Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Actually, not a "gotcha."
You picked one of the few books that is picking the scab on some particular things and is using some rather extreme language to talk about it.
While it is a different conversation, it is like the critiques of Christian ways in general by the "emerging" and "emergent" movements of the recent past. While the "emergent" group eventually went off a cliff in many ways, the "emerging" group made many valid observations that are in the process of being continually discussed and even have caused changes in the landscape of Christianity as a whole. While I am not sold on the idea, there are some that think that even evangelicalism as we know it will look very different in just another 20 years or so. Not because we dumped our beliefs, but because we changed the thrust of our focus.
And even if Viola's book is the extreme thing you say it is, it is not what most of the books in the bookstore are saying.
So Igzy's comment about living at the extremes remains true. You want to insist upon an extreme group and are busy trying to paint every other group as a different kind of extreme that they just aren't. You found one book and think you have won.
You haven't. You just found one book. I could show you several books that are worse in the kind of extremes that they teach. The problem is that they are generally only found in the LRC bookrooms.
|
I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.
Yet Viola's book say the same thing. I have quoted the page which is word for word almost like I say - denominations are sectarian, divisive, and there was one church per city.
The only big difference I see is that Viola promotes the house church or free group movement, and Viola claims to be saying it in a "loving way". If denominations truly are sectarian, divisive, pagan, then they cannot be serious about what they write if they try to sugar coat it with pleasantries. Putting that out there with false niceties to temper the fact, to me is the definition of insincerity. Rather, our attitude should be like Jesus driving the money changes out of the temple, otherwise, it indicates we are not serious about God's temple, or don't really believe that sectarianism and paganism is a problem. I believe it was Nee who wrote - either support denominations, or tear them down. Don't sit on the fence because being hot or cold is better than lukewarmness. Viola's book does its fair share of fence sitting by presenting a rather serious matter but then trying to sugar coat it.
Only in LRC bookrooms? You can also buy Lee/Nee books in Christian bookstores these days too. Normal Christian Church life would be extreme as it puts forward the one city per church model and speaks against denominations.