Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
This is why I continue to make the point that the LC model is not really about having one "church" per city. It's about having one organized entity with one administration per city. ...
Obviously, this model was not truly designed to organize an entire city as one church. It was designed for a fringe group to convince itself that it was right and everyone else was wrong.
|
Igzy (good to "see" you again...
Though I don't believe the one-city-one-church model is a prescription, I also don't think the origins of the doctrine were as Machiavellian as you set out here. I think the elitism was a CONSEQUENCE of the doctrine. But I get the impulse of the origins. Standing in front of an increasingly factionalizing Christianity, there was a sense that the word asked more of us in terms of keeping a oneness among Christians. That impulse I believe to be good and even right.
The second impulse, and where the problem comes in, was to "find" in the scriptures the "right way" to do it. But this started getting into "square-peg-round-hole" territory. It was a human-concocted answer to a spiritual matter of the heart. It also reflects the problem of viewing the Word as a "how-to" for church, rather than as the Word of God that we constantly have to reengage with for the Lord to speak anew in our changing life circumstances.
It also exposes the problem of "offices" of "spiritual authority" generally (as opposed to the natural submission to one another that is a by-product of humilty in Christ.)
What the LC theologians did in creating this scewed doctrine to fulfill a very good and even spiritual impulse toward oneness is something we all do to lesser degree.
This is not a "we all make mistakes" absolution - for the goal of that is to gloss over mistakes. Rather it is to say, when looking at a dangerous or skewed practice, "wow, that's not good. Why isn't it good? Am I susceptible to do the same thing in different ways?"
It's the same extremely sober moment I have when I read Peter himself, trying to PROTECT Jesus with all good intention, being called "Satan."
Thoughts?
In Love,
Peter