Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
As much as I loved him, I just knew that it was not going to work. But ... how could I argue with him? How does anyone argue against spiritually optimistic idealism? You can't. You have to let it run its course, and see if it works or not. It's not spiritual vs. legalism, it's just practical arrangements, or shall I say that dreaded word, organization.
|
This is so very true. It's next to impossible to argue with spiritual idealism. The idealism often seems to sound good, but when the inevitable failures/discrepancies occur, the idealism interferes with the ability to for revision.
I'm not against working to avoid division. I'm not against church unity. I'm not against seeking to follow the Spirit. But the fact of the matter is that innocent ideals don't pan out so well in real life, and as
Ohio says, such things can turn into a pipe dream if overemphasized. Despite having only the best intentions, things don't always work out the way that we expect them to.
Even Paul was involved in a sharp disagreement with Barnabas and this ultimately resulted in them separating and working in different regions. It was probably for the better if they were unable to get along. Did Paul want to be involved in a disagreement? Of course not. Had Paul been operating under a Lee-like paradigm where there is the inability to accept that disagreements happen, then maybe he would have taken the Lee approach and slandered Barnabas.
This is is what idealism can lead to. It creates a paradigm that cannot accept or handle negative feedback. When inevitable situations occur, groups like the LC will point fingers -
Barnabas should have done such and such. Maybe, maybe not. But the proper response should be to make revisions and move on. If a certain church model is unable to do what it claims to do, it's either time to revise it or move on.