How can we characterize denominational-ism?
Please keep in mind the distinctive of "-ism," which points to the phenomenon and its outcome, not that denominations themselves are all bad.
The phenomenon has some of these defining characteristics as what we may refer to as 'unintended consequences.'
1) It has fostered division, which far too much of the time is praised as a good thing by some or many.
2) This phenomenon epitomizes differing groups of ecclesiastical and doctrinal differences.
3) This phenomenon also gravitates toward traditions, as was the tendency among the Jews, and thus focusing more upon those traditions than upon scripture.
4) It engenders various levels of a spirit of competitive, and even adversarial, rivalry in the place of unity under the Headship of Christ Jesus.
5) It also assists in fooling its followers into accept that they are right in holding to the idea of the freedom to differ on major, doctrinal points as a healthy image to project out into the world around us.
We've all heard the mantra of, "Well, we differ on minor, peripheral teachings, but hold to the core, defining, central tenets of Christianity. Some have even published lists of what are essential, central doctrines that must be upheld in order to determine which denominations are in the 'club' and which are not.
Granted, there are outliers that hold to doctrines that define a Jesus completely unknown to the scriptures, justified on the basis of the power and strength of traditions and men authorized to stand in the place of the One, TRUE Christ among us rather than to recognize the fact that Christ Jesus promised He would never leave nor forsake the Church.
Therefore, the thought of men standing in the place of Christ, the very One who promised to never leave nor forsake us, is utterly foreign to the scriptures; for the Lord never once said He would send men to stand in His place...the very Lord who said of Himself, "...I am the good shepherd..."
Thoughts?
Please keep in mind the distinctive of "-ism," which points to the phenomenon and its outcome, not that denominations themselves are all bad.
The phenomenon has some of these defining characteristics as what we may refer to as 'unintended consequences.'
1) It has fostered division, which far too much of the time is praised as a good thing by some or many.
2) This phenomenon epitomizes differing groups of ecclesiastical and doctrinal differences.
3) This phenomenon also gravitates toward traditions, as was the tendency among the Jews, and thus focusing more upon those traditions than upon scripture.
4) It engenders various levels of a spirit of competitive, and even adversarial, rivalry in the place of unity under the Headship of Christ Jesus.
5) It also assists in fooling its followers into accept that they are right in holding to the idea of the freedom to differ on major, doctrinal points as a healthy image to project out into the world around us.
We've all heard the mantra of, "Well, we differ on minor, peripheral teachings, but hold to the core, defining, central tenets of Christianity. Some have even published lists of what are essential, central doctrines that must be upheld in order to determine which denominations are in the 'club' and which are not.
Granted, there are outliers that hold to doctrines that define a Jesus completely unknown to the scriptures, justified on the basis of the power and strength of traditions and men authorized to stand in the place of the One, TRUE Christ among us rather than to recognize the fact that Christ Jesus promised He would never leave nor forsake the Church.
Therefore, the thought of men standing in the place of Christ, the very One who promised to never leave nor forsake us, is utterly foreign to the scriptures; for the Lord never once said He would send men to stand in His place...the very Lord who said of Himself, "...I am the good shepherd..."
Thoughts?
