The Unique Move of God

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #1 quotes Drake saying "Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing."

So perhaps you might want to rethink your lecture on this thread not being about filtering out teachings that don't align with the mission and purpose of the church.

That post was copied from another thread.

I created this thread because we were going off-topic in the original one and asked the moderator to copy some relevant posts over from it.

But the subject of the thread is the idea of the "Unique Move of God."

Knowing the usual LCM double-talk and equivocation, that term can mean several things. The purpose of this thread is to identify any legitimate meanings and expose self-serving and damaging meanings.

This thread was started by Igzy as a response to Drake. Igzy feels the use of the term "unique move of God" is sectarian because he views the term "unique move of God" as referring to the "Lord's Recovery Church". Drake on the other hand feels that the term refers to the Lord building His church in this age, that many groups of Christians have not been faithful to that vision but as for him and his house he is going to embrace that vision.

Now if that is not what this thread is about then by all means help me see clearly.

As far as I can see both sides have valid points but they aren't listening to each other.

Thanks for these comments because they give a chance to clarify.

I didn't exactly hear Drake say the things you said. I still hear him saying that the real work of God is only going on in the LCM.

Although I understand the impulse to be faithful to an overriding vision, the problem with the LCM vision is that the practical outworking of it always seems to be more than a little self-serving.

So they are focused on "the building of the church." How is that really different than any church being focused on the growth and condition of its members? What is different between the church being built and all the members growing in community? There shouldn't be any, really. So why the problem with 'Christianity'?

With the LCM it always comes down to their defining general ideas in such proprietary specifics that they effectively de-legitimize everyone but themselves. For example, there are surely many groups that meet as the church in the city. But the LCM recognizes only those associated with LSM.

What does "building the Church" really mean, anyway? I don't think any of us really know.

And the fact is the Lord did not commission us to build the church. He commissioned us to disciple the nations. He said HE would build the church. But he never told us to. At the very most he told us to build up "one another." But no place in the NT does he tell us to build the church.

Now I know there are OT types of temple and wall building. But there has to be a reason that the charge to us to build the church is not so direct. And I think the reason is because the Lord wanted us to focus on people and not an institution. One of the pitfalls of getting into "church building" is that it easily transmutes into an impersonal effort where people become subordinate to the cause, where they become means to an idealized but never quite realized end--in this case the awesome and terrible "Builded Church." This is exactly what has happened in the LCM. When it becomes about "the Church" in the way the LCM means, people become secondary. Huge mistake.

For what is the Church? It's just the people. The LCM seems to miss this, though. To them building the Church means furthering the cause of the LCM movement. It's about an abstract idealistic "purpose." It's not about helping the brother or sister sitting next to them. "Sorry, brother. I can't help you. I'm too busy building the Church."

The Jesus who left the flock to rescue one lost lamb is a Jesus the LCM is unfamiliar with. In the LCM Jesus would be more likely to dump the lamb for the sake of "the Church," which in their case is not people, but a MacGuffin
.