[OBW]

I both enjoy and despise this discussion.

I enjoy it because it puts the spotlight on those who claim to be “the” ones with “the” elders. This is an excellent way to cast a cloud over the very teachings that the LC promotes, most notably one church in one city under one set of elders. When there is a group who has that position then some splinter away and then try to wrestle the title away from the others, the foolishness is put on display. Thankfully there have been some who have realized that such a claim is hollow and have allowed the splinter group to have their precious name.

But the most despised part of the discussion is that in every case, any argument between two or more groups about who is “the” church with “the” elders ignores the many existing assemblies that were there before any such exclusive group came along and claimed to have the Holy Grail of churchism. They come with a formula of doctrines that they say are the proper ones and dismiss the reality of the church that is expressed in the lives of Christians who already gather in assemblies all over some large cities. They scoff at so-called divisions as they add one more to the mix while saying that they are not a division because they say they are the one church for the city. On whose authority? Not on scripture’s.

What a joke. This is the height or arrogance ─ or is it ignorance. Probably both. I agree that the tactic of framing the “one city one church” doctrine debacle in terms of a disagreement between two groups as to which one it should be points to the emptiness of their claims. But I can only barely stomach it because it starts by presuming that such a non-biblical teaching is actually correct.