Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
On the other hand, someone might argue that the "Recovery" is too cohesive to be a movement, and so would be more properly defined as a denomination. That would be a legitimate argument.
So what are the biblical mandates about how denominations should be organized? The answer, again, is there aren't any. The Bible doesn't speak about the organization of denominations. So, again as with movements, discussion of how the "Recovery" should be properly and biblically organized as a denomination is futile. It's like asking how a cat should be trained to be a dog.
The Bible shows autonomous churches in fellowship and receiving traveling ministers as they see fit. It shows those with the gifts of leadership leading and others submitting to them, while the leaders also submit in a general way and serve rather than lord. In that general organization, churches are to carry out the Lord's commission of outreach and building up. It's pretty simple really.
Any attempt to organize churches as movements or denominations is on its own. The Bible doesn't speak specifically to how those things should be carried out, or even if they should.
|
I'm still trying to ascertain the relevance of your recent points to this thread, but I'll go along with you.
I'm still struggling with the church autonomy/denomination debate because the N.T. also presents the same struggle, i.e. the influences of a headquarters in Jerusalem attempting to mandate faith and practices upon all churches. Except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the central and original church located there, truth-wise the verdict is still out. The N.T. has strong tendencies towards autonomy, and it has strong tendencies towards "federation." (I just introduced an alternate word for denomination, rather than saying "oneness" or "one body," knowing that neither of those words is in the N.T.)
If both tendencies were not seen in scripture, then we would not be having this discussion. W. Nee made his attempts at a workable solution, but it backfired because his para-church structure called "the work" eventually destroyed any semblance of church autonomy. I believe the Lord has provided a better solution in the past quarter century with the introduction of community churches. I happen to know one nearby church, generally under the auspices of Presbyterian Church of America denomination, which has decided to become So-n-so Community Church.
Once we depart from the stringent demands of "
the one true church," which in church history has
always led us aground, then I suppose that both federations of churches under a central leadership (Jerusalem model) as
OBW prefers, and autonomous churches as you prefer (Antioch model) each have benefits, and both will have necessary leaders, and members will be instructed to submit/obey based on Hebrews 13.17.
So we come full circle back to the thread at hand.