Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
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.
|
The NT shows the model of the entire Church on earth being led by the Apostles who were hand-selected by Jesus.
It does not show the model of a subset of the church (a movement) being led as if it were the entire church on the Earth by some Johnny-come-latelys who want to be looked upon as the equivalent of the early Apostles.
I for one am satisfied that the level of authority that extra-local ministers had in the NT was due to the fact that they were special Apostles with the same authority as the word of God, and that those types of Apostles don't exist anymore.
Most Christians are satisfied with this. It's only those of us who have been steeped in the LRC stew of extra-local workers having so much authority who seem to have issues.
I don't see how one can determine which workers to recognize such authority in anyway. The BBs or Titus? Who decides? It's just a prescription for a mess. Even the NT notes all kinds of people claiming to be apostles, but the real ones knew who they were and were vindicated by history.
How much more now will you have people claiming apostleship (and people believing their claims) if you lower the standard to include every Johnny-come-lately with a teaching and leadership gift. What history is vindicating Nee or Lee? I don't see it. They were Christian teachers and leaders. But Apostles with the rank to order churches around? I don't see it. I don't see anyone since the first century with that kind of authority.