Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
MacDuff,
I don't mean to be critical, but I have a real hard time seeing what your overall point is. You state a lot of theory, but practically how to do see a church operating?
Are you saying that leaders of a church have no authority in the church? If so, how are problems handled? Who takes the lead and who has the authority to execute action, ultimately? This is a very practical question. The problem I have with what you say is it's just you and your theory. I don't see any practical realization of what you are talking about. Just you saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
What's your practical answer? How are churches to operate practically? Please try to keep your answer under 200 words if you don't mind. Thanks.
|
Igzy:
I don't want to put words in
MacDuff's mouth, but I follow his argument. He is arguing a LOT of "Christianity" is the product of the creation of
human norms and mores wrapped in the language of the Bible. Yet this sort of "faith" doesn't actually require "faith."
You ask very practical questions. These sorts of questions were spot on when the people you were debating were attempting to advance a "practical expression of the church" (i.e. "local ground"). In such a case, practical questions are poignant and revealing.
But if someone is arguing that the "practical expression" of believers coming together should perhaps be left to the Holy Spirit, then "practical questions" might not have a place or at least as much force. In such a situation, "practical questions" about "Well, what do we do then? Who resolves disputes?" leans toward needing
human mores and norms, rather than faith. Every religion has their version. "Leaders" who have an "office" and are thus to be respected regardless of spirituality, are a good practical solution to this human social problem.
I understand that this is a bold way to argue what "church" should look like - since the argument is "I don't know - and maybe God wants it that way, which requires us to depend on Him rather than human social structures" - and is not practical in any sort of way. But what part of God's multifarious wisdom and varied grace is "practical" in the way we mean that term in our limited minds?
I don't think
Macduff's argument's can get shirked off that simply. You stand in the position of insisting a particular structure (even if not entirely defined) is dictated by the Bible. In terms of conversational dynamics, this puts you in the similar position as those who argue for "the local ground."
It's a conversation that requires Biblical study.
I have noticed that when it comes to challenges to how mainstream Christianity operates, you sometimes revert to "that's overly-spiritual," which absolves you of having to argue anything with any rigor.
In THIS discussion (as opposed to the local ground discussion) it is YOU who is arguing for the more "practical expression" (of leaders, in this case). That is, you contend that leadership manifests in OFFICES rather than situationally and/or according to growth in life.
Your argument seems to be "follow leaders until it violates your conscience." My response would be, "why not just follow my conscience?" If it is God's will, that may well entail following leaders. When they go to far, I'm still doing the same thing I was doing from the start, following my conscience. A
doctrine of "leadership" and "offices in the church" seems to add an additional level of unneeded complexity and ground for error. Apply Occum's Razor.
To be clear, this does not mean there isn't submission and authority among believers. Indeed, except for a healthy back-and-forth with some whom I respect, I sometimes don't know what "follow my conscience" should be. It's just that those to whom I submit isn't doctrinally set up to manifest in human-created organizational arrangements.
I don't know that I agree with
Macduff, and I agree that his thoughts are "radical." But I don't think it's him that should be in the hot seat.
The very history of Christianity (and its divisions and abuses) which has clung to the very presmises that you defend in this conversation is reason enough to pause and listen to new ways of thinking.
(Have I reached 200 words yet? I was pointedly trying to write more...) That's an attempt at humor, but my barometer is messed up.
Thoughts?
In Love,
Peter
P.S. A few of us - some two years ago - did a very extensive and Bible-based examinatin of leadership in the church. It is under the
Eldership thread. I don't think this conversation can be shirked by broad/abstract arguments meant to "move on". It has to be confronted rigorously - with the same rigor posters here have approached their own personal doctrinal pet-peeves...