[OBW]

Actually, our name is not Jesus. Jesus is the one we serve and worship. He is the one who saves. I am Mike. I follow Him and believe in Him. The name of our assembly, whether or not it has an official name, is not Jesus. It is an assembly.

“Require a name beyond that.” Who said anything about “requiring” a name. Having something identifiable is not about requiring it of others or as a touchstone for inclusion/exclusion unless that aspect is added. It is not inherent.

Denominationalism is not a “red herring used to divide.” Some divide and happen to be meeting within denominations. Some divide and are meeting in free groups with names. Some divide and are meeting in home groups without a name. Some claim to know what oneness is and say they are the ones with it, and as a result, divide from others.

Yes, headquarters can be abused. And local elders can abuse. It is true that if a group with a headquarters goes down the path of a particular error, the result is that all follow the same error. The problem, though, is still the error and not the headquarters per se. Have you found any error that is actually the denomination, or the headquarters? Or is it that places with headquarters and/or names have some problems. As you said, we all have problems. Please make the connection.

While I agree that banding groups of congregations together in any particular fashion, whether formally or informally could result in the spread of error, I also note that it can result in the spread of correction of error through the collection of spiritual resources.

It would appear that we agree on the boundary, “in/out” thing.

My point was not to justify examples of errors that exist and are then further perpetuated because of the banding of assemblies into “denominations.” The point was that the “denomination” was not the actual problem. We are too often busy pointing at clouds in the sky as proof that there is a tornado coming. It ain’t necessarily so.

Actually, ranting about names, denominations, etc., is nothing short of a reason to divide. Lee was not concerned about the true condition of any particular Christians or groups of Christians and whether they were actually being divisive. He simply labeled them based on what I honestly believe is an incorrect application of scripture, or more accurately, a use of linguistics to make scripture apply where it does not actually apply.

I asked for the problem with names and denominations. I should have been more clear. I would like a meaningful analysis of any scriptures that might speak on the subject(s) with attention to what they actually do or do not condemn rather than the stance Lee took of saying that “says ‘I am of Paul’” simply means taking a name in any form. I do not have a preconceived expectation for which I will simply argue. I’ve already said I don’t think it is there. I’ve seen the alleged verses before. But we can look again.

There are plenty of examples of things wrong with certain denominations. There are also plenty of examples of things about denominations that the LC (and many of us who were formerly in the LC) came to believe were problems just because Lee said it was so. Denominations, names, and the rest of Christianity are the boogeyman for the LC. Let’s open the closet door and turn on the light to see if there is really anything in there. Despite Lee’s rants on the subject, I don’t find scriptural problems with groups of assemblies pooling resources and having some of the people that they have decided to support so they can better serve them with the Word of God rather than every little one of us relying on just our own spirit and turning into an “everyman what is right in his own eyes” situation since we have limited time and resources. From the OT right on through the accounts in Acts, those who served the saints were worthy of their wages. “Clergy” was not entirely prohibited. What else did Lee get wrong on this?