Leaders of the Lord's Recovery

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Renee

What is the difference between Denominationalism and Sectarian oneness? It would seem that if the LC shifted to the wrong ground, then it must have been on the proper ground at an earlier time. Apparently this same shift also occurred much earlier in Taiwan. This suggests that this shifting might have been deliberately planned?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good question Renee. I don't have an easy answer for you.

What I will say is that both denominationalism and sectarian oneness add something to the Gospel. It is the Gospel PLUS other non-essentials. In the case of the Local Church . . . .

I would suggest that there may not be a whole lot of difference in general. The differences are in specific.

Denominations are, as Unto mentions, centered around specific understandings of scripture as being important. Those things beyond the very basics of the faith may or may not be correct, important, or even important even if not correct.

The real thing is what they think about the church universal. Do they see themselves as the church, and like a recent pope declare all others "damaged"? Or do they hold to their beliefs while acknowledging others as also part of the church just as they are?

Denominations are primarily bound by details of belief, not names. Each one may or may not be particularly "sectarian." I think that the problem lies in the way the terms are used. If we think of denominations as, by definition, exclusive, we think they are harshly divisive even if they are not. And we tend to use the term "sectarian" to denote those that are (as I called it) harshly divided. Those that think they are the church and others are damaged. The LRC/LCM is a good example. The Church of Christ is (or has been) at least somewhat in this group.

Surely there is a level of "we are right and you are not" in virtually every group. And sometimes the rank-and-file members have a different idea of how harsh that separation is than the leadership does. (Not much difference in the LRC. They pretty much all hold a hard line.) I must say that I prefer to meet with people who believe in those side issues closer to what I believe. It keeps there from being as much controversy in the meetings. I am mostly happy to allow the leaders, theologians, etc., dig deep into the things that divide. For the most part, I think that they view it as important to the church as a whole, but they also have a more realistic view of the totality, and even unity of the church than most of us do. Two different churches on opposite corners is often not as divisive as we were made to believe. They are not at war. Each not declaring the other to be deficient in a serous way.

Until some group like Nee's'/Lee's comes along. Find a novel approach to defining the church such that you are it and others simply are not. Declare the people as automatically members of your group and declare the groups they meet with as harlots.