Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Not true. The Bible indicates that the official leader(s) is/are appointed by the Lord. This appointment is recognized by consensus, which the Bible also indicates. If one doesn't agree with the consensus, one is free to meet elsewhere. (Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.) This is my model.
BTW, the pastor of my church was not appointed by an apostle. Does that mean if you came to meet with us that you would not recognize his authority? If you would, where does his authority come from?
|
This requirement that "only apostles appoint elders" has done more to destroy the character of "local" churches than perhaps anything else. Since the apostles have been gone for almost 2,000 years, do we have no more elders, and thus no more churches?
WL comes on the scene and basically says this, "no other church apart from us is legitimate. Only I can appoint elders, so I must be the only true apostle, and the elders I appoint are the only true elders, and the churches under them are the only true churches." Of course, he would never be so candid to say this plainly, but what part of this did he not imply repeatedly?
This matter of appointing elders only by apostles has no prescription in scripture. Once you use Titus 1.5, then I ask how is Titus an apostle? Who are today's apostles? I have concluded that much of this practice has the underlying motive of Chinese culture top-down management style. Often times these appointments of elders have no concern for the feelings of the saints, no concern for who are the real shepherds, no concern for genuine spiritual maturity. Instead they appoint elders from afar who are loyal and subservient to the appointer, who in turn maintain their special status amidst the church as the sole apostle.
I surely agree with Igzy and Paul in Acts 20.28, who placed the flock of God first "among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God."