Many theologians and scholars believe that Christ would return either before or by the time of the death of the apostles.
They did not expect the world to go on another 2,000 years.

Now the last of the apostles died, the Parousia did not happen, Jerusalem along with Israel was destroyed, and the church was dispersed into the world. But the end did not come.
This is why the Apostolic fathers are important. They had to deal with the delay of the Parousia. Tp paraphrase Gilkey: "Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, and all we got was this [lousey] Church!"

Warren Lewis, probably the most brilliant theologian produced by the Stone-Campbell tradition, stated that the creation of the office af the bishop and even the Pope was by the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He may be right.

That being said, I am still a congregationalist, as that best fits what the local body of Christ should be: local ministry and local leadership. We no longer have apostles, as the first century did (unless we accept the office of apostle for now!)

I spent a few years with the Mennonite Church and the churches have overseers outside of the local church. These people are outsiders, who have no true idea of the local church poiltics, and they have to resolve the problem. Actually what I have seen happen is non-resolution of problems-one or the other parties in conflict either shut up or leave. That is not good.

The local eldership is still the best model if we look to the New Testament. If we decide not to look to the New Testament, which may be a viable way, then other paradigms of leadership are available.

Just my random thoughts.
Thanks and God bless,
Gary

I knew you had some insidious plot starting this website-to become the first "official" Church of Christ Pope. Thanks for admitting that! You have my vote for pope.

Gary "the mad-Anabaptist"

Authority showed itself in two ways: depth of service to the community (Mk 10:42-45; 2 Cor 10-11) and harmony of doctrine to the apostolic gospel (Gal 1:6-12; cf. Rom 1:1-7; 1 Cor 15).

One whose life and teaching do not consistently and substantially harmonize with the gospel of Jesus Christ was to be rejected.

And the idea that apostolic authority supercedes autonomy does not explain why the Gentile congregations would take James' letters (either in Acts or in the letter we call James) as authoritative.

I'm not trying to deny the idea of autonomy; just trying to show why that particular example doesn't work for me.