[OBW]

Seems that we are all talking around at different aspects of the same problem. Terry is looking for a principle. ZNP is looking at specific issues of the LRC history. And Terry’s desire for a principle may be driven by different aspects of that same history.

But one of the problems that I see is that we still are too reliant on individuals to appoint rather than to take part in the process. I realize that this seems problematic in terms of the few examples we have in the NT. But remember that we only have “data” on the very early start-up. A time when there was no “history” in Christ for so many of the people involved.

So in some cases it would appear that Paul managed to find someone(s) who were well enough “versed” in the OT underpinnings, coupled with evidence of true understanding upon conversion to take the lead. In other cases, he left someone(s) behind to continue to teach while observing the new believers as they grew in faith, eventually coming to appoint some to take over the leadership.

But after that, despite some popular claims of all elders serving under election by an apostle, there is no actual evidence that this is so. In fact, it would seem that in Paul’s last years, enough of Asia Minor would desert him that he referred to it as “all in Asia.” Yet we do not find their elders treated as un-appointed. Or answering to someone else. And they did not cease to be churches on account of their desertion.

In this day and age, some groups/denominations appoint all the preachers. You get who the HQ sends you. Others rely on the selection of the particular assembly, although some kind of credentials are often needed to establish the “applicant” as being a group member in good standing and with reasonable training.

But in almost all cases, after that, it is the local assembly that is responsible for establishing its board — elders, deacons, or both. The elders/deacons may have some ability to deal with staff and to make decisions concerning direction, practice, etc. But even that is subject to scrutiny since there is the ever-looming election process.

This is a problematic process in some ways because it can put the very qualified out of favor over irrelevancies and put the very unqualified into position through political means or favoritism.

But it is funny that for all the claims (by some) that these voted positions are not scriptural, it would appear that the worst abuses of power are on the part of those whose position is by appointment. And it is often because the very appointment process is cancerous to the top. It is a closed system with no answerability to anyone but God. And they claim that they know God’s will so they can effectively ignore Him if it is not true because they think they are following. Why? Because they say they are.

So, returning to Terry’s concern, it would seem that the most honest position is that, whether by appointment or influence on a system of voting, those who have position need to be honest and upright in all they do. They need to be up-front with the reasons for their recommendations or their appointments. They need to be honest concerning reasons for their position. And if their “job” includes appointment, they need to be more than willing to do it all with full accountability and with input from all interested sources.

The “how” of this is far beyond my ability to direct or dictate (as if I could dictate anything). But wherever we are, I think that honorable men and women need to become part of the process within the system wherever they are. I know that is nearly impossible within some groups, including the LRC. And that could be a good reason to seek out different groups. Not saying to cut anyone off or declare them heretical. Just join with those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.