Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
So on the one hand yes an outsider should not tell elders what to do. But clearly this does not mean they are completely disconnected and completely autonomous, or "self ruling".
Clearly in the early church they were not completely self-ruling otherwise Paul would have let the churches appoint their own elders and would not have given instructions to the elders.
Nowhere in the bible does Paul say "let the elders decide for themselves, it's completely their decision". Paul had a ministry from the Lord and part of his job was to care for the churches. Caring for the churches included being involved in their affairs, which may have been perceived by some within those churches as outside interference - 2 Tim 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.
Somewhere there is a balance between complete self ruling and complete dictatorship. A genuine church or churches will strive to get the balance right. But a person who holds to either extreme e.g. baptist (self-ruling) or Catholic (complete dictatorship) would likely find fault with any churches attempting to strike the right balance and only see the black or white aspects.
|
Paul had a unique place among the Gentile churches, firstly because he was called by the Lord directly, and second because he brought the gospel to these new converts.
So, based on your great wisdom, how do the Midwest churches "strike a balance" when operatives from LSM came to these churches, fomenting discord, dividing the church, and assisting the malcontents to file lawsuits.
Many of these agents from LSM had never even visited Midwest churches before, so how would anyone consider them "today's Paul," and yield all authority to them? Those from LSM had never appointed the elders, preached the gospel, or established the churches. They rather assumed their authority because some folks bought their books.
How is this so "clear" for you, but not for the thousands of victims in the Midwest?