View Single Post
Old 12-12-2008, 10:23 AM   #81
Gubei
Member
 
Gubei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 114
Default Re: "Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy View Post
Let me address by analogy the issue of one eldership (not ground of locality) necessarily leading to conflicts. (Ground of locality without one eldership is pretty meaningless.)

Suppose you have a person with no immune system. As long as no disease germs come along, he's going to be just fine, it will seem his system works perfectly. But if germs do come along, and they are sure to, he is not going to survive.

Now a city with one church and one eldership is precisely like that man with no immune system. As long as no problems come along, well, the system seems to work. But if any kind of problem comes along where the leadership's over-all-the-city authority is challenged, the system does one of two things:

It either turns mean and becomes oppressive, which is a kind of conflict. Or, if the leaders are actually godly, like those in Columbus, they don't assert themselves and allow the disgruntled to leave and meet where they want, in which case they are assenting that they actually aren't over all the city in the first place.

Since disagreements with leadership, legitimate or otherwise, are bound to happen eventually, the model is bound to break down in one of two ways, one which shows the dark side of the arrangement, the other which assents to an alternative model.
Igzy,

Thanks for your clarification. This seems to be my last comments on this issue.

You wrote
"Eldership is confirmed, therefore, by recognition by followers. I.e. People follow the leader(s) because they are persuaded in their own minds that the Lord wants them to follow those leaders. So although a leader may be the official leader of a church, no one is compelled to meet with that church. They are free to meet where the Lord leads."

Igzy, now I understand what you are saying. It seems that the end-image of yours is almost similar to mine. But your approach is quite different than mine. I still believe that elders are appointed by apostles. Your model does not explain how the official leader is appointed based on the Bible.

I'm going to post my writings on apostleship soon.

You wrote
"Let me address by analogy the issue of one eldership (not ground of locality) necessarily leading to conflicts. (Ground of locality without one eldership is pretty meaningless.)"

Igzy, so your definition of the ground of locality is one eldership, which equation I have over and over again been opposing. Basically, the ground of locality is not on one eldership.

Furthermore, there is a causality problem in your illustration of the no immune system. The cause of problem is not the no immune system (the ground of locality) but the gem (divisive human nature which can be sometimes in the form of even "insisting" the ground of locality – as we have seen in the case LSM). And contrary to the name of "no immune", the system has an ability to unite saints by exposing their real state. Once again, what causes problem is not the ground of locality itself but the divisive human nature, even if that disguise itself as "insisting" the ground of locality. I believe we need to know this subtle distinction.

In the Lord,

Gubei
__________________
Less than the least
Gubei is offline   Reply With Quote