The tradition seems helpful here, as ever. The marks of the church are that it is one, that it is holy, that it is catholic and that it is apostolic.

Translating that into inadequate modern parlance, I’d say that those were signs of a healthy church viz:
– that it is not divided against itself, but has a common sense of purpose (its oneness)
– that it offers pathways to deeper spirituality and intimacy with God (its holiness)
– that its unity does not preclude diversity and what it has is open to all (its catholicity)
– that it is spreading the good news about Jesus (its apostolicity).

It seems to me that the manner in which a church works is secondary to the urgency of doing those tasks.

I suppose that a church might well decide to work towards (or within) LCM understandings if there was a common understanding that such ways were more likely to lead to such a healthy existence than other ways.

So, I have a ‘new’ question, which I hope might move us on. For those who advocate LCM:

What does a healthy ‘non-LCM’ church look like?

How is it different (is it different?) from a healthy LCM congregation? Why would one choose to be one thing rather than the other?