Denominations — Really Bad?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"?

There is nothing wrong with a certain amount of identification and even healthy pride in one's membership to a particular group. Even the LC members of the "Church in Wherever" take pride in their home church. That's normal human nature. What's the alternative? To be indifferent? To be apologetic?

The problem comes in when you start thinking that you are better than everyone else, that everyone else is wrong and needs to be like you, or that everyone needs to join you. The LC did all three to the nth degree.

But saying "I'm of Creekside" can be simply telling others where you meet. There's a world of difference. So it all depends on what you mean when you say it.

Paul is clearly addressing divisive attitudes, not names, because he even condemns those who say "I am of Christ." Is it wrong to say "I'm of Christ"? Not usually. But when you say it in a way that suggests others aren't of Christ it's a problem. Unfortunately, the LC did this, too.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem comes in when you start thinking that you are better than everyone else, that everyone else is wrong and needs to be like you, or that everyone needs to join you. The LC did all three to the nth degree.

But saying "I'm of Creekside" can be simply telling others where you meet. There's a world of difference. So it all depends on what you mean when you say it.

Paul is clearly addressing divisive attitudes, not names, because he even condemns those who say "I am of Christ." Is it wrong to say "I'm of Christ"? Not usually. But when you say it in a way that suggests others aren't of Christ it's a problem. Unfortunately, the LC did this, too.

Agreed that it is more than names that are being addressed. Paul takes the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians to address the divisions, then comes back to it for part of the 12th chapter as well.

As I reread those sections of 1 Cor. it is clear he is addressing immature believers who had become arrogant and boastful in their fleshly knowledge, even full of jealousy and strife, and were lining up behind "their apostle", even Christ himself, to exclude others, saying "we don't need you" if you follow another apostle. They were also giving the wrong type of position and credit to the apostles, who were simply servants of God and stewards of His mysteries. God deserved all credit for anything good going on among the believers or the apostles, and their boast should be in the Lord and his cross.

Hopefully we aren't doing the same. All I can say is I was once part of group that had many of these things going on, so I had to exit it, as the Lord on the throne in the heavens and within me couldn't abide it.

[aron]

"Until we all arrive at the oneness"

Originally Posted by JJ

Agreed that it is more than names that are being addressed. Paul takes the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians to address the divisions, then comes back to it for part of the 12th chapter as well.

Yes there is more than names being addressed. "Paul" is a name. "Corinth" is a name. Names are inevitable. "Meeting Hall Six of the Church in Taipei" is a name. "The college-age meeting on Tuesday nights at Sister Won's house" is a name.

So to condemn others for what you yourself inevitably must do (protesting all the while that you don't want to, but are forced to) is rank hypocrisy, in my view. Yes denominations are wrong but so are you and I. Only God is good. Any name is a delimitation of God's kingdom and is at best temporary and approximate. Yet we need names just like we need words. Witness Lee condemned the Baptists for being named according to practice (i.e. baptism), but then approvingly cited mainland Chinese Christian groups who were also being named according to practice (i.e. shouting).

Watchman Nee is a name, and isn't wrong per se. "The Local Church in Des Moines, Iowa, Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" isn't wrong per se; what's wrong is saying that while roundly condemning everyone else for "taking a name." Did Watchman Nee rise from the dead? So why follow him? Why take (affiliate with) his name? These local church groups might as well put out a big six-foot high sign saying "The Li-ite Church" because that's what they are. Why not be upfront and take the name? "Affiliated with" means "of", just like the Antioch believers were called "Christianos" at in Acts 11:26 because they'd affiliated themselves with the name of Jesus Christ.

Back to JJ's point. There is more than just names that are being addressed in Paul's epistle. Lust, pride, greed, selfishness, separatism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, even arrogance. The issue of names just becomes a vehicle for this unclean spirit(s) to work -- "I am not of you; I am of this" -- Christian believers, distracted, begin to seek to delineate themselves at the expense of other believers, and to use names, positions, and theology to do it.

Anyway, I was thinking about a recent post by a "man becoming God" apologist who used Ephesians 4:13 "...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (NIV). The poster was saying that "the fullness of Christ" showed that "we all" become God.

But how can a ministry that roundly condemns every other ministry as hopelessly deficient, dark, fallen, devilish and satanic ever reach unity in the faith? This ministry predicates Christian unity on either a) The Lord coming in a flash of light and scooping up the ministry's acolytes into glory, and leaving "fallen Christianity" to wail and gnash teeth in darkness, or b) "fallen Christianity" to come groveling and admit that it's all true; that they are devilish and satanic and only God's Present Oracle has the light. Absent either one of those scenarios, how can we all come to the unity of the faith, and the mature knowledge of the Son of God, when one continually condemns every other "poor" and "useless" Christian worker and group? Otherwise, the "we all" of Ephesians 4:13 only pertains to those following this particular ministry and minister. And that's sectarianism defined; sectarian to the nth degree, to the max.

Solving the problem of names won't do it; no, there's something else that's being addressed here.

[aron]

Part two of the previous post:

How can we all arrive at the oneness, when we all have different names, "Bob, Mike, Joe, Susie", different races, education, culture, geographical location, history, predispositions etc? By becoming clones of The Minister of the Age?

No. God loved us, and sent His Son, who Himself loved us so much, being filled with the Fathers love "He loved us to the uttermost" (John 13:1) that he laid down His life for His friends. Now, how are we to treat each other? Does "Anglican" matter, in this context?

I'll leave it there. If you don't get what I'm saying, then it's not something that I can explain.

Originally Posted by aron

"Until we all arrive at the oneness"
Ephesians 4:13 "...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (NIV).

"the whole measure of the fullness of Christ"..?...?..

I wonder what it 'really' means? ..Can you please tell?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"the whole measure of the fullness of Christ"..?...?..

I wonder what it 'really' means? ..Can you please tell?

I suspect that if you get the "we all reach" part, you won't wonder any more about the second part, the "measure of the fullness" part.

Originally Posted by aron

I suspect that if you get the "we all reach" part, you won't wonder any more about the second part, the "measure of the fullness" part.

Oh, yes, I think I see what you're driving at!

The "measure of the fullness of Christ" is the measure of how we love our neighbor and treat one another! So, that's what it means to be "filled" with (i.e. full of) the "measure of the Christ"; and, "we all" need to reach this goal in the unity of the faith...So, it doesn't mean to 'become God', does it?

It means to be "filled with love"...wow...I get it!

. . .tell me I get it! . . .

(are you sure you're not the Mota, aron?...double wow!)

...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Oh, yes, I think I see what you're driving at!

The "measure of the fullness of Christ" ... means to be "filled with love"...wow...I get it!

The groups that divide according to doctrine, but don't take a name, may hold forth regarding the measure of the fullness of Christ, but their holding forth doesn't mean anything. The Lee-ites and Chu-ites and Dong-ites (and that's what they are) may convince themselves of the nature of reality as they define it, but their behavior is testimony, or anti-testimony, because "we all" means what, in this context of not receiving one another (or anyone else, for that matter)? In this context, "fullness" means what? My thought was to say, how can you have one, without the other?

Btw, it's pretty clear I'm not the Mota. Jesus is. Always is, always will be. But thanks anyway.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

But how can a ministry that roundly condemns every other ministry as hopelessly deficient, dark, fallen, devilish and satanic ever reach unity in the faith? This ministry predicates Christian unity on either a) The Lord coming in a flash of light and scooping up the ministry's acolytes into glory, and leaving "fallen Christianity" to wail and gnash teeth in darkness, or b) "fallen Christianity" to come groveling and admit that it's all true; that they are devilish and satanic and only God's Present Oracle has the light. Absent either one of those scenarios, how can we all come to the unity of the faith, and the mature knowledge of the Son of God, when one continually condemns every other "poor" and "useless" Christian worker and group? Otherwise, the "we all" of Ephesians 4:13 only pertains to those following this particular ministry and minister. And that's sectarianism defined; sectarian to the nth degree, to the max.

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5:1-2

It's what I call conditional sectarianism. If you examine political parties, generally within each party there's a certain element of unity. Same can be said for LSM fellowship. The verse in Luke 6:32 identifies the LSM/LC culture in "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. " It is this political party atmosphere where they love those who love them. The condition of receiving is based on where you're oriented towards the ministry LSM publishes with LSM publications being primary factor of receiving.
Why I quoted Acts 5:1-2 the same principle of these verses is found in LSM fellowship. There's a view they're the body of Christ. Ones outside LSM fellowship are outside the Body. It's part of the Body being passed as the whole Body of Christ. Sad thing this many on the local churches buy into this concept. Yet it's this narrow concept that at best draws the sectarian label.