Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I'm not really concerned about church administrations. I honestly don't see how a church of any size over about 15 people could get along without some kind of administration. The problem comes in when the administration starts claiming authority outside the doors of the church, as the LC did.
Don't worry about who you need to be "under." You don't need to be "under" anyone, except in the sense that the Bible tells us all to be in submission to each other. But if you join a church, it's at the very least good manners to respect the officials there.
|
Well, you assume the definition of "church" in your response. And your definition assumes a place for "offices" of authority who at least are "officials" "over" the congregation. All it takes is some sort of "movement" to sweep through that "church" (social/political issues, wealth gospel, whatever....) and the congregation is inherently susceptible to
undue influence. If you teach responsiveness to God as primary (albeit with "checks" within fellowship), then people can exercise "influence" and each individual is equiped to evaluate it. If you teach "authority resides in so-and-so's status" people are less inclined to turn to God when evaluating certain claims of "truth" or "practice" or "politics" or whatever.
Spiritual authority, residing in an "office," seems to me to be logically contrary to the New Covenant.
Which is not the same thing as saying we don't submit to organic, perhaps situational and God-arranged, "authority."
I don't mean this to hijack the topic - but if we're going to take our arguments against hte LC to their conclusion, we have to ask these questions.
Peter
P.S. Perhaps its still a residue in me from the LC, perhaps its a reaction to the LC, but I ran into issues with this in multiple congregations (and I witness it everyday on CNN when Christian work is co-opted by "pastors" toward political - both liberal and conservative - ends.)