I read this great blog post today on Finite Reflections of Infinity. It was shared by Paul Pavao on his facebook page, Christian History for Everyman. Please take the time to read the blog, even though it's long. I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the conclusion. The author's premise is that all churches/denominations are different from each other and from the original historical churches in leadership structure, worship services, theology, architecture, spiritual gifts, and devotional practices, therefore the argument that 'my church is best because it is most like the original church' is not a valid option for determining what the church should look like. Therefore, the author states, we have 4 options, of which the 4th is the only valid one according to his arguments. Please let me know if you agree with his conclusion. Enjoy!
P.S.: Here is the comment I left under the blog post, which also might be food for discussion.
"paulfpavao and theophiletos,
I agree with Paul that this article is phenomenal. I like how you put it, Paul, that ‘the folks who embrace this conclusion of yours…will let the Holy Spirit out of the various cages we have put him in…’
Being concerned about unity in the church as a whole and hoping that the world will see us loving one another, rather than assuming the high ground and attacking one another, I keep making the statement in discussions with Catholics...that: Instead of seeing the diversity of denominations/groups within the church as a ‘bad’ thing, maybe one reason God has allowed this separation is to encourage us to love one another in spite of our differences, which I see as mainly over non-essentials.
theophiletos, I truly love your conclusion that the invisible qualities of loving one another as Christ has loved us, and the presence of the Spirit of God and His fruits and gifts, is the hallmark of the church. Thank you for this article, and Paul, thank you for sharing it."
