[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christianity itself creates its own differentiations between Christians. Starting with denominational differences over doctrine. Differences important enough to Christians that they practice closed communion over the differences. Pretty significant to me seeing as communion is thought of as a participation in unity. Communion participated in a denominational sense. How interesting. There’s even one uber essential doctrine that Christians use to determine one’s Christianity.

First, the differentiation that you point to is within Christianity. So Christianity is, by definition, above the differences. When you say "Christian" you can't logically say that some Christians are Christian and others are not.

Some Christians practice closed communion. I know of a couple of groups that do that. They are far from a majority when spliced together into one group. I'm sure there are others as I do not know the practices of all churches. But a recent statistic said that something like 70 to 80 percent of all Christians fellowshipped through "mega-churches" or very lare assemblies. While there are some very large assemblies within groups that I cannot speak concerning, my impression is that most are of the types that practice open communion. Most of your independent community churches, Bible churches, Baptists, major charismatics groups, Community churches, etc., practice open communion.

And in the cases where it is not so, it is (at least on paper) more about a desire to make the observance only open to those they are reasonably confident are truly of the body of believers than a tool to keep other Christians out. Given the kind of warnings that Paul gave concering partaking unworthily, they may feel somewhat compelled to take that route to help non-believers avoid whatever might otherwise befall them. I am happy that there be the simple statement that it is for those who are believers. But I think that the notion that it is generally about excluding other Christians is a spin given with a purpose to discredit.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christians freely use the word cult to eliminate opposition in the name of objective truth. Truth denominationally believed.

Yeah. I know. And while I understand a legitimate use for it, there is seldom a time in which it is helpful. If there are legitimate issues, it is much better to lay out your objections than to simply add on a label and turn away. And if you are trying to help those caught within what you believe to be a "problem" group, you are more likely to close their ears by using the word.

And for that reason, it is so seldom used in anything but the most severe cases that when you use the word, Jonestown and David Koresh are all that come to mind. Hey, Christianity technically meets all the criteria to be a cult at some level. Following a man. Strong authority. I mean, check it out. WHerever you can find a list of 6, 8, 10 characteristics, the entirety of Christianity meets it at a somewhat low level on all counts, and higher on a few.

A related term is "heresy." Another weasle word. Declare it to be heresy and the discussion is over even if there is no heresy involved. Oddly, heresy is simply to hold a different opinion. So every group is somewhat heretical to every other group. But even they don't go around calling it that. We do tend to stick to really big things. Like suggesting that God is a cosmic mushroom. Or declaring Jesus to just be some man who got a bunch of stuff made up about him.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

There is one basic difference between Christians that should be obvious to all who are in Christ. Some Christians are in Christ, some are not. But due to natural denominational thinking so common among them, it’s not obvious at all.

Are you talking about people who declare themsleves to be Christian but all they are is socially compatible with Christian morality (never put faith in Christ) who occasionally attends some church because they think that Pascal was right that they should hedge their bet? Who don't really believe in Christ. Just in the idea of Christ or his moral teachings?

Or are you trying to make some distinction concerning moment-by-moment condition, such as the LRC would do when they determine whether they are or are not "in my spirit"?

I'm sorry if this seems like a trite answer. But those are the only two ways I can think of to assess your comment. The first one is to make the mistake of accepting that saying you are a Christian because you went to a church is synonymous to being a Christian. It is an equivocation. On this forum, we generally do not accept the idea that those people are actually Christian. The second is take the truth about not being in "active follow" mode (my made-up term). A way of saying that if you don't set your mind on the Spirit, you aren't going to fulfill teh righteousness of the law. I don't disagree with this. But even this passage in Romans does not remove you from the body of believers, therefore leaving you as a "Christian" even though you are not actively practicing. (I will stay out of the area of the hard-line "once saved always saved" v the Arminian "you can lose your salvation" discussion. I've been in groups on both sides and neither has what I see as a lock on the truth. And surely don't have the answer.)

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my view, a distinction must be made between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the Churches of Christianity. Something you’ve already disagreed with in no uncertain terms elsewhere. So I have to question the motive for your post. Unless I’m confusing you with someone else.

You probably are referring to me. But since you don't seem to lay out what it is that causes your concern or disagreement, I can't respond to it.

But I can assert that much of the kind of discussion that has previously been offered to put Christianity in such a bad light has (in my opinion) been selective as to its facts and colored as to how to interpret the findings of the selected facts. For the most part, only the anomalies are being pointd out.

I did not quote it, but you make a comment about “synonymity” between the Bible and churches. Inferring that the ekklesia in the NT is not the churches of today.

One thing that I find interesting in these discussions is the presumption that everyone sees what we see and is ignoring it. I am beginning to be convinced that what we think we are seeing is what we were told we were seeing by means of smoke and mirrors. Many of us left friends and even family to join the LRC for a time. We needed a reason. And Lee and the leadership wanted us to buy their wares in a way that would stand out as weird to our friends and family. So a wedge was continually driven between us and them. They are fallen and we are special.

Most now reading this forum have come down from the “we are special” as it applies to the LRC. But many have not gotten over the other side of the rhetoric. The “they are fallen and wrong’ side. We think that Christianity is out to fool its followers into buying their wares because it lines their pockets. And while you can find some of those, they are not the norm, or the majority. Most ore diligently serving their constituents what they see as needed for their Christian life and service. Most do not think about that other denomination on the opposite corner as some kind of heretical, cultish error. They think of them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Note that I say “most.” The fact that there is the LRC doing its thing is sufficient evidence that it is not all. But they are slandering most of the others. And making themselves into everything that they accuse the others of being.

And what is the ekklesia that the churches of today are not being? I see a vast diversity among them (in the NT) based on the letters written and the comments made in those letters. Be sure and include the letters in Revelation 2 and 3. Those churches mostly had some problems going on. But they were not designated as “false churches” or not churches.

In fact, besides some rather broad, metaphorical declarations about the church as a whole, how much does the Bible actually tell us about how the church should be? It seems to mostly tell the members how they should be. And the things that it tells them sound a lot like the things that are so often chastised as lists. I don’t like them either. But even if we agree that we will not put our list on anyone else, if you are a true Christian, you have your own list. And it is lengthy. And it has fuzzy words here and there because you are not certain what you really think or mean.

What I’m saying is not that having a mess is the whole idea. But that having a mess was the fact from day one.

But as long as we retain the Lee/LSM/LRC glasses for the review of all things related to the Christian life, the practice of “church” and so forth, we will be tainted to resist everything because we can’t stomach the LRC but believe they were right about everything else about Christianity. There are divisions among Christians. But their impact is generally not what was declared to us by Lee and the LRC. We just continue to look at it the way Lee taught us.