Unfortunately, what AJ relates sounds more like the Sanhedrin than the Council of Jerusalem. We fear we might lose our place, whatever that is, however mean and powerless– just as the Sanhedrin in John 11 worried that they might lose what diminished rule they were alloted by Rome if the Jewish people followed the Messiah. We like our self-rule; or at least as close to it as we might be able to manage. Better to be the Senator from a molehill than to serve someone else in a palace, I suppose. How we got from our example of a Servant King to a scrabbling desire for the most microscopic influence and autonomy, I simply do not know. This is one of those “base concerns” that troubles me, I suppose.

Todd speaks of true accountability. I have to confess that the entire concept was foreign to me– a lifelong member of the CoC, and a full-time preacher– until I left that denomination. I learned about it later, and changed dramatically — but not without considerable resistance, and friction with my Father.

I cannot argue with this conclusion, but I wonder if this does not bear more reasoned examination. About what are we so stubborn and distrustful? Specifically, I mean. What is it that we have with which no one can be trusted? IMO, what Jay is describing here is simple fear. And the first step in addressing fear is to ask, “All right, EXACTLY what is it that you are afraid of?”

Some fears are rational, but can be addressed proactively or correctively. Some fears are irrational. And some stated fears are intended to mask other, more base personal concerns.

But you are correct in pointing out a pretty high hurdle, that is acknowledging who "we" are. We have unfortunately shrunk that pronoun over the years and it needs some letting-out.

I believe that there is a catalyst available for such a thing as you suggest… it is the "restoration" of the work of the apostle in the body of Christ. But that's another story…

I wrote,

If I could make just one reform in our system of autonomy, it would be this: I’d insist that elderships citywide work together as a single team. They should pray together, study scripture together, go to training classes together, and coordinate church work together. They should help each other, lean on each other, and love each other.

"Single team" does not imply hierarchy. It just means working together toward common goals, those goals being set by prayer, study, and conversation, not by a bishop or such like.

Very Big Amen to that. I'd get scared though if the group started appointing officers or presidents or electing/selecting committees- basically trying to become a hierarchy. In fact there should be a conscious effort to avoid that by, for example, rotating any organizing duties by alphabetical order or lot. Or better yet, the elders building relationships one-on-one as a start. Maybe that's what you mean, I'm not sure if you mean personal friendships or organized meetings.