The following is a response to Fracis Frangipane's article, "The Credibility Factor," at http://www.frangipane.org/
Frangipane confused me a bit in the early part of this essay by stating that godly men created denominations to protect and lift up truth in a dark age--one like he claims ours is. (And I'd agree.) Yet he demotes these convictions to "traditions" and says that they aren't worth fighting for any more. He makes this appeal for a line between who to be one with and who not to: "Please remember, I am not suggesting we should strive for unity with churches that do not believe in Christ or God's word or the Holy Spirit or the virgin birth or the second coming."
The definitions of these terms matters very much. I believe in Christ. So do demons. Mormons believe in the Bible, and they believe if they are good they may be given the Holy Spirit. Jehovah Witnesses believe something about each of those things too--they think Jesus' second coming was quite a while ago. Most of my readers may not be in those sects, but each of us undoubtedly has misconceptions about some aspects of True Faith (pretty sure I do, anyway...). Obviously, just believing in some definition of those words does not embody orthodoxy and the line between who's in and who's out is not so easily drawn. But what we mean by "believe in Christ" matters, as I believe Frangipane would agree since he felt the denominational reformers were right in their early declarations.
The different aspects of truth that were lifted up at the reformation, and by others over time are worth preserving. But something else has happened as we bought one brand of Christianity and clung to it--we froze the pursuit of what these words mean to the Author of them. Imagine an ordained denominational pastor pursuing truth and finding that some of the definitions of those words that his denomination clings to are not biblical. Is he free to grow closer to truth? No, he's bought a brand and a set of beliefs and he may not preach and follow the new discoveries he's made. It would be like his congregation walking into a McDonald's and finding they no longer serve hamburgers!
And yet it is not effective to ask the various denominations to toss out truth and say, "Oh, well, it doesn't really matter WHAT you preach about Christ, so long as you use the word, we are brothers." Such an embracing of any old thing would bring about unity, but we couldn't call it Christian unity.
Unity will be developed when we stop thinking of "church" as a religious club that holds events where a guy speaks and we sing and we have monthly potlucks and try to be good together, and restore the meaning of the words that were translated as "church" in our Bibles: eklesia, the called out ones. The assembly of the saints. The household of God. The things that we call churches contain a mix of those are truly believers and those who are merely religious. There is no way around that, and it is probably as it should be (wheat and tares, and all that.) But the called out ones are the called out ones, and must love one another, where ever they are on Sunday morning.
Does love let your friend go on in destructive error? While pride and selfish ambition are sometimes expressed in arguing, a disagreement and discussion does not mean two parties are not being humble and receptive. We must pursue truth together without battling about "who's right" so much as what's true, and be free to embrace truth as we find it in the Word, without denominational constraints.
Our denominational organizations can be useful: they give us structure and a framework to in which to work. They bring order, both social and functional so that we can be with the same people week to week and do more than we could as separate believers. But if our denominations begin to say that it doesn't matter how we use the words that Frangipane lists, we need to use caution. God does mean something by what He says, and we need to understand Him with increasing accuracy, both as individuals and as congregations. Realizing the benefit of walking with other believers of every stripe in this process of Spirit powered growth is (super) natural unity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've been taking some time reading through your posts and I saw your sweet response to my comment about service. It's interesting that at our yearly leadership retreat this weekend, the focus was service. :-)
Anyway, is there something in your husband's past that makes him feel the way he does...expecting hurt, feeling pain, etc., about church? I understand what you are talking about with wanting a marriage and not just a dating relationship. And while it's true that many churches have closet problems like disunity or judgmentalism, not all do. Although it would be impossible to have a perfect church since it's made up of imperfect people. My father's a pastor and I have attended his church my whole life (I'm 39), so I haven't had to look for a church, except during the four years I was at college. That was a completely frustrating experience and I never did find one that I really liked. I really feel for you. But as far as the individual relationships, to me it's like a marriage. I accept others, imperfections, faults and all and they hopefully extend the same grace to me, just like my husband and I do with each other. I think that's what unity is all about---accepting each other. Grace. Not too many people understand that. To me, it is one of the most important aspects of the church.
Absolutely. Unity is contingent on accepting one another. However, Christian unity goes beyond that. Happy pagans can accept one another and just let slide lifestyle choices or difference in direction. Christian unity is formed around a commonality that goes beyond that. We share a destiny in Christ, and a process of becoming like him.
In church, we have leaders that tell us what this process is and how to participate in it. If we don't all agree on the goal and methods in some fundamental way, no matter how much we accept one another, we don't have unity. I love my parents, and can accept them the way they are. But they aren't believers. The things that important to them aren't important to me. The goals they have for their life, I think are not worthwhile and can't share with the same enthusiasm. We don't have spiritual unity. This is an extreme example, but what I'm saying is that each church also has its own goals and methods, things it is passionate about. And if I can't say, "Amen!" to most of those, I'm not going to be functioning in unity, no matter how much I love the people.
Accepting people and sharing an understanding of the goal and methods of pursuing Christ are not the same.
I totally agree. You wrote your response eloquently. You're so right that extending grace can be a "live and let live" philosophy. I guess I was writing with the assumption that the people we extend grace to at church share our fundamental theological beliefs because that's where I'm coming from. But you gently reminded me that my experience is just mine and I shouldn't think or assume it's someone else's. Growing up, I was taught to go back to the scripture for guidance in everything...every "idea" I heard, every "belief" I ran into, and to test it against God's word. Our church isn't affiliated with a denomination for the very reason you shared (I can't remember which post), basically because we desire the freedom to use the scripture as the standard, not man's interpretation or a denomination's beliefs. So that's what I'm used to and that's where I'm coming from.
I'm glad you pointed out what you did. This discussion is stretching me and that's always a good thing! :-)
I wrote you a long comment here yesterday? Did you get it?
Post a Comment