[OBW]

Aron,

I would admit that asking a stranger what church they attend could be a matter of being divisive. But it also could be nothing more than a Christian version of the typically meaningless “how are you” to which everyone answers “fine” even if they are not. It would be better if we really meant it when we asked how someone was doing and they really told us. Alternately, we should greet with some other more meaningful statements rather than empty clichés.

What I find problematic is that the LC focus on the name was often their own focus. The fact that someone asks where you “go to church” is not clearly some ruse to size you up for disagreement. In a similar manner, I enjoy finding out that the people running the places from which I get lunch are originally from Moldova, Romania, Pakistan, or even Iran. I am not seeking to label the Iranian as some scary person to get the FBI to watch. That is the last thing on my mind.

Do you presume that everyone who asks about your affiliation is out to separate from you? Is it so hard to simply say you meet with a free group that has no name? Even if you meet with the Church in Dallas (which I do not believe to be the case), according to LC doctrine, that is not a name, but a simple fact. So you are essentially a free group with no name. (We’ll ignore the issue of LSM domination for now.)

Your comment about denominationalism being a red herring to divide is still baffling. If it is the reason that they are dividing, then it is not a red herring. It is the fact. I did not suggest that there are not problems with denominations, or at least some denominations (I will not try to paint a one-size fits all situation). What I said was that denominations, or denominationalism, is not the actual problem. Some other actual error, if any, is.

As for swerving from the target, it might be that the LC spends more time swerving from the target to attack things that others do not hold as dearly as the LC thinks. The Baptists are there. They are not a mystery. Even if they dropped their name, they would be a group that teaches certain specific doctrines that are not in alignment with every other group out there. If my group, which is not part of any denomination, dropped its name, it would be hard to understand how the LC that meets in Irving could continue as a separate assembly (according to LC doctrine). But there will be some other issue to which the LC would object. It would be the band and music. It would be the manner of seating. It would be the lack of acceptance of “one church one city” as one of the basic tenets of the faith that differentiates Christians from heretics (overstatement). It would be elders chosen by the assembly and not appointed by some “apostle.”

So the name is really nothing. The real issue is everything else. But since we will accept Ray Graver, Benson Phillips, Titus Chu, John Ingalls, Bill Mallons, John Piper, Charles Swindoll, John McCain, and Barack Obama to our Lord’s Table, yet I doubt the Church in Irving would do the same, I wonder who is closer to actually following the LC’s own doctrine of oneness. (I'm willing to accept Obama's profession of faith for the purpose of this argument.)

Peter expressing Satan. Not relevant to the discussion.
John and James wanting to be first. Not relevant to the discussion.
The Great Harlot riding the beast. Not relevant to the discussion.

Scriptural basis? I understand the desire to avoid certain kinds of problems. But it is interesting that Peter did what he did without a name or a denomination. Same for John and James. And the Great Harlot riding the beast is not the church in any form.

I accept that your opinion is what it is. But if the objective of the inquiry is to determine whether the LC’s position on names is simply their opinion, or something founded in scripture and worthy of disdain without any other error being present, neither your opinion or mine is a fact. And the submission of scripture that is not relevant to the discussion is not helpful.

I did not say that having a hierarchy or headquarters will solve the problem of everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. I pointed out that, at best, most of us have limited abilities to study the word in a thorough manner. Prior to the printing press, that was essentially a given. It was a requirement that some would devote time to study and teaching. Those ones wisely did not do so on their own (or not typically so). They sought input from others. Yes, that input could come from the past, from others’ writings, etc. But the process of grappling with scripture is not a matter of private interpretation. In the example in Acts 15, even if it is determined that their ultimate edict was flawed, their manner was consistent with the way they were taught, which included the tradition (there’s one of those awful words according to Lee) of joining together to decide and not simply leave it to one.

Yes, setting up an association of assemblies that puts power in the hands of some and causes others to be required to submit is a problem. To the extent that the denominations operate in such a manner there is cause for concern. But until someone is able to point out a scriptural basis for not grouping assemblies or being known in any manner other than “church,” the problem is in what people do with position and power, not just the fact that it exists. Even without official power, influence by people of stature can result in the same thing without their intent. The real issue is in whether the leadership is truly a group of servants or whether they are persons wielding authority. Either happens in any situation, from the largest denomination to the smallest home group. The only difference is that the home group will generally disintegrate while the denomination will perpetuate itself. That does not condemn the fact of the denomination, but it condemns those who wield such authority.

I’m not defending the errors that we see in groups that happen to be denominations, or that have names. I am questioning the basis for the position against names and denominations taken by the LC and considering whether we should continue in that tradition. So far I have not seen the basis for following the LC’s lead.

I believe that the whole issue was created to provide reason to gather around the "one city one church" flag and fight for it.