Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
I've read in this thread, essentially, we are to "obey leaders" until we decide not to, and then its okay not to obey. Of course, we'll say its a matter of conscience. But so will the "leader" who is requiring our obedience.
This notion of having spiritual authority residing in an identifiable person, indeed in an office, is logically contrary to the New Testament.
If someone can tell me how it comports with the New Covenant, I'm all ears.
I am not saying I don't see what is written in Scripture. I do. But I'm willing to say I don't know what it means, in light of the multitude of other verses and concepts that cut against a plain reading of the text.
This patent acceptance of a plain reading of "obey," while later adding caveats that comport with having Christ, the LORD, in our spirit, just don't jive.
Can someone help me here? This is not a rhetorical line of inquiry.
In Love,
Peter
|
Obeying church leaders (Heb 13.17) is similar to "
obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." (Eph 6.1) The alternative is chaotic anarchy. I don't see this as contrary to the New Covenant or the scripture.
In both cases obeying God Himself supersedes these God-given authorities. Yes, there may be bad parents, and yes, there are bad christian leaders, but the exceptions do not negate these instructions in scripture.