[CS-FSLUG] A couple of thoughts on denominations

[Ed Hurst]

Nigel Ridley wrote:

> So divisive denominations are a sadness but differences in worship forms
> are not.

Precisely. Worship is the easiest place to cross the divide. When we sit 
down to teach and make application of the things for which we worship, 
the divide is not so easy to cross. Those divisions exist for very good 
reasons, but the hard feelings that often come with them do not. Some 
songs that sound beautiful I cannot sing, for they celebrate ideas that, 
to me, are not biblical.

I'm altogether willing to worship with a wide range of folks under 
widely varying circumstances. So can a lot of lost folks who don't 
really know Jesus. In worship they do me little harm. When we teach 
about daily living, they can do tremendous damage. I can *say* those who 
dissent are not listening to the Spirit, but that is arrogance. So I 
withdraw a safe distance (a phrase the means different things in 
different places) so that those with like conviction can gather to find 
a living pathway to service. Those with other convictions are then not 
bothered by what I teache.

I admit it is altogether likely our convictions are flavored by simple 
differences in personality and personal experience. If so, then they 
remain differences that I did not create by any choice. The easiest 
example to raise is Calvinism: I cannot be any other. The way I came to 
Christ was purely a matter of that theology. The "absolute truth" of 
whether I am correct in that view versus the view of one who is certain 
we can loose our standing in the Kingdom may be something of both or 
neither. Scripture certainly seems at points ambiguous, depending on how 
you read it.

Still, I simply could not follow a God who would let me slip away. 
Another could not remain faithful without that hanging over his head. I 
must give that brother freedom to follow as best he can. I must ask the 
same freedom for myself. When we teach how to live the Word, we will 
naturally have different applications, as naturally arise from different 
foundations. Our freedoms mean we do not sit down to lessons together, 
but choose our own respective circles for those lessons.

If that could be institutionalized, I would be fine with that. In some 
places, it works -- witness my discussion of the NATO chapel in the 
Netherlands. Even there, we had numerous independent groups in the 
military community who found a better atmosphere of worship and service 
in other facilities. The chapel had limits to what it could accommodate.

For 2000 years we've worked at this. The cultural setting may or may not 
permit wide open fellowship. The nature of the institutions will change 
from generation to generation. The emergent church is the house church, 
and brick-n-mortar will decline. The issues of what to teach will not go 
away. Until God comes down and answers the questions to the satisfaction 
of all, debate will continue. If we focus too much on the organizations, 
we will be distracted from the mission, even while we cannot do much of 
anything without those organizations.

Following Christ is a corporate experience, but so long as we are in a 
fallen world, we cannot bypass the human need to organize. That very act 
will spoil utopia. Even there we have a debate. My seemingly 
cantankerous respone to Nathan is based on ministering to some folks so 
horribly abused by cult groups seeking a Christian utopia on earth. 
Their message sounded almost word-for-word as his. I saw the face of our 
Enemy in their pain, and I will not quietly let it pass without a few 
words of discussion to clarify.


-- 
Ed Hurst
-----------
A Bible Site -- http://webs.tconline.net/softedges/
Linux & Unix Help -- http://ed.asisaid.com/
Blog -- http://ed.asisaid.com/blog/

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]