefore the story is not a viable basis for saying that average followers of God should not expose the sins of their leaders. Further, Paul and others directly said the exact opposite, therefore the back-door, tell-a-story method does not create what is otherwise not there, and more importantly, does not override what actually is there.

OBW,

One premise of my first post is that these verses do not call what Noah did "sin". Noah planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was drunken. This is a simple statement that leaves a lot of room for speculation, which might cause you/us to miss the point of the verses altogether. Noah drank too much wine an ended up naked in the privacy of his own tent. We shouldn't read into it more than is stated IMHO. You're right. Judging an event occurring over 2000 years ago by today's standards can give you a skewed perspective.

We also know that Ham disrespected his father and paid heavily for it. There is no further commentary on Noah's behavior either in the tent, or in his judgment on his son. God didn't judge Noah, at least in these verses, so neither should we. The verses are a description of one event in the Bible.

So what is the point of these verses? The verses are a commentary on the family and what can happen when it breaks down. Not much attention has been paid to this aspect. Look around at the condition of the world today, with the family broken into shambles.

We're talking about this because these verses have been co opted by some men today to justify misusing authority. Did Noah sin by cursing Ham and his decendants? We don't know that. Igzy believes Noah did sin but this is based on today's standards. All we know is that Noah did curse his son and his decendants, making them servants to his brothers.

Without these verses, we wouldn't have context for how Caanan came to be cursed. The history of Caanan after this rocky start ends with Caanan being the Promised Land. What began with a curse of the land ended with a promised land.

Nell

________________________

Genesis 9:18-27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

OBW,

One premise of my first post is that these verses do not call what Noah did "sin". Noah planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was drunken. This is a simple sttement that leaves a lot of room for speculation, which might cause you us to miss the point of the verses altogether. Noah drank too much wine an ended up naked in the privacy of his own tent. We shouldn't read into it more than is stated IMHO. You're right. Judging an event occurring over 2000 years ago by today's standards can give you a skewed perspective.

We also know that Ham disrespected his father and paid heavily for it. There is no further commentary on Noah's behavior either in the tent, or in his judgment on his son. God didn't judge Noah, at least in these verses, so neither should we. The verses are a description of one event in the Bible.

So what is the point of these verses? The verses are a commentary on the family and what can happen when it breaks down. Not much attention has been paid to this aspect. Look around at the condition of the world today, with the family broken into shambles.

We're talking about this because these verses have been co opted by some men today to justify misusing authority. Did Noah sin by cursing Ham and his decendants? We don't know that. Igzy believes Noah did sin but this is based on today's standards. All we know is that Noah did curse his son and his decendants, making them servants to his brothers.

Without these verses, we wouldn't have context for how Caanan came to be cursed. The history of Caanan after this rocky start ends with Caanan being the Promised Land. What began with a curse of the land ended with a promised land.

Nell

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses. So you are retroactively applying a standard as well. I'm not saying it doesn't apply. I'm just saying if you are going to retroactively apply that standard, then why not also the one for drunkedness, which is established in both the NT and OT? But you implied I was wrong for retroactively applying it. So which is it?

Where do we get the idea that the curse was applied by God on behalf of Noah's speaking? All we know is that Noah cursed him and it came true. That doesn't mean God "honored" Noah's curse. That just means Noah's words carried a lot of weight, and as grandfather and tribal leader that make sense.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says you can curse people that offend you and God will honor your curse because of your status, even if you are Noah. You are right that this is about family dynamics. It's also about the weight of words, especially negative words.

What I'm not convinced it's about is how God backs up the curses of spiritual big shots. That's the kind of interpretation which leads to doctrines like "Deputy Authority."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses. So you are retroactively applying a standard as well. I'm not saying it doesn't apply. I'm just saying if you are going to retroactively apply that standard, then why not also the one for drunkedness, which is established in both the NT and OT? But you implied I was wrong for retroactively applying it. So which is it?

Igzy,

I look at this account as a descriptive event in Biblical history. I don't believe it is a prescription for teachings about "DA", drunkenness, curses, etc.

I didn't say Ham sinned. I said he disrespected his father. That seems obvious. Call it what you will, but to me it was disrespect by any standard you want to apply. I don't know but I think this could be the precursor to the law given to Moses, because of the promise "that your days be long on the earth". That's just what I think.

Well...you could be wrong! I don't claim to be right. I'm trying to stick to the actual text and not say more than it says. This is just a conversation.

Where do we get the idea that the curse was applied by God on behalf of Noah's speaking? All we know is that Noah cursed him and it came true. That doesn't mean God "honored" Noah's curse. That just means Noah's words carried a lot of weight, and as grandfather and tribal leader that make sense.

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says you can curse people that offend you and God will honor your curse because of your status, even if you are Noah.

Me neither.

What I'm not convinced it's about is how God backs up the curses of spiritual big shots. That's the kind of interpretation which leads to doctrines like "Deputy Authority."

I'm not convinced that this is what God did either. I pretty much take the verses at face value and reject any teachings of men which were spawned with them as their basis.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses.

This is more evidence that this story is being written long after the fact, and the writer is writing his cultural rules into the text.

The question is why. Why is the Noah story being written in such a way?

Is it as Lee claimed? Was the writer even thinking of authority? Is the Noah story -- in the writers mind -- some kind of lesson of "deputy authority?" ; to be used thousands of years later -- as a cargo cult method -- to bring the cargo (blessings) down from God?

Does God require such methods? Has God been waiting for someone to figure out the combination lock -- a hierarchy of authority -- before He's gonna open up the floodgates of His blessings? Is that really the right method to prepare the bride for the bridegroom ... a cargo cult method? Who's fooling who here?

Does anyone else see the absurdity of using the Noah story to support a man structured authority system? Isn't this, in the end, just an effort to use the Bible, to convince believers your top down church governance is Bible based, and from God? It looks to me to be a slick sleight of hand, and mind, trick.

But if you're a sincere believer, seeking to be committed and absolute for "God's eternal purpose," it's a easy sell. And it works/ed.

Look, there's lot's of suckers out there. When it comes to religion it's obvious us humans will fall for anything.

And that's what is happening for the local church. Lee tapped into this inclination, this weakness (I had it). But Lee is possibly today's Joseph Smith Jr. Will his movement become as large and successful as the Mormon church? Time will tell ... but I doubt it.