Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I would have to say that they are a de facto denomination . . . even if you grant that their "name" is not a "name." The term "denomination" has a general meaning that Lee and his followers tweaked to such a great extent that they eliminated all but the name as the basis for being one. Argue away the name and you avoid the label.
|
Good points.
For example, I have met with the Churches of Christ. If there ever was a spiritual and Biblical name for a church, theirs is it. They also claim to be local, with an autonomous local eldership. They truly love God's word, but what overlays their understanding of scripture is the teachings of Stone and Campbell of the early 19th century. Even though I loved their Bible studies, I had difficulty worshiping God via their 200 year old hymns which must be sung a cappella, normally with harmonies. My problem was one of "logistics."
This is indicative of the problem of denominations. It was not that one congregation locally decided to use an old hymnal and nobody had any musical skills. It was that some renowned teacher close to 200 hundred years ago decided that true worship in the church can NOT have musical accompaniment. That's what denominations do -- they tell you what to do and what not to do. They control their member churches by controlling their leaders. Some of this is good, some of this is not so good, some of this is bad, and some of this is just horrible, as church history has taught us.