N.T. Wright offers the conclusion in What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? that because justification by faith has to do with believers having the privilege and calling to sit at same table with each other, regardless of race or gender, the many debates that take place between denominations often serve as self-defeating. For example, one is not justified by faith because he believes in justification by faith or understands it correctly; one is justified by faith through the power of the gospel and the Spirit that assimilates one into a collective, Spirit-filled, renewed Abrahamic community. This brings up an interesting question that is very important to me and I often tackle with, unable to produce a coherent or acceptable answer: How should denominations, especially those which would be considered to be heterodox, suborhodox, or folk-denominational, interact with each other in the wider calling of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to be “one” Spirit filled body? More specifically, how can denominations reconcile their theological and stylistical differences – differences that often dictate how one lives his or her life and views his or her calling in the world – with a calling, centered around the covenantal doctrine of justification by faith, to not only work together for a greater good, but sit at the same table together?
I was brought up what you could consider, I suppose, evangelical. While Protestant, my parents never really had, at least not until a little later in my life, a denominational loyalty. However, as I grew up and my mother did her own searching within Christianity, Pentecostalism or charismatic Christianity, along with fundamentalism and a dispensationalist interpretation of prophecy, came to the heart of what I was taught, or at least exposed to. What came with this, unfortunately, was a big emphasis on the afterlife, a negative or dualistic view of creation that comes along with the doctrine of the rapture and other end time scenarios, and a devaluing, or even forgetfulness, of the resurrection.
I did not really take any interest in Christianity at all until I was around sixteen or seventeen years old, but by then I had a vocation to revaluate everything through Scripture and history, and as a result, came to question many of the beliefs, or at least in the way they were emphasized, that were taken for granted by my parents growing up, and a distaste for the style of worship or church-going, prayer, and study that is typical of charismatic Christianity. In other words, in addition to rethinking doctrine, I began to prefer the quietness and humility of prayer that characterizes other denominations and even Catholicism, in contrast to the high-strung energy typical of the charismatic environment. Moreover, for both psychological, ethichal, and theological reasons, speaking in tongues, falling over during worship, a huge emphasis on casting out demons, and the over all hyperness of the charismatic environment, began to bother me, to the point that the whole experience did anything but uplift me in my faith. Not to mention, with my eschatological preferences, being constantly told the world is about to end in a Left Behind fashion, or people are going to hell in a dualist fashion that makes little sense of resurrection, is quite disheartening, especially when there is little room to debate the subject. Maybe the fact I find the charismatic environment that my local church produces so uncomfortable is less evidence for my own convictions, but arrogance in opposition to the Spirit of God; this worries me. If you believe that may be the case, please keep me in your prayers.
The problem does not seem like a big one at all. If I don’t like the charismatic environment, why not just go to another church, right? Well, is that not the same attitude that causes the inter-denominational divisions that prevent one from sitting at the same table with some those who proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord?
These questions are enhanced when we consider other denominations. I recently finished a report for the Evangelical Alliance in the UK edited by Andrew Perriman, Faith, Health and Prosperity, which explores to what extent the Word-Faith movement differs from orthodox evangelicalism. One reason I found the topic interesting to explore is because in addition to Word-Faith teaching coming to the forefront on television (the programs of which my mother frequently watches, probably not for her own good), it is absorbing into most charismatic and Pentecostal churches; I see its traces in my family’s local, non-denominational charismatic Church. It makes one wonder how one can feel comfortable at the same table with one who may have major theological differences, or more specifically, become involved with and support his or her church.
What about, moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses? They usually keep their distance from evangelicals and evangelicals usually keep their distance from them. Even with their major theological differences (which when considered on the backdrop of most dispensationalist theology characteristic of the modern age, I suggest, is not far off), they are still a group, which professes Jesus Christ as Lord. How are evangelicals to maintain a oneness with such a group? How is one to feel comfortable eating at the same table with a Jehovah’s Witness?
I have taken a very simple question and coated it with details that perhaps are unneeded. But, unable to come up with my own explanation or solution, I would like to see what you think. How is one to, on the one hand, except the fact that he or she has a preference for one style or theologically characterized denomination of Christianity, and on the other, sit at the table with those who differ, for a greater good, for a calling to be “one body,” and more importantly, how will this all work out? How will sitting at the same table, in our culture, look, exactly? Equally important, to what extent should debates about theological doctrine function toward division? I mean, we cannot just allow people to believe whatever they want (the early Church Fathers combated groups who considered themselves Christians who were so far from orthodoxy that it was hard to tell if they were Christians at all). But at the same time how can we know when to draw the line when it comes to debate?
On a more personal level, how should I respond to the church my family attends? I want to be a part of it as a prophetic sign of the oneness of Christ’s body, but because of such stylistic and theological differences, the times I do attend usually just discourage me. I mean, what can I say, speaking in tongues, falling over in worship, and a huge emphasis on casting out demons is just not my cup of tea, both theologically and stylistically. But should that allow me to hop from one church to another, like I am switching from Coke to Pepsi while forgetting they are both soda?
I hope you understand what my questions are getting at, and if not, I can try to clarify my post.
I would like also to adress in more detail how debate should function between Christians with differences and to what degree it can be productive. For example, is it possible for me to debate with a charismatic Christian toward compromise (e.g. keeping speaking in tongues a private matter to avoid the awkwardness it creates for those who are unfamiliar or disagree with it or being more careful to not attribute everything seemingly negative that happens to the cause of demons)? However, my post seems pretty long as it is, and maybe cluttered with too many ideas, so perhaps this issue can be discussed in relation to what I have already posted.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Great questions to consider.
Something else to think about: as this energy crisis deepens (google “peak oil”), most American Christians (and I assume also in some spots of Europe) will no longer be able to drive so far to just the right church for them. Because we can drive we can drive tens of miles to where we want to worship, even when we live within one mile from three churches!
How will American Christians be able to cope with the end of easy-driving, and with it, the end of such radical church choice? We’ll HAVE to sit at the same table, or not at all.
God in the coming decades may be forcing this kind of interdenominational ecumenism and (dare I say it) Pentecost on us, whether we want it or not.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
This is something I’ve wrestled with (and will probably continue to wrestle with) for a while, but I think I’ve come to an answer that at least satisfies the dilemma in my own heart.
First of all, IMHO, denominationalism is a complete perversion of what Christ intended for His Church. I think it is an ugly, ugly thing.
Now then, the basic question seems to be, “How can denominations come together and work together (worship together?) despite their deep theological and practical differencesm.” There is also the question of, “How should I feel about switching churches because I don’t like the one I’m in?”
I’d like to address the latter question first. Americans are consumerists. Big time. Everything we approach we do so with that lens firmly set in place. I used to have a hard time with this when it came to “marketing” church. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are simply meeting the culture where its at. If you want to attract a consumerist society…you have to feed them what they are used to eating…you have to appeal to their senses (I realize that many people would disagree with that statement…but, frankly, I don’t care.) The question here though has to do with how a mature believer should feel about and act on such things. Because of the nature of the church in America I’d have to say it was perfectly normal to go for the switch, but you ultimately end up contributing to the problem. In my own case, I feel very blessed to be in a local church (non-denominational charismatic—I’m actually on staff there) that is very accepting on “non-essential issues.” I have a theological viewpoint very similar to that of Greg Boyd (i.e. open theism, christus victor, and an anti-dispensationalist eschatology). Most people in our body (including staff) don’t necessarily have those leanings, but that is a-okay. We can still worship together knowing that on the essentials…we are on the same page. Now I would argue that those things (open theism, christus victor, etc.) are extremely essential to the faith that has developed within my own heart, and I would love for everyone in that body to come to those same conclusions. For those beliefs reflect what I believe about God and in turn determine the way I go about certain things, but as a body…those things are not essential.
This takes me to the first question. I define the essentials as thus: 1. Jesus is God; 2. Jesus died for my (the world’s) sins; 3. Jesus is alive. Simple. To me, these beliefs are necessary for one to consider themselves Christians. This obviously eliminates Jehovah’s Witnesses from the list. I recognize that JW’s consider themselves to be Christians, but IMHO they are another religion that makes a claim that simply isn’t true.
When it comes to denominations laying down their differences and coming together, I honestly do not believe there is much hope for that on a grand scale. Afterall, they are separated because of those differences to begin with. It seems almost self-defeating to assume that they could do otherwise. However, I do believe that it can be done on an individual basis. It is easy for individuals to lay aside such differences, but an entire denomination is a different story.
One thing I long for (and that I believe I see happening before my eyes today) is the de-centralization of the Church. IMHO, such questions as the ones above did not really exist in the 1st century church. Sure, they had their differences of opinion about theological issues, but this did not stop them from associating with one another (at least most of the time) and it certainly didn’t cause them to switch churches (again…most of the time). The local church in those days was just that…a local community of believers. People gathered based on geography…not theology. When Paul wrote a letter he wrote it to the church at __________. I think (I pray) that a day is coming when this will be true once again. In fact, people in new-monastic intentional communities are already doing this.
In America we’ve got this idea that we need to build community within our churches. I think we need to be building church within our communities (wow…not to toot my own horn, but I need to write that one down). I believe this is the way Christ intended it to be.
in Him,
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Quote:
I disagree somewhat.
Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior – in the first century Jewish context, none of these are anthropological terms used to define Jesus’ divinity. So we should tread carefully when condemning Jehovah’s Witnesses as outside the boundries of Christianity, because they believe that Jesus is the risen Messiah.
When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, I am more lenient than most Christians, because the subject is somewhat ambiguous in the Bible and did not seem to be a huge concern for the first century Christians.
Obviously monotheism was and still is a huge concern, polytheism is to be rejected, and there is a good case to be made that the Trinity is a very good explanation for the Christology that emerges in the New Testament, but ultimately we must let God be God, and not constantly try to put him in a box. If one affirms that there is one God, YHWH, and that Jesus is the Messiah, but is uncomfortable with Trinitarianism for reasons based in an interpretation of the Bible or history, or simply uninterested in trying to make theological sense of the presence or absence of Jesus’ divinity and its relationship with the Father, I do not believe he should be condemned as unchristian and cut off from the common goal all denominations share (or should share).
I believe it is essential for one to believe in the gospel: Jesus, descended from the house of David, died for the sins of his people (by extension, if you like, the whole world) and on the third day rose from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures, and is therefore the Messiah, Lord of the whole world; Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the best of my knowledge, agree with all of this.
You said, moreover, believing “Jesus is alive” is essential. But in what sense? Marcus Borg, for example, believes Jesus is alive as a spiritual reality, but denies the bodily resurrection. I believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is absolutely essential to the Christian faith.
Also, one of my main concerns in my original post was not just theological doctrine, but stylistic practice (usually dictated by a particular theology). For example, much of the phenomena (e.g. speaking in tongues, falling over “in the Spirit”, and fantastical claims that go against reason and the boundaries of Scripture and history) that occur within charismatic churches make me feel uncomfortable, and conflict with my theological and ethnical worldview and spiritual preference. So most of the disagreements I have have less to do with doctrine in and of itself than how doctrine influences practice. In other words, for example, it is hard for me to worship as one body with most Pentecostals and charismatics because I prefer to worship in a different way, and disagree with the theological bases for some of the forms of worship they employ. How can I reconcile my personal preference with the wider calling to be one body?
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Regarding the Trinity/Christology. If Jesus is NOT God and we worship Him as such, should we not be pitied in the end? To me, this issue is as central to being called Christian as anything else. I won’t budge on that. Sorry.
Regarding the bodily resurrection, I’m with you. I think Paul states it as plainly as he can in 1 Cor. 15. Nonetheless, that is all but irrelevant to my #3. I’m not so quick to take a stance on what “sense” Jesus is alive. I’m content to simply settle for “Jesus is alive” because I know that He is at least that much.
My apologies if my previous post was a bit scatter-brained. I tend to be that way in writing sometimes. I have a terrible short term memory so I just write things as they pop up. If I don’t I’ll forget them. Sometimes I do in mid-sentence. It sucks.
I say that in response to your statement, “one of my main concerns in my original post was not just theological doctrine, but stylistic practice,” because I thought (at least I intended to) that’s what I was emphasizing. I tried to start with the theological and shift to the practical. For instance, my beliefs are different from most in my local church, but that does not stop us from doing things together, and how I would love for them to share those beliefs because of the practical implications they have had in my own life (prior to accepting open theism, christus victor, and an anti-dispensationalist eschatology I never felt like I truly loved anyone but my own family & friends). As far as the theology behind charismaticism, I believe it is solid (at least for the most part). There are people who go to the extreme in all things, but that is no reason to reject the thing altogether. That reminds me of one my favorite quotes: “Reaction to error usually produces error” (Bill Johnson - When Heaven Invades Earth).
Your statement, “for example, it is hard for me to worship as one body with most Pentecostals and charismatics because I prefer to worship in a different way, and disagree with the theological bases for some of the forms of worship they employ,” seems to say to me that it really does come down to theology for you. My advice is to find a non-denominational church like my own (of course I would say that) that tends to find balance in most things and is accepting of other non-essential POV’s.
Better yet…start your own church in your community.
Your question, “How can I reconcile my personal preference with the wider calling to be one body?”
Well, read about Jesus in Gethsemane and Philippians 2. He made sacrifices for the sake of others. In the end, I think the most important question to ask is, “Are you loving people like Jesus?”
in Him,
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Quote:
The belief in the coming of a Messiah never required the belief that he would be divine. One can put Jesus on the same level as God in terms of authority and direct to him kingly worship while at the same time not believing him to be divine (at least in the Trinitarian sense). In my mind, the Jehovah’s Witness whose heart is in the right place is as Christian as the Trinitarian, while maybe not as doctrinally correct.
Quote:
I believe the gifts of the Spirit are still relevant for Christians today, but need to be placed, first of all, within Jesus’ and the early church’s historical and eschatological context.
However, I believe miracles by their very nature are somewhat rare (or else there would not be so much sorrow and untimely death in the world), and that we are in a different position than the apostles. Moreover, most charismatic Christians attribute every little thing to either God when positive or the devil when negative, so that the magnificence of true miracles is watered down in significance.
The charismatic emphasis on healing poses an ethical problem for me as well. If one makes it seem as if God is spoiling his children and will heal or bless every faithful person, he leaves little room for the capacity for poverty and sickness to act as refinement and build up faith. If we make it sound like God wants to instantly pull us out of every bad situation, how will we ever learn from those situations?
More importantly, I have a problem with the charismatic interpretation of speaking in tongues. I believe this gift was given to the early church to enhance its ability to spread the gospel to people of foreign nations; it was a sign to unbelievers. More importantly, it was a symbol of restoration, a reversal of the confusion caused at Babel, and an embodiment of God creating a new humanity made up of Jews and Gentiles. Paul, moreover, lays out guidelines for how this gift is to be utilized. The significance of the gift of tongues and how it is to be utilized is almost completely ignored by charismatic Christians who believe speaking nonsensical gibberish is a gift from God.
By extension, I have a problem with reducing the worship of God to a personal experience that requires some sort of supernatural manifestation. I have heard reports of some Christians who are looking for diamonds in their churches because they believe God is manifesting his glory into physical form; the obvious result is greed. Some charismatic churches are hard to differentiate from voodoo gatherings. Of course, it differs from church to church, but the radicals have more or less the same theological (or experiential or eisegetical) basis as the moderates.
Maybe it is wrong for these things to bother me this much. Maybe I am subconsciously setting up a straw man and attempting to set it on fire rather than dealing with what actually goes on. I’m not sure.
Quote:
Maybe, but what I’m more worried about is how theology affects practice. For example, I have no problem with saying the gifts of the Spirit are relevant for the church today; I just do not like the idea of putting that to the forefront of church practice so that all people care about is a personal experience hardly differentiable from non-institutional spirituality or paganism rather than a collective calling rooted in the narratives of Scripture.
Quote:
How would you suggest I do that? Haha.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
"In my mind, the Jehovah’s Witness whose heart is in the right place is as Christian as the Trinitarian, while maybe not as doctrinally correct."
We’re just gonna have to disagree on that. I’d like to have your opinion on that one, but if Jesus is God then He should be worshiped as such. If He is not God and we worship Him then we are worshiping someone other than God. I don’t think He would like that very much.
I don’t want to get in a debate on tongues, but I do want to make a comment. You said, "I believe this gift was given to the early church to enhance its ability to spread the gospel to people of foreign nations; it was a sign to unbelievers."
I believe that as well, but I do not believe that was it’s only purpose. The references to tongues in the NT seem to speak of different things entirely. IMHO, there are four different functions to the gift of tongues (a sign to the non-believer, for interpretation, for edification, and for intercession).
I believe the primary purpose for three of them (a sign, interpretation, and edification) is transcendent praise to God. There was never any "teaching" in a message in tongues. There was tongues, followed by teaching/preaching.
"The significance of the gift of tongues and how it is to be utilized is almost completely ignored by charismatic Christians who believe speaking nonsensical gibberish is a gift from God."
I agree that the guidelines Paul gives for speaking in tongues in a public setting are largely ignored. That bothers me as it does you. However, I do believe that tongues as personal edification is a gift that is intended for all people to have that can be done anytime anywhere. All day, every day. I think 1 Cor. 14:1-5 sums it up quite well,
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified."
Paul says, "He who speaks in a tongues edifies himself," and, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues." Paul also says, "does not speak to men but to God," and "no one understands him." That would expalin why it sounds like gibberish to us.
"Maybe it is wrong for these things to bother me this much. Maybe I am
subconsciously setting up a straw man and attempting to set it on fire
rather than dealing with what actually goes on. I’m not sure."
I think your concerns are well grounded and that by and large the problems you have do take place to an alarming degree. Let it be known, however, that I don’t like those things either. I believe these gifts should be practiced within their prescribed order. However, for me, the bottom line is that they are for today. I’m not going to dismiss a wonderful gift from God simply because some people don’t know how to read their Bible—that would be equally wrong if not worse (remember the reaction to error thing). I can tell you also, that when something does come along in either my own experience or in those of others, I am not quick to form an opinion. I am very open to God doing a "new thing" (i.e. laughing or being slain in the spirit, etc.) I would rather err on the side of being open to such things and trusting His grace to be sufficient than to block it out and possibly miss out on something great.
"Maybe, but what I’m more worried about is how theology affects
practice. For example, I have no problem with saying the gifts of the
Spirit are relevant for the church today; I just do not like the idea
of putting that to the forefront of church practice so that all people
care about is a personal experience hardly differentiable from
non-institutional spirituality or paganism rather than a collective
calling rooted in the narratives of Scripture."
I’m with ya there. I think the thing that needs to be at the forefront is mimicing the self-sacrificial love of the crucified Savior. Unfortunately, that is the one thing that is least often discussed (*really* discussed). Greg Boyd makes an interesting observation in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation that throughout Church history people have been condemend, looked down upon, or killed for having views that are different from the mainline churches of their time, but that there has never been anyone on record being punished for not loving as Christ loved. That’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard.
"How would you suggest I do that? Haha."
LOL. That’s a good question. I wish I knew. Prayer & fasting would probably be a good place to start though. Maybe you could get ahold of some of the guys who’ve started new-monastic communities around the nation for some pointers. Check out Missio Dei and Old Growth for instance.
in Him,
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
That purpose is almost entirely ignored by Christians today.
What I’m worried about is the church replacing faith in God with the seeking out of some highly mystical, borderline occultic experience that is hardly unique to Christianity. It speaks to a psychological insufficiency some people are unknowingly trying to fix through the realm of the carnal or tangible. If all people want is to feel meaningful and powerful in the world through the outworking of a mystical experience (transubstantiation, being slain in the Spirit, laughing in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, freaking out during exorcism, and so on) than what is stopping them from perusing paganism, the occult, or voodoo or something?
I believe the Spirit of God can have a profound emotional impact, but it is easy to mistake the Spirit of God for our subconscious or instinctive desires – which we sometimes make into idols.
This is taken within the context of the absence of an interpreter. If one speaks in a language foreign to a congregation (e.g. Hebrew in the presence of Gentiles), he will be directing his prayer toward God, since no one else will understand what he is saying. That is why Paul tells the Corinthians not to speak in tongues unless someone can interpret.
The argument follows, “If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?” (1Co 14:7). This verse goes against those who speak nonsensically, like a cat walking across the keys of a piano, failing to produce a coherrent combination of notes to form an understandable song.
The solution is to speak intelligbly: “So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air” (1Co 14:9).
This is all within the context of human language: “There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me” (Co 14:10-11).
Paul then lays out the guidlines you agree many in the church ignore.
Anyway, that is how I interpret what Paul is saying.
Could anyone else comment on their view of speaking in tongues?
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
I enjoyed the original post, but the comments quickly degenerated into what the problem is to begin with: we start drawing lines around what we need to agree and disagree on in order to even sit at the same table. Why does one have to agree with one’s list of requirements and doctrinal points in order to even come "attend" a meeting? Agreeing or disagreeing with each other on doctrinal issues does not matter in this context - we do not get to decide who is and who is not "in the Body" and furthermore, being physically together does not "unite" the Body in such a way that it overcomes denominational lines.
A few years ago a guy named Frank Viola wrote a book titled Pagan Christianity, in which he explores many of those issues related to practices and supposed doctrine developed over time by the church. He raises some very real possibilities about how to accomodate each other’s differences in a home-based or family-based environment.
Ultimately, if the Body of Christ has evolved over the years to become an intellectual exercise of propositional statements, I do not want to be part of it.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
"Why does one have to agree with one’s list of requirements and
doctrinal points in order to even come "attend" a meeting? Agreeing or
disagreeing with each other on doctrinal issues does not matter in this
context…"
Indeed. Why do they? I don’t think we need to. But this is precisely the issue with the spirit of denominationalism.
I’ve only read snippets of Pagan Christianity so far, but from what I gather it’s a good read. Many who read the book will be tempted to toss aside some of the things that we do that we call Christian, but that was not the intent of the book. There is also a sequel of sorts called Reimagining Church that is supposed to be pretty good as well.
"Ultimately, if the Body of Christ has evolved over the years to become
an intellectual exercise of propositional statements, I do not want to
be part of it."
I understand such a feeling, but personally, I believe that notion to be a bit naive. Ultimately the Christian faith comes down to two things really: doxis (doctrine) and praxis (practice). At the foundation of the pre New Testament church were creeds, hymns, and poems that were chock full of propositional statements (many of these are actually found within the NT itself). Now the faith is not only these, but these and how they look lived out day to day (i.e. faith without works is dead). So the faith hasn’t evolved to an intellectual exercise of propositional statements…that is the way it has always been. The problem is when we separate those doctrines from the practice. It seems the two exist is this strange inseperable duality. You can’t have one without the other.
The debates as to which (if either) is more important than the other intrigue me. I have my ideas, but I’m not sure I know how to put them to paper just yet. I like to think of the two being two sides of the same coin. However, I also see that what you truly believe deep in your inner man is expressed through your actions, but at the same time your actions wind up solidifying your beliefs within you. It’s strange. It’s like question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Which comes first, right belief or right practice? It’s as if doxis and praxis are two inseperable sides of the same coin that was flipped with doxis facing up to begin with and then the coin continues to flip suspended in mid-air. Does that even make sense???
in Him,
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
I understand such a feeling, but personally, I believe that notion to be a bit naive.
I want to understand why you believe that. :) Naivete is the cornerstone of our faith in my opinion - Jesus himself even appealed to the necessity of a child-like attitude and innocence in approaching the conversation. Sophistry and complexity brings with it a level of arrogance that does not belong with Jesus; we become out of touch with what is really important, we end up "intellectualizing faith" - which in itself, it’s an oxymoron. I know because I was there once. I put in my years of Greek and prep for seminary. I came full circle back to the simple and back to the beginning.
As far as the doctrine/practice relationship goes, who decides what the propositional doctrinal statements should mean? You said many of them are found within the NT itself. Yes, that is true, yet often people insist in deconstructing them further in order to achieve some superior level of understanding. Why not settle for the word-by-word statements provided by the scripture rather than asking people, "yes, you say you believe this NT propositional statement, BUT what exactly do you mean by it?"
Not to prooftext, but someone recently pointed out this verse in this very context: "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You,
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things
from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father,
for so it seemed good in Your sight." Luke 10:21
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
"Naivete is the cornerstone of our faith in my opinion - Jesus himself
even appealed to the necessity of a child-like attitude and innocence
in approaching the conversation."
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. I have an idea, but I’m not sure. I don’t understand how Jesus appeal to the necessity of a child-like faith makes naivete the cornerstone of our faith. On the contrary, Paul said in Ephesians 2:20:
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."
Jesus is the cornerstone, not naivete, and not child-like faith. Jesus appeal to child-like faith is about three things humility (due to the child’s status in Hebrew culture), openness, and trust. Yes, there is an element of naivete within the latter two, but this is by no means the cornerstone of our faith. Further, Paul makes calls to maturity, being able to discern both good and evil, and rightly dividing the word of truth all throughout his epistles. In fact, he says,
"…until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the
Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the
fullness of Christ. Then
we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and
blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and
craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming."
Our child-like faith and naivete have little to nothing to do with our understanding (we are urged to gain in that) and everything to do with how we view ourselves and how we approach the King.
"Sophistry and complexity brings with it a level of arrogance that does
not belong with Jesus; we become out of touch with what is really
important, we end up "intellectualizing faith" - which in itself, it’s
an oxymoron. I know because I was there once. I put in my years of
Greek and prep for seminary. I came full circle back to the simple and
back to the beginning."
Same here (except I’m still pursuing seminary). I’ve a feeling I’ve come to many of the same conclusions you have. Much of Western Christianity is devoid of anything of even remotely valuable to the world. It’s a bit disgusting, really.
Let me give an example of something I think illustrates your last point. Most Christians assent to the concepts of God being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, right? As far as our doxis goes, that is really the important thing, that we affirm these fundamental truths. How we make sense of those truths isn’t nearly as important. For instance, Calvinists and Open Theists (I am an open theist) are incredibly diverse in the way they make sense of things. No matter what logical inconsistencies one group thinks they can find in the other and hold that omniscience does not make sense within the other’s framework, the truth still remains that the other group affirms God’s omniscience. That is the important thing, on that much we agree.
Something else, true unity is not being united by our beliefs, true unity is being united in spite of our differences. Paul said nothing of "Unity of the Word" but he did talk about "Unity of the Spirit."
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
See, you have created a false dichotomy for whatever reason. You are quoting a passage from Ephesians which has nothing to do with faith, where Paul is talking about the oneness of the household of God and the unity of Jews and gentiles in Christ, in order to try to demonstrate that my point about naivete was wrong. My point was not a theological statement, it was a statement in response to your "naive" response to my statements on the intellectualization of faith.
My point is not difficult to understand. Jesus has demanded of humanity to be humble as children in order to enter the Kingdom and unless one changes and becomes like little chidlren, he cannot enter the Kingdom. He never asked us to affirm truths of a New Testament that did not even exist while he was walking the earth. He simply asked of us to become like children. Easy to understand in both historical and cultural context; no seminary training needed, no education, no Hewbrew and Greek studies.
You can leave it at that - the context does not demand an interpretation other than literal - when you are stepping over and are attempting to tell me why "become like little children" has some sort of complex meaning associated with it that I am somehow missing, you are proving my very point.
By the way, I would like to know why you believe that "Ultimately the Christian faith comes down to two things really: doxis (doctrine) and praxis (practice)." What basis is there in the New Testament for this statement?
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
"You are quoting a passage from Ephesians which has nothing to do with faith, where Paul is talking about the oneness of the household of God and the unity of Jews and gentiles in Christ, in order to try to demonstrate that my point about naivete was wrong."
No, I simply pointed out that Christ is the cornerstone of our faith…not naivete (like you said)…to demonstrate that your point about naivete was wrong (because it is).
"My point was not a theological statement, it was a statement in
response to your "naive" response to my statements on the
intellectualization of faith."
No offense, but I think that’s nonsense. I realize you may not have been trying to make a "theological" statement, but you made a claim about something being the cornerstone of an entire system of faith. If that isn’t a "theological" statement, then I don’t know what is. If you don’t mean to make such a claim…then don’t. Find a different way to say it. For instance, "I think such naivete is essential to our call as Christians." Either way, I’d agree with you that it is within a certain context (approaching God with humility and trust) and not so much in others (understanding and discernment) simply because this is what the NT narrative seems to reveal on the subject.
"He never asked us to affirm truths of a New Testament that did not even
exist while he was walking the earth. He simply asked of us to become
like children. Easy to understand in both historical and cultural
context; no seminary training needed, no education, no Hewbrew and
Greek studies."
True enough. He didn’t ask "to affirm truths of a New Testament that did not even exist." Indeed, He did ask us "to become like children." I’d argue that such affirmations of truth claims wouldn’t have been relevant to a culture that had the Torah shoved down their throats from birth. They knew the truth claims (or at least they should have) and when they didn’t Jesus consistently pointed them back to the Scriptures. He certainly asked us "to become like children," but He also asked and commanded us of so much more. It is only easy to understand in the historical and cultural contexts if a person knows the history and the culture. Without those contexts, the passage has essentially no meaning to us. However, within the context, IMHO the meaning becomes quite clear. Today a person could read "become like little children" and think, "Man, I just got through playing a video game with a six year old who told me to lick his balls." Kids can be bratty and immature (as I’m sure they were back then), but the points of Jesus references to children were that they were the lowest of low in Hebrew society and that they were open and trusting. Simple.
"You can leave it at that - the context does not demand an interpretation other than literal - when you are stepping over and are attempting to tell me why "become
like little children" has some sort of complex meaning associated with
it that I am somehow missing, you are proving my very point. "
I’m not saying the context demands something other than a literal interpretation. All I’ve done is advocate a literal interpretation. However, the interpretive question "What does it mean to become like little children?" is one worthy of recognition. When Jesus said that, He had something in mind. He was conveying meaning. All I want is to know what that meaning was. I’m not telling you that this meaning is something complex. I believe the context tells us exactly what that meaining was. This meaning is quite simple to find and it is itself quite simple. There is no complexity.
"I would like to know why you believe that "Ultimately the Christian
faith comes down to two things really: doxis (doctrine) and praxis
(practice)." What basis is there in the New Testament for this
statement?"
Is this not true for any worldview? Is it not fundamentally true? Ultimately they come down to two things: how you act and what you believe (i.e. what you do and why you do it). Even if one were to argue (as some conservative evangelicals would) that one of the things that sets Christianityapart is that you don’t "do" anything (it’s all about grace), they still abide by that truth.
Q: "What do you do?"
A: "Nothing."
Q: "Why don’t you do anything?"
A: "Because we don’t believe we have to."
Also, I remember demonstrating (at least trying to) that the two were really two sides of the same coin, that the two only seem to be inextricably intertwined. This is not a practice in biblical exegesis. It is purely philosophical.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
One more comment on this and I’ll leave it alone since this is not really going anywhere and I do not find this dialogue beneficial at all.
The exchange illustrates the irony of spelling out intellectual issues which separate us rather than focusing on the words of the scripture which unite us …something you appealed to several times. Example:
I say: Jesus encouraged us all to become like little children.
You say: Yes but a 6 year old told me to lick his balls, plus kids can be bratty.
WTF? Who is writing nonsense?
Last point: to put Christianity into some box that’s labeled "doctrine and practice" is greatly obtuse and misguided. Christianity should not be viewed as some specimen to be disected - that is what leads to this extreme denominationalism. Our faith is dynamic, organic, culturally and socially relevant…it’s not subject to what guys in black robes say about it. AGAIN, salvation (whatever it may be) is not found in some set of intellectual or doctrinal statements, otherwise we would have no need for Christ or for faith.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
For a long time I have hated peanut butter. I like peanuts for some reason, but not peanut butter; I simply will not go near it. Even the smell bothers me. If I were invited to someone’s house for lunch, and the only meal they served as peanut butter and jelly, I’d be in a pretty bad situation. It would not be that I did not like the people I was eating lunch with, but that their tastes would make me very uncomfortable. As a result, the entire experience would be sort of strained.
This is the same problem I have when it comes with attending denominations I disagree with. It is not that I dislike the people and have disrespect for their opinions, but that the whole situation makes me feel very uncomfortable. Attending a church with an atmosphere I disagree with or do not prefer, for me, is like the uncomfortable feeling of attending a lunch with only one meal to choose from, where even if you choose not to eat, the smell still enters your nostrils; where even if you bring your own meal, you are still exposed to the rest of what is on the table.
The problem is, using my previous analogy, it is hard to separate the meal from the fellowship of the table. I have my particular way of worshipping, and certain denominations have their way of worshipping, so if I attend a denomination that conflicts with my own views, the relationship and experience becomes strained. When looked at from this perspective, at least for me, it is hard to find a solution. How can we feel comfortable worshipping together when we each have our worship (style or theologically motivated) preference? For example, how can a Baptist learn to enjoy attending a Pentecostal church service and vice versa.
Maybe I’m just picky with church like I am with food and need to grow up!
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
First of all, that was a great analogy. BTW, my wife is the same way about peanuts and peanut butter.
"How can we feel comfortable worshipping together when we each have our worship (style or theologically motivated) preference? For example, how can a Baptist learn to enjoy attending a Pentecostal church service and vice versa."
I think this just goes to further the consumerist mentality we have about church and our fundamental understanding of church to begin with. "I don’t like the flavor so I’ll just eat something else." "I don’t like your service so I’ll take my money somewhere else."
With that being said, I completely agree with you. I’m sentimental to what your are feeling. If I moved to a new town and I had a choice between a charismatic church and a SBC church I’d probably choose the charismatic church based solely on my theological leanings (I say probably because God may tell me otherwise and I would rather obey than be comfortable). On the contrary, if I was in a town with only an SBC I might just go ahead and attend that church.
At the same time, perhaps this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what is church. Like I said before, I long for the day that we gather based on geography rather than doctrine. With that understanding of church I might not attend either of those churches in town because I might rather start something within my community.
But back to the comfort thing. I have a friend that attends a church that he doesn’t agree with theologically (he is a charismatic in an SBC church) simply because he believes that is where God has called him. He may have to suppress what he believes and practices at times, but he does so for the sake of others. I think that’s a beautiful thing. I think it looks like Christ.
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
What’o you know! Great minds think alike.
Maybe church has become too organized (or in some cases disorganized) to the point that it is no longer about doing church but going to church. This could be solved, perhaps, by reverting to a smaller, more home-structured system of doing things. For example, the main problem with a Baptist going to a Pentecostal church is not just that he encounters beliefs that are foreign to him, but an entirely different structure and system of practice. If it were as simple as a Baptist, a Pentecostal, and maybe a Catholic going out together to a café or something to discuss their beliefs and missional goals, or meeting at a house to share opinions, music and books, and pray and worship together, it would be much easier to maintain unity and edification.
What is an SBC church?
I think I am at a crossroad divided between the part of me that wants to feed and edify my personal convictions and preferences by attending only churches in which I feel comfortable, and the part of me that wants to be a part of the churches with which I share major differences and feel uncomfortable with as a prophetic sign of the oneness of the body of Christ. Sometimes when I attend my local charismatic church I just feel more discouraged than it is worth, but when I’m absent I feel guilty that I am setting a bad example. I think in the end I will just to pray that God will lead me in the right direction and help me to better tolerate (that seems like a poor word choice) or understand denominational or theological differences so the churches that they characterize will no longer make me feel uncomfortable. I do believe, however, that if there were more room for casual, warm-hearted debate between church members and pastors, it would be much easier.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
SBC = Southern Baptist Convention
Delighting in Assertions
The question is posed, "Why does one have to agree with one’s list of requirements and doctrinal points in order to even come "attend" a meeting?"
Well, because being part of the Body of Christ is not merely a lovefest of opinions where we all share how we feeeeeel about things. Rather, Christianity is an ideological Body where the members are SUPPOSED to share the same basic ideas. If just anyone & every one came up saying, "Well maybe Jesus wasn’t really God" or "Maybe Jesus already came back in AD70" — then there would be nothing but chaos. I think some postmodernistic individuals actually thrive on vague ideas where nothing is settled.
If a person doesn’t like propositional statements & thinks such are more or less a waste of time & that person would rather not be part of a Christianity like that, perhaps I can point them to what Martin Luther said:
Thus I agree with Luther, for a person not to delight in assertions (propositional statements) may indicate such a person isn’t really a Christian — since the Bible is one huge assertion — that there is a God & that He has this elaborate plan to glorify Himself.
If a person does not delight in assertions of the Bible then perhaps they are no part of Christian but merely socialistic philosophers wearing the sheen of "Christianity".
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: Delighting in Assertions
Ouch!! I’m not sure I would go so far as to call them non-Christian, but perhaps a slightly confused Christian.
Re: Delighting in Assertions
You have no idea how relieved I am to hear that I am "in!"
Re: Delighting in Assertions
There is some truth to this as well:
I think we should differentiate between debates and statements within the church about non-basics (e.g. free will vs. predestination) and debates and statements between Christianity and the outside world about the fundamentals of the faith: Jesus is the risen Messiah, Lord of the world. After all, Christianity is not Christianity without the Christ. Let’s hope we all do not go off in, for example, John Shelby Spong’s dirrection.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
I have been thinking about the discussion attached to this post (and watching it grow); and all the while I’ve just been wanting to say don’t confuse unity with homogeneity. Unity in Christ is something to recognize, not something to achieve. If we recognize others as part of the body of Christ and receive them - we express this unity, if we shun and reject them - we deny it.
We do not have to meet under the same roof every week to be one in Christ. To argue for that is to argue for a homogenous church - and to stamp out the rich diversity in Christ (culture, worship styles, theology), or if not to stamp it out, to restrict one’s unique style of expression to one Sunday a month, or a few minutes each service. Such unity is just another form of cultural imperialism.
The problem with denomonationlism is not that people have differing faith traditions, but rather that it grews out of animosity. However, there can be unity within diversity - unity of heart. I would suggest, rather than staying at a church where you feel discouraged - find one where you can truly worship and then become a bridge builder. Hold interfaith events. Collaberate on interfaith projects. And above all teach and affirm at all times your unity in Christ. People will get the message.
http://mschellman.blogspot.com
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Thank you for your response. I think you made some very good points I had not yet considered.
Could you elaborate on the bridge building idea? Can you give some more specific examples? My family church is not extremely organized (i.e. it does not hold interfaith events or projects and so on), so I’m not exactly sure in what way I could get the bridge building started. I really want to be involved, but getting started seems to be the hard part.
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
A few things that have taken place in my own town:
1. The Russellville Ministerial Association - I’m not exactly sure what it is that they do, but one of our assoc. pastors is heavily involved with it. One thing they do is have a daily radio segment (a couple of minutes) in the morning with an encouraging message. They probably oversee things like inter-congregational/denominational service projects as well.
2. My senior pastor and several other senior pastors in town get together for breakfast every week to talk and pray for each other.
3. Some of the youth pastors get together monthly to do the same thing.
4. The youth has what we call “Seek Week.” Once a month during the school year some of they youth groups in town meet at different churches (on a rotation) with a gospel message presented by that churches youth pastor. The idea is to bring your un-believer friends (hence the “seek”).
5. We also do service projects with other churches. We do this thing called “Thanks-4-Giving.” We take a day to clean-up schools, and the like around town. We also invite other churches to be involved.
6. One of my favorite things takes place around every Thanksgiving. There is a local mission called “Main Street Mission” in our town. They provide food and clothes to thousands of people each year (all year). But to make sure that some less fortunate people get to have a decent Thanksgiving we fill boxes with all the stuff to make a dinner and load up a giant truck with the boxes. Then the mission makes all the deliveries. It’s alot of fun.
Anyway, these are just some ideas that are great for establishing connections. You’ll find early on that many many people are an alarming amount of ministers are not willing to cross denominational lines for such things. It’s really very sad. However, over time they should come around.
in Him,
>>zack
Re: One body and the problem of denominations
Mike, that is very well said. Little can be added to your insight.