I read social network information and wonder if, by filling in the “religious info” section with the specific name of a church, that the person wishes to differentiate, perhaps there is some conflict with continuity in a community. To me, that seems like “I am a member of *fill in church name*” is preempting “I am a Christian just like you and I go to *fill in church name.*”

maybe you’re right…maybe i shouldn’t read too much into social networking information

If you’re committed to NewSpring, you should think it’s the best church in town. If you didn’t, why are you going? The reason that I don’t go is that I don’t think it’s the best church in town.

Beyond that, we do need some allegiance to a specific church. God has established elders as our spiritual authority for our blessing and discipline. Those benefits can only come to people who have a formal commitment to a local church.

I’m not arguing against strong allegiances to denominations or churches, be it mine or NewSpring. The argument is that that allegiance should be on the basis of the institution’s adherence to correct doctrine, and it should always be subject to the testing and correction of Scripture.

I would further argue that we have a problem with declaring allegiance to a specific church, not just denomination.

I’ll use one specific church in Anderson as an example, even though they are loosely affiliated with a denomination,

I see people’s religious information on social networking sites filled in as, “I go to Newspring…I think that about sum ? s it up”, “I go to the best church ever, Newspring!”, or even simply, “Newspring.”

What do you think Paul would have to say about allegiance to a specific congregation? Would this tie in with allegiance to specific leaders? E.G. Apollos, Cephas?

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

First, agreement cannot be had unless it’s on the basis of being of the same mind and the same judgment. It’s not asking for agreement despite our differences; it’s challenging us to think the same thoughts (mind and judgment) so we agree on what we think. Indoctrination as a precondition to unity, if you will.

Second, the problem was that people were identifying more with particular leaders (or churches, or denominations) more than they were with Christ. That’s Paul’s point. We aren’t to have the mind of Apollos or Cephas, but the mind of Christ. As I referenced in the post, our, and our leaders’, challenge is to conform as closely as we can to the mind (i.e. doctrines) of God.

I suppose it’s a question of emphasis. If you’re a part of your denomination because you have a personal allegiance to that denomination, Paul’s going to be on your case; however, if you’re a part of your denomination because you and they have searched the Scriptures and have determined that what they do and believe is closest to God’s Word, you are able to take advantage of the benefits of divisions from 1 Cor 11:19.

How would you interpret:

I Cor 1:10 “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”?

You should start bolding the most controversial lines, it would make it easier for all of us…

i don’t twitter

Perhaps we’ve been trained to stop reading after 140 characters. Thanks Twitter!