Denominations — Really Bad?

[OBW]

I hear you both and generally agree. I guess the questions were more for myself than anyone else. Or more for the consideration by those who may have no desire to actually respond.

And that is the fate of many of my thread starts. It interests me, but is not necessarily a page turner for others. I don't care if it collects followers or participants as long as it makes people think. Or someone.

As for the comment about variety v a more certain environment, with the variety of church types that are represented by denominations, it is at least more varied than McD, BK, Wendy's, JitB, INnOut, (and Whataburger for the Texas locals). Of course, if you asked me what I wanted, the somewhat Frankenstein-ish thing I would put together might surprise some (including my wife).

. . . . If only my current assembly would make the necessary changes . . . .

But I still think I would rather remain within something at least as strongly cohesive as the Bible Church movement, even though not a denomination in the truest sense. Why? Because I think it represents my core and peripheral beliefs best, and provides a solid framework for sound theology, teaching, practice, etc.

[Freedom]

At present, I have no problem with denominations or the fact that they exist. In the LC, they will readily criticize denominations for "taking a name", but a name represents nothing more than a means of identification. By analogy from the tech world, there are two ways to go to the google website. You can either memorize the IP address of google.com (216.58.216.14), or just simply type "google.com". In the world of computers, names save us from having to memorize IP addresses. Suffice to say, names are a matter of convenience. All Christian groups have beliefs that they can be distinguished by. If a group takes a name of "Baptist", it allows people to readily identify what that group believes. Other groups don't choose to do that, and it's not a problem, it just means people might have to inquire as to what a group believes.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The word “denomination” means “having a name” and the LC tries to get a lot of distance out of this by saying they don’t have a name. But in fact a denomination is just an identifiable brand of Christianity. The name identifies the brand, but the important thing is not the name, but the brand. So there is no doubt the LC is a denomination, as it is a very distinct brand. They like to think their defining characteristic is “Christ.” But actually their defining characteristic is Witness Lee-ish Christianity

Ultimately, all groups are "branded" what they believe. This is as true for the LC as it is for any denomination. The explicit claim that group is "nameless" is about as ridiculous as if someone claimed that a Ford with the emblem removed is no longer a Ford. In the same way that Methodists are distinguished by what they believe, the LC is distinguished by their own set of beliefs. The names, or lack thereof do not ultimately factor into the equation. Maybe I've gone overboard on the analogies, but suffice to say, I can't see what the big deal about "names" really is.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At present, I have no problem with denominations or the fact that they exist. In the LC, they will readily criticize denominations for "taking a name", but a name represents nothing more than a means of identification. By analogy from the tech world, there are two ways to go to the google website. You can either memorize the IP address of google.com (216.58.216.14), or just simply type "google.com". In the world of computers, names save us from having to memorize IP addresses. Suffice to say, names are a matter of convenience. All Christian groups have beliefs that they can be distinguished by. If a group takes a name of "Baptist", it allows people to readily identify what that group believes. Other groups don't choose to do that, and it's not a problem, it just means people might have to inquire as to what a group believes.
Ultimately, all groups are "branded" what they believe. This is as true for the LC as it is for any denomination. The explicit claim that group is "nameless" is about as ridiculous as if someone claimed that a Ford with the emblem removed is no longer a Ford. In the same way that Methodists are distinguished by what they believe, the LC is distinguished by their own set of beliefs. The names, or lack thereof do not ultimately factor into the equation. Maybe I've gone overboard on the analogies, but suffice to say, I can't see what the big deal about "names" really is.

It's a good analogy Freedom. Really IP addresses is comparable to physical addresses. Given I have seen churches occupy the same address, but not taking the same name. That is rare.
I've seen in the local churches brothers that came out of different sects and denominations. You can take the brothers out of the sects and denominations, but you can't take the sects and denominations out of the brother. Take Watchman Nee and Witness Lee for example. They were influenced by their time with Exclusive Brethren and took many of those teachings and practices to what is now known as the Lord's Recovery.

[UntoHim]

For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1 Corinthians 11:19 (ESV)

It's quite interesting the diversity of translations we see with this Greek word αἵρεσις hairesis (from which we get the anglicized "Heresy") Most of us are probably familiar with KJV's transliteration of "For there must be also heresies among you" and the NASB and ESV "For there must also be factions among you", however there are a number of other equally accurate (in my opinion) translations as well - "Divisions" (NLT), "Differences" (NIV) and "Divisions" (NET). There is equal diversity with this Greek phrase δόκιμος dokimos - γίνομαι ginomai - φανερός phaneros - - - "which are approved may be made manifest" (KJV), that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!" (NLT) "so that those of you who are approved may be evident." (NET) "that the approved may become manifest among you." (Darby).

There is little doubt that by the time the apostle Paul penned 1 Corinthians that there were significant divergences in teaching and practice among Christians, even, apparently, within the church in Corinth itself. However, there is also little doubt that Paul did not consider this divergence as a negative thing, but actually as something positive and necessary for the good of the church. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think of today's situation as any different, accept for the fact that we have had about 2,000 years for the divergences to multiply exponentially.

This, of course, is not a blanket acceptance, much less approval, by me of all the denominations within Christianity, only a recognition of the principle (for lack of better term) that we see the apostle Paul give forth to the Corinthians in the 1st century. Conversely, I no longer subscribe to Witness Lee's blanket condemnation of "poor, poor Christianity".

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

we have had about 2,000 years for the divergences to multiply exponentially.

Yes that's the word. Multiply. Not divide. And there's more than one Christian meeting going in New York City. What a concept.

And where did the name "Christian" come from? People needed to identify those following Jesus Christ. Another shocker.

Conversely, look at the machinations needed to avoid "taking a name". Take the "Chinese-speaking meeting", for example. Who speaks Chinese? The Chinese! But don't say the "Chinese meeting" because that would be secratian division along ethnic lines, and there are no longer Jews nor Greeks nor Chinese. So we can't say that!

How about "the brother of 3 capital letters, the first of which is round in shape"? Um, how about OBW instead. Yes it's a name; given so that I may distinguish one poster from another. It's okay. Really. No, really; it's okay.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

How about "the brother of 3 capital letters, the first of which is round in shape"? Um, how about OBW instead. Yes it's a name; given so that I may distinguish one poster from another. It's okay. Really. No, really; it's okay.

Now we know why LC posters on this forum like to post as unregistered... They don't want to take a name.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Now we know why LC posters on this forum like to post as unregistered... They don't want to take a name.

It's against their religion!

[TLFisher]

Could it be we're all denominated and the local churches are no exception? When it comes down to it, where we choose to meet or not meet is a matter of choice.
Question, what is the basis of the choosing?
Is it based on a particular brand (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc)?
Is it based upon a particular minister? (Rick Warren, Greg Laurie, etc)
Is it based upon language?
Is it based upon affiliation with a ministry? (local churches preference of LSM, TC, DYL, etc)
How divided are we really when it comes to receiving other brothers and sisters?
I'd say denominations isn't the problem, it's our heart in receiving brothers and sisters.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

How divided are we really when it comes to receiving other brothers and sisters?
I'd say denominations isn't the problem, it's our heart in receiving brothers and sisters.

Reminds me of Jesus noting the ones who were scrupulous about outward purity and cleanliness. Actually they were the most Biblical, since both the divine command for purity and the practice handed down (i.e. 'closely following the apostles') was for this very thing. They could cite Moses in everything they did. Every cup and every laver had precedent.

But Jesus said the problem was inward, not to be solved by obeying forms or practices. Having the right name, up to and including "only the name of Jesus", doesn't make your heart right in the matter of receiving others. In fact, scrupulously insisting on the right name might eventually become a cloak for having all sorts of heart issues.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

Reminds me of Jesus noting the ones who were scrupulous about outward purity and cleanliness. Actually they were the most Biblical, since both the divine command for purity and the practice handed down (i.e. 'closely following the apostles') was for this very thing. They could cite Moses in everything they did. Every cup and every laver had precedent.

But Jesus said the problem was inward, not to be solved by obeying forms or practices. Having the right name, up to and including "only the name of Jesus", doesn't make your heart right in the matter of receiving others. In fact, scrupulously insisting on the right name might eventually become a cloak for having all sorts of heart issues.

Well said. Thankfully, God sees the heart. No fooling Him.

On this thread (yes, OBW we are interested too, thanks for starting it): My thoughts are that God is not stopped by our "names". Christ is building His church in spite of the gates of Hades always being open against it, and "the walls" we Christians throw up to divide ourselves from others.

I've seen the same Christ who appeared to the very human and fallible disciples in the enclosed room, and the Holy Spirit who was breathed into and poured out upon them, do those very same things whenever any group of believers come together in His name (in spite of the name of their church). As long as a group of believers turn their hearts to the Lord, open His word, and pray from a pure heart, His blessings pour out.

What does stop God's blessings are: taking or giving His place to others as head of the church, living in and promoting fornication or other sins, idol worship (worshipping the works of men's hands), and true division (not receiving other believers for fellowship or meetings because of a preference for certain ministers). Failing to deal with these things, by confessing ones' sins and asking forgiveness ultimately leads to God's judgement. Thus, we are charged to examine ourselves before we take the bread and cup in an unworthy manner.