Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Let me try to make this practical. A church desires to allocate funds. There are three opinions about how these funds should be allocated.
1) Build a new children's center.
2) Fund overseas missions.
3) Plant a new church across town.
The church has prayed and asked older brothers and sisters what to do and there is still no consensus.
How does the church decide what to do? Who makes the final decision?
In the model of informal church leadership, the debate is potentially endless because there is no final authority for a decision outside of a complete consensus.
So let me call you on your claim, Peter. Everyone is indwelt by the Spirit, but they still don't agree. What to do now? Reasonable people can disagree. The point is not to find out who's right and who's wrong. The point is there has to be some clear way to make a final decision. In most churches this comes down to either some kind of majority, or the decision of one person.
Are you saying you have a better way of handling this type of situation?
|
First, I
guarantee you that a big piece of the problem here is
me.
I am acutely aware that, even as I believe myself to have valid points born from experience, I am also damaged and can lean toward jaded. But that’s at least a bit of why I’m on these boards and discussing similar matters with those around me. Before when I’ve had an issue, I would either bottle it up, put on my happy face and glad-hand you…. or I would go find a hole to hide in - resentful as can be. Instead, I’m doing the only honest thing I can – speak my piece where I’m at (both in experience and understanding) and subject it to the scrutiny of fellow believers in prayer, so that my arguments are under the light and my motives are too.
That said, the existence of my own issues is not an argument why the arguments I am bringing forth are wrong. It may give me pause to pray and consider my heart/motives, but it isn’t a rebuttal. (As an aside, you all definately DO give me pause. It hasn't escaped me that somehow I keep getting into this antagonizing role...
That comes from somewhere. I'm aware.)
Okay, to the substance of you post. To some extent, we may be talking past eachother. Your practical questions reveal a deeper difference in
assumptions between you and I. Your questions
presume certain things that I don’t necessarily disagree with, but I don’t think are absolutes.
At core, you seem to believe in this notion of group “agency”. That is - decisions related to the gospel, to church planting, to ministry work – can (or even should) be made by a group, an identifiable group. Groups as groups have missions. Groups as groups have a will. Groups as groups have feelings (the "feeling of the Body is do a door-knocking campaign to get our number up" anyone?)
So, as an individual Christian, if want to assemble, it requires the extra step of becoming a member of a group of a subset of Christians and signing on to that
group’s agency. If I don’t like it, I go find another group who’s “mission” I prefer.
Your unspoken premise is that Christians should say “I am a
member of X church” or “I
belong to X church”. Of course, once you have a membership-based community with its own mission, agency, will - then the very natural next step is to build structure and direction. To “accomplish” this, you need standards and plans. To accomplish that, you need people in particular roles (i.e. this or that “member” to step up for “our group”). And then, of course it seems natural and fitting that “our group” has an office of “leaders.”
Your group “agency” assumption, then, necessarily requires a group decision-making structure.
Once you agree with the notion that groups as identifiable organizations have an “agency” separate from that of each individual believer and separate from God’s will for all Christians, then I agree with you that you’ll need a set, human decision-making structure.
While I don’t necessarily disagree, it’s not that obvious from the Bible that groups (that is, subsets of Christians) have agency – and certainly not obvious it is a
prescription.
What I do see is that God commissions individuals with particular ministries, which are related to but definitely distinct from assembly. Sure, others might join that ministry – in which case they do need to submit to the one to whom the ministry was commissioned.
That’s not the same as the assembly. Honestly, I'm not sure what "decisions" an
assembly - as distinct from ministry - needs to make other than time and content of meetings. And these are hardly the impasse-causing sorts of subjects (that is, unless members of the assembly believe in group agency - "why are we doing a study of Galations? The feeling of the body is to read HWMR").
So, before I get any deeper, are you at least following my argument about agency (whether or not you agree with it)?
Thanks for your patience,
Peter