[OBW]

Interesting topic. Structure. Offices. Requirements. No requirements.

I am aware of a church that has grown to about 200 that does everything by community vote. No elders. Preacher can't just do what he wants.

And it is becoming a problem for them. They actually need to accept that there are some that are "gifted" in administrations. Some are shepherds. And so on.

At some level, we all need to defer to someone(s) on at least some things. No one should hold all the power. Neither should everyone be required to be everything or the whole thing stops.

But in deferring, we need a basis for determining qualifications. Such as when Paul gave some guidelines for selecting elders. Nothing is simply whoever puts his name in the running. Or volunteers for the job.

I recall some of the elders in Dallas saying something like "you see it, it's yours." It can't always work that way. And they know it. If what you see (or think you see) is that some elder needs to be dressed-down, it's not yours. Yeah. They wouldn't stand for that one. But the sort of "I have the Spirit so I need nothing else and no one else" is malarkey.

No simple answer. I don't really think that there is a single "structure" of the assembly. But there is a pattern within which it does fit. And the pattern has structure. It has responsibilities that are not simply shared among everyone.

And despite all the freedom we think we find in "all can prophesy" in 1 Cor 14, I really think that Paul was putting bounds and structure on an unfettered three-ring circus. While he never mentions the elders there, he does limit the activities of the meeting. 2 or 3 tongues, but only if an interpreter is present. 2 or 3 prophets who speak soberly in turn. Not a clashing of "gift" after "gift" after "gift." So in some way, there were those who were determined to be the 2 or 3. Given their proclivity for chaos, I doubt that this was determined by popular consensus. There almost had to be a structure that was simply standing aside for the animal acts.