[Peter Debelak]

I certainly agree that, having debunked the "universal structure" of one-city-one-church, there is not necessarily some alternative "universal structure."

This question regarding the structure of the assembly, it seems to me, is all about how it is approached or "framed."

If one starts with reading all these versus in the NT about elders and deacons, and prophesying etc..., one might say, as many do, the burden is on those who say you don't have to be "under" a spiritual "office" in a cognizable and definable assembly.

If you approach it simply with the basic items of faith of the New Covenant, one might say - "sure, having gifts in the assembly are fine and even having leaders is fine - but these aren't necessarily Biblical prescriptions.

I don't disagree with those who point out that there are gifts to the assembly. But that is not a rebuttle to those who bristle at the notion of "offices" of authority.

Mike references an assembly that was trying NOT to have a "leader" but ran into problems once it got to the 200 member size. This is an interesting example.

The first comment I would make is, well, you are still presuming that you're "supposed" to meet in an ever-growing group that can be identified by outsiders. As opposed to say, a loose collection of believers that meet as circles of fellowship in a community shift, change, grow.

The second comment is to say, okay - that congregation attempted something and realized that it was experiencing problems. Natural leaders, if recognized, could add some stability. So be it. This is entirely different than placing folks into formal "offices" of the church, wherein "spiritual authority" necessarily resides in the office as opposed to between people thru Christ contextually.

The key push of this sort of thread, I think, is that most Christians - within and without the LC - take it as a given that you should be within a recognizable congregation which, again by assumption, there are recognized "offices of authority." If you've ever taken the position that that's NOT necessary - you'll know that most people look down on that view and see it as "immature."

I would contend, however, that if one takes the strong argument about all the "elder" versus - that they establish a prescription - then you'll have to answer all the questions about administration that the LC is unable to do regarding one-city-one-church. As an individual believer, if God has placed elders in an "office" He established, then it is my responsibility to align myself with that....

The push is NOT to say there shouldn't be congregations or that there shouldn't be various gifts manifest in an assembly. The "default" position is that there will be. The question is how open we are to those who don't fall into that mode?

Understandably there is skepticism about the spiritual health of those who are not "members" of a formal congregation. But the question in this thread, I think, is:

What sort of basic requirements for a healthy spiritual living exist, according to the Word? Is it possible one still lives in fellowship with others, even submitting to one another - perhaps attending formal congregations occasionally, without being a "member" of a "congregation".

Does the Scripture take a position on this. If so, why? If not, why not?

A big ramble.

Peter