It's wrong to say denomination is bad

[jesusislord]

It's wrong to say denomination is bad, unless you misunderstood what does it really means.

According to the definition of Oxford dictionary:
'a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.'

some may argue they are the true church, nothing wrong with that, since Jesus had 12 apostles and had sent the Holy Spirit to the guide the church, a true church is indeed a true church if they ascribe to the teaching of the apostle. Now, what's the marks of a true church?

the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are the hallmarks of the true church. - John Calvin.

so in a city, they may be many groups or churches that does the Lord's work (preaching and upholding the gospel) or simply gather as a group of believers.

so for many years I was meeting in a church which affiliated with the teaching of watchman nee, aka watchman nee's denomination. Luther started his work, Calvin did it in his way, Wesley did the same, no man is perfect in their service. But today thanks to these gifted teacher from the Lord we have so many Christian groups - Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist and so on, we as a whole, are the visible church in various locality (including believers in Catholic and Orthodox too)! if someone argue you need to meet by the principle 1 city 1 church you missed the mark what a church is.

so now come to the problem of division and differences. The number of believer today is far greater than the believer in 1st century, we can't literary take the pattern from the bible (1 city 1 church under 1 ministry) and execute that way. Does single ministry is able to serve millions of believers in various city, states, countries and region? Each minister or elder or believer in a denomination / church should be responsible to serve in that community.

1 city 1 church 1 ministry 1 publication is only practical if all the saints would agree to meet that way, and that particular ministry must be the single best ministry in able to care for millions of believers on the earth, and the publication must be able to produce books that's widely accepted and good enough for all the believers.

How to go about the issue of division?
Believers are one in Christ. I don't see how conformity and meeting according to locality is the way to go to try unite the saints. Oneness is spiritual. Jesus said who are my brother and sister? Those who does the Father's will. When group A and group B are obeying God and taking Jesus as Lord, then they are one with the ministry of Jesus Christ in the heaven!

Thus, I conclude that I was merely part of a Christian denomination, I reject the upsell of extra biblical idea of the ground of the church taught by LSM. It's silly to distance ourselves from other believers from different denomination, tradition and ministry. Just because you have an idea how to run your church doesn't means you have the right to look down, slander, devalue what others are doing, especially they indeed preach the gospel and are genuine believers of Jesus.

[Ohio]

They tell their members that they must have the "correct" church name so that they can condemn every other congregation which does not have this "correct" church name.

It never was about oneness or unity. The LC's in the Midwest all had the "correct" church name and operatives from LSM/DCP still condemned us, sued us, stole our meeting halls and chairs, and our "correct" church name for themselves.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by jesusislord

It's wrong to say denomination is bad, unless you misunderstood what does it really means.

Personally I don't believe there's much wrong with the one-church-one-city idea, because that's who we are in Him. There is one Lord and one body of Christ. Logistically we can meet in various places because of numbers, but we are still one body. We are one body even now, as we meet in different places with different names. We are one in Him, even though outwardly there seems to be differences of opinion, location, etc.

The main problem with the LC, I think, is in the execution of that idea. If they said, "We have seen something in the word about the oneness of the body, and therefore choose to meeting that way. We won't take any other name (e.g., Baptist, Methodist, etc.) and only have the designation of the location we're in. And we are one with all believers in this area and in the world." That would be fine. But the big problem arises when they get all puffed up and proclaim, "We've seen something that is much better and higher than you (I witnessed a brother actually tell some other Christians this once - caused an instant division!). You should drop your ideas and be one with us. Otherwise, YOU are just a division in the body."

This is the same as what Paul was illustrating in 1 Cor 1:12 when he points out that some say, "I am of Christ." We'll of course they are of Christ, but what they are doing is prideful and fleshly, and just causing another division by taking that stance and declaring it to others. I think there is a way to take that stance in humbleness and inclusiveness, without the pride and arrogance which causes division.

[OBW]

The problem with coming only occasionally is that you only see a few more recent threads. In looking back a little, I find this one interesting.

I will note that the thread asks about singular "denomination" rather than plural "denominations." I will assume this is a typo until someone tells me otherwise.

To the extent that a denomination, or denominations in general, are the result of division and acrimony in the body, it is easy to suggest that there is a problem with it/them. But that is not the whole of the separations. While some declare others (certain others or all others) to be in error and not really churches, they mostly are maintaining peace within the body by keeping arguments over doctrine and practice out of the everyday practice of our faith. And whether large or small, at some level I like the idea that there are some who have the calling to be more given to the Word, study, prayer, preaching, etc., and provide the rest of us with a coherent base of doctrine and understanding. They do the heavy lifting of theology that allows the rest of us to believe, learn, and practice in what we trust is a sound environment. If this sounds just like following Lee, you are wrong. With some exceptions, the job of the "heavy lifting" is done among many, not dictated by one. They even do some of their study with those who see things differently and undertake to understand both sides of debates and develop and support their conclusions.

Unfortunately, at the participant level, and sometimes at the local leadership level, they are more sectarian about their understanding. And they mix in various kinds of "folk religion." In Haiti, that might be something like voodoo mixed in with Catholicism. In Dallas, that might be more like mixing views on how families should be, or patriotism with the worship of God. Not saying that families or patriotism are bad, but that they are not what the Christian faith is about. And not what worship is for.

It is interesting that at the upper levels, many from different groups regularly engage in discussions. They may tend to be strong for their views, but they are generally not so closed as to suspect the Christian stance of the others. But as you move toward a local assembly, the tendency to be generous toward others often decreases.

(Now it is interesting to note that certain "young, restless, and reformed" members of a part of the Presbyterians (broadly) have managed to argue that the definition of a true evangelical is so strongly Calvinist that all those of old-school Pentecostal groups who hold to more Aminian teachings would not be included even though they, and others, consider them part of the larger Evangelical community.)

So, while the fact of a denomination somewhat codifies the reasons for doctrinal divisions in the faith, they also provide an anchor in faith and belief that too many free groups and one-off assemblies do not have except to the extent that their preachers were trained at reputable schools of theology.

I know that this seems to bring in another hot button in the LC discussion — clergy. But clergy in some form is all over both Christ's teachings and those that followed in the various epistles. Some were trained for 3+ years to be the leaders of the church. They were admonished to not do it like the Pharisees, but as servants. Some are "given" to the body to train them fo their "works of ministry." Paul specifically admonished the believers to support those that labored in the word and teaching for their sake. So having a paid preacher is not necessarily a bad thing. And while it might be ideal if an assembly were to send one of their own to a trusted school of theology so they could return to shepherd, teach, and lead that assembly, that is not always how it works. So simply calling a paid preacher who came from outside the group a hireling is probably not a fair or accurate assessment.

Surely the fact of denominations points to the fact of our doctrinal separations. But eliminating them would likely create massive separation and division. It would free too many to more finely dissect understanding and exclude others over it. In any case, in the face of disputes concerning doctrines, and despite a gut feeling that going to the "church of my choice" is somehow a bad thing, it probably keeps the focus of gatherings off of the differences and instead on Christ.

So, in my view, and given the fact of things as they are, I do not think that denominations are necessarily such a bad thing, or something to rail against.

I realize that some may point to a particular assembly that is not part of any denomination, that has no external office to answer to, and feel that it is preferrable. And you might be right. But you also may be getting a poor diet of Christian nourishment that is wrapped in a desirable environment. Why? Not necessarily becuase someone is out to fleece you. Maybe just because that is all that the one, standalone leader can provide. Maybe they cannot see their own limitations and errors and have no place to vet their ideas and get feedback, and even push-back where appropriate. Until they go so off the rails that some elderly woman stands and says "enough is enough" and leaves. And there begins to be a split amoung the few in the not so big independ assembly with no denomination to blame.