Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Denominations are primarily bound by details of belief, not names. Each one may or may not be particularly "sectarian." I think that the problem lies in the way the terms are used. If we think of denominations as, by definition, exclusive, we think they are harshly divisive even if they are not. And we tend to use the term "sectarian" to denote those that are (as I called it) harshly divided. Those that think they are the church and others are damaged. The LRC/LCM is a good example. The Church of Christ is (or has been) at least somewhat in this group.
Surely there is a level of "we are right and you are not" in virtually every group. And sometimes the rank-and-file members have a different idea of how harsh that separation is than the leadership does. (Not much difference in the LRC. They pretty much all hold a hard line.) I must say that I prefer to meet with people who believe in those side issues closer to what I believe. It keeps there from being as much controversy in the meetings. I am mostly happy to allow the leaders, theologians, etc., dig deep into the things that divide. For the most part, I think that they view it as important to the church as a whole, but they also have a more realistic view of the totality, and even unity of the church than most of us do. Two different churches on opposite corners is often not as divisive as we were made to believe. They are not at war. Each not declaring the other to be deficient in a serous way.
Until some group like Nee's'/Lee's comes along. Find a novel approach to defining the church such that you are it and others simply are not. Declare the people as automatically members of your group and declare the groups they meet with as harlots.
|
Agreed. It really does make a difference learning to view things like denominations and sectarianism at face value. What makes the LC seem so compelling and also so hard to escape is that members are convinced that their group is the one and only alternative to denominations. And the LC view of denominations is nothing close to what denominations actually are.
I tend to view sectarianism as denominations taken to the extreme. In other posts, I have stated that I view denominations as benign and I fully stand behind that. And I think this is how most people would view them. It’s unfortunate that Christians divide, but it’s also senseless in trying to overcome an inevitability of human nature.
Much of the problem with what Nee and Lee did was that they took a problem that is generally recognized and understood among Christians (division) and attempted to redefine this denomination ‘problem’, and characterize it as something much worse than it really is.
I don't blame Nee or Lee for being tempted to fix the problem they saw, but what I see as being highly concerning is the likely possibility that the problem was constructed into a bigger issue than it really was solely to give them a straw man to tear apart. The reasons as to why this would be beneficial are not too hard too hard to figure out. Characterizing denominations as a great evil paved the road for claims to be made about the superiority of the LC.
I personally saw this pattern time and time again. LC members stand up and tear apart denominations. Some of these people probably never set foot in a non-LC building before, so how would they know what denominations do? Obviously at least some people have fabricated their characterization of denominations. All for what? So that LC members have a way to claim that they’re better than everyone else. It's really sad actually, and it's blatant sectarianism at work. If LCers truly think that denominations are bad, they should take a hard look at themselves until they realize that the LC represents something much much worse.