The Bible record describes God leading people into and out of things

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is your recast of what Ohio said (or more correctly, didn't say).

Your position is that the fact of a name is a division of ultimate separation. If that is the case, then there is no name that can cure it. Paul declared that saying you are "of Christ" could not even cure a division. But he did not say that saying you are of Christ was a division, only that being divided and declaring yourself to be of Christ did nothing to improve your situation.

Yet, after centuries, a couple of people come along and declare that there is a name that can cure division. It can allow people to call all other Christians the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters and still stand as cured before God. And that name is the name of the city in which you live. Not even "Christ" could to that. But "Ephesus," Anaheim," or "Taipei" can.

Get real. This is a shell game for the simple minded. And it is suspect that the minds that push it now are possibly too simple to see the error of their own teachings.

From Paul's writings we know a few things. Paul did not like them saying that they follow him, Apollos, or Christ. Paul did not say there was anything wrong with them referring to themselves by their locality. There is nothing divisive about saying "I am from Corinth" if you visit the church in Ephesus. In fact, Paul refers to them by their locality, never by anything else. The implication is that Paul wanted them to refer to themselves by their locality and nothing else. That is how Paul referred to them. Even today when we say "the Corinthians", or "the Ephesians" we are referring to the church by its locality, and nothing else.

So why do Christians today refer to the early Christians by their locality (Corinthians, Ephesians etc) but think they must have a prefix today?
All sects and sub-divisions today add a prefix to their locality name. Whether it is nationality of origin or language (e.g. Roman, Greek, Russian), to whether it is a founder's name (e.g. Luther), or whether it is a particular doctrine (e.g. Presbyterianism). The Roman Catholics for example, could simply refer to themselves as "the Christians in London". They add the pre-fix Roman, because they are not encompassing all the Christians in London, but a sect or sub-division of the locality which holds to the doctrines of Rome.

Most Christian's problem is that that they think the church must have a prefix. That is why they refer to us as the Witness Lee church or the Lord's Recovery church. They cannot refer to us as just the church in the locality because the moment they do so is the moment they admit that they are wrong and in a sect, not a church. In contrast, we can say that every believer in the city is just the church in the locality - only the genuine church can say that. Those who cannot say that are a sect, or sub-division of the genuine church.

The Orthodox church, on the other hand, believes their church to be the only true church in the city. They cannot call our church a church, or even say we have the same faith or the same Lord. If we baptize in the name of Christ then we are heretics. That is divisive. If we do not share the same history as them, or accept the Three-name baptismal formula, we are automatically excluded. In contrast, we accept all believers who profess faith in Christ. So I cannot see how anyone can claim that we are "more divisive". More divisive than a division? I think not.

As far as I can tell, there are two reasons why a church will not accept us as just the church in the city. One reason, is the view of the historical traditional churches like Roman Catholic , Orthodox etc. They believe themselves to be the only true church in the city, based upon their rich history and traditions. Those who do not accept these traditions cannot be considered to belong to them. They would never accept a sect like the Lutherans, Baptist etc to be a church, because to do so would be to deny their very existence, tradition and history. It would be for them to admit that they are a sect themselves.

The second reason, is the view of the protestant sects - the Lutherans, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostals etc. They do not accept us as just the church in the city because they believe that no one can claim to be the only true church in the city. They say this because they are sects, and for any one of them to lay claim to the true church in the city would mean they are irrelevant. Their very reason for existence is because they are against a structure like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox, or Anglican, or anyone who claims to be "the one". In fact, the protestant sects have ulterior motives and a reason for not seeking unity. It is better for them to maintain the status quo so that they can preserve their own existence in a kind of homeostasis. If they were genuinely for unity, the so many protestant sects would have joined forces long ago - even the ecumenical movement has declined, because they were not really serious about unity. To ask two sects to join together would be like McDonald's joining Burger King. Even though they both sell burgers, and have much in common, they would never join because the brand, the name, is a powerful thing. Even though Lutherans are so much like Anglicans, they would never join because their brands, their names, are too powerful.

But what if McDonald's and Burger King changed their names to the same thing? Would it create unity? Yes of course it would. You may dismiss names as irrelevant or not important, even trivial. However as I have shown, names can be a powerful thing, they can divide and can also unite. A claim that "names cannot unite" is grounded in logical fallacy and blatant ignorance of the world around us. Even the wife will drop her surname and take the name of her husband because of the unifying power of names.

The solution as presented by Lee/Nee is simple - if every church dropped the prefixes, dropped the "brand names" and referred to themselves as only the church in the city, then we would be back to how it was in the New Testament times. Then it would be possible for a Baptist and a Roman Catholic (for example) to fellowship in the same church without dividing from each other by prefix. I understand there will be wide diversity, but that is how it was in the early church. It took the early church many years to agree on matters such as the canon or the creeds, it did not happen overnight. Those who are called "heretics" today such as those who reject the Trinity, were once accepted, before they were forced to accept the dogma of the Trinitarians or else be killed.