Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Maybe I'm not really understanding what problem you are describing...
|
I guess the best way to describe what I'm getting at is to say:
There's a difference between 1) "making assumptions about what is right" versus 2) "not taking a position on whether something is right or not" while continuing to petition the Lord for clarity.
In either case, you may still find a church, submit to that church's authority etc... The difference is where your default position lies.
Position 1 makes an assumption that it's "right" that one find and be in a formal congregation with a formal church structure. This person will have a more difficult time to shake this assumption or habit of thought if the time ever comes that the Lord is leading them in a direction that doesn't align exactly with the "officers" of the church.
Position 2 may also join a church with leadership, but the default position is that he/she is seeking after God's will. It doesn't get clouded by the human habits and oscification that occurs when we habituate assumptions. Since God's will entails fellowship, He will lead him/her into potentially all sorts of fellowship arrangements. This person will be open to meeting in a formal "church" without having to make the assumption or assertion that that is the "right way" to do fellowship. This person, however, will also be more sensitive/open to other sorts of fellowship - and also more keen if any error enters into that church through the leadership.
Position 2 will most often play out exactly like Position 1 - with the difference being that its based on God's real-time will as opposed to a once-for-all "proxy" for what God "most likely" wants.
Position 1 is under-inclusive of the ways in which God can arrange fellowship, and leaves people to be vulnerable if/when error enters through church through those to whom they are now habituated to defer.
Is this making sense? I think we did a couple rounds on this regarding John Meyer's book.
In the end, I don't think in practical terms, my "version" would look much different than yours. So take all this in the right way.
In Love,
Peter
P.S. Can you see how you have a much more laissez faire approach to this very fundamental question in the Word (re: church authority generally) than your hard-hitting incisive critique of one-city-one-church? That itself is reason to give pause, no? Relious history is basically a story about the ways in which power within the church is abused. I think it's worth the vast tools of scrutiny you've got in your arsenal.