Originally Posted by OBW
This is an overlay onto a description that is not warranted. There is nothing inherently divisive about identifying the separate instances of anything. Me having a name is not about denying the humanness of others who have different names. Yes, in business, the grocery chains Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's are in competition. But in life, people are not in competition merely because they have names other than like "human male, age 43, that live at [address]." Some are in competition. But it is because of their choice, not because of their name.
Universities are mostly separate because they are actually separate. They surely compete for top-notch students. But after that, they tend to be parts of educational organizations that ensure that they all are up to snuff on their academic rigor so that the graduates they generate are worthy of being hired in the marketplace. They don't necessarily agree with each other on every minute thing that schools so. But the differences are not really important to the overall purpose.
Same for churches. There are many assemblies. They are primarily there to spread the message of Christ and to help their participants grow in their life as Christians.
But along the way, there have been many side doctrines that have come to be argued over. Some follow the practice of baptizing the newly converted "and their household," and therefore baptize the newborn among their families. Others follow a "believer's baptism" regimen. I would hold to the latter, but do not find those doing the former to be unchristian. Some follow varying levels of Calvinist teaching, primarily understanding that salvation is once for all and cannot be forfeited. Others follow varying degrees of Arminianism with the understanding that there is the possibility of losing salvation.
If we do not deny the salvation of those who have come to believe in the Arminian way, if you simply ignore that fact, how do you determine what will be taught within your assembly. And if you come to a new city and are faced with many assemblies due to the significant size of the city and the significant size of the single assembly that would be required to put them all under one roof, how would you feel if you happened to go to the nearest assembly and find that they teach an Arminian doctrine. What would you do? If its only designation was "the Church in [city] at 34th and Congress" (or even the Church in [city], Hall 137), would you argue that there is a reason to refrain from attending that particular assembly due to doctrinal difference? If so, then you have divided on no more basis than any of the rest have divided. They use the "correct" name, but you refuse them anyway. No less divided (if at all) than the rest of Christianity.
In short, the name is a hollow gesture to set yourself up as correct (according to your own claims) in the given environment. But if the environment changes, then you would have to deal with the fact that names do not alter whatever it is that is correct or incorrect about anything.
I accept that we do not all agree on how to do every non-essential thing. And some of them are different enough from my thinking that I would prefer to meet with people who are not busy arguing over their differences, but instead move forward because we are not busy worrying about differences.
I know that you would do exactly the same. And the so-called "Local Churches" have done exactly that with assemblies within their own sect. for example, several years ago a number of churches joined together to excommunicate Titus Chu for daring to publish his own materials, for teaching young people to refer to bible dictionaries and references prior to becoming steeped in Lee's teaching on the particular subjects, and for wanting clean sheets on his bed. When they were done, there were some churches that did not agree. And as a result, the so-called local churches excommunicated whole churches and went to court to get both the property used for their meetings, and the name that they used.
This makes it clear that the names "church in [city]" is not about oneness, but about identifying a group so that it can be different from others.
Yes, the LRC names are unique . . . just like all the rest.
BTW. your example of a woman and her husband's name is a cultural thing. That is not the way it works in all societies. And in some societies, the taking of the husband's name is optional. Actually, it is that way here in America. Taking the name may be the common thing. But it is not required. And it does not mean anything to do it or to not do it.
If Cary Grant had married Marilyn Monroe, what name was required for her? Norma Mortensen Leach? Norma Jean Leach? Norma Mortensen Grant? Norma Jean Grant? Marilyn Monroe Grant? Marilyn Grant? Marilyn Monroe Leach? Marilyn Leach? There are actually some others.
The point is that unless there is actual adultery involved, the name says nothing. Therefore a story about a woman's name is not meaningful. And it would appear that the story about the woman and her name is more meaningful to Lee in defining the naming basis for the LRC than anything in the Bible.
And that is because there really is nothing in the Bible to support it. So he needs a story to make it work.
|