You don’t know me but I’m your brother
We were made for community. It is difficult to read any part of Scripture without recognizing this important fact. We were made to fellowship with God and with one another.
Unfortunately, we often don’t take the time to build relationships with one another. And, when we do start building relationships, we often stop when it becomes a struggle. In fact, that struggle – or “relational friction” as I’ve called it before – is an indication that we finally beginning to form a relationship. We’re finally starting to get down below the surface into the depths of community.
It is there in the depths – below the surface level – that we begin to understand that “love one another” includes loving those who are not like us and don’t believe like us and sometimes aren’t even pleasant to be around. It is there in the presence of relational friction that we truly begin to understand what it means to forgive one another, bear with one another, accept one another, live in peace with one another. Unfortunately, too often, before we can even begin to live in the reality of these “one anothers”, we give up on the relationship all together and look around for someone who is more like us so we can be “like minded”.
There is a reason that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Philippi exhorting them to have the “same mind”. What reason? Because it’s not easy – it’s not natural – at least, not in our fallen state. There is a reason that Paul wrote a very personal letter (Philemon) about a very personal problem (a runaway slave named Onesimus) and addressed that letter to several people and the entire church that met with Philemon. What reason? Because we naturally want to protect ourselves and our own interest. We need help to look beyond ourselves to see the benefit to the kingdom of God.
We use our doctrines, our creeds, our confessions, our interpretation, our denominations, our leadership, our structures… many man-made things in fact… as excuses to separate from other believers. Or, if we don’t outright separate, then we use these things as excuses to choose who we will form relationships with and who we won’t form relationships with. We would prefer to sit in an auditorium on the other side of the city filled mostly with strangers than to deal with the relational friction caused by differences with those who live next door to us.
Why? Because we don’t allow God to form our primary identity. Oh, we say that we’re brothers and sisters in Christ, but we live as if we’re second cousins at best. We says that we all have God as our Father, but we would prefer it were not so.
Guess what? We don’t choose our brothers and sisters… God does. And we are specifically told (in the context of doctrinal differences) to accept others just as God accepted them in Christ Jesus (Romans 15:7).
The person across the street who is a brother in Christ… is our brother in Christ, and it is our responsibility – as much as depends on us – to foster a relationship with him. The person who works in the office who is a sister in Christ… is our sister in Christ, and it is our responsibility – as much as depends on us – to foster a relationship with her. This is true for every believer that God brings into our life. Yes, everyone of them. Will we have the same depth of relationship with all of them? No. But, that’s not the point. Our relationships with our brothers and sisters should be growing and deepening – even with those who disagree with us. If we’re looking for excuses to stay away from a brother or to not relate a sister, then there is a problem with us… not with them.
Unity among brothers and sisters in Christ is not just a good idea. It is one of our primary arguments and our primary evidences that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and was sent into the world to redeem the world (John 17:20-24). We should grieve over the fact that we have lost this argument and evidence. Then, we should seek the unity of the Spirit – he is providing if we will simply live in it.
Philippians and death
On Saturday evenings, we’ve been getting together with a group of friends to share a meal and fellowship. We’ve also been discussing the book of Philippians. Instead of choosing a particular passage from Philippians to discuss, we’ve been reading the entire book each night and talking about the entire book.
Last Saturday was our fourth time to read through and discuss Philippians. Interestingly, we continue to find things that we need to talk about. The topics drifted toward a conversation about death, afterlife, resurrection, hades, end times stuff. We realized that Paul talks about death, suffering, and resurrection alot in Philippians. Here are a few passages:
I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. (Philippians 1:12-13 ESV)
Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Philippians 1:18b-24 ESV)
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. (Philippians 1:29-30 ESV)
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 ESV)
Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. (Philippians 2:17 ESV)
Indeed he [Epaphroditus] was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. (Philippians 2:27 ESV)
Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith – that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:8-11 ESV)
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:11-13 ESV)
In these passages, and others, Paul talks about death, suffering, resurrection, etc. We had noticed before that Paul also talks alot about unity in Philippians – specifically having the “same mind” or “thinking alike”. I won’t list all of the passages, but here are some of the references: Philippians 1:27; 2:1-4, 21; 3:15-16, 18-19 (negative example); 4:2-3.
As our discussion progressed, we wondered aloud if some of the Philippians were thinking wrongly about death and suffering. Perhaps this is why Paul had to focus on these two concepts: thinking the same way and death/suffering. Perhaps, some of the Philippians were beginning to question the wisdom of following Christ, because those who follow Christ were being persecuted, imprisoned (like Paul), and even killed.
Thus, they were attempting to follow Christ with a wrong understanding of what it means to successfully follow Christ. In this letter, one of Paul’s intentions, then, was to help them think rightly about what it means to follow Christ – even to the point of suffering and death. Yes, Paul and the Philippians were suffering. Yes, Paul was in prison. Yes, some believers were turning their backs on Paul. Yes, Paul was often in need.
But, God had shown himself faithful in all of those circumstances. And, as Paul pointed out, all of this was worth knowing Jesus Christ. Plus, Paul says, the Philippians should recognized that even though Christianity seemed to be “losing” from the world’s perspective, in fact many in the Praetorian Guard (think, Secret Service) and many in Caesar’s household (think White House residents and staff) were beginning to listen to the gospel and follow Christ (1:13; 4:22).
What an encouragement for us today! Many times, it seems that our walk in Christ may be in vain. We don’t necessarily see “fruit”. But, our goal should be to continually follow Christ and know him, regardless of our circumstances and situations. We should be honored to suffer for Christ just as we are honored to believe in him.
Also, this is a warning. Perhaps the church has been looking at success from a worldly perspective. We want to control governments and law making. We want to force people to live in certain ways. We want to make our lives easier. But, this is never the focus of the gospel. “Success” is measured as obedience to Jesus Christ as Lord… even to the point of suffering and death.
So, how do you measure success? Do you look at suffering and death as defeat? Or, like Paul, can you look at your circumstances and trouble (assuming your are suffering for Christ and not your own bad decisions), and praise God for his faithfulness?
The trans-congregational church
In a recent study concern community development in the New Testament, I came across an article called “The Trans-Congregational Church in the New Testament” by Jefrey Kloha (Concordia Journal 34 no 3, July 2008, 172-190).
In this article, Kloha suggests that the term “ekklesia” was used for local congregations that generally met in houses, and more generally for the church-at-large – the heavenly assembly – the “universal church” – the una sancta. But, Kloha says there is a third usage of the term “ekklesia” in the New Testament, which he calls “the trans-congregational church”. He says this “trans-congregational church” consisted of “several (or many) local congregations conceived of corporately”. (173)
Kloha suggests several examples of “the trans-congregational church” in the New Testament. For example, he says that the “church in Jerusalem” could not have met in one place – even the temple courts – so, they must have met in many locations. However, they were considered a single “church”. Also, Kloha says the singular use of “ekklesia” in Acts 9:31 indicates that the individual congregations of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were considered one church. (Yes, he does discuss the plural variant in this passage, albeit briefly.)
Also, Kloha suggests that the trans-congregational church is demonstrated in the relationships between churches. For example, there is a close connection between the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch. Kloha recalls that Paul told the church in Collosae to read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, indicating a relational connection between the congregations – or multiple congregations – in each city. Paul recognizes the relationships between the various churches in Rome as well (Romans 16).
I think that Kloha has pointed out something that may be missing among the church today. The church has become so exclusive and independent that we often miss the fact that we are united with other brothers and sisters in Christ as well – not only with the ones that meet with us from day-to-day or week-to-week. Kloha offers this concern at the end of his article as well:
By ignoring the NT understanding of the trans-congregational nature of the church we have weakened the bonds of fellowship, mutual concern and support, and unity in doctrine and practice which should inform and indeed define our life together as church. By turning again to the New Testament we might sharpen our understanding of church and apply that understanding to our structure. (191)
I think Kloha has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) pointed to one of the problem – structure. Many churches have structured themselves in a way that precludes trans-congregational relationships.
In the life of our community, we have seen this in action. We often encourage our brothers and sisters to meet with other churches. In fact, our elders have met with other churches. Of course, we have to explain that we are not unhappy with our church, nor are we interested in “joining” their church. We simply want to build relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
When we talk about the possibility of other “church members” or leadership meeting with us to further build relationships, this seems strange and odd to them – like they would be unfaithful to their church or their pastor.
Our view of church has become so exclusive and structured that we have a hard time recognizing our relationship to those in “other churches”. So, I agree with Kloha that we have (for the most part) lost this idea of “the trans-congregational church”.
What do you think? Is it important for believers to have “trans-congregational” relationships? Why or why not?
Separating the sheep from the sheep
Last year, I published a post called “Separating the sheep from the sheep“. In many Christian circles, it seems that separation is the purpose of following Christ. When I read the New Testament, coming together seems to be more important than separating. Of course, coming together – having the same mind – living in unity – is much harder work and much more humbling than separating. Jesus and Paul and others seemed to think coming together was necessary.
——————————————————
Separating the sheep from the sheep
There are several interesting passages spoken by Jesus about his coming in the end times to separate from sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) or to separate from the wheat from the tares (Matt. 13:30). Most agree that these are eschatological (end times) images of those who are children of God being separated from those who are not children of God – or, believers being separated from non-believers.
Today, though, it seems that followers of Jesus Christ are often more interested in separating the sheep from other sheep. Of course, this desire to separate the “true” sheep from other sheep, didn’t start recently. If we look back at the early Christian writings, we will see that Christians were separating themselves from other Christians.
But, then again, we can look all the way back to the New Testament, and we see over and over again that believers were practicing sheep separation:
For before certain men came from James, he [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:12-13 ESV)
I [Paul] appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-12 ESV)
I [John] have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. (3 John 1:9-10 ESV)
Each of these negative examples were corrected by Scripture. And, these negative examples are balanced by many positive encouragements to walk in unity, to fellowship with one another, to build one another up instead of attempting to destroy one another.
However, in spite of the many warnings and exhortations from Scripture, we continue to think that it is our duty to separate ourselves from other “sheep” who are not like us in some ways – and, of course, we get to choose which things are important and which things are not important. We pick which “doctrines” are necessary, which “doctrines” are important, and which “doctrines” are not as important, thereby separating ourselves from brothers and sisters in Christ.
Of course, if we were to allow ourselves to hang around with other Christians who are different than us, then it would mean that we would have to deal with them in love, peace, patience, humility, gentleness, kindness, perseverance… these sound familiar. I suppose that living in the unity that Scripture describes would require that we actually walk in the Spirit and not simply walk with those who are like us.
But, I wonder though… what would happen if we actually stopped trying to separate sheep from sheep? What would happen if we actually tried to live with other sheep – even those sheep who are different from us? I wonder what would happen…
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20-23 ESV)
Authority, Hermeneutics, and Criticism
One of the best books that I’ve read on topics related to New Testament interpretation is Interpreting the New Testament, edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. I think I’ve read this book twice, and now I’m reading it again for my mentorship with Dave Black. We meet regularly to discuss the issues raised in the book.
This week, we discussed the first two chapters which deal with introductory and historical issues of interpretation. Primarily, in this post, I want to discuss the first chapter by Peter H. Davids: “Authority, Hermeneutics, and Criticism”.
First, discussing authority, Davids makes a distinction between the intrinsic authority of Scripture (the authority possessed by someone or something due to what they are – p. 3) and the extrinsic authority of Scripture (the authority that someone or something possesses because people ascribe authority to them). Davids suggests that discussions of the intrinsic authority of Scripture fall into the area of the doctrine of Scripture, while discussions of hermeneutics and interpretation deal with the concept of the extrinsic authority of Scripture. He says:
Given, then, that Scripture has God’s authority [i.e. intrinsic authority], there is still the issue of extrinsic authority. That is, from the human point of view, we first must recognize that Scripture is authoritative and then must understand and respond to it appropriately – with obedience… If there is no obedience, then all the discussions about authority are no more than abstractions. (3-4)
Moving on from authority, Davids discusses the relationship between authority and hermeneutics, pointing out that people who agree on the authority of Scripture will often disagree on its interpretation. We cannot assume that someone who interprets Scripture differently than us does so because they do not think that Scripture is authoritative.
He also addresses the issues of critical methodology (“higher criticism”) and how we often interpret Scripture based on what we want it say instead of what it actually says. Everyone (yes, including myself) can be guilty of this. How do we help ourselves and others avoid this error in interpretation?
Hermeneutical discussion assists one in discovering how one is interpreting Scripture and thus what one might be filtering out of [or adding to] Scripture… [O]ne further aid to biblical authority is helpful, and that is working with Christians in a variety of churches [traditions] and cultures. (16)
I think these points are difficult for many believers. I’ve heard from so many believers who attach interpretation to authority, such that, if your interpretation does not match theirs, then you do not believe that Scripture is authoritative. Similarly, I think the church has lost the ability to interpret in community with other believers. Oh, we listen to those who already agree with us. But, when we read or listen to the interpretation of someone with whom we disagree or who comes from a different tradition, we do not do so in order to learn, but in order to disparage or debate or disagree.
What do you think? Do we need to listen to brothers and sisters with different interpretations? Can we truly live in unity despite our differences of understanding? Is it possible to accept the objectivity of God’s communication [in Scripture, for instance] along with the subjectivity of our interpretation?
Autumn Leaves and the Church
Last year, I wrote a post called “Autumn Leaves and the Church” which compared the church with the beautiful colors of the fall. I should have posted this earlier in the year this year, because of the colors have faded by now. However, if you look around you and see oranges, and reds, and yellows, and browns, and greens on the trees, think about how God has placed different people in the church for your benefit. It is in the differences that we find the beauty and unity of Christ’s body.
————————————————————-
I love autumn. I love it when the weather starts getting cooler, and I can start wearing boots and long sleeve shirts and sweaters and sweatshirts. I love watching college football on Saturday mornings (yes, I know that college football now starts during the summer, but I like it best during the fall). I love having a fire in the fireplace, especially at night when the only light comes from the fire itself.
But, most of all, I love watching the leaves change colors. Here in North Carolina, autumn is especially beautiful. My drive to work each morning and back home each afternoon is very calming and soothing and a joy for the eyes. Yesterday morning, as I was driving to work, I saw a patch of three or four trees, all of which had bright yellow leaves. It seemed as if the sun was shining only on those trees, but in reality, the yellow leaves simply stood out vividly among the browns, reds, and greens of the surrounding trees. From my office window at work, I can look out in the distance and see a large tree with bright orange leaves that stands out clearly against the trees behind it.
As I have been thinking about these leaves, I realize that it is not simply the vividness of the individual colors that makes the scene so beautifully. I mean, yes, the yellow leaves beside the road, or the orange leaves out the window, or the bright red leaves – another favorite – of some trees stand out. But, these colors only stand out because they are surrounded by other colors – colors that may not be as bright, but are important nonetheless. In fact, I think these other leaves actually make the vivid leaves more beautiful.
Consider, for instance, seeing a patch of trees all of which have the same color leaves, with no other colors around them. Perhaps all the leaves are yellow, all the leaves are red, all the leaves are orange. Would this be beautiful? Yes, but there would be something missing. There is beauty in the vivid colors themselves, but that beauty is enhanced by the contrast of the leaves of other colors, much as the sound of one instrument is enhanced when it is part of an orchestra.
As I was thinking about autumn colors, I was reminded how this resembles the church. The church is made of a myriad of people with different perspectives, different emphases, different voices, different gifts, but all from God. In fact, God places the people together in the manner that pleases him. If God has placed us together, then we should take the time to observe and listen to each other.
There are certain voices that I like to hear. There are certain types of service that I like to participate in. There are certain emphases and preferences that I share. But, if I only listen to and respond to those who share my concerns and preferences and likes, then I am missing the beauty of the church – much like I would miss the beauty of the autumn colors if all of the trees of the forest had yellow leaves.
There are some within the church who prefer to focus on evangelism – I need to hear from these people. There are others within the church who would rather emphasize the sovereignty of God – I need to hear their voices also. Some other people in the church usually discuss serving others – I need to hear what they have to say. Still others within the church consistently speak of community – I need to hear them.
Like a forest in autumn with a myriad of colors, or an orchestra with many different instruments all playing together, God has placed people in my life and in your life because we need to hear them and they need to hear us. We need one another. Take the time today to notice the many different colors in the trees around you. Then ask yourself, “Am I listening to the different voices, or am I only listening to the voices who are saying the same things that I say?”
Dropping the "H" Bomb
About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Dropping the ‘H’ Bomb“. The purpose of that post was to show that we throw around the words “heresy” and “heretic” without considering their scriptural foundations. Often, when we call another brother or sister a “heretic”, we are the ones who are practicing “heresy” according to Scripture. Why? Read this post and find out.
—————————————————————–
Dropping the “H” Bomb
I recently read a story about one follower of Christ calling another follower of Christ a heretic because they disagreed over certain aspects of teaching. I’m sure that many of us have heard similar stories, and perhaps some of us have even been called “heretics”.
The “H” bomb is dropped to separate the speaker from the “heretic” or “heresy”. It is used as stronger language than “disagree” or “different”. It is used to question the person’s devotion to and possibly position with God. To the person dropping the “H” bomb, the “heretic” may be sincere, but certainly sincerely wrong when compared with the bombardier.
Looking through various definitions of the word “heretic”, you’ll find that a “heretic” (in English) is a person who holds a position that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Thus, in English, “heresy” can only be defined from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs. So, someone can be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that same person may not be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Anglican Church.
Similarly, looking through various definitions of the word “heresy”, you’ll find that a “heresy” (again, in English) is any teaching, belief, or opinion that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Once again, “heresy” is a valid term on from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs.
From these modern definitions, every Baptist is a heretic to every Presbyterian. Every Anglican teaches heresy from the perspective of every Charismatic. From the point of view of Methodists, everyone in the Vineyard church is a heretic. These terms have lost any meaning, but they continue to be used with force and vehemence.
Perhaps, instead of looking at the modern definitions of “heresy” and “heretic” it would be helpful to consider the source of these words, and to consider how Scripture uses these words. Also, instead of comparing someone’s opinions and beliefs to the standard beliefs of a given church, perhaps it would be better to compare that person’s opinions and beliefs to Scripture.
Of course, even before we think about the source of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, we are immediately faced with the reality that different people interpret Scripture in different ways. Does this mean that our terms “heretic” and “heresy” are completely useless? No. It means that we must humbly admit that brothers and sisters in Christ disagree concerning the meaning of Scripture. We must also humbly admit that disagreement, in and of itself, does not constitute heresy. I may disagree with someone, and neither one of us may be heretics. However, according to the modern definitions of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, if two people disagree, one of them must be a heretic.
The terms “heresy” and “heretic” are scriptural words. The noun form αἱÏεσις (hairesis) is used five times in the New Testament, and is usually translated “sect”, “division”, “opinion”, or “schism”. The Pharisees and Sadducees are called “sects” (“heresies”) of Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5). Christians are called a “sect” (“heresy”) of Judaism (Acts 24:5; 24:14; 28:22). Finally, there are said to be “divisions” or “dissensions” (“heresies”) among groups of Christians (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1). It is this last category that should interest us.
Scripture warns us about “heresies” among believers. But, in context, what are these passages telling us? In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul mentions “factions”. These are probably similar to the divisions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1-4. The danger is not found in disagreements between believers, but in separation. The groups were separating from one another and treating one another differently based on their affiliations.
In Galatians 5:20, “heresies” or “divisions” or “factions” are mentioned again along with “disputes”, “dissensions”, and “envy”. All of these are listed as “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-21), practiced by those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God”. This is contrasted against the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23) which will be evident in the lives of God’s children. Since the fruit of the Spirit includes characteristics such as patience, gentleness, and self-control, we can assume that these are demonstrated in the context of disagreements, not in the absence of them. Again, this says nothing about disagreement being “heresy”.
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring “destructive heresies” with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for “denying the Lord” (2 Pet 2:1), “sensuality” (2 Pet 2:2), “covetousness” (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.
Perhaps, from this connection of “heresy” with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called “false prophets” and “false teachers”. Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a “false teacher” is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach “other doctrines” are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ – that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.
So, according to Scripture, who are the true “heretics”? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel – that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.
When Person A calls Person B a “heretic” for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the “heretic”. Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.
So, let’s be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the “H” Bomb. It could be that we are the true “heretics”, not necessarily because our opinion is “wrong”, but because our words and actions are divisive – and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about.
The Depths of Community
Just over a year ago, I published a blog post called “The Depths of Community“. The point of this post is that relational friction (disagreements, personality issues, etc) should not diminish community. Instead, relational friction should strengthen community. Of course, this assumes that the community is build on Jesus Christ and complete trust in Him. However, few of our communities today – even church communities – are built on the person of Jesus Christ. So, when relational friction comes along, the community suffers. I believe that community is very important. But, as important as community is, I do not think community should be goal. Instead, community is a by-product of loving God and loving others. I hope you enjoy this post.
————————————
The Depths of Community
Today, it is fashionable to talk about community. Everyone wants community. Followers of Jesus Christ want community. People who do not follow Jesus Christ want community. In discussing the desire of “the younger generation” for community, Dallas Willard said:
That’s an expression of their loneliness. But most of them don’t know what community means because community means assuming responsibility for other people and that means paying attention and not following your own will but submitting your will and giving up the world of intimacy and power you have in the little consumer world that you have created. They are lonely and they hurt. They don’t know why that they think community might solve that, but when they look community in the face and realize that it means raw, skin to skin contact with other people for whom you have become responsible…that’s when they back away. (HT: Provocative Church)
If Willard is correct, and I tend to think he is correct at this point, then I must qualify my earlier statements. Everyone wants community, as long as the community is comfortable for them and of immediate benefit for them. People are willing to pay the price for a certain kind of community, as long as there is a tangible return on their investment. However, once the cost becomes too high, or the return becomes too small, then we naturally return to self-sufficiency and self-reliance and leave the community to fend for itself.
What is the cause of “backing away”, as Willard calls it? What causes the cost of community to become too prohibitive or the return from the community to become too small? There can be only one answer: sin. And, not the sin in the community, although sin will always be present within the community – we should never be surprised about that. No, it is the sin of the individual that causes him or her to “back away”.
Whether this sin manifests itself in self-centeredness, selfishness, anger, impatience, etc., the root of the sin is almost always pride. It is pride that causes the individual to consider himself and his desires and his opinions above and more important than the others within the community.
There is a depth to community that can only be plumbed through the empowerment and submission to the person of the Holy Spirit. The scriptural exhortations to consider others as better than yourselves, to confess your sins to one another, to accept and welcome one another, to bear with and forgive one another, to care for and give to one another, and – as Jesus put it – to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him can only be understood and realized via the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the life of a child of God.
There is a misconception that community is built around uniformity: people who believe alike, act alike, respond alike, desire alike, etc. However, uniformity will not create the type of community in which God calls us to live. This is evident in the constant exhortation for believers to bear with one another, forgive one another, have patience with one another, and consider others as more important than themselves. Thus, the authors of Scripture recognize that there would be relational frictions between believers. This relational frictions Willard describes above by the phrase “raw, skin to skin contact”. The way that someone responds to relational frictions demonstrates whether or not they are living in a Spirit-enabled, Spirit-empowered community, or if they desire to live in a uniform community.
People normally and naturally respond to relational friction with anger, impatience, divisiveness, selfishness, defensiveness, pride, etc. These responses are manifestations of sin. This type of response may reduce relational friction, but it will not maintain community.
However, through the indwelling and enabling of the Holy Spirit, it is (super)-naturally possible to respond to relational friction with understanding, acceptance, patience, humility, forbearance, perseverance, and even joy. This type of response will not immediately reduce the relational friction, but it will maintain community. In fact, true community is only possible in the presence of relational friction and a Spirit-controlled response to that relational friction.
Let me say that again: true community is only possible when those within the community – or at least a majority of those within the community – respond to relational friction through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Also, if there is no relational friction, then there is no community. There are either surface acquaintances, with the real friction hidden beneath, or a cult-like uniformity where those who disagree are excluded from the “community”. Neither of these is a community.
If we want to determine whether or not we are living in a Spirit-led, Spirit-enabled community with other believers, we can begin by examining how we respond to relational friction, that is to “raw, skin to skin contact”. If we respond by demanding our rights, privileges, wants, expectations, etc. then we are not living in community, but we are allowing sin to hinder our relationship with other believers, which demonstrates that sin is also hindering or relationship with God. If, on the other hand, we respond to relational friction in Spirit-created humility, joyfully allowing others to usurp our rights, privileges, wants, expectations, etc. then we are demonstrating that we are maintaining the community of the Spirit.
One thing before I finish this post: It is not the goal of the believer or a group of believers to create or maintain community. Instead, it is the goal of believers to demonstrate their love for God by loving others. As believers demonstrate their love for God by loving other believers in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, then Spirit-created community will ensue. Also, as believers demonstrate their love for God by loving non-believers in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit-enabled mission will ensue. Either way, the goal is to love God by loving others.
Peace – A Chain Blog
Last week, I mentioned that I was planning to start a chain blog today on the topic of “peace” (see, “Chain Blog on the Topic of Peace“). This is the first “link” in that chain blog. If you would like to take part in this “chain blog”, please see the rules at the end of this post.
According to Jesus, peacemakers are blessed and will be called children of God (Matt. 5:9). Similarly, he told his disciples that he was leaving his peace with them (John 14:27). James recognized that wisdom from above results in peace (James 3:17). Paul says that we have peace with God through Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:14-17), and that the Holy Spirit produces peace in our lives (Gal. 5:22). The author of Hebrews says that discipline results in peace, and that we should all strive for peace with everyone else (Heb. 12:11,14). Likewise, Peter exhorts his readers to look for and pursue peace (1 Pet. 3:11). Finally, throughout the New Testament, the standard Greco-Roman greeting was replaced with “Grace and peace” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phil. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 1:4).
But, what does “peace” mean to a follower of Jesus Christ? There are certainly many aspects to this question. We could talk about peace with God, or peace with another individual. Similarly, we could discuss peace among a group of believers, or peace between believers and unbelievers. We could also talk about political peace.
To kick off this chain blog, and in keeping with the primary themes of this blog, I’m going to discuss the implications of peace among a group of believers. Primarily, I want to answer the following question: What does it mean for the church to live together in peace?
As mentioned earlier, several passages of Scripture indicate that peace primarily comes through our relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Peace is a product of the Spirit’s work in a person’s life. However, we are also exhorted to seek and strive for peace. Thus, there is a work that must be done in order to maintain the peace that we have with one another through the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the passage of Scripture that speaks the most clearly about maintaining peace among a community of believers in found in Philippians:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:1-4 ESV)
In this passage, we see that we maintain peace among our brothers and sisters by being of the same mind, having the same love, and being in full accord – thinking, caring, and deciding in like manner. Obviously, this would yield a peaceful situation. But, what about those times when we are not of the same mind, heart, and accord?
Paul covers that as well. In those instances – and they will occur – we are to do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but instead we are to humble ourselves and consider others to be more significant or important than ourselves. We are to consider one another’s interests as much as – if not more than – our own.
Thus, when we are not thinking or loving or deciding in the same way, then we maintain peace by allowing others to have their way. We humbly submit our wills to the will of others – allowing others to make decisions that may be different from the decisions that we would make.
And, of course, this is where things get sticky. Who should be leading the community in maintaining peace – that is, leading the way in humbly giving up their own opinions and desires for the good of the community? The leaders of the community should be first to consider others as more important, because, supposedly, the leaders are among the more mature – more Christ-like – of the community.
Unfortunately, we usually see just the opposite. (Yes, this is a generality. There are exceptions.) Usually, leaders are the ones who work the hardest to make sure that their opinions carry the day. Leaders are the ones who refuse to humble themselves and submit to the desires of others. This leads to a lack of example in maintaining peace and a lack of peace itself.
The world cannot find peace apart from Jesus Christ. The church has Christ and should have peace – if they are humbly submitting to the work of the Spirit in their lives, which would include humbly submitting to one another when their are differences of opinion. Instead, the church often seems to have as much stress – and perhaps less peace – than the world. Why? Because we care more about ourselves than others – because we consider ourselves more important than others. Because we are not submitting to the work of the Spirit in maintaining peace.
—————————————————-
Chain blog rules:
1) If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.
2) Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.
3) When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of all previous links to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.
—————————————————-
“Peace” Chain
Link 1: “Peace – A Chain Blog” by Alan Knox
Link 2: “Peace – A Chain Blog” by Joe (J.R.) Miller
Link 3: “For Peace Sake” by Chris Dryden
Link 4: “A Restoration of Peace in the Eschatological Work of Jesus Christ” by Lionel Woods
Link 5: ?
Unity – A Guest Blog Post
In case I haven’t said this recently, the most awesome people read and interact on this blog. (Yes, even those brothers and sisters who disagree with me.) I often get emails from people who further conversations on this blog. I usually ask if I can use their emails as “guest blogger” posts.
Recently I received an email from Hal. He sent me the email below in response to our chain blog on “City Church“. I thought you might enjoy reading what he has to say about unity among the body of Christ.
——————————————————————-
I am a believer in Memphis, Tn. I am part of a fellowship of believers here that has been meeting in homes for a while. I stumbled on your blog while reading David Roger’s [“Love Each Stone“].
For what it’s worth I’d like to testify to the fact that being part of a “city church” is truly a labor of love. Most folks just have enough stress already, and don’t want to go through the grind of worshipping with, and living with people who they either don’t like, or disagree with doctrinally. It’s just so easy to find a place that has good music, right doctrine, and something for all the kids. But for the few of us who are a little weird and know Christ has asked much more of us than that, well, we persevere at all costs.
After you’ve gotten to know a brother well enough to hate him, and can still wash his feet with joy, there you have the church. We are not called to be over one another, but under.(Luke22:24-27) If you can get strong willed men whose minds are made up about the church together, with completely different stances or views on the scripture, and watch them submit to each other, you will have men you can trust and love.
Most of what I’ve read on “city church” is good, but always ends up hung up on how to share power: “who will be in charge?” Funny how it’s not reversed “who will be the least.” In America we don’t need more gifted preachers, we need to trust Christ to be head over His church, and ask Him to be our leader. “Give us a king!” we scream, when what we really need to do is walk in the love and truth God is so ready to freely bestow on those who would be priests unto Him.
If we ever get to the point where we know we’ve replicated the first century church, or that we’re doing it the right way, it’s over. I think the Lord in His wisdom will deal with the world through broken vessels, striving for unity. However close we get to the ideal church experience, we must hold it loosely, knowing it is all of grace. I am blessed to be where I’m at, and long for many of my brothers to know real church life, but at the same time I know God works through the meek and opposes the proud, so I repent of the pride that so easily ensnares me, and ask God to bless the First Baptist churches of the world. Thanks for reading this, and may the Lord bless his holy people.
——————————————————————-
I agree with Hal that God desires unity and that we should work toward unity. I also agree with Hal that God even works through broken people – even those who refuse to live in the unity of the body of Christ. When we think we’ve got it all together – when we think things are perfect – then we’re relying on ourselves and our ability to do things right, instead of relying on God and his grace.
I thank God for brothers like Hal who are living the gospel with those who are different from themselves. I also thank God for all of those who email me. I’m always encouraged to hear what God is doing through his children around the world.