Hi MM,
I quite understand. `Correct authority,` is related to all the gifts and ministries. We are to submit to one another, - `submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord.` (Eph. 5: 21) We are to respect and appreciate each other`s gifts & offices, for -
`the whole Body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share causes the growth of the Body fro the edifying of itself in love.` (Eph. 4: 16)
Marilyn
BTW read my next post for more.....
I absolutely understand what you're saying when it comes to the organizational structuring posture within most church organizations. I've been there for several decades now.
However, I'd like to offer to you what you likely already know: Referencing the unity and mutual submission as the mechanism for there being no distinctions in function within the Church is a fallacious over-application of that principle, being forced upon all other stand-alone principles as the chief, governing definition. That would be like me saying that, because there is an instruction for a man to instruct his "son" (singular in the test) in the ways of the Lord, that men are therefore allowed to have only one son, and that if he has more than one, he only has to instruct just one of them in the ways of the Lord. Different scenario, but similar misapplication.
Additionally, perhaps we all need to slow down a bit and define some things:
1) The modern day, institutional model is man-made
2) The entanglements of institutionalism with government due to regulations and tax oversight...mainly because they had no choice with government that sees itself as an authority over those institutions, as with all public institutions
3) The lone, top authority of the "senior" pastor within the "pastoral model" is the institutional model's replacement of Christ's Headship by way of another top authority, and who many times rule over the elders; some of them citing the authoritarian rule of elders as bad, pointing at a hand full of organizations, affiliated and independent (most institutional elders are not elders of biblical stature, granted)
4) Inclusive of all the many other trappings within the institutional model, some good, some not so good, including the massive expenditures and plethora of false teachings (such as "tithing to this church" falsehood and a hoard of other lies and socially engineered theologies)
When you point at those things, and (what appears to be) assume their differences from other models of gatherings as a reason for departures from the clear language of scripture, I'm not so sure that would be something to hold up as justification for such a broad spectrum denial of the Lord having established only the men as standing in the place of doctrinal authority in teaching. The one or two exceptions (or perceived exceptions) in history don't serve as license for inclusion in the function of doctrinal authority within the Church overall. That would be like me pointing at the hand full of women who led as doctrinal authorities, and did little more than create a cultic branch or total departure of the varying types we can point at today. Not all women would mislead.
So, yes, we can indeed point at the fact that there is no perfect model for gathering that's not riddled with imperfections. House churches have theirs, the institutional model has theirs, and the commune model has theirs, et al. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Thanks
MM