[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, I have more time and feel you need to see a different perspective (if possible).

In response to your first paragraph, you're ignoring the fact that the government recognizes the LC as having a name and that the LC employs the people for CoC and owns the building CoC uses. In addition to ignoring that, you're now stating that the LC does have a name, but strictly speaking- it's only for Sunday table meetings. So they do have a name, but only on Sundays- according to you? Also, how is comparing the meetings of CoC (that are run by LC employees) and the Lord's table meeting in the LC proving that their different names are justified? Why do you consider the style of their meetings being equivalent to each other as a factor in this discussion? Do you really think that just because the meetings have a different flavor that it justifies them being called a different name when they're on a campus? With that reasoning, what should we call the group (although the same people) that meets on Wednesday nights for the prayer meeting? According to your logic, it could be acceptable to call them a different name (even though they're the same group of people) because the prayer meeting is run differently than the Lord's Table and their functions are different. Do you understand how your logic isn't applicable to justify them calling themselves CoC now? Obviously, the LC and CoC have two different initiatives but they're all on the "same team" and working together. Just like a business has a sales team and customer service team- but is still one company. It's exactly like the LC having CoC for recruiting, so why are they using a different name with CoC- if not to be deceitful? Given the general populations knowledge about deceitful recruiting practices- you'd think the LC would want to avoid this well known deceitful practice of giving themselves another name when recruiting on campus! But, it seems to be a small price they're willing to pay and will use the tactic to avoid the loss of potential recruits!

You can't deny, one exists to recruit for the other and you're right that the CoC meetings will not be the same as the Lord's table meeting but that is not "proof" as you're stating, that they are justified in being called different things! Also, you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name. Not the mention, the local church wouldn't be able to employ people or own property- without a name. You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. You can't have it both ways and just claim to be "Christians who meet together on the (in theory only) ground of one-ness" with no name, but then also employ people and own property. To do those things, you must have a name. You can't argue that they legally have one but I guess you could argue that it's only due to "man's law" that they have a legal identity and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that lowly characteristic of having a name as a mere "legal technicality." Feel free to do so, as do many other LC-goers! But you have a name, therefore- call yourself that name when out in the world doing things in an organized effort.

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my posts, if not for my benefit then for the benefit of any lurkers.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the church has a name, and even quoted Watchman Nee. But you are arguing the point that you introduced in your last post I replied to. I don't think I ever denied that the LC "has a name". It is stated, in the Nee quote I provided, that the name is the name of the city in which the church dwells. The city-name of the church is a point I have defended many times on this forum. BTW the name of the church can also be just Jesus Christ, it depends if we are looking at the local or Universal/spiritual side.

Regarding the naming of the on campus activity, I think we need to understand two things:

1)the objective of the on campus ministry is to add to the church. Call it recruitment if you like, that's the whole point of on campus ministry. The on campus ministry is a means to an end, not the end itself. Just like students are not expected to study at college their whole life, they are expected to graduate and join the real world in employment. So what do you expect? The objective of any evangelical effort is to "add to the church". The on campus meetings are not "lampstands" where the Lord's Table is held each Sunday. Just like I would not call my family home "the local church in <city>", it's probably not appropriate for the on-campus group either. Yes, we are members of the local church, but it is not correct to call ourselves "the local church in...". This is more appropriate for the Sunday meeting hall where the whole church gathers (not just students). If the other groups on campus are not there to build the church and recruit students, then what are they doing there?

Let's not be so naive and think that what Christians on Campus does and how it operates is so unique. The other on campus groups are not just "building the Body" and reaching any and all students, and all enjoying oneness with each other, while the "Christians on campus" are not. They each have their own reason for existence (if they didn't, the Navigators and the Campus Crusade for Christ etc would probably be joined into one organization already), they each have different motives for targeting particular kinds of students. They each are connected to local denominations (who may provide support by way of finance, resources or volunteers) who probably expect some sort of return on their investment (such as those students joining the church).

It is well known that Bill Bright's ministry, for example, targeted students especially, and those with special capabilities. Here is a statement how they targeted particular types of students for their purpose:

Reaching and recruiting leaders was always one of
Bill’s priorities. In fact, the very first outreach Bill
and Vonette carried out at UCLA focused on student
leaders. Campus Crusade has followed that pattern
ever since. Not because the souls of leaders are any
more valuable, but because they have a larger sphere
of influence and can expose even more people to the
gospel as their lives change. Also, they can provide
leadership within the ministry, bringing about
greater excellence.

https://www.cru.org/content/dam/cru/...lived_well.pdf

The on campus evangelical groups are there for the students, not the homeless people. They particularly target the students which have the greatest potential (the most athletic, brightest, or strongest leadership potential).

So if anyone criticize Witness Lee for seeking "Good building material" then you better also criticize the other on-campus groups for targeting "students with leadership potential".


2) the objective of the on-campus ministry is to add people into the church. Recruitment is otherwise known as evangelism. It is the response to the call of Christ to "make disciples" and build the church. Ephesians 4:12 - for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ

On these two points, the local churches are consistent with their beliefs. Therefore it is unlikely this is a deceptive practice. Basically it is good evangelism (which on-campus groups / denominations which use various gimmicks and tricks to attract people might applaud). The name "Christians on campus" is not even a gimmick - the name is very neutral. Other groups may use the name "power rangers" or "excitement sports club". Even the name "the Navigators" is sort of gimmicky. Adding to the church, is unlike the para and inter-organizations which run Christian activities but typically have little to do with the local churches. As the Gotquestions article I posted highlights, the on-campus organizations and the local churches (aka denominations) are somewhat disjointed.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I hesitated even responding bc I knew this would be so repetitive and it's proving to be the case! I'm taking the time to respond to all your points but you've ignored the ones you can't defend and then thrown out more points that are, as the others, not proving your argument like you think they are! This topic you've brought up now about how LC and CoC meetings being different and how that somehow justifies the different names is such a bad example for your argument that I almost feel bad pointing out such flawed logic.

You could share some of the blame for any repetitiveness - consider that you wasted a whole paragraph or two arguing as if I said "the church has no name". You wrote:

"you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name"
"You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. "

When I clearly showed it does have a name. I personally am okay with repetition if it helps the argument - it's a way to emphasize something.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, 2nd paragraph. You said, "if names don't mean anything, why don't they drop them?" Ok, just because a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate in the way that most congregations do, that doesn't mean that they're a divisive denomination! A name could be a name for a denomination or a non-denominational group. How could they drop their name(denominational or not), as you're suggesting, and employ people and own property? I'm not sure what answer you believe the hypothetical pastors would give in your scenario but I'm going to take a wild guess and say their response would be something that someone in the local church told you it would be- ha! There are so many of those silly notions in the LC that make you think about the world in an alternate reality! Also, in regards to the evangelical campus ministries "competing with each other," that's also likely your perception due to being in the local church. They'll tell you that kind of stuff but in reality, unless individual evangelical leaders on campus have some sort of personal vendetta to "steal" other believers from other groups and be the exception to the rule-you're completely off base to say they're competing for students. There are needs that can be met, in different ways, and by different groups. A healthy Christian campus ministry will work with other groups that also preach the gospel but may serve in a different way. You really do have an LC indoctrinated view of how things work outside the LC- I'm not trying to be condescending. It's just very obvious and it makes me sad.

Again you are arguing what I am not, about becoming nameless, not my real point about changing names. You said "a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate". I am not talking about becoming nameless, but about changing their name. I agree that just because a congregation has a name does not mean they are divisive. But I am not saying that. I am saying that if they were not divisive (as you claim) they would not have a different name or would change it pretty quickly, to something non-denominational or similar to the groups they claim to be in unity with. Let's consider that if a company is taken over by another company, that company may be absorbed and take on the name of the larger company. Happens all the time. In rare cases, the companies may share the name, with a hyphen. But usually the little guy adopts the name of the big guy. They change their name! Also, suppose a woman divorces and re-marries. Suppose she does not change her name to the name of her new husband. Sure, maybe they are living together and everything, in practice they seem unified, but why wouldn't she change her name to her new husbands name if she is really really devoted to him?

I think it is obvious that a church can change its name, anytime it wants to. So why don't they? I came across this article which discusses the matter of churches changing their name:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pa...l/87l4040.html

Firstly, this article supports my idea that names are important. So let's not pretend they aren't - they are. I am glad you agree that names are important - even legal! (other people on this forum don't agree that names are so important). Secondly, they seem to be saying that the reason churches don't change their name is because they don't want to upset their existing congregations, or cause strife. Of course, to change the name will by costly.

So basically a pastor of a Presbyterian church, for example, may desire to change their name to something denominational, but they can't, or more precisely, won't. This is why, it is easier to "come out" and start fresh, than try to change the name of all the denominations already existing.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Your third paragraph...I'm not sure why we're discussing this- I agree with you that different Christian groups tend to grow the group they're associated with. That seemed to turn into an argument on the definitions of different movements and actually- I'm glad bc it made me read up on the topic and now I can see why you're separating Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. I thought that Pentecostalism was just a movement under the umbrellas of the Evangelicalism movement. While Pentecostalism TECHNICALLY does have its roots in Evangelicalism, there are some differences. Again, I don't see how this topic applies to the conversation at hand (CoC) since it's common knowledge that Christian groups are trying to gain members for their associated congregations but I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that! Anyways, I'd share his article about the differences/similarities of the two movements.

https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/evan...-charismatics/

As Ohio stated, there are only two types of Christians - those who speak in tongues, and those who don't . Seriously, the differences can be big enough for pentecostals to not join evangelical on campus groups, and vice versa.

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting)

Originally Posted by kumbaya

4th paragraph... I didn't say that evangelicals "don't represent anybody more than the rest." They clearly can't "represent" Catholics bc Catholics wouldn't allow it! I already explained that evangelicalism is only within the Protestant churches because the Catholic Church, by definition, doesn't allow any movement to promote it or recognize it other than itself! I can't speak for Catholicism (need to look that up) but Evangelicalism recognizes the Catholic church as having members that are born again Christians and part of the body of Christ. But obviously, due to not being "welcomed" in the Catholic Church community, they don't have much affiliation with the Catholic Church as a result. Also, it's obvious that Evangelicals don't agree with the majority of Catholic doctrine so while they recognize that there are born again Christians there, it would be unreasonable for Evangelicals to promote attendance in a place they believe also teaches unscriptural doctrine- even if it's not doctrine related to the key issues of the faith. As far as the survey you brought up, I'm sorry-I don't see how that applies. I agree that Evangelicalism might be represented as a separate group than Catholicism (as shown in the survey). Again, for the most part- that's due to the Catholic Church not welcoming the evangelical movement into their services. What point does that survey make, in your opinion, by distinguishing the two groups of born-again Christians/Evangelical and Catholic Christians? Are you trying to imply this somehow means that Evangelicalism is to blame for this? After posting the survey, you're clearly stating that because Evangelicalism doesn't actively build up each denomination equally- according to you, this proves they are wrong to claim they are building up the Body of Christ? Wow! So it has to be one or the other in your mind? The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. Why does the issue of how Evangelicalism possibly creating more growth in certain denominations than others even matter? For someone so concerned about the one-ness of the body of Christ, do you really care that the movement has less affect on some groups than others? Even if they do cause some groups to grow more than others, do you think that result is 100% due to Evangelicalism deciding which groups they want to grow and which ones they don't? Please! They're growing the Body! That's all that matters! Evangelicalism isn't trying to "build up" evangelicalism. It's whole existence is to serve the Lord! If one denomination grows more than another because of Evangelicalism- that's just the Lord's mercy and has less to do with their efforts given that it's a movement that includes all Protestant churches!

If "growing the Body" meant this:

"The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. "

why do we have churches? Can't everyone just stay at home on Sunday and watch church on TV?

Originally Posted by kumbaya

5th paragraph.....forgive me if I don't take Watchmen Nee's words as a substitute for Scripture. Please! Show me where it says that in the Bible. The city boundaries as being the basis and boundary for meeting with other Christians is HIGHLY debatable and you should know that very few Christians agree with this doctrine due to it stretching Biblical teachings.

6th paragraph... see my first paragraph but your example of telling a cashier "we're Christians" instead of the fact that they're Baptists is clearly not the same as one group of people being employed by a Christian congregation, then recruiting for it under a different name. Who is the "cashier" in this example? The college students? In your example, you forgot to include that the Baptist church would actually be paying the "shoppers" to tell the cashier they are "just Christians" and then develop a relationship with the cashier, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to the Baptist church. If you're going to use that analogy-let's apply it fully!

I quoted Watchman Nee to prove that the local churches do have a name. So I don't know why you are arguing as if we believe we don't have a name.

It could be argued that the inter and para organisations on campus are recruiting for the local churches. I believe they are, because after leaving college or on a Sunday, those students converted will seek to attend a local church. And if those organizations are not seeking to add to the local churches - what's the point? just to create converts who will watch church on TV every Sunday or do something else? When those students graduate - are those on campus organizations going to continue providing a spiritual home for them? This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

7th paragraph... well, that is your experience and perspective. Mine is different. I've seen it happen to two churches personally and have sensed the change. I looked it up and sure enough, it's happening! The article says churches are, "reinventing how evangelicals and others cooperate and shape their ministries in many contexts and across denominational borders." This seems to contradict your claim that they're ditching their denomination status "due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity." Sure, the article doesn't use LC lingo like "seeing a vision of the one-ness of the Body." It's basically the same thought process though! Also, give them a break! Change takes time! Clearly this is an awesome thing to see how congregations are moving towards more fellowship and involvement with each other! Do you not recognize that is from the Lord? You still think congregations efforts to be one in the Body of Christ is still somehow below the LC due to your insistence that the LC doesn't have a name, therefore stands on the ground of one-ness" (even thought they don't back that statement up)? Here's the article- again, I'm sorry you haven't seen it but it's happening!

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...inational.html

But if you read the article carefully it does support my statement.

After stating how people are leaving denominations:

""Christian Americans … prefer to either identify themselves simply as Christians or attend the increasing number of nondenominational churches that have no formal allegiance to a broader religious structure.”

The article then states the reasons WHY:

""The move away from historic denominations corresponds with a swelling sense of skepticism many Americans have toward institutions overall""
""even denominational churches downplay their affiliations to avoid the negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure""

So the reason for this move away from denominations is:
"scepticism towards institutions"
"negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure"


This supports my statement that:

""I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. ""

No where in the article does it say that the non-denominational movement is "in general due to an attempt at unity"". But I cannot rule it out, that's why I said "is in general, due to..."

So, I cannot see much contradiction of my claim, rather, it supports my claim.


What is also interesting is this statement by theology professor at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

“Very few churches I know anything about are truly, totally, exclusively ‘nondenominational’ in the sense most people think,” he wrote in a blog post last month. “In almost every case where I am asked about a church that declares itself ‘nondenominational,’ I can find some affiliation of that church with some network of similar churches.”

I have said before that nondenominational churches are not really nondenominational. This professor seems to share my point of view. Of course, more is required than just a name change to achieve unity.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

8th paragraph... yes, there are many affiliations or denominations. That's why it's been great to see so many dropping those denominational ties and focusing on the key issues of the faith and fellowship with the whole body of Christ. Granted, being non-denominational, as I stated before, doesn't mean you can't have a name. Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't. I know you're not going to agree due to your intense LSM indoctrination but just know your opinion and the LC doctrine on this issue is discredited by the majority of Christian scholars, and believers in general. The doctrine of "having no name besides that of your locality" is questionable at best, not emphasized in the Bible, and practically impossible to execute in the real world. It could never work and the LC knows it! It's easy to "state this ideology" knowing that it would never actually happen due to them not being able to manage it and ultimately LSM would lose their control. Still, the doctrine is definitely OVER EMPHASIZED by the LC in an classic sectarian attempt to elevate themselves over other believers. By elevating an obscure doctrine to such an unhealthy level- they actually create MORE division with other Christians in that this requirement is almost at the same level as the fundamental issues of the faith! They use this elevated doctrine as the basis of their existence and judge and follow any other doctrine as a measure against it. It's called BEING OUT OF BALANCE- and unfortunately it's something many cults and sectarian groups do. They take one doctrine of minor importance, that may even be correct, but elevate it to a point that is unhealthy and base/measure everything against it. The LC isn't the first to do it and it won't be the last!

Your statement

"Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't."

Doesn't make sense because the word "denomination" means "to name".

See this definition:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/denomination

denomination (n.)
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

Logically, if denominations divide, then different names divide as well (because denomination means 'to name').

To make this logical contradiction clearer, let me rephrase your statement according to the definition of the word denomination:

""to name is to divide - I agree. Names however- don't divide."

There is a meaning which is interesting:
"a calling by anything other than the proper name".

The Bible reveals the "proper name" of the church - the city name.