Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I think that most presume that a true servant effectively corrects whatever error might otherwise exist. There may be some truth in that, but it requires that the pattern of service that one gives himself/herself to must be a genuine service to the church. But the fact that hierarchies are often filled with the ambitious casts shadows over a lot of it.
|
Here is the issue with leadership in general: followers trust leaders. We must believe and be convinced on some level that the one ahead of us knows where he (or she) is going. Institutions and hierarchies make this question automatic - you follow the one with the correct title on his name tag. (In Christian bookstores I always get a kick out of the various kinds of little "USHER" and "DEACON" badges you can buy. I want one that says "BISHOP" but they don't seem to make those.)
There's been some discussion elsewhere about "titles in the LC" and I don't intend to embark on an exploration of whether there's a meaningful difference between the LC terminology and the corresponding words in other denominations. But the key question is certainly based upon the same underlying issues - by virtue of what authority is anyone designated leader?
I know Hope said he's explored this topic in detail, though I haven't had the benefit of his study. Someone else frequently points out the problem of identifying the correct "elders" as evidence of the impracticality of the LC doctrine of locality. There is also considerable criticism of the doctrine of "Deputy Authority," particularly in its practical application.
Elders appointed by Paul could say that they had Paul's appointing as the evidence of their authority. But if we deny the denominational authority as a legitimate source and also deny an individual's ability to simply declare himself (or herself) an authority, as I do believe is appropriate, how do we have the ability to know, and more importantly, trust those whom we should follow?
The Lord said that His sheep know His voice.
I really think maybe that's all we get.
The pure and living Word burns in our ears and hearts when we hear it. If we strip away the superstition that one who has spoken for the Lord once is His appointed and anointed forever, perhaps we come to the place where we are able to follow Paul as he follows Christ and also avoid following him should he misstep into error. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God. Does the Spirit not witness that we should submit to any particular one at any moment? Or do we need to have some external imprimatur to verify what is the Lord's voice?
And to tie it back to the thread, was Paul's appointment of elders even necessary?