[Cal]

Gubei,

The fact that you have counter examples does not eliminate the problem, it simply shows that in some cases the problem is not manifested. But in any of those situations you speak of the problem is waiting to happen, and you have no solution for it once it does, other than to condemn on group or another. And that solution is not acceptable, since there is no way for you to prove who the real elders are.

Further, the fact that two sets of leaders disagree is not necessarily a point of weakness or immaturity, at least not one for which we can decide for everyone which is wrong. The disagreement may be on a substantial and important points, at least in their minds. For example, one group believes Lee's ministry represents the essence of the Bible, the interpreted word, and so must be adhered to. Another group does not believe this. Each is not necessarily acting badly, they are acting as their conscience dictates, at least it is easy to imagine a situation where that is the case. Each are being, ostensibly, as pure as they can be, they simply disagree on a point that they cannot get around or find common ground on.

So how does one decide which one is right? The old-fashioned way, you pray and make up your mind. Someone else's claims to being right are more or less meaningless. You have to decide for yourself. So if there are two groups claiming to be the leaders of the one church, I might pray and go along with one group; and you might pray and go along with the other. But because I am convinced in my mind that I'm right, does that mean I can say you are then not following the true elders? I don't see how anyone can make that case. And so if neither of us can decide for the other, the idea of a genuine single eldership is theoretical, it is not practical. Yes, we might all go along and make it happen, but what if my conscience won't let me go along? You have no solution for that either.

As I've said before, you have not given me a practical way of how do determining for everyone in a city in a way that can be enforced who the elders of that city are. Therefore, despite the fact that you can point to instances where everyone in a city are under the same elders (and I don't think you can; all you can show is a group of recovery members who are all under one set), your model is still theoretical.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say I thought it was necessarily a bad thing for all the Christians in a locality to be under one eldership. The problem comes in when for example a subgroup decides the elders have gone off the deep end and leave (and they are within their right in doing so) and those elders proceed to condemn them, as if they have franchise rights over the city or something.

This is the LC mentality and I would say it is a problem which lurks latently in every single LC church. It's built into the model whether you admit it or not. It cannot not be. Why because once a group is convinced their elders are necessarily the unique leaders of the city-church, then they must believe that those who don't follow them are wrong in some way, otherwise they don't really believe it, in which case the point is moot.