Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I asked for the problem with names and denominations. I should have been more clear. I would like a meaningful analysis of any scriptures that might speak on the subject(s) with attention to what they actually do or do not condemn rather than the stance Lee took of saying that “says ‘I am of Paul’” simply means taking a name in any form. I do not have a preconceived expectation for which I will simply argue. I’ve already said I don’t think it is there. I’ve seen the alleged verses before. But we can look again.
There are plenty of examples of things wrong with certain denominations. There are also plenty of examples of things about denominations that the LC (and many of us who were formerly in the LC) came to believe were problems just because Lee said it was so. Denominations, names, and the rest of Christianity are the boogeyman for the LC. Let’s open the closet door and turn on the light to see if there is really anything in there. Despite Lee’s rants on the subject, I don’t find scriptural problems with groups of assemblies pooling resources and having some of the people that they have decided to support so they can better serve them with the Word of God rather than every little one of us relying on just our own spirit and turning into an “everyman what is right in his own eyes” situation since we have limited time and resources. From the OT right on through the accounts in Acts, those who served the saints were worthy of their wages. “Clergy” was not entirely prohibited. What else did Lee get wrong on this?
|
My scriptural basis is the NT, from the gospel cases of disciples (Peter expressing Satan, John & James wanting to be first); these personal lacks (which we all have) being eventually codified in the book of Acts with headquarters and hierarchies and rules being imposed, and through the epistles (Galatians and Corinthians being highlight examples), eventually manifesting fruit in the seven epistles in Revelation and in the Great Harlot riding on the beast.
I was using common sense and experience, both of which I have in very limited quantities, so take it for what it is worth, probably very little. One christian's opinion, no more & less. My personal "interpretive rule" is obviously that, personal.
As far as everyone doing what is right in his own eyes in the absence of formalized leadership, either individually (in gatherings) or collectively (in gatherings of gatherings - i.e. denominations), I don't think that necessarily follows. Because it would behoove seeking ones to follow those who have gone on before. Whether that is formalized is up to the people seeking. Some seek to formalize it, and impose this form on others. With this I respectfully disagree. I reserve the right to not follow when others err. In the strict groups this is not an option. The leaders are by dint of position infallible. This is I think too common, not restricted to the RCC & the Local Churches. This is what I mean when I paint with the broad brush of "hierarchy" and "headquarters". I am not opposed to them per se. I just am allergic to the abuses which often flow from these setups.