[Cal]

The tension point with all this is that we see autonomy in the New Testament and we also see extra-local leaders seeming to lay down the law. So there seems to be a contradiction there.

The question remains: What is the extent of the authority of an extra-local worker?

I would say the answer can only be: as much as others choose to give him, that is, as much as they feel the Lord speaks in the worker's speaking. This is a matter of discretion and is not something the worker can ever insist on.

So, it seems to me the heart of the worker has to be one of complete humility and lack of presumptuousness. The worker, if invited, can minister to a church. And the church can then decide when the Lord speaks in his or her speaking, if at all. The worker has no ground to assume direct authority over the church. He is free to speak the word, but not undermine. The elders are responsible before the Lord to be the gatekeepers of who they let speak to their congregation. And the members are responsible before the Lord to make sure they are meeting in the place in which He wants them.

Ironically, this is model which exists today in Christianity. What's the downside of it? Freedom, basically, as if that's so bad. Some feel that oneness needs to be maintained by restricting freedom. Perhaps the Lord himself does this from time to time. But who are any of us to restrict the freedom of another, even ostensively in the Lord's name?

The whole problem with the LC movement is a warped view of authority, assigning it or insisting on it in inappropriate ways.