One Church - One City - Biblical?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

"And while you like to say that you have history and scripture on your side, maybe you could try to show some of it. Try starting with a single item of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means. When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another"

OBW,

For comparison and contrast provide a scriptural basis for division/denominations.

Try starting with a single piece of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means

When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another.

Drake

First, it would help the conversation if you registered. But it is not my problem, so I will go on.

The whole biblical/unbiblical analysis is something that needs understanding. There are things that are:

• Clearly required by the Bible
• Permitted by the Bible
• Clearly forbidden by the Bible

These things might be referred to as biblical or unbiblical. But there is a huge host of things that are simply not addressed, or addressable, in terms of the biblical/unbiblical dichotomy. This is because the reason that the Bible does or does not have anything to say about them is not directly related to the thing itself.

Is driving a car unbiblical? Clearly, without qualifiers, there is nothing in the Bible about it. It can be neither biblical nor unbiblical in itself. Speeding while driving a car is technically unbiblical because it is contradiction of the general rule to obey they authorities. But that is not about simply driving the car, but how you are driving the car.

So you think that divisions and denominations are simply covered in the Bible. That is a question that must be answered before you can apply the Bible to it. I believe that there is a passage that mentions something about "that there be no divisions among you" or words to that effect. And I would agree. But first, the passage is written to people who are meeting together. They are an assembly, not the whole of the collection of all Christians universally. And even within that assembly, the writer goes on to say that there must be division, or factions.

So the question to you is, what do you think is meant by the references to division here in 1 Corinthians? Does it simply mean don't see eye-to-eye on everything? Or that those who do agree meet separately to keep the peace? Or that they seriously disagree and presume that the others are in grievous error such that their standing before God is significantly (if not completely) compromised?

And no matter which version you come down in favor of, on what basis do you determine that your solution — that of defining what is the correct formula for having a church — actually cures "division"? Do you think that simply meeting as the church according to a city will make you agree on all things doctrinal or even practical? If the format of the meeting is that anyone can speak from what we have gleaned from our thoughts, reading, prayers, experience, etc., during the week will my consideration of the enlightenment I received from a certain passage of scripture based upon some reading from (Swindol, Piper, Wright, McKnight, Fitch, Henry, Scofield, etc.) be appreciated or groaned at? (I know how this works. I saw 14+ years of it.) If I cannot get behind the peculiar teachings of Lee, and even question some of them, will I still be allowed to remain? Will that be permitted as part of the "factions that will cause those who are approved to be made manifest" or will it simply not be tolerated?

The problem is that you want everyone to come your way. But you can't defend your way. And even if were to give in on the "ground of the church," it would not be enough. There would be a new round of reasons for excluding us. Things like asserting that we want clean sheets. Or that we dared to teach young people to start with the Bible and a host of commentaries and Bible dictionaries, then after going through all of that, discover whether it supported and agreed with "the ministry" (meaning the ministry of Lee). There is a very long publication defining the reasons that Titus Chu was expelled. Among them was the fact that he did those things mentioned above. He also self-published materials that he used for his meetings and for his evangelistic efforts. And he did not always agree on everything that the so-called "blended brothers" said about things.

Then when this happened and whole churches, still meeting according to the "local ground of oneness" refused to excommunicate Titus Chu like Anaheim and the LSM wanted, Anaheim sent lawyers to sue to get property back — as if Anaheim or the LSM was the holder of the property of a local church. And they went to sue to get the right to use the original name, "church in [city]."

Let's discuss division. What are they talking about when the Bible says "that there be no divisions among you"? Are you certain that simply meeting on the ground cures or avoids all division? The evidence is that it absolutely does not.

And you know what was meant when it said "division"? Does it simply mean "they don't agree on every nuance of doctrine and practice"? Or does it mean that they are effectively at war? The description that Paul gives in his letter to Corinth looks at least a little like war. They wouldn't even eat with each other. They were excluding each other. There is a reference to "when the whole church comes together." Was this the place of inability to get along? They simply couldn't stomach those "others" (sounds like something from "Lost").

I will admit that there is a level of division within Christians. But that division is generally smaller than the agreement that we have. Oddly, the division between almost any Christian group and the LRC is greater than what stands between most of the groups excluding the LRC. And that division is viewed as "very great" from the perspective of the LRC, and "not much different than between us and any other group" from the other perspective.

I disagree with you about many teachings. But none of the core of the faith. My disagreement with you is not significant. That does not mean that I do not think the things I consider errors in your teachings are completely benign and harmless. But I do not consider any of it to impinge upon your inclusion and participation in the household of faith. Our assembly would not withhold communion from you. Nor would we refuse to participate in communion with you. But you would. And you see the failure of everyone to not go your way as evidence of grievous error. Error so extreme that you cannot partake of communion with them. You make some claims of having fellowship with all Christians, but you withhold the most significant part of fellowship.

Since you also want to discuss denominations in the same context, I will start by noting that there is no scripture for or against the practice. At this point in time, it is evident that the number of churches (assemblies) within the city of Dallas is very large. No matter how you dice it, if we stick to the city proper and assume that only 10% of the population is Christian, and that you want to keep the population of any particular meeting (assembly) to an average of 250 people, there will be roughly 500 assemblies (based on the 2015 population estimate). Some of those will be in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods. Some will be in older, well-established neighborhoods that have mostly retired persons. Others will be neighborhoods of mostly young urban professionals, many of them single. And so on. The manner of meeting will somewhat reflect aspects of the people who are in the meeting. The younger ones will gravitate to more modern forms of worship and music while the older will gravitate to other forms. If we assume that the Spirit is free to move as He wills, there is nothing to cause any of these to simply be just like any other.

And they all agree that they are just "church" and are part of the city of Dallas, taking no particular name. People will refer to each assembly as simply the church meeting at [address].

So you live in the Victory area of Uptown and the closest assembly is using newer songs of praise, and sprinkling their meetings with some intentional practices like responsive readings, and a certain part of every meeting is designed for the people to join in repentance (a "forgive us our trespasses" kind of thing).

But that is not what you want to be doing. Are you going to get in your car and drive a little further to attend a group that doesn't do any kind of "liturgy" (at least in the old-style sense) and sings only hymns from an approved hymnal. And uses only a piano and occasionally a couple of acoustic guitars rather than also having some drums, and organ, or even electric guitar?

And beyond the somewhat outward differences, some of the groups have gravitated to understand salvation as requiring more than a one-time claim of "belief" since even John 3:16 says "whosever believes," not "whosoever believed."

Yet despite all of these differences (and probably more) each of them is joining with the others in evangelistic efforts. In efforts to help the poor, underprivileged of their communities (both Christian and non-Christian). They come out to fix up the meeting place of the poor group that doesn't agree with everything they hold to so that those people can worship God without fear that the foundation will fail as they meet. They all send missionaries to various places and pray for the needs of each others groups.

And given the likely diversity among these groups, I suspect that you will start to have an unwritten listing of what groups generally fit together so that you and others can decide which will be your regular meeting place. No one is offended that you drove past theirs to get to the one you meet with. They are happy that you are meeting.

And since the various groups tend to sort of further simplify into those common groups of groups, they get labeled. Not to be ugly. Or to exclude anyone. But to let anyone know what is different about each. So that the members of the universal church can meet without distraction.


The funny thing about all of this is that even within denominations, there is diversity. The association is not entirely inflexible. And it does not cover every aspect of belief and practice. But to hear the LRC talk about it, there is some serous control. Are you aware that Baptists are not required to do anything? They are members of the group by choice. And they can choose to not be part of the group.

I am a member of a church that has a common naming convention with other churches, yet is not a denomination and has no headquarters. We do believe a lot the same about things. But not entirely. There was recently some serious controversy about one of them that did something that had many of the others up in arms. The debate in the open media was intense. There was even a few threats of violence. But the truth is that none of these separate assemblies every considered this particular assembly to be in grievous error, or cut them off from fellowship. In the middle of it all, the preacher of this one and one of the others switched pulpits a couple of times. And the "issue" was never on the agenda for discussion or preaching about.

That is unity in diversity. You think it is division. But it is not. You want unity in conformity. You want the contemporary service at our church to dump its praise band, and the traditional service to accept popcorn testimonies read from a single, pre-defined source of writing. You really don't care whether forcing your will on others is spiritually correct or helpful. You just want to wield "unity" as a weapon to force conformity. And conformity to your image, not the image of God.

Division is spoken of in the Bible. But you cannot assert that there really is any real division "out there." And denominations are just a boogeyman. You want conformity to your ways but decry any others who agree to conform without forcing others in the same way. Your version of unity is worse than division. It is like when the RCC declares all Protestant and EO assemblies to be "damaged" since they are not meeting with the "true church." Of course their version of the true church is the RCC.

You mock people for praying "poor" prayers. You would scoff at "Bless us, Oh Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen." But cherish simply saying "Oh Lord Jesus" over and over without ever saying anything about anything.

And you insist that the world beat a path to your door.

The Bible does not speak against diversity. Only division. It does not say that we cannot meet in any particular way, only that we meet.

Rather than charging me to say how the Bible supports our meetings and groups, you should show how it denies them. The groups are neither biblical nor unbiblical from where I sit. Therefore I cannot provide a list of verses to say that it is so. I can only say that I do not find anything that denies them. So it falls on you to establish that they are not allowed and provide evidence for your claim.