@SecondSon
The "local church" is "local" and autonomous according to the New Testament. Grouping "local churches" together to form a sect under the auspices of a centralized figure of an ordinary man is cultish.
I think your charge is not accurate. It assumes that oneness of local churches is impossible or that any fellowship of local churches should be suspectas an effort to conglomerate a regional or national "Church".
Actually you are so USE to division that unity is suspicious to you and should never be. Normal is that automous congregations should have nothing to do with each other. We see fellowship among local churches in the New Testament without destroying the local nature of her government (as to each assembly).
We don't see that in the New Testament. Fellowsship among many local churches occurred in spite of the fact that oversight and government was retricted to their respective localities.
Paul said the letter he wrote to the
Colossians should also be read by the
Laodiceans and visa versa
(Col. 4:16). He said he taught the same thing in all the churches. He spoke of the customs of the churches.
Yet there was no grouping of, say, the seven churches in Asia into the Church in Asia. Nor was their a grouping of the churches in Judea into a Judean Church. Nor was there a grouping of the churches in Galatia into a Galatian Church.
Yet there was
fellowship among the various local churches. That there could not be so today is superstitious of you.
Government of individual churches can be local yet fellowship and sweet communion between various churches in a region or larger area can occur also, and should.