Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Division among Christians is what I would consider to be an insurmountable problem with respect to what we are capable of solving. It falls on none of us to find a solution, and it would be presumptuous to think otherwise. That doesn't mean that Christians are endorsing division just because we aren't actively trying to solve the problem of division. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most realize is out of their control. Regarding division, my feeling is that our duty as Christians is to each do our own part, meaning that we don't purposely cause division. We aren't responsible for what others do or don't do.
I think that as Christians, there are plenty of problems out there that are perhaps 'tempting' us to find a solution to. In other words there are some problems best advisable to be left alone. This is where maturity comes into play. Mature Christian leaders should understand the problems facing Christians and should also understand what problems can be tackled, and what problems would just lead people on a wild goose chase. Nee and Lee were not mature leaders. The letter referenced in my last post demonstrates that Lee didn't have basic foresight to understand possible outcomes in forcing the matter of the ground. One immediate outcome was that it caused a division between little flock congregants and those under TAS' ministry. It took no time at all for it to start causing problems. TAS had obviously given the notion of the ground some thought and he saw exactly where it was headed.
What Nee and Lee did was to magnify the very problem they were trying to solve. Denominations seek to achieve unity through doctrinal agreement. That's a problem in and of itself, but Nee proposed that unity be achieved through a 'franchising' agreement. It's a difference in approach, but the same exact principle - unity through something other than Christ.
It seems clear to me that an obsessive pursuit of oneness is indeed a wild goose chase, and a ill-advised pursuit all together. Look at how big the LC has been on the notion of 'oneness'. Have they not had among the ugliest splits and divisions imaginable? How could that possibly happen if oneness was their goal? Weren't they all about oneness? They were indeed all about 'oneness', in fact they were obsessed with it. Virtually every LC split was rationalized by claiming that a dissenting group was harming oneness or creating division. Therefore you had to participate in the split and take a side in order to maintain 'oneness'. How ironic! Of course, in the LC, the missing part of the 'oneness' equation is Christ. Oneness isn't found or achieved in doctrinal unity or municipal unity. It is also not something to obsess over. As mentioned, the LC is an example of what happens when you take proposed solution to a problem and obsess over it. You end up with a much worse problem.
|
Excellent post Freedom.
I would add even if we are conscientious to be receiving and accommodating there are certain items such as race, language, etc that are unavoidable no matter how much we want oneness. Chinese will prefer Chinese speaking. Filipinos will prefer Tagalog speaking. Ones from Central and South America will prefer Spanish speaking. It's not that they want to be divisive nor do we as English speaking, but it comes down to preference.
One item of division that can be avoided is the matter of practices. If a practice is to receive a particular minister or ministry, division is sure to follow. Just as Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13
"
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"