Unity: The weird cousin no one talks about of doctrines
People are people. That might be redundant or obvious but it is also simply true. Because we are people, even after we are born-again, we still tend to act in some of the same ways that those who are not born-again do and often we don’t even notice it or see anything amiss. As Christians one of the places where we see this most often is in how we deal with differences in the church. Let’s face it, there are going to be differences. There were in the first century and there has been ever since. Sometimes those differences lead to splits, sometimes to persecution and all too often murder and martyrdom. Because we are people we tend to prefer comfort to discomfort, familiar to unfamiliar, easy to hard. Sorry to say, Jesus never promised us an easy path would come along with the life of a disciple. Differences happen and we have to deal with them.
The question becomes how to address the issues that we disagree on. This really isn’t all that complicated. There are really only two ways to deal with differences in doctrine in the church, surely with some variation but ultimately they boil down to one or the other.
The first way is the most common by far. You simply erect barriers around your church gathering, drawing boundaries to exclude others until they conform or leave. Most commonly we see this in statements of faith to clearly distinguish “this” group from “that” group along with systems of formal church membership. Unity is reduced to being unified in practice only with those who already conform to you or who will agree to conform to you. It is precisely this sort of “solution” that has led to the church being splintered into thousands of sects, denominations and local churches that not only do not cooperate with one another, they typically compete with one another, squabbling over minor points of practice and doctrine while whole neighborhoods of unbelievers go through their lives without a whiff of the Gospel.
The other way to deal with differences is to welcome one another into full fellowship and community in spite of, or perhaps because of, our differences and then in a community hermeneutic work through the Scriptures understanding that we will never come to a 100% consensus on every issue and we shouldn’t even be trying to. When the only qualifier for fellowship is being born-again, we start to experience the richness of community in Christ. Our unity in Christ cannot be secondary to our agreement on every doctrine. Certainly Scripture gives boundaries for fellowship and when someone crosses that boundary through open sin or outright heresy we need to divide but honestly very little that divides the church comes anywhere close to that level. I understand that this might be uncomfortable for us. It is of course far easier to simply surround ourselves with those we are in agreement with. I can say with certainty that Jesus places a higher value on unity than our personal comfort and I can also say that surrounding yourself only with those who agree with you, those who look and talk and think like you do, is the equivalent of theological in-breeding. I have seen this first hand in several different settings.
For example, there are three very similar groups in our area that meet separately from one another. All three are highly conservative Anabaptist groups that are in agreement on 99% of the questions, big and small, that might come up in the church. That is not hyperbole; I am dead serious about the level of agreement. I know this because we are outside of the boundaries in the same basic way in all three groups! If you were to meet and talk with a representative couple from each group I am pretty sure you would be unable to figure out which of the three groups each couple belonged to. Those are only three, I am certain there are many more just like them in the immediate vicinity. Many of these brothers and sisters, great Christians and warm loving people, have very minimal experience with the broader church outside of their circles. Because of that there are issues that tend to be considered settled in their circles generations ago that have not really been thought out well in contemporary settings. We rarely grow when we are not stretched and challenged, something increasingly unlikely to happen the more you wall yourself off from others. A Southern Baptist that only ever interacts with other Southern Baptists might be a great Southern Baptist but is likely missing some of the real richness of the church that only comes when you walk outside of your comfort zone.
Jesus is not a polygamist. He has one bride and one only. He doesn’t have five brides in this town and seven brides in that town. If we love Him we must as His bride come together in unity as the one body of Christ that Jesus died to redeem. That is really the only way to honor His sacrifice in redeeming His church.
Showing posts with label denominations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denominations. Show all posts
Monday, March 05, 2012
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
What's In A Name?
The Southern Baptist Convention is considering a change to its venerable name yet again…
Denominational identifiers, like local church identifiers on a grander scale, serve to divide and distinguish. We are this and therefore not that. We believe in this secondary doctrine but do not practice that secondary doctrine. We are us and you are not us. You are probably a Christian but not our kind of Christian. You can’t teach in our local church, you perhaps cannot even break bread with us, if you identify as that and not this.
The name Southern Baptist Convention carries a ton of baggage. It is “Southern”, i.e. the Southern United States, and it is “Baptist”, i.e. a specific set of secondary doctrines and practices as well as certain cultural and political expectations. I have been a member and even a pastor of several Southern Baptist churches and you can find them all over the country and all over the world. Even if you acknowledge the historically Southern heritage of the SBC and the importance of Baptist faith and practice the questions remains: Is the name Southern Baptist Convention helpful or harmful in carrying out the global mission of the church and in fostering unity and cooperation among various Christians? I think it is great for fostering uniformity and erecting boundaries, not so much for aiding in unifying the church.
Here is another example. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC for short. Founded in the 1930’s as a reaction to liberalism in “mainstream” Protestantism, the name draws a clear line in the sand. We are not just Presbyterians, we are Orthodox Presbyterians. So what does that mean for other Presbyterian denominations? They are not Orthodox? I think you can make that argument when speaking of the PC-USA but what about the PCA? They seem like pretty decent folk apart from that “baptizing” babies thing. I think they are pretty Orthodox. What about the rest of the various and sundry Presbyterian and Reformed denominations? Are they not orthodox or perhaps less orthodox than the OPC? Why not name the denomination the “We’re right and you’re wrong Presbyterian Church” or “WRYRPC”? Check out the accompanying chart and see if you can figure out the maze of Presbyterian denominationalism. If we spend more time fighting over which subset of a subset of a faith tradition is right than we do in preaching Christ to the lost and performing acts of mercy and grace, I would question just how orthodox we really are no matter what the name of a given denomination might say or which Reformed confessions we subscribe too.
The president of the Southern Baptist Convention formed a task force to study the possibility of changing the name of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.Here is my suggestion. Drop Southern. Drop Baptist. Maybe even drop Convention.
“The convention’s name is so regional,” SBC President Bryant Wright told Fox News Radio. “We are going to think through potential names that would better describe us without such a regional geographic limitation.”
Denominational identifiers, like local church identifiers on a grander scale, serve to divide and distinguish. We are this and therefore not that. We believe in this secondary doctrine but do not practice that secondary doctrine. We are us and you are not us. You are probably a Christian but not our kind of Christian. You can’t teach in our local church, you perhaps cannot even break bread with us, if you identify as that and not this.
The name Southern Baptist Convention carries a ton of baggage. It is “Southern”, i.e. the Southern United States, and it is “Baptist”, i.e. a specific set of secondary doctrines and practices as well as certain cultural and political expectations. I have been a member and even a pastor of several Southern Baptist churches and you can find them all over the country and all over the world. Even if you acknowledge the historically Southern heritage of the SBC and the importance of Baptist faith and practice the questions remains: Is the name Southern Baptist Convention helpful or harmful in carrying out the global mission of the church and in fostering unity and cooperation among various Christians? I think it is great for fostering uniformity and erecting boundaries, not so much for aiding in unifying the church.
Here is another example. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC for short. Founded in the 1930’s as a reaction to liberalism in “mainstream” Protestantism, the name draws a clear line in the sand. We are not just Presbyterians, we are Orthodox Presbyterians. So what does that mean for other Presbyterian denominations? They are not Orthodox? I think you can make that argument when speaking of the PC-USA but what about the PCA? They seem like pretty decent folk apart from that “baptizing” babies thing. I think they are pretty Orthodox. What about the rest of the various and sundry Presbyterian and Reformed denominations? Are they not orthodox or perhaps less orthodox than the OPC? Why not name the denomination the “We’re right and you’re wrong Presbyterian Church” or “WRYRPC”? Check out the accompanying chart and see if you can figure out the maze of Presbyterian denominationalism. If we spend more time fighting over which subset of a subset of a faith tradition is right than we do in preaching Christ to the lost and performing acts of mercy and grace, I would question just how orthodox we really are no matter what the name of a given denomination might say or which Reformed confessions we subscribe too.I am firmly convicted that naming local churches and denominations in ways that draw lines in the sand that act to corral and divide are harmful to the church. So my recommendation to the SBC is to drop the “S” and the “B” and the “C”. “Christian” is the only title or identifier any of us should ever need or want.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Hiding our sin behind religious talk
While I am not involved in the somewhat unique world of the Southern Baptist Convention these days, I do keep an eye on the goings on there. My wife and I came to Christ in a Southern Baptist church and most of our church experience up until recently has been in the SBC. So I read with interest a very good post by Trevin Wax on the relationship between the Southern Baptist Convention and the rest of evangelicalism, Being Southern Baptist Among and For Evangelicals.
The entire post was an interesting insight into Southern Baptist polity and culture. I found this paragraph especially interesting and more than a little sad:
When you have the largest denomination and arguably the most conservative among the major denominations that is inherently divided from other groups that are in lockstep in the Gospel and mainly in lockstep on the distinctives, it really sheds light on the depth of the problem. It is hard enough to get meaningful cooperation between local churches that are in the same denomination much less among those from similar but different denominations. Men from churches ranging from Presbyterian, Baptist, non-denominational, Lutheran, etc. will get together for conferences like The Gospel Coalition or Together for the Gospel and sit next to one another, sing praises to God with one another, take notes alongside their brothers but when the conference is over and they return to “real” church life, they are just as disunited and splintered as ever.
Sometimes even the most well-meaning and seemingly pious actions can have unintended harmful results. That is on full display in the church with denominations, confessions, creeds, etc. used to distinguish one church from another. While touted as a valuable and even essential means of ensuring orthodoxy, the real result is more often plan old fashioned division. Plenty of churches that jumped the heresy shark a long time ago still claim to adhere to one of the old confessions and that hasn’t helped prevent heterodoxy and apostasy. Meanwhile the vast majority of Christians are divided from one another by boundaries of denominational affiliation, formal church membership, secondary doctrines and a whole litany of other ways that we use religious language to excuse our failure to be united as one Body of Christ.
Claiming unity in the Gospel in word but refusing to live it out in fellowship in deeds is nothing more than a lie.
The entire post was an interesting insight into Southern Baptist polity and culture. I found this paragraph especially interesting and more than a little sad:
There are evangelicals who do not subscribe to our confessional distinctives and therefore cannot be part of the Convention. But if we as Southern Baptists are right on the gospel, then we should be free to strengthen others who are also right on the gospel. Evangelicalism needs a resurgence of attention on the evangel. Confessional Southern Baptists can and should play a key role in that discussion.This is where the distinctives become a problem. They are not merely “This is what we believe” but also “If you don’t hold these distinctives, our fellowship and cooperation is limited”. For all of our talk about being united in the Gospel, we all too often end up being divided by our distinctives. We hide behind religious talk to cover up this sin but the ugly truth is that many of our most cherished doctrines, traditions and distinctives are serve as excuses for the sin of disunity.
When you have the largest denomination and arguably the most conservative among the major denominations that is inherently divided from other groups that are in lockstep in the Gospel and mainly in lockstep on the distinctives, it really sheds light on the depth of the problem. It is hard enough to get meaningful cooperation between local churches that are in the same denomination much less among those from similar but different denominations. Men from churches ranging from Presbyterian, Baptist, non-denominational, Lutheran, etc. will get together for conferences like The Gospel Coalition or Together for the Gospel and sit next to one another, sing praises to God with one another, take notes alongside their brothers but when the conference is over and they return to “real” church life, they are just as disunited and splintered as ever.
Sometimes even the most well-meaning and seemingly pious actions can have unintended harmful results. That is on full display in the church with denominations, confessions, creeds, etc. used to distinguish one church from another. While touted as a valuable and even essential means of ensuring orthodoxy, the real result is more often plan old fashioned division. Plenty of churches that jumped the heresy shark a long time ago still claim to adhere to one of the old confessions and that hasn’t helped prevent heterodoxy and apostasy. Meanwhile the vast majority of Christians are divided from one another by boundaries of denominational affiliation, formal church membership, secondary doctrines and a whole litany of other ways that we use religious language to excuse our failure to be united as one Body of Christ.
Claiming unity in the Gospel in word but refusing to live it out in fellowship in deeds is nothing more than a lie.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Russell Moore asks “Where have all the Presbyterians gone?”
Dr. Moore, one of my favorite guys to read, asks that question in his essay of the same name in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Where Have All the Presbyterians Gone? . As Dr. Moore points out, fewer Christians or at least church attenders are strongly affiliated with a particular denomination. You don’t have to look very hard to see that many churches are abandoning the denominational label in their church name in favor of something more vague.
I think this is a good thing. I used to be a staunch defender of denominations (at least Baptist ones) but as I have been working through the Biblical doctrines of the church, I see denominations as unhelpful, unbiblical and divisive to the Body. As I have written before, a person who is serious about their faith who moves into a new area can eliminate many church gatherings simply by their denomination. I have never been to a Methodist church service, or a Pentecostal or Anglican or Lutheran. I have been to lots of Baptist churches, a few Plymouth Brethren gatherings, a Presbyterian service or two and recently some Mennonite and Anabaptist groups. Denominations let me pick and choose only like minded believers to fellowship with and make it very easy to wear doctrinal blinders. That is unhealthy.
On the other hand, I don’t think that what is filling in the void is helpful and I think Dr. Moore is right when he says:
More and more Christians choose a church not on the basis of its denomination, but on the basis of more practical matters. Is the nursery easy to find? Do I like the music? Are there support groups for those grappling with addiction?
Church has become, for many people, a place to get your religious fix for the week and people want it is as smooth and quick as possible. Show me a church gathering where you are there for three hours, with your kids the whole time, and that sounds like a horror show to many church goers. We like plenty of seating, kids in the nursery or “children’s church”, an upbeat service and a good sermon. The last thing we want is someone to stray over the one hour mark, if he does he starts to see the exaggerated “look at my watch slowly after raising it above my head and loudly sighing” to indicate the service has gone on too long.
Dr. Moore closes with this…
If denominationalism simply denotes a "brand" vying for market share, then let denominationalism fall. But many of us believe denominations can represent fidelity to living traditions of local congregations that care about what Jesus cared about—personal conversion, discipleship, mission and community. Perhaps the denominational era has just begun.
I believe that is wishful thinking from the dean of a denominational seminary. As I look ahead to the future of Christianity in America, I see the church under siege and many nominal attenders deciding to stop attending in favor of some other activity. We will come to a point where denomination simply won’t matter and I for one look forward to that day!
I think this is a good thing. I used to be a staunch defender of denominations (at least Baptist ones) but as I have been working through the Biblical doctrines of the church, I see denominations as unhelpful, unbiblical and divisive to the Body. As I have written before, a person who is serious about their faith who moves into a new area can eliminate many church gatherings simply by their denomination. I have never been to a Methodist church service, or a Pentecostal or Anglican or Lutheran. I have been to lots of Baptist churches, a few Plymouth Brethren gatherings, a Presbyterian service or two and recently some Mennonite and Anabaptist groups. Denominations let me pick and choose only like minded believers to fellowship with and make it very easy to wear doctrinal blinders. That is unhealthy.
On the other hand, I don’t think that what is filling in the void is helpful and I think Dr. Moore is right when he says:
More and more Christians choose a church not on the basis of its denomination, but on the basis of more practical matters. Is the nursery easy to find? Do I like the music? Are there support groups for those grappling with addiction?
Church has become, for many people, a place to get your religious fix for the week and people want it is as smooth and quick as possible. Show me a church gathering where you are there for three hours, with your kids the whole time, and that sounds like a horror show to many church goers. We like plenty of seating, kids in the nursery or “children’s church”, an upbeat service and a good sermon. The last thing we want is someone to stray over the one hour mark, if he does he starts to see the exaggerated “look at my watch slowly after raising it above my head and loudly sighing” to indicate the service has gone on too long.
Dr. Moore closes with this…
If denominationalism simply denotes a "brand" vying for market share, then let denominationalism fall. But many of us believe denominations can represent fidelity to living traditions of local congregations that care about what Jesus cared about—personal conversion, discipleship, mission and community. Perhaps the denominational era has just begun.
I believe that is wishful thinking from the dean of a denominational seminary. As I look ahead to the future of Christianity in America, I see the church under siege and many nominal attenders deciding to stop attending in favor of some other activity. We will come to a point where denomination simply won’t matter and I for one look forward to that day!
Monday, June 14, 2010
Most inexplicable tweet ever?
I saw this on a different blog and had to go read it again. It is a tweet from Burk Parsons, on staff at St. Andrews in Florida, from last night ...
We will never be a strong, united witness for the Gospel when we describe the group we gather with as "our church" to the exclusion of all other groups. Agreeing to get together on a neutral site or at the occasional theology conference is not a unity that is going to proclaim a united front. Differences in doctrine are worth having discussions about, even disagreements about, but they cannot supplant the Gospel and lead to division in the Body. Division is something we should repent of and weep over, not celebrate with false praise.
The differences among us that divide us denominationally are precisely what make us a strong united front in one GospelI don't get how in the world that makes the slightest sense. So the witness we present to the world is of a fractured Christianity divided into competing denominations, each fighting and feuding with one another over secondary doctrines, and that is what makes us a "strong united front in one Gospel"? Denominational differences led to the martyring of Anabaptists in the Reformation. They have led to innumerable schisms in the church. These differences that divide us denominationally are the greatest barrier to Christian fellowship and community, perhaps even the greatest drag up the proclamation of the Gospel, and as such they rise to the level of sinful disunity in the Body of Christ.
We will never be a strong, united witness for the Gospel when we describe the group we gather with as "our church" to the exclusion of all other groups. Agreeing to get together on a neutral site or at the occasional theology conference is not a unity that is going to proclaim a united front. Differences in doctrine are worth having discussions about, even disagreements about, but they cannot supplant the Gospel and lead to division in the Body. Division is something we should repent of and weep over, not celebrate with false praise.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Imagine a world with no denominations?
Dr. Albert Mohler featured a discussion on the death of denominations a few days ago and it was an interesting show: Life in Post-Denominational America. Dr. Mohler had a particular expertise and vested interest in this question as an employee of a denominational seminary but I think he also gave the subject a fair treatment.
I think by almost any measure we are witnessing the death throes of the denominational system. Not necessarily the underlying doctrinal distinctions, but the system of denominations itself. Many churches that hold to what used to be characteristic of a particular denomination are adopting a less obvious name (so and so community church, etc). Churches that would hold to virtually all of the historic Baptist distinctive are tripping over themselves to not call themselves Baptists.
On the positive side, denominations do an awful lot of cooperative work among member congregations especially when it comes to mission work and to a lesser extent when it comes to seminaries. I remain utterly unconvinced that the seminary system is a good one, but I do see value in some sort of academia in the church. I do see the value in pooling money to support mission work at home and abroad even though I recognize the inefficiencies that can crop up in that system.
On the negative, denominations carry a lot of baggage. The first is that they are absent completely from the New Testament. There were not Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran and Methodist local churches in the primitive church. There was just the church. Denominations tend to add to the confusion among Christians (which one is “right”?) Denomination after denomination has slipped into theological liberalism and you can argue that even those that haven’t (like the Southern Baptist Convention), have still wandered away from the core purpose of the church. Denominations can and often have been choked with bureaucracy and become the source of petty fights over power and money.
I think that the trends are pretty clear. Americans at least are by and large moving away from organized religion and into more vague forms of spirituality. Walking hand in hand with this trend is the trend away from hierarchical denominations and more toward autonomous and independent local churches.
What do you think? Is the death of denominationalism a long overdue event that should be viewed as a positive? Or is it the latest sign in a world of watered down doctrinal fidelity? What does a denominationless world look like?
I think by almost any measure we are witnessing the death throes of the denominational system. Not necessarily the underlying doctrinal distinctions, but the system of denominations itself. Many churches that hold to what used to be characteristic of a particular denomination are adopting a less obvious name (so and so community church, etc). Churches that would hold to virtually all of the historic Baptist distinctive are tripping over themselves to not call themselves Baptists.
On the positive side, denominations do an awful lot of cooperative work among member congregations especially when it comes to mission work and to a lesser extent when it comes to seminaries. I remain utterly unconvinced that the seminary system is a good one, but I do see value in some sort of academia in the church. I do see the value in pooling money to support mission work at home and abroad even though I recognize the inefficiencies that can crop up in that system.
On the negative, denominations carry a lot of baggage. The first is that they are absent completely from the New Testament. There were not Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran and Methodist local churches in the primitive church. There was just the church. Denominations tend to add to the confusion among Christians (which one is “right”?) Denomination after denomination has slipped into theological liberalism and you can argue that even those that haven’t (like the Southern Baptist Convention), have still wandered away from the core purpose of the church. Denominations can and often have been choked with bureaucracy and become the source of petty fights over power and money.
I think that the trends are pretty clear. Americans at least are by and large moving away from organized religion and into more vague forms of spirituality. Walking hand in hand with this trend is the trend away from hierarchical denominations and more toward autonomous and independent local churches.
What do you think? Is the death of denominationalism a long overdue event that should be viewed as a positive? Or is it the latest sign in a world of watered down doctrinal fidelity? What does a denominationless world look like?
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
What is our basis for communion
DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: It's Time for a Formula of Disagreement
Interesting discussion going on at Kevin DeYoung's blog regarding the state of "full communion" between the RCA and denominations that promote error, more specifically the ELCA and it's recent decision to embrace sin.
This whole conversation got me thinking yet again about the issue of unity in the Body and believe me that is a hot topic among many, many brothers right now. 2 Cor 6: 14-18 tells us to not be yoked with unbelievers, but it seems that many are content to be yoked with unbelievers as long as they are the right flavor of unbeliever but refuse to be yoked for the work of Christ with other believers that we disagree with. My father in law has draft horses and when he has them harnessed to pull a wagon, if one of them is not pulling his weight, the wagon doesn’t run properly and one horse has to do more work. Many Christians have yoked themselves with the spiritual equivalent of a dead horse and then complain that the work is really hard. Duh!
I have a serious problem with this idea of “full communion” between brothers. In saying that you are in communion with these certain communities, it implies that you are not in communion with any others. You may recognize them as brothers and part of the family of God, but you also are estranged from them in part and that simply is not OK. The ELCA has abandoned the Gospel. You cannot say to sinners that their sin is OK because that negates the need for a Savior from their sins. So it is not possible to be “in full communion” with them as a group. As individuals or even as individual congregations, sure. As a whole they are a group of people who need to have the Gospel proclaimed to them as those who are lost.
A man is an unbeliever or he is a brother. I don’t see a middle ground. Ephesians 2:19 says that we are no longer strangers and aliens (speaking of Gentile believers) but instead are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”. Last time I checked, it was God’s house and as the Father He gets to make the rules. Putting a line down the center of the room to differentiate between “my side” and “your side” is not OK for believers. Galatians 5: 19-21 lists “divisions” in the same category as idolatry, sexual immorality, drunkenness and orgies. Those who preach separation among brothers while preaching against drinking or immorality are double-minded. Paul spends a lot of effort to speak out against divisions but I don't see him spilling much ink on defending our doctrinal distinctions.
That doesn’t mean that there are not brothers who misunderstand Scripture. That doesn’t mean that there are not brothers who hold incorrect beliefs about ancillary issues or who have church practices and traditions that are not up to snuff. Given our variety of positions, it is inevitable that someone is wrong. I just know it isn't me. There is Biblical warrant to gently teach others “ a better way” (Acts 18: 24-26). But the only Biblical divisions I can see are from those who are in gross, unrepentant sin and those who preach a false Gospel. Those folks are to be treated as unbelievers. Everyone else is a brother. If the basis for your “full communion” with one another is not your common salvation in Christ and instead is based on denominational affiliation, you have a problem. I understand, believe me I understand, how hard that is to live that out in the “real world” but our own prideful inability to get along is not license for us to practice unbiblical separation from one another.
Interesting discussion going on at Kevin DeYoung's blog regarding the state of "full communion" between the RCA and denominations that promote error, more specifically the ELCA and it's recent decision to embrace sin.
This whole conversation got me thinking yet again about the issue of unity in the Body and believe me that is a hot topic among many, many brothers right now. 2 Cor 6: 14-18 tells us to not be yoked with unbelievers, but it seems that many are content to be yoked with unbelievers as long as they are the right flavor of unbeliever but refuse to be yoked for the work of Christ with other believers that we disagree with. My father in law has draft horses and when he has them harnessed to pull a wagon, if one of them is not pulling his weight, the wagon doesn’t run properly and one horse has to do more work. Many Christians have yoked themselves with the spiritual equivalent of a dead horse and then complain that the work is really hard. Duh!
I have a serious problem with this idea of “full communion” between brothers. In saying that you are in communion with these certain communities, it implies that you are not in communion with any others. You may recognize them as brothers and part of the family of God, but you also are estranged from them in part and that simply is not OK. The ELCA has abandoned the Gospel. You cannot say to sinners that their sin is OK because that negates the need for a Savior from their sins. So it is not possible to be “in full communion” with them as a group. As individuals or even as individual congregations, sure. As a whole they are a group of people who need to have the Gospel proclaimed to them as those who are lost.
A man is an unbeliever or he is a brother. I don’t see a middle ground. Ephesians 2:19 says that we are no longer strangers and aliens (speaking of Gentile believers) but instead are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”. Last time I checked, it was God’s house and as the Father He gets to make the rules. Putting a line down the center of the room to differentiate between “my side” and “your side” is not OK for believers. Galatians 5: 19-21 lists “divisions” in the same category as idolatry, sexual immorality, drunkenness and orgies. Those who preach separation among brothers while preaching against drinking or immorality are double-minded. Paul spends a lot of effort to speak out against divisions but I don't see him spilling much ink on defending our doctrinal distinctions.
That doesn’t mean that there are not brothers who misunderstand Scripture. That doesn’t mean that there are not brothers who hold incorrect beliefs about ancillary issues or who have church practices and traditions that are not up to snuff. Given our variety of positions, it is inevitable that someone is wrong. I just know it isn't me. There is Biblical warrant to gently teach others “ a better way” (Acts 18: 24-26). But the only Biblical divisions I can see are from those who are in gross, unrepentant sin and those who preach a false Gospel. Those folks are to be treated as unbelievers. Everyone else is a brother. If the basis for your “full communion” with one another is not your common salvation in Christ and instead is based on denominational affiliation, you have a problem. I understand, believe me I understand, how hard that is to live that out in the “real world” but our own prideful inability to get along is not license for us to practice unbiblical separation from one another.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Who says denominations are unbiblical and irrelevant?
The Southern Baptist Convention recently passed The Great Commission Task Force resolution. The goal is to appoint a committee to look at how to more effectively carry out the Great Commission. But that was not the only resolution put forth. Check out these other resolutions presented at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention (none of these passed):
-- William Blosch, a messenger from First Baptist Church in Thomasville, Ga. requested that pictures of all individuals running for an SBC office be made available to messengers during the annual meeting.
-- that SBC entities avoid "the use of secular music in their promotional materials," submitted by Jeff Moats, pastor, Logan Elm Baptist Church in Circleville, Ohio.
-- that messengers "send a strong message of disapproval" to President Barack Obama "for his presidential proclamation ... that proclaims June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month," submitted by John Rushing, pastor of Northside Baptist Church in Columbia, Tenn. (that will get him shaking in his boots, a strong message of disapproval!)
-- that a "special committee be formed" to address claims by "some Bible teachers that the world will come to an end on May 21, 2011," submitted by Ben Brazal, pastor, King of Kings Christian Fellowship in Middletown, N.Y.
-- that the Holman Christian Standard Bible "and any translation that questions the validity of any Scripture" be banned from convention literature and from the annual SBC meeting, submitted by Eric K. Williams, pastor, Long Prairie Missionary Baptist Church, Belle Rive, Ill. (ironic since the HCSB was funded by LifeWay)
-- that LifeWay develop and use "American-made" resources in Vacation Bible School materials each year, submitted by Patrick Fuller, senior pastor of Southside Baptist Church in Greensboro, N.C.
-- that the SBC president "appoint or work through the appropriate entity" to highlight the 400th anniversary in 2011 of the King James Version of the Bible, submitted by Rick Reeder, a messenger from Southside Baptist Church in Princeton, Ky.
-- that Southern Baptists call "on the Pepsi-Cola Company to remain neutral in the cultural war by refraining from promoting the gay/lesbian lifestyle and agenda" through its advertising and that a boycott be undertaken if the company fails to "halt its current direction," submitted by Joe P. Samples, pastor, Salem Baptist Church, Sneads Ferry, N.C.
-- that the SBC designate a "Sanctity of Life" year in the near future," submitted by Joseph N. Giles Jr., a messenger from James Square Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Va.
and my favorite motion...
-- that the SBC adopt the "United States Christian Flag ... as our banner flag of encouragement," submitted by Harold Michael Phillips, senior pastor, Pleasant View Baptist Church in Port Deposit, Md.
Plus several motions directed at Mark Driscoll.
(from Baptist Press)
-- William Blosch, a messenger from First Baptist Church in Thomasville, Ga. requested that pictures of all individuals running for an SBC office be made available to messengers during the annual meeting.
-- that SBC entities avoid "the use of secular music in their promotional materials," submitted by Jeff Moats, pastor, Logan Elm Baptist Church in Circleville, Ohio.
-- that messengers "send a strong message of disapproval" to President Barack Obama "for his presidential proclamation ... that proclaims June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month," submitted by John Rushing, pastor of Northside Baptist Church in Columbia, Tenn. (that will get him shaking in his boots, a strong message of disapproval!)
-- that a "special committee be formed" to address claims by "some Bible teachers that the world will come to an end on May 21, 2011," submitted by Ben Brazal, pastor, King of Kings Christian Fellowship in Middletown, N.Y.
-- that the Holman Christian Standard Bible "and any translation that questions the validity of any Scripture" be banned from convention literature and from the annual SBC meeting, submitted by Eric K. Williams, pastor, Long Prairie Missionary Baptist Church, Belle Rive, Ill. (ironic since the HCSB was funded by LifeWay)
-- that LifeWay develop and use "American-made" resources in Vacation Bible School materials each year, submitted by Patrick Fuller, senior pastor of Southside Baptist Church in Greensboro, N.C.
-- that the SBC president "appoint or work through the appropriate entity" to highlight the 400th anniversary in 2011 of the King James Version of the Bible, submitted by Rick Reeder, a messenger from Southside Baptist Church in Princeton, Ky.
-- that Southern Baptists call "on the Pepsi-Cola Company to remain neutral in the cultural war by refraining from promoting the gay/lesbian lifestyle and agenda" through its advertising and that a boycott be undertaken if the company fails to "halt its current direction," submitted by Joe P. Samples, pastor, Salem Baptist Church, Sneads Ferry, N.C.
-- that the SBC designate a "Sanctity of Life" year in the near future," submitted by Joseph N. Giles Jr., a messenger from James Square Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Va.
and my favorite motion...
-- that the SBC adopt the "United States Christian Flag ... as our banner flag of encouragement," submitted by Harold Michael Phillips, senior pastor, Pleasant View Baptist Church in Port Deposit, Md.
Plus several motions directed at Mark Driscoll.
(from Baptist Press)
With serious business like this being brought forth, I can certainly see the need for denominations. What would the Gospel ministry do without a "banner flag of encouragement"?
(For more info on the U.S. Christian Flag, "America's Great Wave Offering to our Lord" check out their webpage here)
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Who is charged with carrying out the Great Commission?
Seems like a simple question, but one that often leads to sound bytes. Let's review the actual text of the Great Commission:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Mat 28:16-20)
Jesus is addressing the eleven remaining apostles. He didn't even mention local churches, much less denominations or parachurch groups or professional missionaries or pastors. He doesn't charge the disciples with forming local groups, incorporating them, hiring a professional staff and then evangelizing the lost. So I think it is fair to say that the Great Commission is directed as an individual responsibility.
The reason I bring this up is a blog post from Timmy Brister at Provocations and Pantings, Denominations Don’t Fulfill the Great Commission – The Christian Index Confesses. Timmy was making the point that an awful lot of money in the Southern Baptist Convention goes into the Cooperative Program, which makes little sense since denominations are neither charged nor capable of carrying out the Great Commission (nor are denominations Biblical for that matter). From his post:
So here’s the $64,000 question? Why are our Great Commission dollars (i.e., the Cooperative Program) stuck in a system that is inherently incapable of fulfilling the Great Commission? If state conventions cannot do it, why are they hoarding on average more than 60% of our money while IMB missionaries are being held back because of lack of funding? In the year 2008, over $329,000,000 was kept in state conventions from Cooperative Program money. Just think of that. All of it sunk into a denominational bureaucracy boldly admitting its inability to do what those dollars are being sent to do.
OK, I am with him on that. It is a sin that so much money is buried in administration and bureaucracy, money intended by the donors to go to mission work, when there are missionaries ready to go out who cannot because of a lack of money. My concern comes from Timmy's closing statement:
Denominations don’t fulfill the Great Commission, churches do.
That is a pretty common belief. But is that true and is that Biblical? I think that is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, we don't see that idea in the Great Commission and I don't think we see an example or command in the New Testament to form churches for the purpose of evangelism. The local assembly is focused on Christians in fellowship and disciplining, lifting up one another in prayer. Second is the concern that many individual Christians don't see evangelism as their responsibility, an attitude that is encouraged by some in ministry. Evangelism means inviting someone to church so that a paid professional can preach the Gospel to them in a 40 minute sermon (for more on this idea see a prior post Stand Back, We're Professionals).
The local church is the result of evangelism, not the primary driver of evangelism.
Denominations don't carry out the Great Commission. Nor do local churches. The Great Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians. Organizations can help (although they more often hinder) but ultimately the Great Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians proclaiming Christ. If we truly believe God is sovereign and that the work of regeneration is a monergistic work of the Holy Spirit, we should not be afraid of having just regular Christians witnessing to the lost.
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Mat 28:16-20)
Jesus is addressing the eleven remaining apostles. He didn't even mention local churches, much less denominations or parachurch groups or professional missionaries or pastors. He doesn't charge the disciples with forming local groups, incorporating them, hiring a professional staff and then evangelizing the lost. So I think it is fair to say that the Great Commission is directed as an individual responsibility.
The reason I bring this up is a blog post from Timmy Brister at Provocations and Pantings, Denominations Don’t Fulfill the Great Commission – The Christian Index Confesses. Timmy was making the point that an awful lot of money in the Southern Baptist Convention goes into the Cooperative Program, which makes little sense since denominations are neither charged nor capable of carrying out the Great Commission (nor are denominations Biblical for that matter). From his post:
So here’s the $64,000 question? Why are our Great Commission dollars (i.e., the Cooperative Program) stuck in a system that is inherently incapable of fulfilling the Great Commission? If state conventions cannot do it, why are they hoarding on average more than 60% of our money while IMB missionaries are being held back because of lack of funding? In the year 2008, over $329,000,000 was kept in state conventions from Cooperative Program money. Just think of that. All of it sunk into a denominational bureaucracy boldly admitting its inability to do what those dollars are being sent to do.
OK, I am with him on that. It is a sin that so much money is buried in administration and bureaucracy, money intended by the donors to go to mission work, when there are missionaries ready to go out who cannot because of a lack of money. My concern comes from Timmy's closing statement:
Denominations don’t fulfill the Great Commission, churches do.
That is a pretty common belief. But is that true and is that Biblical? I think that is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, we don't see that idea in the Great Commission and I don't think we see an example or command in the New Testament to form churches for the purpose of evangelism. The local assembly is focused on Christians in fellowship and disciplining, lifting up one another in prayer. Second is the concern that many individual Christians don't see evangelism as their responsibility, an attitude that is encouraged by some in ministry. Evangelism means inviting someone to church so that a paid professional can preach the Gospel to them in a 40 minute sermon (for more on this idea see a prior post Stand Back, We're Professionals).
The local church is the result of evangelism, not the primary driver of evangelism.
Denominations don't carry out the Great Commission. Nor do local churches. The Great Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians. Organizations can help (although they more often hinder) but ultimately the Great Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians proclaiming Christ. If we truly believe God is sovereign and that the work of regeneration is a monergistic work of the Holy Spirit, we should not be afraid of having just regular Christians witnessing to the lost.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Christian Unity and the Cross
While researching the cross, I came upon a great sermon from John Piper in 1998, Christian Unity and the Cross. Drawing from the text of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Dr. Piper shows the root causes of the disunity among the people of God. Here is a snippet…
The other reason it's relevant to say that Christ is not divided is that when a believer has Christ, he has ALL of Christ. No one needs to feel inferior or superior if Christ is really your great treasure. Christ is not divided. If you have him, you have all of him. And to have all of Christ is to have everything you need to be happy forever and ever.
I would encourage you to give the text of his sermon a read.
The cross is the great unifier of the people of God. When you strip away the denominations and institutions and factions we have built up, all of the redeemed sheep of Christ are unified by the cross. The cross is our common confession and our common hope. This unity does not negate that we hold certain truths or that we are warned to be wary of false teaching. This unity does not mean that we accept as brothers those who are heretics or that we fail to enforce church discipline in love with an eye toward restoration. What the unity of the cross does mean is that if I start to think of myself as a Baptist or as a Calvinist first, if I exclude others from fellowship because they don’t share my self-identification I put the cross to shame. It matters nothing that we share attendance at Together for the Gospel or that we are “members” of this church or that, or that we have a more nuanced form of theology. What matters is our redemption at the cross. As Dr. Piper states so well, at the heart of all Christian disunity is pride and pride is the antithesis of the cross.
The other reason it's relevant to say that Christ is not divided is that when a believer has Christ, he has ALL of Christ. No one needs to feel inferior or superior if Christ is really your great treasure. Christ is not divided. If you have him, you have all of him. And to have all of Christ is to have everything you need to be happy forever and ever.
I would encourage you to give the text of his sermon a read.
The cross is the great unifier of the people of God. When you strip away the denominations and institutions and factions we have built up, all of the redeemed sheep of Christ are unified by the cross. The cross is our common confession and our common hope. This unity does not negate that we hold certain truths or that we are warned to be wary of false teaching. This unity does not mean that we accept as brothers those who are heretics or that we fail to enforce church discipline in love with an eye toward restoration. What the unity of the cross does mean is that if I start to think of myself as a Baptist or as a Calvinist first, if I exclude others from fellowship because they don’t share my self-identification I put the cross to shame. It matters nothing that we share attendance at Together for the Gospel or that we are “members” of this church or that, or that we have a more nuanced form of theology. What matters is our redemption at the cross. As Dr. Piper states so well, at the heart of all Christian disunity is pride and pride is the antithesis of the cross.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Dividing lines
April wrote a post and mentioned feeling kind of guilty about looking around at other churches, and it got me thinking about something that I have considered before. In American Christianity, with it’s carefully delineated lines of “where do you go to church?”, it can be seen as a sign of faithlessness and abandonment for someone who worships regularly in one place to worship and fellowship with believers in another body. In an extreme example, I know of one person who was accused of forsaking the assembling together because he was in fellowship with other people for a few weeks instead of the church where he was a “member”. Not that he was hanging around with heretics or pagans, he was with other believers but not the right other believers.
Are we abandoning the church by fellowshipping outside of the church we have been attending? I would argue no. In fact, as I commented at April‘s blog, I think that the real abandonment of the church is the false divisions we have created even among like minded people. How often do similar Baptist churches fellowship together? How about Presbyterian churches? I am not talking about once or twice a year, but on a regular basis. We sequester ourselves based on denominations, “membership” and loyalty to one local body to the exclusion of other believers. I pastored a church for over a year and in that same time Josh Gelatt pastored a church twenty minutes away. I never even knew he was there, much less had fellowship with him. Despite his youth spent in Arkansas, Josh is not some heretic to be shunned. He is a Baptist, about my age, Reformed in theology. I remember crabbing to my wife about how few other Reformed believers were in our area, and here is Josh twenty minutes away pastoring another Baptist church. Of course, they are a GARB Baptist church and we were SBC, so we had no contact. Josh was probably the most like-minded Christian in the area, was very close to us but I never sought him out. Believe me when I say, I could have used that fellowship.
Why do we fear to fellowship together outside the confines of our own local church? Certainly not because there is a Biblical reason. Pastors get together at conferences all time. The conference I am going to next weekend will have pastors and laity from all sorts of church backgrounds. Together for the Gospel is designed specifically to bring together pastors of different denominational backgrounds under the banner of key truths that we do share. But among local bodies, try getting churches to do stuff together. It is hard to do with very similar churches, Baptists with Baptists and Presbyterians with Presbyterians. Try getting a Baptist and a Presbyterian church together and see how that goes (no one invites Lutherans to stuff, they are no fun).
Where we have truly forsaken the assembling of the saints is in letting our doctrinal differences inseparably divide us. I think there is a place for doctrine. I would not fellowship on a regular basis with those who, in my doctrinal framework, apply baptism in error. But why should we completely exclude those with whom we have doctrinal differences? There are so many believers that live right by us that we rarely get to know because they don’t worship in the same circles and that is shameful. Rather than focusing ever inward on those who believe exactly as we do, we should seek out opportunities to fellowship with the body at large. Not to convert them to our way of thinking or to poach believers from their church to ours (the fear of exactly that might be behind some of this), but to be in fellowship. Instead we bunch ourselves together, raise walls and lock the doors. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I wouldn’t even consider regular fellowship in a paedobaptist church but I also don’t spend much time in our new home with people who are not like minded. I am going to make a concerted effort to get to know other believers in the area. Maybe on Sunday nights, since we don’t have church services currently in the evening. That might be a great opportunity to get out of our comfort zone and meet other believers. Not to shop for a "new church" but just to spend time with other believers.
I think it is terrible that we are content to wait until eternity to worship with and be in fellowship with so many other Christians.
Are we abandoning the church by fellowshipping outside of the church we have been attending? I would argue no. In fact, as I commented at April‘s blog, I think that the real abandonment of the church is the false divisions we have created even among like minded people. How often do similar Baptist churches fellowship together? How about Presbyterian churches? I am not talking about once or twice a year, but on a regular basis. We sequester ourselves based on denominations, “membership” and loyalty to one local body to the exclusion of other believers. I pastored a church for over a year and in that same time Josh Gelatt pastored a church twenty minutes away. I never even knew he was there, much less had fellowship with him. Despite his youth spent in Arkansas, Josh is not some heretic to be shunned. He is a Baptist, about my age, Reformed in theology. I remember crabbing to my wife about how few other Reformed believers were in our area, and here is Josh twenty minutes away pastoring another Baptist church. Of course, they are a GARB Baptist church and we were SBC, so we had no contact. Josh was probably the most like-minded Christian in the area, was very close to us but I never sought him out. Believe me when I say, I could have used that fellowship.
Why do we fear to fellowship together outside the confines of our own local church? Certainly not because there is a Biblical reason. Pastors get together at conferences all time. The conference I am going to next weekend will have pastors and laity from all sorts of church backgrounds. Together for the Gospel is designed specifically to bring together pastors of different denominational backgrounds under the banner of key truths that we do share. But among local bodies, try getting churches to do stuff together. It is hard to do with very similar churches, Baptists with Baptists and Presbyterians with Presbyterians. Try getting a Baptist and a Presbyterian church together and see how that goes (no one invites Lutherans to stuff, they are no fun).
Where we have truly forsaken the assembling of the saints is in letting our doctrinal differences inseparably divide us. I think there is a place for doctrine. I would not fellowship on a regular basis with those who, in my doctrinal framework, apply baptism in error. But why should we completely exclude those with whom we have doctrinal differences? There are so many believers that live right by us that we rarely get to know because they don’t worship in the same circles and that is shameful. Rather than focusing ever inward on those who believe exactly as we do, we should seek out opportunities to fellowship with the body at large. Not to convert them to our way of thinking or to poach believers from their church to ours (the fear of exactly that might be behind some of this), but to be in fellowship. Instead we bunch ourselves together, raise walls and lock the doors. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I wouldn’t even consider regular fellowship in a paedobaptist church but I also don’t spend much time in our new home with people who are not like minded. I am going to make a concerted effort to get to know other believers in the area. Maybe on Sunday nights, since we don’t have church services currently in the evening. That might be a great opportunity to get out of our comfort zone and meet other believers. Not to shop for a "new church" but just to spend time with other believers.
I think it is terrible that we are content to wait until eternity to worship with and be in fellowship with so many other Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)