Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
It reminds me to the idea of unity, or in LSM parlance "oneness". Surely this is prescribed in the scripture. But in actuality it becomes a vehicle for abject servility. We have to be "one" with so and so, they say. We have to be one with God's latest move, with God's current speaking, with the "brothers", with the "Body", etc.
In such exclusive groups, words and phrases take on two meanings, the exoteric or open meaning, arguably derived at least tangenitally from scripture, and then the esoteric, hidden, meaning, which everybody who is "in" tacitly understands. Sooner or later you will "get it", or you will be "out".
|
I have begun to see being one in a very different way. In fact, the core of the real heart of ecumenicalism is an agreement to recognize what makes us one above what seems to differentiate us. That we don't agree on everything is not allowed to cause us to simply have nothing to do with each other. That is the old way. Some groups still prefer it. But many are seeing beyond it. They recognize their differences as insignificant in comparison to that which unites.
The insistence that not dropping everything and simply meeting together is based on the notion that the differences are a sort of "dark side" that has so much power that the oneness in Christ cannot overcome it. I say that is hogwash. It is only those who want to not be one that are unable to get there. And the LRC is among those that don't want to be one. They just want to use the lingo of oneness to separate themselves.