Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Let me also say this. I sympathize with LCers who say, "I have the vision of one church in a city. What can I do? I must stand on that."
|
Should we not challenge the very notion of a formal administration at all? If there is "spiritual authority" which resides in an "office" (rather than in natural mutual submission by the Lord's leading and humbling), then I have the same conundrum as far as who I am supposed to be "under."
I press this because of a larger lesson learned in leaving the LC. Because of excesses, it raised awareness of how easily unexamined assumptions can lead one astray. Which then opens up a whole field of questions about other unexamined assumptions. To be sure, the way the majority of Christianity treats church authority is quite similar (and the LC was an outlier), but after having to dive into the Word to verify the accuracy of the LC teaching, "normal practice" is not justification enough for me to support the Scriptural "how and why" of organizational structures which exist in present day churches.
I say this because since leaving the LC, I have noticed that every group (that I've peeked in on) has their version of "institutional control" which they seek to maintain. In some it includes oaths/missions/allegences to the specific church's tenants (some of which were the very reasons they divided from other churches).
After we do the heavy lifting of finally letting go of the one-city-one-church doctrine, should there not be a follow-up question with the same level of scrutiny?