Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Arizona, I concur. I would like to pose the question at what point does a name become contrary to practical oneness? One of the points I learned while meeting in the local churches is taking a name denominates a congregation, assembly etc. Isn't it possible for a particular assembly to have a name and still function in practical oneness?
Terry
|
Terry, I hear you and I see the point and I guess it seems at least possible in theory but it really seems like it is not ultimately borne out in reality. I think there really is something to the teaching that Jesus has to be the unique name among us. In every case that I personally have encountered a named congregation, their name is meant specifically for distinguishment from the general body of believers. And I just don't really see how it could be any other way. That distinguishment, even if not intentionally divisive, seems to inevitably have that practical effect. No matter how well-meaning they are, they are part of that thing, which I am not. But we are all part of Jesus and Him alone. So, I just don't think I could ever give a pass to the practice. I would suggest that it seems like it might reveal a need to better discern the Body.
All of that said, I do hear you and I see your point and I believe the Lord is much more concerned for His practical manifestation on the earth than for the little quirks of Christian practice that happen here and there from time to time. So, I'll continue to admit that it seems theoretically possible to me. It is a very rare day that I conclude that God just can't do it, whatever it is. Less rare to conclude the God doesn't do it, and since I could never visit every locality in the world test the theories, perhaps such testimony of oneness as we have in some named places such as I have seen is sufficient for God's building work.
My experience has been that the Lord does inhabit the praises of His people. I would suggest that seems quite possible that wherever He is inhabiting, there is His house, which is the assembly. I think I will need a lot more experience and light along this line to say that more definitively. But in the meantime, I would suggest that if the group name really isn't important and doesn't mean anything, then it should probably just be dropped. And I would suggest that any resistence to dropping it reveals in itself the real problem. To ask if the name does any harm is really the wrong question in the first place. The better question is whether it does any good.
Enjoy His grace today!