At present, I have no problem with denominations or the fact that they exist. In the LC, they will readily criticize denominations for "taking a name", but a name represents nothing more than a means of identification. By analogy from the tech world, there are two ways to go to the google website. You can either memorize the IP address of google.com (216.58.216.14), or just simply type "google.com". In the world of computers, names save us from having to memorize IP addresses. Suffice to say, names are a matter of convenience. All Christian groups have beliefs that they can be distinguished by. If a group takes a name of "Baptist", it allows people to readily identify what that group believes. Other groups don't choose to do that, and it's not a problem, it just means people might have to inquire as to what a group believes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Igzy
The word “denomination” means “having a name” and the LC tries to get a lot of distance out of this by saying they don’t have a name. But in fact a denomination is just an identifiable brand of Christianity. The name identifies the brand, but the important thing is not the name, but the brand. So there is no doubt the LC is a denomination, as it is a very distinct brand. They like to think their defining characteristic is “Christ.” But actually their defining characteristic is Witness Lee-ish Christianity
|
Ultimately, all groups are "branded" what they believe. This is as true for the LC as it is for any denomination. The explicit claim that group is "nameless" is about as ridiculous as if someone claimed that a Ford with the emblem removed is no longer a Ford. In the same way that Methodists are distinguished by what they believe, the LC is distinguished by their own set of beliefs. The names, or lack thereof do not ultimately factor into the equation. Maybe I've gone overboard on the analogies, but suffice to say, I can't see what the big deal about "names" really is.