[aron]

Two more points related to this morning's thoughts:

1. I never saw Jesus (or anyone in the NT) make the case that the Second Temple, built by Herod the Great, was somehow inferior to the one built by Solomon, even though it wasn't according to the exact specifications given to God by Moses on Mt. Sinai, as Solomon's had been. The temple was just the temple. Jesus pointedly didn't get all fixated on "those beautiful stones" (see Luke 21 & Mark 13). Likewise, I think organisational constructs according to some ideal first-century blueprint are beside the point. The only first century ideal is to love one another.

2. I am pretty tolerant of the various ekklesia. If they are imperfect, surely I am even less perfect. For every fault I could find, God could find five faults in me. So I feel kind of live-and-let-live with regards to assemblies out there.

But I am less sanguine about assemblies that seem predicated on how bad everybody else is. If their platform is the ruination of Christianity, and that they alone have recovered the ideal of God's corporate expression on the earth today, I am likely going to be less tolerant of them than of another group.

Jesus said that as you do to others it shall be done to you. If you don't tolerate others, don't be shocked when others don't tolerate you. Unless, of course your own 'persecution complex' is part of your platform. Then after you self-righteously 'rebuke' and 'correct' and 'expose' the degraded Christianity, you can in turn be 'persecuted' and 'attacked' and 'slandered' by them.