[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Boxjobox,

Two very big and two very important topics. I will offer my point of view for both in two posts.

Both a clergy laity system and a proper local church according to the scripture have authority, practice/function, and a result. Though they both possess these characteristics one is according to the scripture and one is not. One builds up the church and one inhibits the building up of the church.

I think you recognize and agree with me that a clergy laity system does not build up a local church as it anuls the functioning of the members of the Body. Hence, the members become laity, members that for the most part are not in service to the Body, therefore it cannot be built up.

In a proper local church, one according to the scripture, there is also authority, practice/function, and a result. I believe you also agree with me on the practice/function in a local church of “each one has” according to 1 Corinthians 14:26 and the result is the service to the Body according to each members function and exercise of gifts as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12 and it’s building up according to Ephesians 4:12. Perhaps you still strive to practice this based on the second question you asked. Your issue is with the matter of authority... who has it, how is it to be exercised and most importantly on what basis does any extra local person(s), local person(s), or organization have rights to engage in a local church in a position of authority. I believe your argument also is that extra local interference, unsolicited or solicited, is an indication of clergy laity. And that a strong local leadership is also clergy laity. Yet, the scripture shows that workers, those involved in the work of ministry, engage in a local church to appoint elders and to train them, to teach them how to teach, and how to manage various affairs. Scriptural examples include.... Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach different things:

“Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things.” 1Timothy 1:3

Paul left Titus in Crete to set things in order:

“For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you:” Titus 1:5

Neither Timothy or Titus were elders in those places Paul left them. Paul as the lead apostle in establishing these churches through his work of ministry delegated his apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus, neither of them being elders, yet they were instructed to charge some in those local churches what to teach and what not to teach, speaking, exhorting, appointing, training, reminding, admonishing, receiving, refusing, convicting ..,.

“These things speak, and exhort and convict with all authority. Let no one despise you.” Titus 2:15

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

Therefore, a ministry that establishes churches also has the responsibility for supporting those churches directly in appointing elders and charging what should and should not be taught, etc. as evidenced by Paul’s authority and the delegation of that authority to two co-workers, Timothy and Titus, and their involvement in the local churches where he left them. Perhaps some in those local churches objected to Paul and his coworkers having a strong hand in local affairs but their purpose would have been to bring members into the service of the Body and avoid a clergy laity system from emerging.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, I think you made a quantum leap somewhere in your consideration of the church and authority. My original position was one where I pointed out that to me, a proper church assembly would not one day have the elders publish that we are one with WL/LSM and are going to follow them. That is a divisive move that did not build up the local assembly, but created a civil war of factions, backbiting, mistrust, etc, and really, resulted in one group taking over the meeting place for their own practice.
WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle. Also, and not an insignificant matter, WL set up a business to publish his ministry called LSM. A business is an entity to produce, market and sell a product. I would hardly think you would agree that a business should have authority over a local church. If some wished to purchase material, or attend its functions, then those individual saints would be free to do so, and free to put themselves under the authority, or direction of LSM, but not in the capacity as members of the church, but as their own private choice. If some wished to speak or reference his material in a church meeting, if they felt it would edifying the saints, that would be the same as if someone referenced Andrew Murray or another bible teacher. If it was not used in a divisive, or authoritarian way, if others could add or subtract from such, I would not have a problem with that. But to turn over the whole church assembly to be subject to LSM, is not caring for the conscience or conviction of all the members. Those churches, or maybe I should just say those meeting as the church in my city, ceased to be the local church when they carried out their plan to impose LSM as the overriding content of all things "church". This became not a local assembly of The Church, but a church- gathering of LSM.