Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
A couple of thoughts on the ground of locality.
(1) Another issue is if you accept the teaching, how do you determine which leader or set of leaders actually is over the church in the city? The LC model says the "apostle" decides." but then who decides who is the apostle? Clearly this model will lead to wrangling, politics, power plays and accusations--and has. The LC's way is to ignore any leaders or churches who do not cowtow to the movement. Surely that is wrong.
|
Officially, the Recovery denounces the Bishopric system, but that is exactly what their leaders practice. In the Great Lakes Area, church leaders are regularly assigned and reassigned by Titus Chu, who seems to hav elittle more than a passing interest in the actual condition of the saints in the various local churches within his sphere of influence. TC's primary interest appears to be the maintenance of his own personal empire.
Ignatius, the first real proponent of the bishopric, was indeed extreme in his views. Andrew Miller's Church History records, "
Scarcely had the voice of inspiration become silent in the church, than we hear the voice of the new teachers crying loudly and earnestly for the highest honors being paid to the bishop, and a supreme place being given to him. Not a word about the Spirit's place as sovereign ruler in the church of God." (pp 178-179) Sounds to me exactly what happened in the Recovery as the Blendeds rose into prominence, exalting their Bishop Lee. Ignatius wrote to Ephesus, "
We ought to look upon the bishop even as we do upon the Lord Himself." In another letter he wrote, "
you are subject to your bishop as to Jesus Christ."
After years of serving in the local churches, it became finally evident to me that the appointment of elders, and the relocation of elders, had little to do with the care of the saints, and everything to do with maintaining the control of the bishop. The underlying question of the quarantines which occurred was not whether one belonged to Christ or not, but whether one belonged to Anaheim (WL and his successors) or Cleveland (TC.) Each church had to choose whether "we are of Lee," or "we are of Chu." When all the key LC leaders in the region were both appointed by TC and/or supported by his payroll, it's easy to see how they could
not remain impartial, and loyal only to the Great Shepherd and His sheep.