Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Terry: Whether the emphasis was on “Christ and the church” or “the ministry,” either is actually problematic. While we do not as quickly see error in “Christ and the church” we were not emphasizing Christ and the assembling of believers. We were emphasizing Christ and a particular brand of assembled believers. We spoke of it in generic enough terms that we believed we were talking about everyone, but we were only talking about “Christ and the LC” or “Christ and the recovery.”
I would agree that the emphasis on the ministry in more recent times is a bigger deterrent to any outsiders, but that “church” was too exclusive. While I understand and even agree with most of YP’s stand on “universal church,” the term does poorly describe an aspect of the Christian faith in which we are all truly one even when we do not agree on everything. But that is not the kind of oneness that “Christ and the church” was trying to emphasize. It was meant to emphasize “Christ and our sect.” Yes, the trend was downward, but the start was not as pure as we often believed.
|
OBW, I read what you had to say. I acknowledge, I was quite young during the pre-training era of the recovery. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, that the so-called recovery was far more inclusive towards Christianity than it is today. For instance what was the definition of Christ and the Church prior to 1973? Within the last 20 years, Christ and the Church is meant to mean those Christians meeting with assemblies under LSM fellowship. A healthy attitude to have is to say Christ and the Church being inclusive to all those born again who encompass the universal church.
Terry