Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
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.
|
I think that this probably misrepresents both positions. I know it does mine.
(And I'm not trying to pick on you for not getting where I am coming from.)
I have for many years attend a church that is independent. Yet it has affiliations that are not controlling. No one from afar can say "get in line." And yet there are many that still do just that. They can't come take our affiliation away. Or remove the pastor or elders and install alternates. But they are heard and considered. And those of similar leanings are listened to more strongly than others.
You may not recall that someone pointed out that Irving Bible Church was the center of national attention a few years ago when they declared openly that they had undertaken a roughly 18-month study in which they ultimately said (in effect) "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that we not disallow women to 'preach' in our assembly." It wasn't that much of an outburst when they made the declaration (late Spring or early Summer of 2009, I believe) but it went ballistic when it was announced that a certain woman would be the first to actually take the pulpit (there isn't actually a pulpit) that August or September. There were even some threats on her life. (Hard to believe within the totality of the body of believers.)
A couple of nationally-known pastors in the area spoke out against it. One called it a "slippery slope." (Oh no!! The dreaded slippery slope argument!)
And after all of that, none of them consider our assembly heretical. Our pastor has spoken in some of those other churches. And in at least one case, while he was doing that, the Women's pastor from the other church (that won't allow a woman to speak from their "pulpit") was speaking at ours. Without repercussion.
Once upon a time, this was the way it went among churches. They spoke out about what they believed and disagreed about. Then went back to "everyone is OK."
I know that the edict about a potentially gay preacher might be hard to swallow — even for me. No matter how you may have ready my comments on that topic, I was never simply giving it the thumbs up. But despite the choices I might determine that I have to make concerning continued participation in that group, especially if the edict actually results in an openly gay lifestyle preacher being in the assembly I attend, I'm not sure that even that is a basis for generally dismissing denominations as simply a burden on freedom. (And I don't recall that
you ever said that.)
Surely we will be faced with issues that range from loss of first love, to allowing "that woman, Jezebel to . . ." whatever, and to heady discussions about unpracticed theology (Laodicea). Even without denominations.
I personally like the Bible church model. There is a commonality but no literal connection. Not even as connected as the Baptists. But I still see the benefits of affiliation at some level. Allowing the joint scholarship of a group like Dallas Theological Seminary (or other similar school) to be a lightening rod around which most of my theology centers gives me some certainty and confidence that it is being thought out by better minds than just mine. (Lord help us if it is just mine. And despite the kind of positions I seem to take here, I am very serious about this. I don't think that I have thought it all through. I am just trying to diligently think through what I have in front of me so far. And after I raise all my questions, I will probably defer to the "experts." At some level, that is beginning to include my own son.)
That doesn't mean that I simply agree with everything. DTS doesn't agree with the Irving Bible Church position on women preaching. But I think I do. But I'm OK with those who disagree. And for about a year now, I have been attending a place that would probably erupt like a volcano if the idea was even thrown out as a possibility. Their loss (IMHO). And mine for the time being. I didn't move to get away from IBC. Just to see my son, daughter-in-law, and now grandson a little more often. (That would be frowned upon in the LRC.)