Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
In a theoretical sense and perfect world the title of apostle should not be objectional. Ohio and others have made this clear.
In a practical sense in the world we live in, though, the title has been used in recent centuries to prop up a person for the purpose of controlling others. In my opinion, the title apostle carries too much weight by virtue of association with the original apostles to be bestowed on anyone today (the 2 witnesses in Revelation might be the only exceptions.)
The problem is no one really knows for sure the extent of an apostle's authority. If we are to use the title of apostle, then understandable rules regarding the extent and limitations of an apostle's authority need to be put down in writing. "Unfortunately," as far as I know this has not been done in any satisfactory manner. In fact, the LRC exploited the vagueness of Lee's presumed authority as "apostle" to threaten, coerce and discipline members. All kinds of sheep herding and lamb sheering have been done in the name of his authority as "apostle."
If the LRC can do that then so can others.
I see little advantage to using the title today, and an awful lot of disadvantages. The Church knows who the gifted members are, with or with the titles. The Church knows who the sent ones and ambassadors are, with or without the title "apostle."
|
But even if I agree with everything you say and all of your reasons and concerns, from our own experience we know that it is a futile exercise to try and get some written agreement about the use of the word.
First, WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).
Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.