[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Not so brother, Lewis does not at all espouse one 'flavour' of Christianity (if that is a proper word for it) over another - an "us" and "them" - on the contrary, his list of opposites are not opposites of Christians, but opposites of errors... We walk a narrow path, not a broad way, and the Christian life is a life of balance (and I could provide many examples but I would rather take the time to do so in a separate post if time allows).

And I was not trying to say that Lewis said what I said. It was to me, within the LRC context, a reasonable extension of his remarks.

While we do walk a narrow path, much of what is being discussed — particulars about what aspect of belief is predominant, minimal, or in some balance — is undertaken in the arguments between Christians in such a manner that they won't agree to be one as they continue their discussions. There is definitely error involved. But it is not as much whether there is or is not truth (even at some level) in their position but rather the error is in how the debate has been undertaken. And it has been undertaken from the position that true Christians think like me and nominal, or even false ones do not.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

That is exactly true, and it is precisely why I supplied my own definition to the term "religion", and then asked if we were agreed upon the definition I provided. By so doing, my hope was that no one could think I was saying any more or any less than I actually was about the matter.

And if you note, I did not suggest that you were doing what I was talking about.

But the problem is a little like talking about cults. There are many flavors and varieties of cults. At some level (the lowest level) simply being Christian is to be in a cult. But when we throw out the word, the least that people can think of are the Moonies, and most go straight to Jim Jones or David Koresh.

The thing is that we are talking about one of many definitions of religion. So rather than just say "religion," it is better to specify what it is that is being talked about. And you did that by supplying your definition. But once we are three posts beyond your definition, "religion" in all its possible definitions becomes the bogeyman in many people's minds because the particular definition becomes remote. So rather than use a word that is rich in positive meaning, and even used in scripture in that manner, find one that is more pointed to the errors or conditions that we seek to actually discuss. Words like dogma or phrases like empty ritual might be better. But even "empty ritual" begins to presume that ritual is simply empty when that is not the case.

I guess what I am trying to say is that besides pointing out the precise errors, generalizing too often creates the kind of polar thinking that Lewis refers to as error. It would be much better if we sought to understand our differences. To find what is right about both reverence in stillness and in exuberance in which neither negates the other, but is rather appreciated as the many ways that man stops to worship, contemplate, praise, and revere God.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Ah, I think I understand where your consternation above comes from: I did not at all mean to suggest that we ought, as Christians, to simply meet with whatever group we were geographically closest too - rather, I was calling attention to the fact that many whom I have know in LSM will travel upwards of 60 miles every Sunday to meet in the Anaheim approved LSM locality, RATHER than meet with Christians in their "neck of the woods" - which does, of course, make them a sect (and not at all about locality, as it were).

And I was throwing out my drive past a couple of other assemblies as a point that was both counter to the LRC thing of disrespecting the many that they pass by and counter to any suggestion that we should merely attend the closest.

But in keeping with my brief mention of the variety of ways to worship, above, it would also be better if we could come to a place where we were able to worship with those of a different preference without trying to "discern" them. I have a friend who moved to a small town (population about 500) in a valley between mountain ranges in Colorado. After being raised Baptist and leading worship in a growing (and now large) nondenominational assembly, he is now the volunteer worship leader in the Lutheran church in town.

And the real point of this discussion is in relationship to the LRC. While it may be that even a lot of the rest of Christianity has problems in these areas, they are zingers for the LRC. We all need to rethink our positions such that we come down more on the side of liberality when it comes to those that don't believe exactly as we do. I'm not talking about whether Jesus was God or some other nearly heresy. We need to understand true tolerance in which we hold to what we hold to without forcing others to follow suit or face our wrath — or disdain.