Quote:
Originally Posted by HERn
One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad. This is not polished and I came to it today when I read something in the discussion on another blog re: The Great Schism. A couple of commentators were lamenting the fact that although they believed in The sovereignty of God, what possible benefit could have come from the Great Schism (why did God allow it). This reminded me of an even earlier "schism" that our sovereign God apparently allowed (and even planned for?), which was the temptation and fall of man. I think we all know the wisdom/love/mercy of God in that "fouled-up plan". So, even though perfect unity in the church was God's goal could His allowing of the Great Schism followed by the umpteen other divisions simply be another venue whereby God could show His wisdom/love/mercy in the living out of the lives of the "peacemakers" who live in the reality of the unity even among the divisions? I don't know theology so all this is speculation on my part...I'm feeling more comfortable living with the thought of "going to the divisions".
|
Even the call for unity can be used in a divisive manner. The LC majored in this error. They want unity on their terms, defined by submission to their leaders, their vision and their doctrines. Simply calling yourself "the church in such-in-place" doesn't make you for genuine unity any more than calling yourself a Big Mac makes you a hamburger.
The bottom line is no group has the right to claim to be the one that everyone else needs to join. For conscience's sake we need to reserve the right to part ways with groups which we feel led to part ways with. Many community churches these days do a much better job of keeping the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace than the LC ever did.
Unity is important. But unity as practiced by the LC is bogus unity. It's the unity of a movement, not the Spirit. It's unity meant to validate them while discrediting everyone else.