Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I personally like the Bible church model. There is a commonality but no literal connection. Not even as connected as the Baptists. But I still see the benefits of affiliation at some level. Allowing the joint scholarship of a group like Dallas Theological Seminary (or other similar school) to be a lightening rod around which most of my theology centers gives me some certainty and confidence that it is being thought out by better minds than just mine. (Lord help us if it is just mine. And despite the kind of positions I seem to take here, I am very serious about this. I don't think that I have thought it all through. I am just trying to diligently think through what I have in front of me so far. And after I raise all my questions, I will probably defer to the "experts." At some level, that is beginning to include my own son.)
|
My view on what's "proper" has softened over the years. I have come to believe that the whole attempt to strictly define the "proper church" as the LRC did was misguided.
For example, we were led to believe that a proper church meets on the local ground, is not controlled by or even affiliated with an extra-local organization, does not have a name, yet is in fellowship with other local churches, etc.
As some LCs separated from LSM, members and ex-members posting here have wondered aloud what to do next and these rigid ideas about what is and isn't a church have come out in discussion in the form of presumptions.
But what is truly wrong with a church being affiliated with an external organization or leaning toward certain ministries? We've seen the dangers, but there are also dangers with too much autonomy and too little focus.
The LRC got divisiveness all wrong. It defined external characteristics of a non-divisive church and then within the form of those characteristics become very divisive! But true divisiveness is a heart and attitude matter. It does not consist in having differing beliefs and priorities than others. It's how those affect your attitude toward and relationship with others.
I think the Lord is much more flexible than we give him credit for. He is most interested in love and holiness. The outward form of expression is much less important. So if the community church down the street notes on it's sign that it is affiliated with SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), or even if it calls itself Baptist, I cannot consider that in itself divisive, or that they are not a genuine church.
Likewise, the LRC is not divisive simply for being affiliated with LSM. But they are hypocritical for claiming groups associated with ministries are divisive while exempting themselves.
It's interesting that the NT gives us clear parameters for defining a Christian (belief in Jesus, having Christ in us) but does not gives us a plain definition of what is a church and what isn't. Nowhere does the NT say "this type of group is not a church." God's wisdom on display once again, I think.