[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Also, can we stay away from arguments about motives? I could say, "You sound like you've been burned by a group that decried 'poor, poor Christianity,' and now are hunting for any way to legitimize it." NEITHER argument is helpful.

I will try, yes. Sorry. In my defense I was just trying understand where you are coming from.

You said that group isn't an entity and then imply it can have an agenda of mission work. Which is it? Should "groups" have agency or not?

When I said a group is not an entity, I meant it doesn't have a consciousness apart from the sum of the members. It can seem to, but it doesn't.

Obviously the members can decide to have an agenda as a group. This can be through consensus, through majority, or through the decision of a leading body or person. Groups do it all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

I'm not making the argument that if it's not present in the NT that it's prohibited. But an example would sure help if there is one. Is there an example in the NT of an assembly having a "mission work agenda" as opposed to individuals who are joined by others?

As for an example of group dynamics in the church, Paul addresses the churches as groups. He says "you" again and again meaning the whole church. He thanks churches for their gifts given as a group (that's a work). Also, Paul's exhortation to be of one mind does not seem to reflect the reservation about groups that you have.

I'm not trying to describe a fellowship-less world. I'm not trying to describe a mission-less world. I'm trying to advocate for these things while having a picture that relies a little more on Him and a little less on the human-created structures that have so often been at the core of scores of historical "wars."

A little more than what and a little less than what? Certainly a general push toward more faith in God and less faith in our devices is a good thing. But other than that are you wanting to get rid of anything specific?

Now, I understand your caution about groups and agree with it generally. There is a danger. But I don't think the solution is to hamstring groups. I think the solution is to limit their scope.

That said I'll address this comment of yours.

And if you don't think they are human-created structures, then you are arguing that they are ordained by God. And then you get into the same argument you get with "local ground-ers", except now you're in their shoes.

Regarding me doing that same the the local-grounders are doing: That comment is just mistaken. Saying that God can and does use human devices is not the same thing as trying to leverage a human device to bring everyone under one's rule.

LCers are right that cities are ordained by God. They are wrong to say that means everyone needs to submit to the city eldership their movement designates. I'm not saying anything approaching that. Please be careful about specious conclusions.

Instead of openness, I get - those who don't "join in" are "sad."

When I said sad, it wasn't a put down. I was just saying it's sad when someone has trouble connecting with others and cooperating with others because of group fear. It's the same thing as saying it's sad that someone can't enjoy a healthy sex life because of sexual abuse. It isn't a put down, it's just an observation. Trust me, I speak from experience.

The LC messed up a lot of people in regards to having healthy, balanced relationships with the Body of Christ. I understand that because I've been through it. I'm just pushing for a healthy reaction to that. I don't think completely draining groups of any group identity or team spirit is the answer. I think the answer is realizing that no group is perfect or unlimited in scope. You can leave if you want. But if you decide to stay, it's nice to be able to jump in and enjoy it, and not always feel you need to be emotionally insulated because of fear of exploitation.