A Plague Upon Denominationalism!

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's hard to hear you when you are constantly shouting at me.

It is hard to believe this last comment comes from someone who has contributed closely to 7000 posts.

I am going to take a break. Evangelical and Bradley it's your turn now (unless Ohio decides otherwise).

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical and Bradley it's your turn now (unless Ohio decides otherwise).

Don't drag me into this! I hardly read any of this thread, other than the title.

[OBW]

TAT,

It is clear that Spurgeon lived and wrote in a time when there was more animosity among the various groups. At the time it was common for many of the groups to see themselves as either the only true group, or sufficiently so that any others, though still Christian, were relegated to sub-par status. It is easy to see that this kind of adversarial existence is not the primary landscape at this time.

I will not say that denominations are the preferred way to exist. But at the same time, there are sufficient differences in general belief among Christians that for all of them to meet within a single assembly would be nothing short of disruptive and possibly cause a renewed level of animosity.

And the problem is not names, history, primary leaders, apostolic succession, etc. It is how we now choose to go about dealing with uncertainty in understanding.

It was an undercurrent for centuries. There were small splinters that came and went. Then Martin Luther came along at a time when there was some level of dissatisfaction among many who didn't even see what Luther did. But still he did the "normal" thing for the time. He brought up the questions. 90+ of them. Covered a lot of ground. The standard practice was that a group of friars, priests, etc., would gather and begin to discuss the questions. You could call it the beginnings of a Jerusalem 15 council. Anything that went beyond what was the current norms and wasn't resolved to verify the status quo was officially, or unofficially kicked uphill. If it survived long enough, it got to the top and they poured over it all. And then the Pope would make some kind of decree as to what they had decided.

But there were at least a couple of things in Luther's list that were displeasing to the upper echelons, so they basically quashed the list before there was a meeting. So Luther posted it again. Eventually they were so angered that they ordered him to come answer.

The rest is history. And from that time, rather than that have open discussion with the Bible, history, and prayer, the dissenting parties have simply left to do their own thing without even trying to vet their ideas. Effectively, Luther did to others what the RCC had done to him. Not under threat of physical harm, but by rejecting them. Luther did not want to think about anything else. He was done, so his group stopped. When the dispute between those who pushed what is now called Calvinism were faced with questions by those who thought it might not be that way, the two sides didn't engage in discussion. They simply rejected each other and the questioning ended.

And so on until today.

Now the story about 30,000 separate groups in the U.S. is really not very meaningful. There are really significant magnitudes fewer. But they do not all align as part of a denomination. They answer to no one. But they have doctrinal positions that are mostly the same as other established groups and would easily be seen as part of one of them if they chose to do so.

But even if we bring it down to only, say, 100 real differences, it is clear that we do not agree on everything. I know theologians — seminary professors — who are mostly from or teaching at one particular seminary. But they do not agree with each other on everything. Yet neither are they at odds with each other. That is the truth of the "divisions" that you rant about. They are not so divisive. Each will start into a particular passage and note that there are many interpretations, even giving some of the more common differences, then stating that they think a particular one is the better choice, but usually admitting that they could be wrong.

From that seminary come men and women who will preach in all kinds of places. Baptists churches, Bible churches, Presbyterian/Reformed churches, and so on. I know of at least one who is actively preaching in an Anglican church in the area.

But the LRC, while in many ways not different from any of these others, has taken a position that something that they can only claim is there if you ignore what is actually said makes them special. They are "unique" and specially blessed by God. And based on that position they are free to dismiss all others and refer to them as Babylonian, harlots, mooing cows . . . the list goes on. All of this under umbrella of having "unity." Something that was prayed with respect to al believers, not just those who jump through the right hoops.

Like I challenged Evangelical before, can you defend any of the animosity toward other Christians in the light of the command to love one another?

I really don't give a RA what Spurgeon said about denominations back at the turn of the previous century. He probably had reasons at the time. But in this day and age, the denominations are less divided from each other than the LRC is from everyone. And it is not because the denominations and free groups exclude the LRC. It is because the LRC excludes everyone else. Oh they speak of unity . . . inside their doors. But they will not go out to any others. The others have to come to them. Forget the highways and byways. Let them find us. Let them respond to a venomous rhetoric about their retched condition and seek us out.

If there ever was a plague upon denominationalism, it has been mostly lifted. It would appear that the plague has moved, along with its garlic room, to the LRC. A group that will appeal to those who desire to be special. But not to those who use their minds. Who refuse to check their brains at the door.