Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
I agree with the point that just calling yourself "the church in ...." in and of itself does not bring the blessing of oneness if there is no real oneness.
On the other hand, calling your congregation the church of the mousekateers will not either.
|
Drake,
Welcome aboard the discussion forum, officially.
Calling oneself the church in this or that doesn't necessitate God's blessing. Either The Church In Chicago or the First Baptist Church in Chicago. Certainly names can be a distraction. There is only one name, variously translated as Yeshua, Jesus, Hay'-soos, Iosoos, or whatnot.
But even gathering as The Church of Jesus (i.e. the "my church" of Matt 16:18) or conversely The Church of Christ doesn't guarantee anything. Nor does gathering in Meeting Hall A, B, and C. Or the College-age meeting at Sister Jones' House, or the Saturday Morning Prayer Meeting. And remember that if you want to be "by the book", the first century word for "meeting" was also
ekklesia.
So the proliferation of denominations happened. The Great Schism of 1054 happened. The Council of Nicaea happened. Nee's return to the Year One pulled in a lot of people in the mainland China, who wanted the influence of the Foreign Devils to end (remember that the Boxer Rebellion was such an event in the lives of Nee and Lee's families, as in many, many Chinese Christians). And Lee's return to the Proper Church of the apostolic age pulled in a lot of seeking Jesus People who were tired of the same old, same old. But Nee's and Lee's solution is to me like Pol Pot taking over in Cambodia. Yes, Prince Sihanouk was corrupt, under the Western Powers, who were impinging upon the millennia-old Asian culture. But what was the result of Pol Pot's return to the Year Zero? The killing fields.
The local church of Lee was and is, for me, such a spiritual charnel house. I don't approve of denominations, but I accept them as a fact of history, and believe they're preferable to the alternative that Lee gave us. God is sovereign.