[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I get the analogy, but there is a fundamental difference. In terms of human group - especially a democracy - the populace is the sovereign. Thus, if you don't have a way to organize that populace into a cohesive direction, you will never get anything done. In the body of Christ, Christ is sovereign AND indwells each and every believer.

I didn't say that God did everything by the means of the formal organization of leadership. I just meant there are some things he does that way. More on this below.

Simply because humans didn't set up formal organizational structures does not mean the resultant "product" won't have organization. It's just that God will have masterfully orchestrated it.

Well, how do you know if people set it up or God set it up? I'm mean, really. The point is it exists and is needed. What are you going to do? Accuse a church leadership of not being orchestrated by God? How would you know it wasn't?

What sorts of functions do you think the "office" of leadership should play, which can't get accomplished through, say, deferring to the fellow believer who has the particular skill-set/portion that can fill the situational need, but which might be a different person each time depending on the situation?

Example:

Two brothers have a dispute with one another.

Your version: Regardless of who these brothers are or their past relations, go to the pre-identified office of the leader and have him mediate it


My version: The two brothers approach an older, wiser believer, for whom each has respect or a spiritual history, and have him shepherd them through.
In my version, the two brothers might have "wise believer Bob" in common. Another two brothers might have "wise believer Ed" in common.

Just because there isn't a formal "office," doesn't mean their won't be submitting, even a submitting based on the gifts and mutual relationships of the believers.

Again, I never said things couldn't be accomplished in this less formal way. If they can, that's even better. Everything shouldn't need to be taken to the lead pastor or eldership. I know my pastor loves it when the church is mature enough to handle problems without taking them to him. But that doesn't mean some things aren't going to be pushed up to him. In the long run someone with final authority (for the group) is going to have to make a decision about something. This is unavoidable. Therefore, formal leadership is unavoidable.

Apart from teaching, shepherding and mutual fellowship - what sorts of functions do you envision churches doing which would require a structured leadership?

Let me be clear: if an individual is lead by the Lord to develop a ministry and others chose to join that work than the initiator of that work is an identifiable leader to whom the others should submit with regard to the specific burden.

That is different than the church.

The church needs to be able to make decisions about mission, message, and allocation of time, energy, funds; and about problems that couldn't be resolved at a less formal level.

In the end, someone has to make these decisions. Either you have some kind of majority rule, either by council or the entire body, or it rests with one leader.

It's a dream to think that the church can pray and everyone is going to be on the same page about everything. There is going to be disagreement. That is why someone has to decide for the group.