Denominations - 2005/03/22 00:43I have been thinking about the idea of Christian denominations and how that might relate to the apostasy that first arose among Christians at the close of the first century and which has continued to our day.
Denomination
n 1: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith; A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy; identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others.
A key element of a denomination is obviously it's name. It is one of the first questions that sects deal with in order to separate themselves - "what shall we call ourselves?" This is done specifically with the intent of becoming "distinguished from others". Of course Christians were assigned a name by God by means of the holy spirit in the first century. They didn't have to think up a name for themselves. God required them to call themselves "Christians". Acts 11:26.
In the same way, God also required that His son be called Jesus (Matt 1:21)
Christians however, have disregarded God's naming of them, and feel that they can choose various names for themselves, and so we have Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and countless other groups. And the reason why groups have split off and named themselves is for the express purpose of separating themselves from other Christians. A name change is key is this process.
However, Jesus parents did not reason, "Well, I know the angel said to call him Jesus, but I know some naughty local kids called Jesus and I don't want our son being confused with them! So, I think we should call him........hmmm......Clint! We can always use Jesus as a nickname sometimes I suppose, just to show willing"
Am I the only one who feels rather uncomfortable with the fact that those who believe that God specifically named his Son's followers - and "witnesses" (Acts 1:8) - "Christians" have decided to more prominently use a name of their own choosing? Though I value some of the things I learned from my time as a JW, I certainly no longer use that name. I'm a Christian. Non denominational. Now, I write this, not to judge others who still use the name, but rather in response to some comments that I have heard about those who don't call themselves JW's any longer.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are not "a people for His name". The prophesy that this phrase refers to was not fulfilled in the early part of this century. Even EW acknowledges that. So bearing this name is not in fulfillment of prophesy. God has not designated a new name for the followers of His Son. The name "Christian" is still the only name that has ever been divinely assigned.
And the reason that sects choose names other than Christian is not Scripturally supported either. This is done to distinguish their members from other Christians. But Paul indicated that such fracturing and the attitude which led to it was 'fleshly'. 1 Cor 1:10-17, 3:3-9. 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 speaks of various one being drawn off by human leaders into different sects whose teachings they feel suit them better. Further, the very attempt to separate ourselves completely by means of creating variously named sects goes contrary to the 'Masters' instructions to his slaves, who were told not to try to "separate" the "wheat" from the "weeds" because they could not be clearly identified.
All in all, I'm happy to simple be - and simply be called - a Christian. Nothing more.
Much Philia.
Phi.
| | The topic has been locked.
Bea
User Gold Boarder
Posts: 41
Re:Denominations - 2005/03/22 04:00God required them to call themselves "Christians". Acts 11:26. And the reason that sects choose names other than Christian is not Scripturally supported either. This is done to distinguish their members from other Christians. But Paul indicated that such fracturing and the attitude which led to it was 'fleshly'. 1 Cor 1:10-17, 3:3-9. 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 speaks of various one being drawn off by human leaders into different sects whose teachings they feel suit them better. Further, the very attempt to separate ourselves completely by means of creating variously named sects goes contrary to the 'Masters' instructions to his slaves, who were told not to try to "separate" the "wheat" from the "weeds" because they could not be clearly identified. All in all, I'm happy to simple be - and simply be called - a Christian. Nothing more.
I'm happy to be in agreement with you, Phi. I have a friend who, because of the attitudes of some who call themselves Christians, prefers to simply say he is "a follower of Jesus." Most all religions and sects have made a 'bad name' for themselves with their condescending attitudes on one level or another, haven't they? That's the way I see it now, anyway. The truth is the truth wherever you find it - it's the search and discernment that are the 'more important things' to pay attention to ---- imho! Much love, Bea
Post edited by: Bea, at: 2005/03/22 04:01
| | The topic has been locked.
amosfamily
User Expert Boarder
Posts: 25
Re:Denominations - 2005/03/22 06:46We have cemented in history, the stand made by JW's in Nazi concentration camps. At that time, their name separated them from a world of christians, and made Jehovah's name known. But today, that name has been befouled by the heirachy of the organisation.
For a year now, when asked if I'm a JW, I say I'm a worshipper of Jehovah, but I am not affiliated with the WTBTS. Looking forward to that new name, Isaiah 62:1-2
62 For the sake of Zion I shall not keep still, and for the sake of Jerusalem I shall not stay quiet until her righteousness goes forth just like the brightness, and her salvation like a torch that burns.
2 “And the nations will certainly see your righteousness, [O woman,] and all kings your glory. And you will actually be called by a new name, which the very mouth of Jehovah will designate
| | The topic has been locked.
donbodo
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 125
Re:Denominations - 2005/03/22 07:18I think of the name "Christian" as kind of a surname and denominational names as first names. All Christian denominations call themselves Christian, and in this way connect themselves with Christians everywhere. They're family. Then the first name more or less identifies one's own personality. I think a first name is kind of important--not to identify who we worship or to separate us from our Christian family members, but to describe the kind of person we are--our beliefs, our interests, etc. What are names? Ideally, they tell people something about us. They're descriptors. What would we do without them? How could a person find a congregation or church that they think is right without there being some kind of description of that church? If we all called ourselves non-denominatonal Christians, there would be confusion on the part of seekers. Everyone would have the same name, and yet they would all have different personalities. How would we know something about the church or group without being able to tell it apart from others? If I call myself a non-Trinitarian, am I denying or playing down the name Christian? It depends on the context of the conversation, I would think. But probably not. What if everyone in the world were named "Human"? Or better yet, "non-denominational human"? That would strip us of our individuality. Just because they call me "donbodo" doesn't mean I am not a part of the human race. Anyone remember that Dr. Seuss poem, "Too Many Daves"? I loved that one. A woman named all of her children "Dave." It made for a lot of confusion. Funny stuff. Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that by adopting a descriptive name to identify which member of the Christian family we are, we are not necessarily denying our family.
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:Denominations - 2005/03/22 07:42"What if everyone in the world were named "Human"? Or better yet, "non-denominational human"?"
Anyone remember that Dr. Seuss poem, "Too Many Daves"? I loved that one. A woman named all of her children "Dave." It made for a lot of confusion. Funny stuff. Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that by adopting a descriptive name to identify which member of the Christian family we are, we are not necessarily denying our family.
Well, Donbodo, thats why you're special my Bro. Because you are one of the few whose love can climb the obstacle of denominational separation as symbolised by different "names".. But you must recognise that the vast majority do not think that way, and that denominations have served to pit Christian against Christian for centuries.I don't think it would be too strong to say that, generally, JWs despise the other Christian members of their wider "family". The word "Christendom" is a "dirty" word among JWs.
I can't help but be reminded of the debates regarding gun laws. The sensible few who wish to retain their legitimate use of firearms and so are passionate about maintining the legal freedom to own them, but who live in a country where people are gunned down in the street in huge numbers every year. Is it worth it?
Is the price paid for sectarianism, which is fostered by different labels, justified by the supposed benefits, when it is an idea strongly discouraged in the Bible in any case?
Much Philia.
Phi.
Post edited by: Phi, at: 2005/03/22 07:55
| | The topic has been locked.
donbodo
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 125
Re:Denominations - 2005/03/22 10:10You're right about the divisiveness and the sectarianism, Phi (especially by our own organization). But this is caused by the attitude of the denominations, not by their names. The attitude needs to change, but the names don't necessarily have to.
Forum 
