[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I believe that I stated the irony of denominationalism in a post above. Even the "community church movement," inasmuch as it is a "movement" becomes unavoidably a sect, a division, a denomination of Christianity. This movement is, by the way, somewhat connected with the Emergent Church movement, and Saddleback Community Church headed by Rick Warren. I have personally experienced the phenomenon of the "mega churches." My personal opinion is that they are riddled with "Corinthian" issues.

Almost all churches have problems. In Revelation, six of the seven have problems. Having problems does not make a church not a church. Until the Lord "takes the lampstand away."

(BTW, has anyone ever considered what that means, to take the lampstand away? It probably doesn't mean all the Christians leave the city, since that is not likely to happen. So the idea that there is one church per city even if no one is meeting that way is called into question right there. It probably doesn't mean everyone just stops meeting totally, since that is not likely either. What it likely means is the Lord removes his presence and the group becomes empty and dead.)

But that's traditionally been the basis for forming "new churches." Were it not for the fact that groups of people naturally (in their natural selves) desire to form relationships with other like-minded persons, there would be no divisions at all.

False. Groups sometimes feel the need to split because the leadship they follow has become sectarian itself. (See local church movement).

Church groups are not formed by single persons - "pastors" - who say to themselves, "Okay, now that I've graduated from seminary I can go out an market my own church." They are formed by groups of like-0minded persons who seek out like-minded pastors to lead them.

Where did you get this idea? The church I meet with definitely was formed by a pastor and his wife who felt called to start a group. You seem to think it's easy to just start a group and have success if you just attract like-minded people. But leading a church is hard work. I don't know how anyone could do it without a strong feeling of calling backed by intense prayer. Most church leaders feel called to do what they are doing. They couldn't survive long without that conviction. Maybe some go "O la de dah, I think I can do this better than my pastor so I'll start and church." But they don't last long.

I think I made that point earlier. It's a sticky wicket for any group. But what's the solution? We should accept as inevitable that we are forever doomed to division, or we should take a stand and make our best attempt at following the Bible's example?

Right, I was looking for a solution. But as I've pointed out the solution Lee came up with is doomed to fail because to operate it depends on the required universal acceptance of arbitrary assumptions (who are the elders) to operate. This arbitrary assumption is bound to eventually conflict with the convictions of some, especially when these arbitrarily presumed elders begin to deviate from the truth. (As they have in the LC movement). When this happens the model has no means of correction, no star to steer by, and a meltdown ensues. (As it has in many cities in the LC movement.)

It's silly to ask people to make their "best attempt" when you don't have a plan for success for them to attempt, but rather offer a plan that has been shown to eventually even set family member against family member.

Like I've said, if you don't have a plan, don't try to make people feel guilty for not following it. I suggest you take a different approach to the problem of oneness. How about praying about it? Have you ever done that, or just, like most LCers, been running with a teaching they've never even sincerely taken to the Lord?