[Cal]

YP,

I follow your point. Basically the problem with the one church one city practice comes in when someone insists on a certain human leadership.

The link between one church and one eldership is stamped in LC thinking. There was one young brother who debated with us for a long time who was firmly convinced that you couldn't have a one church without one eldership. He considered coordination under one leadership as evidence of genuine "practical oneness." But as I indicated, there is no way to determine with whom that eldership rests except by mutual agreement and consent, which most ironically, actually puts the power of leadership with the members, since they determine by consent who the leaders are.

The LC has it backwards. They say that the elders are determined by someone above them (some apostle or "work") and the elders dictate to the members. But the problem comes in with determining who has the authority to appoint elders, or with otherwise determining who the elders are. We have no way of knowing for sure who this is. So difference of opinion are bound to happen. And since there is no practical, objective way to determine who the elders are, let alone the apostles, the whole idea of practicality of the LC city-church model flies out the window.

This is precisely what we see happening today when there is more than one group vying for the privilege of being a particular city's church.

Igzy