Still writing something on Connectionalism. It is controversial in a few circles, but is generally accepted among various denominations, especially the United Methodist Church. Before writing my thoughts here, I should say at the outset that I do respect this group for looking to outside models and doing their homework. The article does represent some hard work and careful study.
The Gang of Nine have shown the direction they are heading, and it seems that they are going to head in a direction similar to the UMC. The Sothern Baptist Convention is slightly different – they have conventions and regional groups, but those groups can not appoint clergy in its member churches. Under the UMC model, the regional bishopric hires, fires, and moves around staff in member churches. The Central organization also sets policy and doctrine, though in recent years they have opted for very little mandated doctrine and more policy.
Despite good arguments to the contrary, connectionalism is presented as a biblical mandate. This is based mainly on the argument that although there are no apostles today, the needs exist for the role of an apostle. This is a consistent hermenutic in our church history, mainly that all the offices of the first century church may not exist, but the need for the role remains. (This is also used in reference to prophets.) What I will say at this point is that the authority of the apostles is stressed, while the other roles of the apostles are not. In many writings of apostles, their primary role seems to be one of planting churches. Second, strengthening them. Their authority in other churches seems to have derived from either Jesus himself (the 12, Matthias, Paul) or from planting a church (Paul, Silas, Barnabus).
As far as the critique of the ‘mainline’ Churches of Christ, the comments are accurate according to those that are asked. Various groups exist to facilitate training and missions work, but members of the CoC debate their effectiveness. However, there is an example of maintaing local church leadership and co-operation that appears to be working. Namely, the Independent Christian Churches. There are regional groups, but the one hallmark is the NACC. Another organization, Stadia, has been working to plant churches with good success. They have planted over 100 churches, with many more planted recently, including ones planted by CoC and Christian Church members.
As I suggested, we should have a missions society similar to Stadia, or we should simply use Stadia. We have people all over the country itching to plant churches, my own minister is doing just that. There is success is forming groups without ecclesatical authority to plant churches, so why not? There is not a lack of people willing to take part. My concern is that had regional bishoprics been in place, this church might not have been planted.
Authority is a thorny issue, especially amongst Americans. Our society is fiercely independent and values independent thought. As a whole, Americans have an unhealthy attitude of authority and hide behind the proverb ‘power corrupts’ as an excuse to disparage any authority. It is a shame, really. We claim to submit to no one but God, all the while trying to tell Him what to do. I personally believe in local authority and I submit to it. I do not work to undermine the authority in my church locally.
There are those that puport to be leaders regionally, nationally, and globally. As with the apostles, I do not think they should be accepted on their word alone, but on a demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I am a cessationist, so how does the HS manifest itself today? See Galatians 6. Like the Bereans, I also went to the Scriptures to see if what they say is true. I have found that half is true, the other half is specualtive. Is the role of an apostle needed today? Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14 lead me to believe the apostles came to lay the foundation of the church. As such, their role is no longer needed.