Denominations — Really Bad?

[Cal]

The LC argument for not taking a name is sometimes illustrated with the fact of a wife taking her husband's name. But though a wife takes her husband's last name, she doesn't drop her first name, neither does he. It is necessary for identification.

Sure, we need to know that the name we are called by is the Lord's, but having a "first name" for ease of identification, like Creekside Community Church, I seriously do not believe offends the Lord. Now, if a church went around beating their chests and proclaiming the greatness of "the mighty name of Creekside," well, then you'd have a problem--sort of like the one the LCM has.

But simply having a name, or not having one, does not make you any better or worse. Certainly the Lord does not prefer not having a name and actually being divisive, as the LCM is, to having a name and not being divisive, as most non-denominational churches are.

Again, the LCM is all about control and pretending to own the rights to everything. *yawn*

[TLFisher]

What happens when you're one meeting with the local churches, you're out in public and happen to cross paths with a former lcer known to be negative?
What do you do pretend you don't recognize him or her?
Turn around and walk the other way?
Is this having a right heart? Of course in the local churches, we've heard the catch phrases attached to those considered negative; leprosy, poisonous, etc. It's all part of the boogeyman the LSM system has created.
Even Christians you know that have never met with the Local Churches, you don't want to do what's considered "shaking hands over the fence".

Consider this following passage from G.H. Lang's The Churches of God pages 12-13:

It is evident that each local assembly was intended to be self-contained. This was essential, especially considering that under ancient conditions of travel and life much and prolonged isolation was often inevitable. The church of God is verily a unity, but its unity is that of an organism rather than an organization. Each Christian was to exhibit this unity by a life of pure love towards each other believer; and the connexion of all with a local assembly afforded a corporate sphere for its manifestation.
I once met in the street a godly and beloved clergyman, a neighbor. He presently said, “I was passing your place on Sunday, and, by the by, to what denomination do you belong?” I replied, “Did you not look at the notice board as you went by?” “Yes,” he said, “I did, but I could not see there anything about it.” “That,” I answered, “indicates to what denomination we belong.” Smiling, he said, “I see! But are there no other folk who believe as you do?” “Yes,” said I, “I thank God that there are very many such.” “Well,” he inquired, “why do you no affiliate with them?” “Can you,” I asked, “give any Scripture which suggests that it is the mind of God that we should do so?” “Yes,” he replied, “the passage, ‘giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit’ (Eph 4:3).” “But what is the unity of the Spirit?” I asked next. “Well,” said he—“Yes, yes; hem! Well, how would you define it?” And I said, “First of all the unity of the Spirit is a spiritual unity, and not an external organization. You and I meet here in the street; we know and love each other as brethren in Christ; we say a few words to cheer each other on life’s way; and that is one example of what I understand by the keeping the unity of the Spirit.”

I would say when we allow names of where we meet to divide us, the unity of the Spirit is lost.

[JJ]

Right. There are two "oneness's" described in Ephesians. And, neither is oneness of teaching. The first is oneness of the Spirit, which we have already and should diligently work to keep as we bear one another in love, keeping the peace of Christ. The other is oneness of the faith and full knowledge of Christ, which we grow into through the headship of Christ and his working through his many members to build up the church in love to glorify God.

The manifestation of true oneness is that we all with one voice proclaim the wonderfulness of Jesus our Lord and of God our Father (not the wonderfulness of our favorite minister or ministry of Christ, nor the wonderfulness of "our church").

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Right. There are two "oneness's" described in Ephesians. And, neither is oneness of teaching. The first is oneness of the Spirit, which we have already and should diligently work to keep as we bear one another in love, keeping the peace of Christ. The other is oneness of the faith and full knowledge of Christ, which we grow into through the headship of Christ and his working through his many members to build up the church in love to glorify God.

The manifestation of true oneness is that we all with one voice proclaim the wonderfulness of Jesus our Lord and of God our Father (not the wonderfulness of our favorite minister or ministry of Christ, nor the wonderfulness of "our church").

Great points, JJ.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LC argument for not taking a name is sometimes illustrated with the fact of a wife taking her husband's name. But though a wife takes her husband's last name, she doesn't drop her first name, neither does he. It is necessary for identification.

Sure, we need to know that the name we are called by is the Lord's, but having a "first name" for ease of identification, like Creekside Community Church, I seriously do not believe offends the Lord. Now, if a church went around beating their chests and proclaiming the greatness of "the mighty name of Creekside," well, then you'd have a problem--sort of like the one the LCM has.

But simply having a name, or not having one, does not make you any better or worse. Certainly the Lord does not prefer not having a name and actually being divisive, as the LCM is, to having a name and not being divisive, as most non-denominational churches are.

Again, the LCM is all about control and pretending to own the rights to everything. *yawn*

I don't know about your logic. It seems to fly in the face of what was going on with the early church up until the Church of Rome started to dominate many aspects of Christian thinking. Also, 1 Cor 1:12 --- how do you reconcile this statement: 'Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."' Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"? How much love is there between the SBC and the AOG? They have their own history and development--they will never reconcile. Then you have the 7th Day Adventists and the Church of Christ etc. You draw the line along doctrinal positions with everyone quoting their own Biblical scriptures. I thought I had a good understanding of the Biblical positions when I left the LC but many of them have been unearthed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't know about your logic. It seems to fly in the face of what was going on with the early church up until the Church of Rome started to dominate many aspects of Christian thinking. Also, 1 Cor 1:12 --- how do you reconcile this statement: 'Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."' Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"? How much love is there between the SBC and the AOG? They have their own history and development--they will never reconcile. Then you have the 7th Day Adventists and the Church of Christ etc. You draw the line along doctrinal positions with everyone quoting their own Biblical scriptures. I thought I had a good understanding of the Biblical positions when I left the LC but many of them have been unearthed.

Lee made names the spiritual bogeyman, and then equated all names with division. Then he went ten steps further by condemning all nameless (free) Christian groups as the ncestuous children of Lot. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Taking a name is horrible, but not taking one is far worse.

Then we need to discuss the hypocrisy of all the names (LSM DCP BFA FTTA FTTT) surrounding his ministry, none of which is in the Bible. But apparently those are OK.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee made names the spiritual bogeyman, and then equated all names with division. Then he went ten steps further by condemning all nameless (free) Christian groups as the ncestuous children of Lot. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Taking a name is horrible, but not taking one is far worse.

Then we need to discuss the hypocrisy of all the names (LSM DCP BFA FTTA FTTT) surrounding his ministry, none of which is in the Bible. But apparently those are OK.

You make an excellent point about the LC and how WL characterized everyone else but himself. I am just wondering about the alternatives with some Biblical and historical perspective. It seems that we come up with various reasons (excuses?) to justify all the different names of denominations, groups, upstarts, churches, ministries, etc and then throw them all under one cloak of "Christ" or "fundamental Christianity" etc when that doesn't seem to be what the NT is saying. How is this clarified?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

You make an excellent point about the LC and how WL characterized everyone else but himself. I am just wondering about the alternatives with some Biblical and historical perspective. It seems that we come up with various reasons (excuses?) to justify all the different names of denominations, groups, upstarts, churches, ministries, etc and then throw them all under one cloak of "Christ" or "fundamental Christianity" etc when that doesn't seem to be what the NT is saying. How is this clarified?

Why are you worried about it?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Dave

You make an excellent point about the LC and how WL characterized everyone else but himself. I am just wondering about the alternatives with some Biblical and historical perspective. It seems that we come up with various reasons (excuses?) to justify all the different names of denominations, groups, upstarts, churches, ministries, etc and then throw them all under one cloak of "Christ" or "fundamental Christianity" etc when that doesn't seem to be what the NT is saying. How is this clarified?

I don't think that in a post-LC world, anyone here is 'excusing' demoninations. Rather the existance of denominations is accepted as an inevitable fact of life, a problem which is no one's responsibility to solve.

Our responsibility is to endevour to keep the unity of the Spirit. And the word 'endevour' implies that there may be failure here and there. If we do fail, all is not lost.

So my point is simply that the alternative to division is a personal responsibility in getting along with others, both Christians and non-Christians alike.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Also, 1 Cor 1:12 --- how do you reconcile this statement: 'Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."'

Mention this verse in LC circles and the understanding is it applies to everyone except those in the recovery.
If someone did understand what was being implied, they would be aghast. "How dare you suggest we are of Lee! You are misunderstanding." Easy to say.
Even within the LSM affiliated local churches, there is always the temptation to fall into the trap of "I of Paul" and "I of Apollos". In the LSM/LC context it may be, "I of Ron Kangas" or "I of James Lee". When Ron is speaking at a conference, one may attend to hear what he has to share, but if James Lee is speaking at the next meeting, the feeling may be "if Ron isn't speaking, I'm not going to attend".
It's a matter of preference. Preferring one brother's speaking over another. Within our own community church, a few years ago we hosted visitors from Hawaii. They appreciated the speaking of our resident retired pastor over the speaking of the regular pastor. It was then I realized even within a church it's easy to fall into the trap "I of Paul" or "I of Apollos".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't know about your logic. It seems to fly in the face of what was going on with the early church up until the Church of Rome started to dominate many aspects of Christian thinking. Also, 1 Cor 1:12 --- how do you reconcile this statement: 'Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."' Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"? How much love is there between the SBC and the AOG? They have their own history and development--they will never reconcile. Then you have the 7th Day Adventists and the Church of Christ etc. You draw the line along doctrinal positions with everyone quoting their own Biblical scriptures. I thought I had a good understanding of the Biblical positions when I left the LC but many of them have been unearthed.

There is much more to Paul's statement about names in 1 Cor. 1 than just the names. Those names were a sort of battle cry in a "we're right and you're wrong" or "our teacher of choice is superior to yours" war. They were unwilling to get along even within a single assembly.

The names Paul was talking about were much more than identifiers so they could find the right phone number in their Yellow Pages directory. They were declarations of their rightness and the error of the others.

Creekside is a differentiator, but not in the way of the names in Corinth. To insist that the two are simply identical is to fail to read the narrative of the situation in Corinth. While there is almost always a level of "like" with respect to the group that you do associate with, the "dislike" with respect to others is much less, or not really there. We may have concluded that this is the one for me, but in saying that we often have not precluded all others as deficient and in error, or not worthy of our participation.

I honestly believe that much of the denominations within Christianity get along better than a single assembly in Corinth did within its own membership. There is clearly something different at work in Corinth than in today's Christianity. Not saying there is none of that happening. But when so many include prayers for the whole of the body of Christ without thinking, or eve saying, that means to drop any differences and come to them (and not the other way around) there is clearly a difference.

We have been told by Lee that it was simply about the names and even though we may now reject Lee, we continue to accept his bias and error without any real consideration. I have concluded that with the amount of misrepresentation of the scripture — both overall and in 1 Cor and this issue in specific — I cannot accept anything that I have not found to be taught by a significant group of others in the same manner that he did.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"?

There is nothing wrong with a certain amount of identification and even healthy pride in one's membership to a particular group. Even the LC members of the "Church in Wherever" take pride in their home church. That's normal human nature. What's the alternative? To be indifferent? To be apologetic?

The problem comes in when you start thinking that you are better than everyone else, that everyone else is wrong and needs to be like you, or that everyone needs to join you. The LC did all three to the nth degree.

But saying "I'm of Creekside" can be simply telling others where you meet. There's a world of difference. So it all depends on what you mean when you say it.

Paul is clearly addressing divisive attitudes, not names, because he even condemns those who say "I am of Christ." Is it wrong to say "I'm of Christ"? Not usually. But when you say it in a way that suggests others aren't of Christ it's a problem. Unfortunately, the LC did this, too.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem comes in when you start thinking that you are better than everyone else, that everyone else is wrong and needs to be like you, or that everyone needs to join you. The LC did all three to the nth degree.

But saying "I'm of Creekside" can be simply telling others where you meet. There's a world of difference. So it all depends on what you mean when you say it.

Paul is clearly addressing divisive attitudes, not names, because he even condemns those who say "I am of Christ." Is it wrong to say "I'm of Christ"? Not usually. But when you say it in a way that suggests others aren't of Christ it's a problem. Unfortunately, the LC did this, too.

Agreed that it is more than names that are being addressed. Paul takes the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians to address the divisions, then comes back to it for part of the 12th chapter as well.

As I reread those sections of 1 Cor. it is clear he is addressing immature believers who had become arrogant and boastful in their fleshly knowledge, even full of jealousy and strife, and were lining up behind "their apostle", even Christ himself, to exclude others, saying "we don't need you" if you follow another apostle. They were also giving the wrong type of position and credit to the apostles, who were simply servants of God and stewards of His mysteries. God deserved all credit for anything good going on among the believers or the apostles, and their boast should be in the Lord and his cross.

Hopefully we aren't doing the same. All I can say is I was once part of group that had many of these things going on, so I had to exit it, as the Lord on the throne in the heavens and within me couldn't abide it.

[aron]

"Until we all arrive at the oneness"

Originally Posted by JJ

Agreed that it is more than names that are being addressed. Paul takes the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians to address the divisions, then comes back to it for part of the 12th chapter as well.

Yes there is more than names being addressed. "Paul" is a name. "Corinth" is a name. Names are inevitable. "Meeting Hall Six of the Church in Taipei" is a name. "The college-age meeting on Tuesday nights at Sister Won's house" is a name.

So to condemn others for what you yourself inevitably must do (protesting all the while that you don't want to, but are forced to) is rank hypocrisy, in my view. Yes denominations are wrong but so are you and I. Only God is good. Any name is a delimitation of God's kingdom and is at best temporary and approximate. Yet we need names just like we need words. Witness Lee condemned the Baptists for being named according to practice (i.e. baptism), but then approvingly cited mainland Chinese Christian groups who were also being named according to practice (i.e. shouting).

Watchman Nee is a name, and isn't wrong per se. "The Local Church in Des Moines, Iowa, Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" isn't wrong per se; what's wrong is saying that while roundly condemning everyone else for "taking a name." Did Watchman Nee rise from the dead? So why follow him? Why take (affiliate with) his name? These local church groups might as well put out a big six-foot high sign saying "The Li-ite Church" because that's what they are. Why not be upfront and take the name? "Affiliated with" means "of", just like the Antioch believers were called "Christianos" at in Acts 11:26 because they'd affiliated themselves with the name of Jesus Christ.

Back to JJ's point. There is more than just names that are being addressed in Paul's epistle. Lust, pride, greed, selfishness, separatism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, even arrogance. The issue of names just becomes a vehicle for this unclean spirit(s) to work -- "I am not of you; I am of this" -- Christian believers, distracted, begin to seek to delineate themselves at the expense of other believers, and to use names, positions, and theology to do it.

Anyway, I was thinking about a recent post by a "man becoming God" apologist who used Ephesians 4:13 "...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (NIV). The poster was saying that "the fullness of Christ" showed that "we all" become God.

But how can a ministry that roundly condemns every other ministry as hopelessly deficient, dark, fallen, devilish and satanic ever reach unity in the faith? This ministry predicates Christian unity on either a) The Lord coming in a flash of light and scooping up the ministry's acolytes into glory, and leaving "fallen Christianity" to wail and gnash teeth in darkness, or b) "fallen Christianity" to come groveling and admit that it's all true; that they are devilish and satanic and only God's Present Oracle has the light. Absent either one of those scenarios, how can we all come to the unity of the faith, and the mature knowledge of the Son of God, when one continually condemns every other "poor" and "useless" Christian worker and group? Otherwise, the "we all" of Ephesians 4:13 only pertains to those following this particular ministry and minister. And that's sectarianism defined; sectarian to the nth degree, to the max.

Solving the problem of names won't do it; no, there's something else that's being addressed here.

[aron]

Part two of the previous post:

How can we all arrive at the oneness, when we all have different names, "Bob, Mike, Joe, Susie", different races, education, culture, geographical location, history, predispositions etc? By becoming clones of The Minister of the Age?

No. God loved us, and sent His Son, who Himself loved us so much, being filled with the Fathers love "He loved us to the uttermost" (John 13:1) that he laid down His life for His friends. Now, how are we to treat each other? Does "Anglican" matter, in this context?

I'll leave it there. If you don't get what I'm saying, then it's not something that I can explain.

Originally Posted by aron

"Until we all arrive at the oneness"
Ephesians 4:13 "...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (NIV).

"the whole measure of the fullness of Christ"..?...?..

I wonder what it 'really' means? ..Can you please tell?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"the whole measure of the fullness of Christ"..?...?..

I wonder what it 'really' means? ..Can you please tell?

I suspect that if you get the "we all reach" part, you won't wonder any more about the second part, the "measure of the fullness" part.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

But how can a ministry that roundly condemns every other ministry as hopelessly deficient, dark, fallen, devilish and satanic ever reach unity in the faith? This ministry predicates Christian unity on either a) The Lord coming in a flash of light and scooping up the ministry's acolytes into glory, and leaving "fallen Christianity" to wail and gnash teeth in darkness, or b) "fallen Christianity" to come groveling and admit that it's all true; that they are devilish and satanic and only God's Present Oracle has the light. Absent either one of those scenarios, how can we all come to the unity of the faith, and the mature knowledge of the Son of God, when one continually condemns every other "poor" and "useless" Christian worker and group? Otherwise, the "we all" of Ephesians 4:13 only pertains to those following this particular ministry and minister. And that's sectarianism defined; sectarian to the nth degree, to the max.

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5:1-2

It's what I call conditional sectarianism. If you examine political parties, generally within each party there's a certain element of unity. Same can be said for LSM fellowship. The verse in Luke 6:32 identifies the LSM/LC culture in "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. " It is this political party atmosphere where they love those who love them. The condition of receiving is based on where you're oriented towards the ministry LSM publishes with LSM publications being primary factor of receiving.
Why I quoted Acts 5:1-2 the same principle of these verses is found in LSM fellowship. There's a view they're the body of Christ. Ones outside LSM fellowship are outside the Body. It's part of the Body being passed as the whole Body of Christ. Sad thing this many on the local churches buy into this concept. Yet it's this narrow concept that at best draws the sectarian label.