Local or Universal?
I wrote the post “Local or Universal?” about three years ago. This post (sorta) goes along with my previous post “Immediate Membership.” I’d love to hear your thoughts about this.
—————————————–
I rarely talk about the “local church” as opposed to the “universal church”. I do not think these are valid distinctions, because I do not believe that Scripture makes such a distinction (more about that later). So, how do I distinguish between the “local church” and the “universal church”? I don’t. There is simply the church. This topic came up recently during break in one of my seminars. I was excited to hear another student (you know who you are) voicing my concerns and beliefs about the local/universal distinction.
The “local church” is usually defined as that group of believers that are somehow connected to one another. Perhaps this connection is made through joint membership (i.e. their name on a role), or a covenant (i.e. everyone agrees with a certain statement), or regular attendance at a certain location at a certain time.
The “universal church” is usually defined as all believers of all time. This is sometimes viewed as an “eschatological” (that is, end times) reality, but not a current reality.
Sometimes, these distinctions (“local” and “universal”) are combined with the distinctions of “visible” and “invisible”. Sometimes these two groups of distinctions are separate.
When we read Scripture with this understanding of “local church” and “universal church” in our “hermeneutical lens” (that is, the presuppositions through which we read Scripture), we often have to do textual gymnastics to understand what the author is trying to say.
For example, many who hold to a “local church” also understand baptism as the ordinance of entrance into the local church – whether believer’s baptism or infant baptism. Thus, when they read a passage such as 1 Corinthians 12:13 (“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”), they must see this as entrance into the “universal church” not the “local church”. Why? Because this verse is talking about Spirit baptism, not water baptism. So, it cannot be talking about the “local church”.
However, throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul is talking to and about a “local” group of believers. It is a group of believers in Corinth who are “not lacking in any spiritual gift” (1 Cor 1:7) and should have “no divisions” (1 Cor 1:10). It is this same local group that must deal with an immoral person among them (1 Cor 5:4-5). This same group of believers in Corinth needs to learn how to deal with brothers or sisters who disagree with others about meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8-10). This is the same “local” group who is having problems with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20-22). Finally, it is to this same group in Corinth that Paul begins teaching about spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12).
Each member of this “local church” has been given a gift by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of others (1 Cor 12:4-11). This is the group of believers who are members of one another and members of Christ (1 Cor 12:12). This group obviously knows one another in order to recognize one another as members of the body and recognize each one’s function (i.e. “ear”, “eye”, “foot”, “hand” – 1 Cor 12:14-21). God has placed each of them together according to his will and his purposes (1 Cor 12:18).
Therefore, in order to make 1 Corinthians 12:13 fit into a “local church” and “universal church” distinction, we have to take it out of its context.
But, what happens if we recognize that Scripture does not make a distinction between the “local church” and the “universal church”? What happens if we recognize that at the moment that we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit we immediately become “members” with all believers with whom God brings us into contact? What happens if we accept responsibility for all of our brothers and sisters that God brings into our lives? Suddenly, we do not have to take this Scripture out of context. In fact, it makes perfect sense within its context. (This is not the only example, just one from a passage that I’ve read recently.)
Does this mean that we should not meet regularly with certain believers? Certainly not. It seems that believers did meet together in different venues and perhaps even in different groups. However, it does mean that we should recognize our relationship with one another not based upon man-made regulations, but upon God’s choosing – For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…
Does this mean that I am responsible for the believer on the other side of the world whom I have never met? Certainly not. But, it does mean that I am responsible for the way that I relate to the believer across the street, or across the hall, since God has brought me into contact with that person. If God desires for me or you to interact with this person, then God will bring us together – God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose…
It seems to me that the “local church” and “universal church” distinctions adds very little to our biblical understanding of God or of the church. Instead, it seems to divide the church into little groups that feel that they are maintaining unity in the body of Christ as long as they are united withing their “local church”. Meanwhile, it also allows believers to ignore the “one-anothers” of Scripture if the “one-another” does not “belong” to their “local church”.
This does not mean that I am “against” covenants or “against” a group of believers organizing together with a membership. I think that both of these things can be good. However, I also recognize that both covenants and organizations with membership can lead to exclusivism and isolationism, neither of which are characteristic of the church in Scripture.
Can I be wrong about this? Yep. Does it concern me that many believers do not agree with me? Yes, it does. Am I open to hearing different opinions? Yes. Do I welcome disagreements here on this blog? Yes, feel free to disagree, as long as you don’t mind your opinion being questioned as well.
Theological Differences
Paul had a weird way of handling theological differences:
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind… So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding… Therefore accept one another as Christ has accepted you, for the glory of God. (Romans 14:1-15:7)
What was he thinking? If we love and accept and upbuild and have peace with one another, how we will know who’s right and who’s wrong?
Missing the Target
Our target is to be like Christ. Right? That’s what Paul says:
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ… (Ephesians 4:13 ESV)
Imagine that all of your beliefs, traditions, practices, everything were rolled up into one score and placed on a target (like a dart board) in relation to your distance and direction from being “like Christ.” Obviously, no one would hit the bulls eye.
Now, imagine that other people’s “mark” were placed on the target (like other darts on the dart board) in relation to their distance and direction from being “like Christ.”
Would we be more comfortable with those who scored closer to us, or to those who scored closer to being “like Christ” but on the other side of the target from us?
If we can figure out why most are more comfortable with others who are closer to them instead of others who are closer to Christ, we may understand why we don’t live in and demonstrate the unity that we have in Christ.
What do you think?
Labels, Adjectives, and Division
Three year ago, I wrote a post called “Labels, Adjectives, and Division.” I was just beginning to study and consider how much the church is divided and fractured in the way we live. We are united in Christ, but we fail to live in that unity.
————————————————–
Labels, Adjectives, and Division
Assemblies of God church… Lutheran church… Baptist church… Presbyterian church… Methodist church… Anglican church… Catholic church…
Denominational church… nondenominational church…
Evangelical church… Liberal church… Orthodox church… Conservative church… Emerging church… Missional church…
Mega-church… house church… seeker church… simple church… cell church…
Traditional church… Progressive church… Cutting-edge church… Alternative worship church…
I have read that these labels are very important. The labels and adjectives tell people something about the people that form that particular church. But, to whom are these labels and adjectives meaningful?
Are the labels meaningful for nonbelievers? For the most part, no. There are some people who do not follow Jesus Christ, but who nevertheless know the difference between the various flavors of the many Christian denominations. Some unbelievers probably even know the slight differences between the various types of Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, etc.
But, primarily, these labels and adjectives are used to distinguish one type of Christian from another type of Christian using terms and descriptions that are only meaningful to other Christians. Thus, these labels and adjectives tend to divide God’s family into various groups.
When people use these labels (Please, notice that I said “when”) to exclude brothers and sisters because they do not fit the “label”, then those people are being divisive and are not maintaining the unity of the family of God. Usually, this occurs because people want to congregate with those who are like them. This is not scriptural. We are part of the body of Christ with everyone who has been indwelled with the Spirit of God, whether or not they look like us, talk like us, smell like us, think like us, do like us, etc.
Excluding people because of labels also removes the responsibility and privilege of discipleship from believers. Instead of accepting others who are different from us (like Jesus accepted us) and teaching them how to walk with our Master, we exclude them from fellowship. Yes, discipleship can be difficult and messy this way. But, is anything else really discipleship?
Look at the variety of people that Jesus called disciples: fishermen, a tax collector, a zealot, a friend of the high priest, a thief, even women… unclean women… prostitutes. Jesus welcomed them and encouraged them to follow him. What would have happened if Jesus had excluded people based on labels? He would have ended up with a group of Pharisees following him… and the Pharisees would have been very pleased with this.
The next time you hear a follow of Christ referred to by a label, remember that the person is your brother or sister. You are part of the family of God with them. You need that person and that person needs you. Yes, teach them… but also, listen to them. You may find that God wants to use that person – the person that you might intend to exclude – in order to help you grow closer to him.
Watch out for those who cause divisions
When writing to Christians in Rome, Paul concluded by sending his greetings to several groups meeting throughout the city (Romans 16). Then, he sends this warning:
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)
I think that many Christians today live by this warning, as long as they can define what Paul meant by “doctrine that you have been taught.”
In fact, many people come up with different levels of doctrine and use those levels to determine levels of fellowship. I don’t think this is what Paul had in mind here at all.
I guess my question is this: Given the importance of unity throughout Scripture and without naming particular doctrines (teachings), how do we decide which teachings to divide over?
They Can’t Understand Our Division
One of the things that the Ethiopian that I talked to could not understand is the amount of division among the church in America and the Western world.
I told them that some neighbors who are part of different churches have very little or even no fellowship with one another. And they just shook their heads… they couldn’t understand it.
I told them that church buildings might be located directly beside or across the street from one another, but the people who meet in each building may have very little or no interaction with one another. And they just shook their heads… they couldn’t understand it.
I told them that churches in the same city and often of the same denomination will not work together to proclaim the gospel and serve the people of their community. And they just shook their heads… they couldn’t understand it.
Why do we accept this kind of division in the body of Christ?
Unity Begins with Christ in Me
Dan (from “The Ekklesia in Southern Maine“) wrote an excellent post called “Unity in My Terms.” Dan describes how easy it is to seek unity on our own terms, instead of accepting people as they are.
But, as good as Dan’s post is (and it is good – read it), his wife Stephanie (from “Dead and Domestic“) stole the show with her comment on Dan’s post. Here is part of the comment:
If we’re going to BE the Church, then we have to tear down the walls we’ve built. We have to wash the bitter taste from our mouths and LOVE our brothers and sisters regardless of our beliefs or interpretations of scripture. Our SOLE focus should be Christ and our goal should be growing in Christ together.
So, according to Stephanie (and I agree), the picture that I’ve attached to this post does not show unity as Scripture describes it. Instead, it shows people finding unity on their own – linking hands with one another. To show true unity, we would need a picture of everyone holding tightly to Jesus Christ and Him alone.
Connection between love and unity
Joel at “The Double Edged Sword” continues his series on unity in his post “Gathering in Unity: Part 3.” One paragraph of this post is one of the best things I’ve read on the relationship between love and unity:
I believe part of our error has been we see love as weak. We think to love will surely make us a push-over. If we all only love, who will stand for what is right? Who will defend God’s end of things? Who will come against the scores of error and false teachings that are within the so-called “church”? I used to feel that it was my role in all circumstances. I’m learning that it is, in fact, not. I somehow felt like I had to seek out error, expose it and pass it on to everyone that I came into contact with (just peruse 50% of my older articles written over the past three or four years). In the midst of this season, I realized something that really changed my view. It’s the simple fact that I can easily judge and condemn, even “righteously” – it does not take much effort and absolutely no restraint. I did it for years. It comes “natural” to me. Error abounds in the Body and it only takes a few seconds to sit down and find a “ministry” to criticize and find fault with. Even a non-Believer with the ability to only read the Bible could do it properly. It is being loving, forgiving, patient and tenderhearted that requires patience, self-control and determination, for me.
I think Joel is on the right track… what do you think?
Last call: Toward a Bigger Church Contest Reminder
A few weeks ago, in my post “New Contest: Toward a Bigger Church,” I introduced a new contest that I’m running on my blog.
The purpose of this contest is to answer the following question: How do we reach across the man-made boundaries that are currently keeping the church “small�
If you would like to take part in this contest, send me an email at aknox@sebts.edu explaining how you would reach across man-made boundaries in order demonstrate and maintain relational unity with other brothers and sisters in Christ. You can write about actual experiences that you’ve had, or you can write about suggestions to help the church move toward relational unity.
I will accept email contest entries through TODAY, Monday, April 18, 2010. The person who writes the winning entry will receive a free copy of Armstrong’s book Your Church is Too Small.
Unity a ‘first tier’ doctrine?
You’ve probably heard the concept of the multilevel (or tiers) of doctrines. Generally, depending upon who is talking or writing about this, there are two or three tiers of doctrines. The first tier typically separates believers (Christians) from nonbelievers (non-Christians). The second and/or third tiers then separate believers from one another, usually determining whether or not the person talking/speaking feels it necessary to relate to someone who differs from him/her.
In other words, two people who both agree on the ‘first tier’ of doctrines would consider each other believers, but they would not find it necessary to fellowship, serve, meet, whatever together if they disagreed on second and/or third tier doctrines.
I think there is a huge problem with this multi-tier view of Christianity. The problem is that unity is a ‘first tier’ doctrine. What do I mean? Look at this passage from Titus:
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11 ESV)
According to Paul, a person who divides from brothers and sisters should be warned twice. If the person still remains divisive, then the church should separate from him. In other words, “divisiveness” is a reason supposing that someone is NOT a brother or sister in Christ.
In Scripture, there are very, very few reasons given for one believer to separate from another believer. This separation is the same as refusing to recognize someone as a brother or sister in Christ. Thus, “divisiveness” is a first-tier doctrine that is placed on the same level as teaching a false gospel, practicing gross immorality, and refusing to work to support yourself and others (yes, this is a ‘first tier’ doctrine also).
What does this mean? It means that just as it is impossible for someone to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ and be indwelled by the Holy Spirit and continue in gross, unrepentant immorality, it is also impossible for a believer to divide himself or herself from brother or sisters based on disagreements (i.e., in Titus, Paul describes these as “controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels”… we have plenty of those, don’t we?).
The various ‘tiers’ only provide us reasons and justifications for dividing from others who we still consider to be Christians. Thus, they allow us to verbally acknowledge someone as a child of God without accepting them as a brother or sister in Christ. This is a concept that is completely antithetical to the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is, then, in fact, only one ‘tier’… if you want to call it that. Either someone is or is not a brother or sister in Christ. If someone is a brother or sister in Christ, then we MUST treat that person as a brother or sister in Christ, regardless of disagreements. Otherwise, WE are the ones being divisive, and the church should seek to divide themselves from us.