Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
This is why I asked you to reconsider the naming thing, not because I think you should change your policy, but rather to consider if the reason you have it is an essential value, or truly serves one. Like I said, if oneness is your goal, why be different? I understand being holy. I just don't have any Biblical reason to believe that not taking a name makes you more holy.
|
Agreed. The name business has nothing to do with holiness, IMHO. In a sense, it's not even a big deal to me. But the issue comes up all the time and we have to take a position on it. Me, I dislike the re-naming pandemic going on in Christianity today. Everyone's trying to hide their past. Further, the new names to me are -- how do I put this mildly? -- stupid. I heard of a church in Minneapolis named "Substance." A person going there told me they're all the time having to explain that it doesn't have to do with substance abuse.
I know, I know, my judgmentalholicism is showing. Oh, well.
But to a deeper point, the naming/non-naming issue is really hard on me because I know, in my heart of hearts, that I'm every bit as divisive if not more so than the people I condemn. So what am I to do? I believe in John 17 but I can't live it out.
And that's where the non-named church helps. It forces me to be one with anyone who would agree at least to drop their name. I know this is true because, as I have chronicled here in the past, it happened in my very community. We ended up joining with some very unlike us believers (Jesus only crowd) just because they too took the stand of one church per city. It was extremely difficult and almost destroyed our own group. But we took this matter seriuosly unlike the LSM who sues for non-name rights.
So I think there is something very deep and powerful about this matter of not taking a name.