Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
If a "ground of oneness" gives rise to a vigalence to be open and embracing, and conversely skeptical of statements of exclusivity, then I am behind it.
If it fosters a sense to "establish" something, then I think we're getting into God's exclusive territory.
The more I interact with other Christians - and their groups - the more I realize the primacy of the gospel and not the levels we add on to it. In fact, the more just try to live my fumbling life with the relationships within it, the more I realilze the primacy of my need for a savior and the "building" that accomlishes as it plays out...
|
It took me a couple of passes through this to understand. And in the end I agree.
To me, the problem with focusing on a "ground of oneness" is that by taking the energy to give it a label that is not simply "Christ" and the realization of the common thread of Christ among so many groups from the most fundamental/evangelical to the most liturgical/high church, we take our eyes off of Christ and put it on the "ground of oneness" and thereby force it to be something other than Christ. (And before someone suggests that I am embracing what is so wrong in what is now seen as "fundamental" within the "fundamentalists," I intend the term to mean what it started out as in the early 20th century, not what it became in its own closed, semi-exclusivist way.)
Now to say there is a ground of oneness in a sermon, and take great pains to describe that as Christ and the common link between us all is well and good. And if that sermon goes further to challenge any "we are the best Christians" thoughts among those listening, even better. But if that is the case, then the emphasis will be on Christ and what we have in common. But if the emphasis becomes what is different about those others from you, then the emphasis is not really on Christ. It becomes, like in the LRC, a way to redefine "Christ" into your way of seeing, thinking, believing, and doing. Being "Christ-like" becomes being one with a particular take on things that are not simply "Christ."
And since I only hear "ground of oneness" from one place — the LRC, which is exclusivist at its core — then the term really has no meaning of value within the Christian community. For those who have ever considered the term, it is evidence of a lack of oneness. It is a thing defined so wrongly that even those who hold to the true "fundamentals" are excluded because they do not also hold to something else (dirt, city, LSM ministry).