Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
The more current method of taking the ground appears to be along the lines of 19th century midwest America, where you'd have a race to place a stake in the ground. Taking the ground using this method, one would then say if you want to meet practically as the expression of the church in this city, you have to meet with us. If this is the thought, not one specific ministry must be emphasized but Christ. Anything else is choosing the path of denominations.
|
So what do you have if there is already only one group in town and they emphasize what you believe to be erroneous teaching?
Further, others come along later, and because of this "error" they begin to meet separately. Neither group considers the other to be an abomination or not Christian. They just have a particular (and important) difference of theology. They talk to each other, have spirited debates/discussions about what it is in scripture that drives them to their conclusions and why they don't feel comfortable being seen as proclaiming this particular thing that they consider error. Then they shake hands and all break bread together, both in meal and in the Lord's table.
I've presented a very unique scenario that could only happen in what is otherwise uncharted non-Christian territory. But does the fact that we are what we are and where we are make any one group or thought clearly the "right" one. And if we truly do stand together as Christians even if we choose to meet practically based on preference of music, liturgy, doctrinal emphasis, etc., have we broken true oneness? Or have we only broken the artificial oneness that requires everyone to be on the same page? (and it happens to be
my page)