Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I agree. If the so-called "apostolic age" has passed with the death of the evangelist John, then according to the LRC paradigm, there are no more apostles around to even appoint elders. But let's say that we do have contemporary "apostles." The LRC system, by definition, can only operate with so-called "new churches," and only for the first generation.
Today even the Recovery does not practice what WN taught, i.e. that the "founding apostle" should appoint elders. Paul himself did not strictly practice this, since he sent Titus at one point to appoint elders in the churches he established. The LRC actually practices a Bishopric in the appointment of elders.
Take the GLA, for example. Many brothers went out over the years and established new LC's. Twice I personally migrated to start new churches. The brothers who went did not appoint elders, instead TC, who did not go, appointed the elders. Nominally, we were against the system of bishops, but actually we operated accordingly. Don't the bishops oversee elders, appoint elders, train elders, send elders to new places?
|
Yes I agree the LCs do operate more as a Bishopric.
But even the model Watchman Nee discussed and tried to practice was not really contextual in terms of the early church era. Paul planted churches where none existed upon his arrival so there literally was only one church in those cities. In Rome prior to Paul's arrival there was already a church there and so as Nigel points out in his article how Paul addresses Rome was different than some of the other places.
The only application I could see now is if a missionary (derived from Latin word for apostle) went to a place with no Christians, preached the gospel and planted a church and then later came back and appointed elders from that city (not sent from elsewhere like Witness Lee did). This scenario would be the only thing close to what was going on sometimes in the NT.