Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I think that would be a good basis to find common ground. Certainly we can all agree on the following:
1. The Church cannot operate and never would have operated without the leading of the Spirit. And the leading of the Spirit as recorded in scripture was often accompanied by signs and wonders.
2. We can also agree that some laws trump other laws. If I am in the army I must follow the orders of my commanding officer unless those orders violate the Geneva convention, in which case I should not follow those orders. Likewise, Martin Luther felt that the orders of the church leaders of his day violated a higher law and so rebelled. To me church leaders are like traffic cops, they have authority and you have to obey, but if you are driving a fire engine you can ignore their laws. This is what Peter did and this is what Paul did.
3. God is not the author of confusion, so the idea that the church would not be "in good order" and "headed up" is not supported by the New Testament. That suggests leaders, rule and authority.
4. Every single believer will be held accountable for their own actions before the Lord's judgement seat. There is no excuse that you were merely "following orders". Regardless of how much you feel you are required to "obey" church leaders, that obligation will never exceed your obligation to obey the Lord's speaking to you. WL will stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR and RK and KR will also stand before the judgement seat for TFoTPR.
|
1) Churches "operated" just fine without the Spirit. See Galatians. Just because they embraced a doctrine contrary to the New Covenant, does not mean there wasn't "order" or at least an appearance of "order." In fact, I would argue, it is easier to manufacture an "orderly assembly" than it is to follow the Spirit. A corollary to this is what appears to be "confusion" may in fact be God's wisdom that is bigger than ours. A lack of human order requires faith and prayer. A rigorous human order does not necessarily require faith. This is not an argument for confusion, but an argument about entailment.
2) I agree about a "hierarchy" of laws. But if HUMANS are going to be seen to have "authority" the question must me asked, "from where is that authority derived." Is it from God? If so, what is the scope of that authority - does it extend to those not within the congregation? If it is only upon the congregation, what is the source of the congregation's identity? That is, why is this congregation distinct from others? ANd then where do its leaders derive their authority? It's more complicated than traffic cops.
Its one thing to say human groups need human structure - even Christian groups. It's another thing to say the "leaders" of that group have "authority" beyond that bestowed by the congregation (every human group can grant its "leaders" authority by democratically or otherwise consenting to that authority). If, on the other hand, the claim is that the authority is derived from God, that brings a whole BUNCH of other questions.
3) Correct, God is not the author of confusion. But God might define "confusion" differently that you and I. The folks at LSM felt that having more than "One Publication" brought "confusion." Was it "confusion" or what it something else? This principle can be extended beyond the LC example. Our definition of "confusion" is not His. It comes down to the fundamental question - are we in charge, creating "order", or is He? To say that "He is in charge" does not mean that there aren't leaders and "order." But to say there "needs to be order and therefore there must be leaders" is to skip over His role in how it all plays out.
4) Agreed.
None of this is to advance a notion of some "ideal" church or assembly. Nor is it to embrace whatever sort of assemblies emerge. The point is, whatever our "corporate" experience must be individually entered into based on an individual relationship with Him. That relationship,
if it is healthy (and this is where "know it by its fruits" comes in") will
ALWAYS result in corporate fellowship and working together - even if not in formal ways, though it may most often. The contrary is not necessarily true: formal corporate groups with a formal structure with varying levels of "authority" may not lead to healthy individual growth.
So, if we're trying to think about what the "default" emphasis should be - it is on individual's knowing how to respond to the Spirit within, having faith that, if they do so, it WILL result in corporate fellowship. The other default - "join a group" which has some sense of "authority" over you - MAY be okay, but it ALSO MIGHT usurp your agengy before God.
Again, a matter of entailment.
Thoughts?
Peter