Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
So everyone agrees that one "ekklesia" can allow multiple gatherings in one city. But from there, a kind of narcissistic subjectivism takes over, it seems. When other congregations recognize each other as part of the one church, the Nee model (at least in my LC experience) said that this was merely "ecumenicalism"; the current leader was fond of saying, "We don't care for that." Yet when the LC did it they called it "building the Body of Christ".
The ideal, as I see it, is to love one another, even as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us "while we were yet sinners". The ideal is to "receive one another even as God received us in Christ Jesus." It's probably harder to mutate this ideal, than the Nee version. An ideal that so readily mutates isn't ideal. If you do a Google search of "one true church" you see how often this idea takes hold of people, and what are the consequences.
|
The gospel itself is ideal but is readily mutated into prosperity gospel, social gospel, liberation theology, etc. We must not judge a theory by its abuse.
I don't think Nee's model ever existed. The ones that we have are based on Lee's model.
You are absolutely right that our unity is more ontological than church polity per se. When we love one another as Christ has loved us, all these church unity and ecumenical movement models are secondary issues at best.