No, we can’t just get along
This is the ninth post in a chain blog on “Dealing with Traditionally Divisive Issues” that I started last week. (See my post “Chain Blog: Dealing with Divisive Issues Introduction.”) At the bottom of this post, you’ll find links to the other link posts in the chain blog. If you haven’t read them yet, you should, because they are all very good and they all approach the topic from a different perspective.
The church is divided. (Obvious statement of the century.) Many Christians are divisive – separating from other brothers and sisters in Christ for insignificant reasons – well, insignificant to everyone else.
These statements, as I said, are obvious – to almost everyone. Divisiveness among the church is so prevalent that many people come up with “theological” reasons to justify their divisiveness – reasons that sound very, well, reasonable.
But, let’s be honest. When we read Scripture, we find that there are legitimate reasons to separate from others who claim to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Perhaps, as we think about dealing with traditionally divisive issues, it would be good to think about these reasons to separate in Scripture.
What are those reasons?
- Unrepentant Sin (Matt 18:15-20; 1 Cor 5:1-5)
- Disorderliness (2 Thess 3:6)
- Refusal to Work (2 Thess 3:7-10)
- False Teaching (2 Thess 3:14-15; 1 Tim 1:20; 2 John 10-11)
- Divisiveness (Rom 16:17-18; Titus 3:10-11)
First, did you notice that last item? That’s right, “divisiveness” is a reason to separate from other Christians. If someone claims to be a child of God but divides from other Christians for invalid reasons, then we are to stay away from that person. Interesting, huh?
Of course, most people would agree that we should separate from those who claim to be Christians who fall into one of the categories above (well, except for #3 and #5, and sometimes we even reward them).
So, how do we approach these issues? How do we understand them? Is separation automatic even in the cases listed above? If not, why not?
What about false teaching? Is “false teaching” any teaching that I or my church, leaders, denomination, etc. disagree with? If not, then what is “false teaching”?
Where do we go from here?
—————————————————-
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 the previous post 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.
—————————————————-
“Links” in this chain blog:
1. “Chain Blog: Dealing with Divisive Issues Introduction” by Alan
2. “Chain Blog: Dealing with divisive issues starts with love” by Arthur
3. “I am divisive” by Jeremy
4. “Chain Blog: Please agree with me” by Jon
5. “Division and our shared humanity” by Andy
6. “Chain Blog: solving the problem” by Bobby
7. “Divisiveness: Acts 2 & Ugly Carpet” by fallenpastor
8. “Stimulating our Collective Memory” by Trista
9. “No, we can’t just get along” by Alan
10. “Who says we are divided?” by Jon
11. “Disunity and the mind of Christ” by Fred
12. “We Are United in Our Division” by Andy
13. “Finding Equilibrium: ‘rest in one another’” by Sherry
14. “Don’t talk about my momma” by JRo
15. Who will write the next “link” post in the chain?
Chain Blog: Dealing with Divisive Issues Introduction
Last Friday, I proposed that we start a new chain blog. (If you don’t know what a chain blog is, you can read the info in my post “Let’s start a new chain blog,” or you can keep reading below for more info.)
In that post, several issues were suggested, but most people seem to have been interested in the following topic: dealing practically with traditionally divisive issues.
So, in this post, I’m going to introduce the topic, and propose a few ways that bloggers can continue this chain blog. Note, however, that anyone can continue this chain blog with a post dealing with this topic – and it is a very broad but also very important topic.
I would like to set a few boundaries for this discussion however. As I noted in the post above, I am interested in topics dealing with the church. So, for this chain blog, I am asking people to write about dealing with divisive issues among the church – that is, issues that have traditionally divided brothers and sisters in Christ from one another. While it might be interesting and important to consider what issues should and do divide followers of Jesus Christ from those who do not follow him, that will not be the purpose of this chain blog.
Also, this chain blog is not the medium for defending your position on a divisive topic. For example, we know that eschatology (what happens at the end of times) is a divisive topic among believers, and various views of eschatology may be approached in this chain blog as examples. However, the chain blog is not the “time” or “place” to explain why you hold to a certain eschatological position. Instead, the point of the chain blog is to discuss how to deal with eschatological differences that often divide the church.
Here are a few questions that bloggers might consider in the posts that they write for this chain blog. But, like I said before, this list is not exhaustive:
Why should we care about divisiveness among the church?
Are their valid reasons to divide from other believers and what makes those reasons valid?
What are some historical reasons for division?
Does unity (lack of division) require agreement on all issues?
Are there different level of divisiveness? Why or why not?
What practical steps can be taken to overcome divisiveness?
What if a brother or sister in Christ is content with their divisiveness? (Or doesn’t see themselves as divisive?)
Hopefully, those questions will inspire someone to write the next post in this chain blog.
So, how does it work?
First, feel free to comment on this post as normal. You can leave any comment that you’d like.
However, if you want to write the next post in this chain blog (that is, the next “link” in the “chain” of posts), then be the first to leave a comment on this post saying that you want to write the next post. (If someone else has already claimed the next post, then simply wait to comment on that next post and say that you want to write the one following that. Okay?)
Then, the person who asks to write the next “link” in the “chain” should write a post in the next few days and leave a comment here with a link when that post has been published.
While comments and discussion can continue on this post, the chain will then jump to that next post and we will continue as I explained above. Hopefully, it will become clearer as we move forward.
If you write a post for the chain blog, you can title your post whatever you wan to call it. I simply ask that you include the rules of the chain blog (below) and a list of all the previous “links” in the chain blog.
So, here are rules in a format that is easy to copy and include in your posts:
—————————————————-
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 the previous post 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.
—————————————————-
“Links” in this chain blog:
1. “Chain Blog: Dealing with Divisive Issues Introduction” by Alan
2. “Chain Blog: Dealing with divisive issues starts with love” by Arthur
3. “I am divisive” by Jeremy
4. “Chain Blog: Please agree with me” by Jon
5. “Division and our shared humanity” by Andy
6. “Chain Blog: solving the problem” by Bobby
7. “Divisiveness: Acts 2 & Ugly Carpet” by fallenpastor
8. “Stimulating our Collective Memory” by Trista
9. “No, we can’t just get along” by Alan
10. “Who says we are divided?” by Jon
11. “Disunity and the mind of Christ” by Fred
12. “We Are United in Our Division” by Andy
13. “Finding Equilibrium: ‘rest in one another’” by Sherry
14. “Don’t talk about my momma” by JRo
15. Who will write the next “link” post in the chain?
Guest Blogger: Adoption lived out in the church
I’ve invited several people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Arthur from “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia.” You can also follow Arthur on Twitter and Facebook.
————————————-
Adoption is a hot topic in the church, both the adoption of orphan children and the doctrine of the adoption of believers by God as Father. For example, taking its cue from the Together for the Gospel conferences, a group has started holding a series of conferences called Together for Adoption led in part by Dr. Russell Moore who is a leading voice for the adoption of orphan children in evangelical circles. I think this focus on the adoption of orphans is by and large a healthy movement in the church and a sign of taking James 1:27 seriously.
While I love the adoption of orphans and really anything to do with caring for them, for purposes of this post I want to look at adoption from a soteriological standpoint, i.e. the adoption of believers into the family of God. One of the weaknesses that I have discovered over the last year or two in my own understanding of adoption is that I and many others have focused almost exclusively on the theology of adoption and how it impacts us positionally: we were once outside of the family of God and now we are in. What I gave little thought to was how this precious doctrine should impact how we function as the church. In fact few of the most eloquent expositors of the doctrine of adoption seem especially troubled by the splintering of the adopted family of God beyond perfunctory lip-service.
This is due in large part to how we view adoption, because adoption is often seen as an individual doctrine. Because I have been born-again, I have been adopted into the family of God. That is absolutely and wonderfully true but the implications of adoption for the Church go beyond a bunch of individuals who all became part of the family of God. Not only are we now in the family of God, likewise the rest of the church is also adopted into His family. In spite of what our culture teaches, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists and Mennonites are all part of the same church. We are not merely a group of people who associate with one another voluntarily based on class, race, political affiliation or any of a myriad of other factors. We are a family, just as real as a “biological” family and perhaps more so given the eternal nature of this adopted family of God. Christ was pretty blunt that we would be united together as a new family and that in fact this reality would cause schism in many cases with our earthly family. Given this reality, why do we seem so willing to accept artificial barriers between us and other members of our adopted family?
Imagine a family in your church made up entirely of adopted children. What if those children divided themselves up into subgroups and while they would affirm members of the other subgroups as brothers and sisters, in practice they would have virtually nothing to do with one another? They don’t sit together, they don’t drive to and from church together, they eat after church meals separately. How would we view that family? Probably as dysfunctional or messed up but in the “real world” that is precisely how we treat the vast majority of our adopted brothers and sisters.
One of the big culprits in this splintering is the way we have elevated the local church to an unhealthy place of prominence. Don’t get me wrong, local groups of believers gathering together is a Biblical and healthy practice. What I am speaking of is the almost idolatrous way that we have elevated the local church system with each local church becoming both a focal point of life and a divider of the people of God. We were not adopted into a local church. We were adopted in the church of God, the family of God with God as Father and Jesus Christ as the Head. Unfortunately the local church system has been used to erect what are assumed to be protective walls between believers, walls that keep believers from associating and being in community with one another. If you think your local church is doing you a favor by “shielding” you from other Christians who disagree with you on secondary issues, allow me to burst your bubble. The more walls and barriers your local church puts between you and other believers, the less Biblical that local church is. That may sound harsh but I am afraid it is true. If one local church erects barriers between its members and members of another local church that believes almost identically, what is truly being promoted is not orthodoxy but rather the self-preservation of that local church organization. No matter how orthodox the other teachings of that local church might be, in one area at least it is working at odds with God’s design for the church. Local churches should encourage and facilitate fellowship and cooperation among Christians, not hamper it.
I firmly hold to the doctrine that those who are adopted by God are chosen, predestined as His elect if you will, from before time began. I am not looking to pick a fight over predestination and election here but I do want to point out the ramifications of that doctrine. If God chose me in His sovereignty, He also chose every other Christian and made us all part of the same family and did so in His perfect wisdom. I don’t think God made a mistake in adopting any Christian. That reality must impact how we live in community with the other members of our family or it makes adoption nothing more than a topic for theology conferences. The solution to this problem has nothing to do with seeking some sort of manmade hierarchical authority that we all are accountable to or superficial one-off events that do nothing to foster community. It has everything to do with intentionally breaking down the barriers between believers. Those barriers have the weight of centuries of tradition propping them up and they will not come tumbling down unless the adopted family of God makes it a priority to start chipping away at those walls and rejecting those traditions that keep us apart from others that God has called and adopted into our family. If we do any less we are telling the God who accepted us that we question His judgment in choosing our adopted siblings and that isn’t a conversation that I am interested in having with Him!
————————————-
What questions or comments do you have for Arthur after reading his post?
Replay: You don’t know me but I’m your brother
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “You don’t know me but I’m your brother.” No, the post was not about the famous Doobie Brother song, although I am humming the song to myself as I type this. The point of this post is that we are related to one another through our common relationship with God. Because of that, we should seek fellowship and unity with one another. “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.”
———————————-
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 “<a href=”http://www.alanknox.net/2007/09/depths-of-community.html”>relational friction</a>” 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.
Disagreeing among the Church about Preaching
A few weeks ago, I was talking with someone about our history of meeting together as a church. We’ve been meeting together for around six years. When we started meeting together, we met in a much more traditional manner than we do now.
What do I mean by meeting together in a traditional manner? Well, we sat in rows with everyone looking forward at the platform or podium. Each week, someone chose songs for the entire group to sing. Each week, someone taught (preached) based on a predefined schedule.
Now, as you can tell, there were still some less-traditional aspects to our meeting. There may have been different people (from week to week) choosing songs or different people (from week to week) teaching/preaching.
Over the first couple of years, as we continued to study Scripture together, our manner of meeting began to change some. The first major change occurred when we added a “testimony” time after the planned teaching in which everyone present was given an opportunity to speak.
About a year after we added this new opportunity for others to speak, we had some discussions as a church to determine which direction we wanted to head. While the discussions covered many, many different topics, there were several disagreements about teaching/preaching.
Here are a few of the teaching/preaching topics that we discussed:
Who should preach/teach?
Some only wanted the elders (those recognized by the church as elders) to preach/teach when the church met together. Others wanted the elders plus a few more who had been approved and trained by the elders to be allowed to teach/preach. Still others wanted anyone to be allowed to teach/preach.
How should we preach/teach?
This was an interesting topic, because it was difficult for anyone to explain exactly. The best way to explain it (as I understood it) is that some wanted only a certain style or preaching/teaching, while others were open to different methods from different people.
What should be the goal of our preaching/teaching?
With this topic, we discussed the purpose of our meeting together, which, of course, would determine the purpose of any activity including preaching/teaching. As you can imagine, there were different options offered in this discussion.
And, on a related note, Does the “testimony time” take away from preaching/teaching?
This is self-explanatory, but some were concerned that allowing anyone to speak took away from the focus on the preaching/teaching. Again, this disagreement and discussion took us back to the purpose for meeting together.
I wish I could say that we always came to agreement on these topics related to preaching/teaching. But, we did not. I wish I could say that we always remained united in spite of our disagreements, but we did not.
Some people did decide to stop meeting with us because of these disagreements. I can understand the difficulty being part of a group that differed in an area (like preaching) that many concerned to be of utmost importance. Others decided to continue meeting with us in spite of the disagreements. I’m glad they did. I’ve learned alot from them.
By the way, and for the record: No, the church did not always make decisions that I agreed with.
I learned alot through those discussions and disagreements. For the most part, people responded in a Christ-like manner. There were some instances in which people did not respond in a way that honors Christ. At times, I was in the latter group.
In the years since, our teaching/preaching (and our meeting time in general) has continued to move from more traditional to less traditional. But, that will have to wait for another post.
I know you’re a heretic, but what am I?!
(Adding my voice to the “Rally to Restore Unity.”)
The word “heresy” gets tossed around these days like dough at a pizzeria. If we disagree with another Christian, we drop the “H-bomb,” take our pet doctrine, and go home.
In fact, we’ve created new categories of believers: 1) those who are right like us, 2) those who are slightly wrong and suspect but still okay, and 3) those who are heretics and therefore undeserving of our company.
We separate over many disagreements even though, in Scripture, disagreement is not disunity. Irony of all ironies, when we allow disagreements to lead to disunity between brothers and sisters in Christ, we are actually the heretics!
What?!?!
It’s true. In Scripture, “heresy” refers to separating from other Christians. If you separate from someone who you consider to be a Christian, then you are a heretic.
Like I said, ironic, huh?
Add your voice to the call for unity in the church
We know that unity is very important to Jesus. In his longest recorded prayer, he repeatedly asks the Father to make us one. (John 17)
We also know that the church is not living in this unity today. It seems that Christians will fracture and splinter over anything and everything.
Rachel Held Evans recently published a blog post “Announcing the Rally to Restore Unity.”
Here’s a brief description of this online rally:
The rally will include a synchroblog, contests, celebrity guest posts, roundtable discussions, and a fundraising effort for Charity:Water. The goal is to lightheartedly combat some of the vitriol coming out of the online Christian community by celebrating what we have in common and demonstrating that we can have a sense of humor when it comes to non-essential theological disagreements.
I plan to take part in the synchroblog next week May 1-7, 2011. I encourage you to take part in order to promote unity among brothers and sisters in Christ. Read Rachel’s post for more information about how you can join this rally to promote unity.
Even more on disagreement and disunity
Brant at “Mornings with Brant” continues the ongoing discussion of disagreement and disunity in his post “What if We All Disagree on Stuff?”
Responding to my post “When Disagreement Lead to Disunity,” Brant writes:
Question: Â Where does it leave us, if people who belong to God disagree on something? Â What if it’s a BIG thing, not a little thing? Â What about Rob Bell? Â What about baptism? Â What about mega-church or simple-church? Â What about tithing? Â What about liberal vs. conservative? Â What about Calvinist vs. Whatever…?
What if we genuinely, deep-down, just plain can’t agree? Â Where does THAT leave us?
Read Brant’s post for his answer. It’s a great answer!
Continuing the discussion on disagreement and disunity
I love it when my posts (or other posts for that matter) inspire other people to blog about the same topic.
Earlier this week, I wrote two posts on the topic of disagreement and disunity: “Disagreement is not Disunity” and “When Disagreements Lead to Disunity.”
At least two bloggers have picked up on that topic and continued the conversation.
Arthur at “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” writes in his post “Unity is not conformity“:
It is not only possible, it is absolutely necessary that we fellowship with people we disagree with on some issues. The only person I agree with 100% of the time is myself and sometimes I make pretty poor company even to me! The church is united by so many things, first and foremost the blood bought adoption by God. If God has chosen us and caused us to be born again and become part of His family, we need to be united with one another regardless of our differences. To do anything else is to tell God that perhaps He made a mistake in bringing those people into His family.
Joel at “Grace Roots” says that my posts are “timely” but doesn’t give details in his post “Disagreement and Disunity.” He writes:
It’s a fact that people are going to disagree on doctrines and theology. Does this mean that there has to be disunity? While we can remain convinced in our own individual consciences of what we believe, can we not also live “in harmony with one another and in harmony with Jesus Christ”?
Have I missed any posts on this important topic?
When Disagreements Lead to Disunity
In my previous post, I concluded that “Disagreement is not Disunity.” Primarily, I stepped through Romans 14-15 to show that Paul expected disagreements among the church, but he also expected them to maintain unity in spite of those disagreements.
In that passage, Paul exhorts his readers to maintain unity 1) by each person being convinced in their own conscience, 2) by not passing judgment on others because of the disagreements, 3) by never causing a brother or sister to stumble against their own conscience, and 4) by seeking to please others and not yourself. (Note that this last one is also written in the context of dealing with disagreements.)
Finally, and most importantly, Paul said that his readers must continually make sure that their focus is on God. As Paul says, God is the source of both endurance and encouragement (Romans 15:5) – both of which they will need to live in unity with those with whom they disagree. But, notice that it is this endurance and encouragement from God that leads to living in harmony with one another and in harmony with Jesus Christ. Harmony (unity) with one another and with Jesus Christ does not come through agreement, but through reliance on God and the endurance and encouragement that he provides.
But, if we are honest with ourselves and with one another, we have to admit that disagreements often do lead to disunity. Why is this? Well, from the passage above, disunity occurs because we are not focusing on God and because we are not reacting to one another correctly.
What do Christians focus on instead of God? Many, many things. The most obvious one is doctrinal statements. Our doctrinal statements about God are not God himself. Paul does not say to accept someone if that person understands God in the same way that you do. Instead, Paul says that if God accepts someone, then we are to accept someone. (Romans 15:7)
Along with our doctrinal statements, churches also tend to focus on their own organizational memberships. Again, whether or not someone shares membership in a certain church organization is not related to whether or not God has accepted someone in Jesus Christ, which, as I said before, is the only requirement for us to accept someone as a brother or sister in Christ. For some, organizational membership is also related to denomination. When we focus on a person’s denomination instead of their relationship with God in Christ, our disagreements lead to disunity.
Focusing on personal giftedness, service opportunities, or passions/concerns can also cause our disagreements to lead to disunity. All of us are gifted differently. All have different opportunities to serve and different passions and concerns. Paul continually warned his readers to consider others as more important than themselves, but in these areas, Christians often think their own giftedness, opportunities, or passions are more important. (This is often a problem with leaders who set a “vision” or “mission” for people who do not share their giftedness, opportunities, or passions.) When we focus on these differences, instead of focusing on God who gifts us differently and gives us different opportunities or passions, we tend to separate from one another.
So, disagreements can lead to disunity when we are not focused on God together. Even focusing on good things can lead to disunity. Good things are not God. We must learn to accept one another because God has accepted us in Jesus Christ. There is no other reason. Any other reason will lead to disunity.