Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Suppose our homes are churches. Or rather, in our homes are churches (we are the church). So if I meet at home with my family, and you meet at home with your family, we are two churches. If I visit your home, I am visiting your church? Suppose we break bread in each of our homes. Suppose we live on the same street. hmm where is the unity in that? It doesn't seem right to me, if we never come together.
|
You superimpose simplistic analogies while ignoring very complex realities.
And part of the reality is that if you come into a place and it is a gathering of believers, it is church. Whether you want to simplify it down to my house and your house, or to two small assemblies that are not that far removed from each other, the answer is the same. If I come meet with you, then I am meeting with you. If I do not, I am not. It is not about mine and yours.
That is not to say that you or I may have reasons that we do primarily meet with one group v another.
The thing is that the oh-so benign sounding version (church according to geography) simply puts a smoke screen up to hide the fact that there are other reasons that you prefer to meet with one group rather than some other group. It may be the source of the teachings (Nee/Lee v some less particular source — and except for a few other peculiar sects, virtually none are as tied to a single source as are the followers of Nee and Lee).
You don't want to meet with those who (fill in the blank). There are many reasons. And one is declared as being all-encompassing and therefore able to deflect criticism concerning the errors of the group you like.
From my perspective, church is church. It is not mine other than as a way to identify that I generally join with them. Nor is another yours other than the same considerations. In a few cases, there are clearly some that really are someone's. Those are the ones that insist on following only certain teachers (like what Paul was getting on the Corinthians about). And they may even refer to that same thing concerning the Corinthians to decry all the other groups.
Well, I can tell you that I do not meet with the group that I meet with because they are for teacher "X" or have a sign with name "Y" outside. But there are some that do. Even though their sign fits their formula of an acceptable sign. And their teacher is believed to be the minister of the age.
I do not think that they are the whore of Babylon because they have such erroneous teachings. But I also would not simply suggest that their teachings are simply OK.
Trying to say that we are meeting in separate homes on the same street and hinting that would somehow break unity . . . .
Who is deciding that there is a problem with unity? The one that demands that the other cease meeting separately and accept their teachings without further consideration? Or the one that accepts that we are both Christians even though we disagree on some doctrines and practices? If you think that unity is so important, why are you not willing to come down the street to my house and join with us who do not think that two assemblies in the same city can be churches and not adhere to the exact same doctrines and practices, yet still respect each other ass churches?
And why does one group go around pointing to all the abominations in the other groups as if they have the corner on the right doctrines? The others may honestly believe that they have the better doctrines, but their stance toward the others is not in the same kind of "we are it and you are the daughters of the whore of Babylon" way that the subject of this forum does.
Sort of like the parable of the Good Samaritan, which church (or better, assembly) would you say best fit the pattern of the NT church? The one that spends is time an energy pointing to the flaws of every group other than themselves, or the one that respects the others and limits their complaining to so-called teachers that gather people like coins for their own pockets and egos?