2x2 Name Offensive? Apr 15, 2012 14:20:55 GMT -5
Post by JO on Apr 15, 2012 14:20:55 GMT -5
We're meeting with a few couples now in a study group. The only thing I dislike about it, is that one of the members of the group fancies himself as the leader of the group, and while we're happy to have him there, the group would function just as well without him .. as it would without any one of us. If he or anyone in the group decided that the group should have a name I think I would head for the hills.
I don't know at what point a group takes a name. This morning I went to a church service, and the church has a name, not a denominational one, and I'm quite fine with that. I suppose that once you have a building, a mission and a mandate, whatever it is, it's probably good to have a name. But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other.
I suppose the friends might have had that kind of feeling at one time, that I have about our study group, but now it just seems like any other denomination. You are in the friends' denomination or you are not in the friends' denomination, so it might just as well have a name as far as I'm concerned.
I believe that's about right. William Irvine, Eddie Cooney et. al. were a "mission" - a number of minimalist young people sharing the gospel with their fellow man - not a church organisation.
They had no intention of becoming an organisation but it happened anyway.
Eddie Cooney was concerned when his colleagues registered the group during the First World War.
That was the start of the two faces of the fellowship:
1. To outsiders "we are an organisation".
2. To insiders, "we are not an organisation"
Is it OK for a group to have two faces?
If not, what action should be taken to align the two faces?