COGR – Who Will Lead Us? Someone Will.
January 20, 2024
Good day! I am writing a series of short reviews of abbreviated COGR video clips. I am looking for input and comments. If it makes it easier, I will be glad to supply a Word document so comments can be put in the document and we can communicate directly. My email address is lattema@icloud.com. I hope you find these reviews helpful.
Transcript:
Now, can I say something else? Somebody’s going to lead you? Can I say something else? Who leads you is going to be a man, right? Can I say something else? Because you can’t avoid it, unless you’re not a person. All of those that are not human, you can avoid what I’m saying. But if you’re a person, if you’re a person and help, somebody is going to tell you what to do. (Stephen Hargrave)
Commentary:
Stephen aims to persuade the congregation that it is reasonable for the apostles to exert authoritative control over every aspect of their lives. The implication is that any resistance from the congregation is due to stubbornness. However, life experiences teach that it is important to ensure that leaders are competent and genuinely have the congregation’s best interests at heart. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. It is crucial for the congregation to reflect on the language being used if they are to safeguard their freedoms.
Stephen asserts that someone will lead them, raising two unaddressed questions. Firstly, what does it mean to be led? In this context, it is clear that the speaker advocates for an authoritarian mindset, with the COGR leaders having almost complete control. Stephen seeks affirmation from the congregants that someone will lead them, aiming to normalize the tight control evident in the group. The congregants, likely having not seriously considered alternative leadership models, are expected to be firmly under someone else’s control. However, it is essential to question whether leadership must be authoritarian. The answer is no; an authoritarian, top-down control system has limited utility and is not the best leadership model.
Stephen also fails to present a compelling argument for the congregants surrendering their wills to the apostles. If they are to be led, it is reasonable to expect competent leaders with their best interests in mind. The congregation should aim to minimize control and maximize freedom to an appropriate degree. Why should they submit to someone who seeks to bully them and exploit their finances for personal gain? Stephen’s confident assertion that they should all be led by someone requires careful consideration. Why should the congregants surrender their free will and the right to hold their own opinions? What form of church government promotes mental and family health, and which best represents the truths of the Gospel? These critical questions remain unanswered by the COGR.
Furthermore, Scripture does not prescribe a specific form of government for churches. While it offers some possibilities, there is no clear direction. If church government were as crucial as the COGR claims, one would expect clearer guidance from Scripture. Since it is not, the congregation should assume that church government is situation-specific. The best form of government depends on the current situation, with its appropriateness determined by how it impacts the effectiveness of the church in building a Christian community and reaching out to the world. In the case of this group, the current form of government hinders the growth of the congregants and misguides them.
Leave a comment