Preserving Some Truth

"But it also revealed that though we’ve awakened to the deficiencies in the separation paradigm of the past, we do not yet have another paradigm to adopt in its place."

Paradigms are nice. Through the help of a local OPC pastor, I am memorizing again my Greek paradigms. But William D. Mounce's, Basics of Biblical Greek (2009), is up-to-date and more helpful for me in 2011 than going back to my early 1990s paradigms.

It is good to evaluate what and where the fundamentals are under attack in 2011, which leaders and movements attract us because of their building us up in these fundamentals, and which leaders and movements are systematically seeking to tear the fabric of the faith down in our country.

I agree, Aaron.

Can I encourage the pastors on SI to do something? Get together locally with the pastors of churches in your area to work some of this stuff out. This sounds like it was an awesome conference but at conferences like these, you are talking about these issues with men who you don't see unless you are at one of these national meetings. You will learn to work better with the men in your area by actually meeting with them.

Today, I particpated in a meeting in our area that was attended by Pastors that spanned the spectrums of fundamentalism. The subject of unity was a big part of what was shared. I left that meeting encouraged in the Lord.

I agree that it is widely misunderstood, although I wouldn't state it exactly the way Aaron does.

But note that the fulfillment of Jn 17 is the responsibility of the Father. He is the one petitioned, not the disciples, and he is the only one with the power to accomplish the task, given the ongoing issues the disciples have with the flesh. When redemption is complete, the prayer will be answered.

That isn't to say that we should give no thought to rightly relating ourselves to brethren, as you point out with respect to other passages. But even there, the unity is a state that exists more than a command to be fulfilled, as I recall.

But some of the unity must be visible before the world, or it will not fulfill the vision of Christ that the world will believe because of that unity (v. 21) and know because of that unity (v. 23). I think it might be safer to say that it need not be "institutional". I don't have to be in your association or denomination or club, but I must acknowledge and act as though other believers (as defined in Scripture) are actually believers, rather than make them pariahs because of some cultural differences.

Furthermore, the picture the NT gives me in a cumulative sense is not that one little assembly is all you need. Rather we find an inter-connectedness and mutual dependency, with some figures having more wide-reaching authority, apostles and others (like Timothy and Titus). I would say instructions on how to treat fellow Christians, should be followed inside and outside of what today we label a church.

(Incidentally, how can the Rom. 16 passage really apply to the church at large if its focused to just one church, too? I think we have to be careful in couching directives in the epistles as applicable only to the believers in a local assembly.)

Thanks for the discussion, it is helpful to think through these things and get this written down.

This would be an interesting discussion, though probably for another thread. Do you not see a transition period into this dispensation? If you are expecting the leadership functions to continue beyond Acts, are you also a non-cessationist expecting all spiritual gifts to continue as well?

Thanks, CPHurst, Let me come back at you a bit here, hopefully with grace and tact, because I think this is important, and I welcome your response.

1. Scripture unequivocally commands separation from apostates and false teachers (Romans 16:17-18). I think Doran is right that Romans 16:17-18 apply to truth with eternal ramifications.

2. Scripture unequivocally commands separation from believers who disobey the apostolic tradition (2 Thess 3).

Note: Neither passage is open-ended, applying to whatever personal preferences or convictions a person might have. There are clear lines in each passage. It is true that some want to apply 2 Thess 3 out three or four or five times. I reject that. But it seems to me that the principle is explicitly clear.

3. When someone fails to obey #1, then #2 comes into play.

I think “secondary separation” is a misnomer. In the above scenario, I am separating from the person in #2 because of the disobedience of person #2. That is not secondary. It is primary.

So let’s take your example (Piper/Warren/people I think I should hold at bay) though I am not comfortable with it for a number of reasons.

1. I think what you describe is not secondary, but tertiary, and I am uncomfortable with that.

2. I think it depends on the reason why you think he should be held at bay. I may not fellowship with someone over practical, theological, or philosophical reasons that are outside the bounds of Romans 16 or 2 Thessalonians 3.

3. If Warren has failed to obey the biblical commands to separate from false teachers or apostates, then Piper should separate from him. If Piper doesn’t, then Piper has clearly disobeyed the apostolic tradition in Romans 16:17-18.

4 Now the question is how do we respond to people who fail to follow clearly revealed apostolic teaching (e.g., #3)?

I would like to see your response to the scenario laid out in this way. If you think the scenario is wrong or misguided, I welcome correction on it. How you would answer #4.

Personally, I don’t think I would have Grudem because I think (1) he causes sufficient confusion so as not to be helpful, and (2) I think there are people who are more accurate who don’t have the baggage. I don’t think you should have Grudem for the same reasons. But what will I do if you have Grudem? The answer is nothing because you and I have no fellowship anyway. We have no meaningful unity so far as I can see. It’s not perjorative. It’s just the way it is.

What does unity mean if it involves Wayne Grudem and me? Is the world really helped by the type of “unity” that is displayed by Wayne Grudem and me? I can’t see how. For unity to be seen, it must actually be seen. Wayne Grudem and I have no kind of way to have any unity. I am not against Grudem. I don’t know him. I think he is wrong on the prophecy thing, and I am not alone in that. I have recommended his Systematic Theology to people because I think it is a helpful volume. But that hardly seems to me to be the kind of unity John 17 is talking about.

I agree with Bob Hayden that Grudem is not a threat and far from it. I would have him preach in my church or do chapel in my Bible college or seminary. But I think there would be an understanding of what he might not speak on:) I am sure he would be respectful to that and thus we could join together.

Larry, here is my response:

1. I agree with the conclusion of #1 so we are agreed on that.

2. I do not see this passage as contextually related to the issue. The context is dealing with the return of Christ. Paul is urging Timothy to "keep away" from those who are "idle" in waiting for Christs return because this idleness "is not in accord with the tradition you received from us (2 Thess. 3:6 - ESV)." The "tradition" that Timothy had received was that of the teaching of working while waiting for Christs return. The tradition Paul speaks of here does not point to the core/central doctrines of the faith that Paul had spoken of elsewhere in the Pastorals.

NOTE: if we disagree on the meaning of this passage then we might have a hard time on the whole issue - or at least some of it.

3. Can you supply some other verses besides 2 Thess. 3 that we could both agree on being contextually speak to 2nd degree separation?

My Example:

1. If we dont agree on the interpretation of 2 Thess. 3 then my response might be meaningless.

2. The issue of how to deal with Piper on Warren (assuming Warren deals with lets say Catholics) is that how far do you take it?

3. Do you see a secondary separation in Scripture? I think I would be ok with saying there is one kind of separation that has two parts and both are equally important. However, if I dont agree with your understanding of 2 Thess. 3 then we might be at an impasse here.

4. As far as Piper and Warren (or anyone else for that matter) is concerned then I think it depends on what circle of fellowship that person has with someone whom I would not fellowship with. If they speak at a conference together then I would be fine with that but if he were to have a liberal or catholic preach in his pulpit and Piper did not break fellowship with him then I would be having a strong conversation with him and if the disagreement could not be resolved then we would have to break ties.

NOTE: if this is example is tertiary then what is secondary separation? From what you say there is no secondary separation unless i missed something.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of how to handle the Manhattan Declaration.

Grudem issue:

1. If we were local how would you relate to me if I had Grudem in?

2. I think saying that since Grudem is not near you and you dont know him therefore you are not unified is missing some of the point. Imagine you were local to each other. Ask yourself if you two are holding forth and proclaiming the same Gospel?

John 17 issue:

Can you show me where I am wrong in my understanding and application on this passage? I am open to correction. I wish I could have been at this conference and I am looking forward to listening to the audio which I am sure will bring more discussion:)

Chip, this passage is dealing with separating from someone who directly denies (first degree separation) the incarnation of Christ (an Antichrist). This does not speak to how I should treat someone else who does allow this kind of person into their house/church. I dont know of anyone who would allow this kind of person into their fellowship or church period that would warrant me from breaking fellowship with them. This would be such a small minority of people whom most of us will not come in contact with or have to exercise this injunction. If on the off chance I had a friend who did allow this kind of person into their church to speak then I would separate from them if they did not denounce their action. I think it would be safe to say that the kind of people we are talking about separating from do not fit this bill.

NOTE: I know people who use this verse to say that they will not allow Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons into their house when they come to the door even to witness to them. This is another misinterpretation of this passage. 2 John is written with the house church in mind. This would mean there was much more room for open discussion among all the attendees and thus they were to keep these antichrists out - and for good reason. I would say that this applies to our churches today - we should keep them out.

I think we aren't given a church government manual nor an ecclesiology book in the NT. We have to piece together what we see. Where do you see anything in the NT where there isn't apostles involved, really? I think they leave the scene, but that during their ministry they weren't setting up independent bishoprics, but mutually connected and sharing congregations. Congregations were normally considered to be city wide, and sometimes were almost assuredly meeting in several different groups but all considered one church, as in Jerusalem and Ephesus.

I guess another thought is when it says "Church of God at Corinth", do we really have that mindset when it comes to Minneapolis? The "Church of God at Minneapolis"? Is there an imperative built into this that we should be viewing other believers across church lines, as part of the true church of God in our city? Shouldn't that impact unity too?

I'm not necessarily working through all aspects of this, but I find that the local church only ideas and the Baptist autonomy, while helpful in many respects and useful in encouraging true body life happening in local assemblies, nevertheless can foster an ultra independent spirit which truly is at odds with what we see in the NT. The koinonia there is so much different than what we see today. We kind of take 850+ denominations for granted today, but can you really think that is the norm expected by the NT authors?

As for my Rom. 16 and local church bit, I am really replying to Aaron's bringing up the fact that Rom. 15 and Eph. 4 are addressed to individual local churches and so really apply only to relations with believers inside the local church. I'm arguing that this isn't the case, we should see these passages as directly addressing how we relate to believers that we know in our city and beyond, not necessarily just those within our own local assembly.

My understanding is that Scriptural Truth drives Scriptural Worship (John 4:19-24), not the other way around. Scriptural Truth remains - no, endures forever - Conservative worship...well, that can mean any number of things depending upon culture, time, history, etc, which means that it is hardly a fixed set of principles or practices.

I've downloaded Aniol's presentation, but haven't listened to it yet. Maybe I'll be persuaded otherwise, but somehow I don't think that will happen.

--edit--

However, I am not so naïve as to deny that there is a use of “Christian” as a social/cultural category rather than a theological one. One time on the train to Toronto, I talked for several hours with a young man who affirmed he was a Christian because his mother was Greek Orthodox. It wasn’t about faith; it was about a social/cultural identification. For someone from a Middle Eastern/Eastern Europe background that is far more significant than it is here, I think.

And if that was the reason one signed it—because they use “Christian” instead of Jew, Muslim, etc; i.e., as a social/cultural category—then I at least understand that. So if this were a pattern on top of other things, it would be a major issue. If it were someone who has an otherwise clear stand on the gospel, and who clearly explains their understanding of the term in the document, it might be a lesser issue.

So make no mistake: I think signing the MD was wrong. I have no relationship with anyone who signed it (that I know of), and so separation over the MD means nothing for me.

But it’s tough. If you are having Grudem to speak on spiritual gifts, I am not going to announce it to my church and invite them to go, and were it a public invitation, I would explain why I am not announcing or encouraging our church to go. If you are having Grudem speak on the Christian and politics, I might not say anything about it, or I might announce it. I haven’t read his book yet so I don’t know what he says.

And if it became a constant pattern, it might affect public relationships. I really don’t know. For me, I hate dealing in these hypotheticals. It is almost never as simple as this. I am willing to grant more slack to people I know well who I believe are in line with me generally speaking. I am willing to grant less slack to people I know who don’t agree with me generally speaking. I am often willing to ignore people I don’t even know who have no impact in my church.

Furthermore, the phrase “that the world may believe that you sent me” seems to establish a sort of apologetic purpose here. How will the world believe that God sent Jesus because Wayne Grudem and I — who have never met, live thousands of miles apart, have never spoken at the same place, have never been seen together, etc ,— How will the world believe that God sent Jesus because Wayne Grudem and I claim unity? (or take Grudem out of it and substitute one of thousands of other names in here).

So again I ask, if that’s unity, then what is unity? Mere agreement? To me, if it can't be seen, then I question whether it is what Jesus is talking about in John 17. To me that falls short of anything that seems reasonable.

So on the way to church last night I was discussing all of this w/ my wife in the car. In doing so I think I might have figured out the logic of secondary separation (separating from someone who dosent separate from some they should) since I cannot find a specific verse that directly speaks to it and all the verses that have been offered thus far refer to primary separation (at least in my mind).

Here it goes:

Two undeniable foundational commands:

1. We are to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

2. We are to "avoid"..."those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught" (Rom. 16:17).

The argument - We are to deny fellowship with those who do not contend for the faith and cause divisions & obstacles w/ their teachings/behavior. The command to do so is itself part of the apostolic teaching. Therefore, anyone who does not practice separation from these kinds of people is to be some who I deny fellowship w/ as well.

The assumption here is that the command to separate from those mentioned above is itself part of the teaching we are to adhere to. To me this is the crux of the issue. If we say that the teachings of the apostles that we are to separate over are the core doctrines of the faith then the command to separate over them is not part of that core teaching and to my knowledge it has not been so historically.

A few observations:

1. If this were the case then there are very few to my knowledge that fit into this category.

2. I dont know of anyone (those others might know someone themselves) who would fellowship ecclesiastically w/ a faith/core doctrine denier such that I would have to deny fellowship w/ them for doing so.

So, beyond primary separation who is the current model for separation saying we should separate from? Has too much been made of something that would be rarely practiced?

I admit that my thoughts may be sketchy but I am trying to think out loud here so bear with me - I love the interaction!

CPHurst,

If might quickly add something before we continue ...

On 2 Thessalonians 3, the separation commanded in 2 Thess 3:14-15 is from brothers, so it is different command from the one you give above. 2 Thessalonians commands us to not associate with him so that he will be put to shame (a staggering command for a generation of "nice" people) but to admonish him as a brother. I do not think Paul would say something like that about the people in Romans 16:17-18.

Therefore, I think the two foundational commands with respect to this issue are:

1. Contend for the faith up to and including separation from false teachers and apostates (Jude 3, Romans 16:17; 2 John, 3 John, etc).
2. Separate from those whose lifestyle contradicts the teaching received from the apostles (2 Thess 3).

I too am profiting from the exchange and hope it is sharpening for all.

Aaron, yes we are first invisibly united as we are united in Christ just as Christ was w/ the Father because they shared the same essence as God. But it dosent end there. Christs works manifested His oneness w/ the Father which is visible. I dont get the aversion here to this visible unity. Is it there or not? If so then we need to display it ourselves. Why dont we need to worry about what actions we need to do in order to show our invisible unity visibly?

Quote - "'I'm inclined to think that where unity is real, it cannot help but "show." But it is not necessarily going to show in recognized ways." If it dosent show in recognized ways then how are you defining "show" in the first sentence? The second sentence seems to cancel out the first all together. It seems like you are saying, "I know we are unified in Christ and we are to show it some way but its not all that important and dosent need to be physically manifested." Wouldnt something that shows be recognizable as such?

Further, the end of vs. 21 states the purpose/result of the unity believers share in Christ w/ the Father, "so that the world may believe that you have sent me." If the world is to believe this then they have to see it - it is visible.

It seems to me that there is so much talk of having to separate as commanded but not living out our unity publicly. If a local church is to live out its unity visibly to itself and to the world then why is the universal church to do no less as far as it can being that it is scattered all over the world?

Bob: "Why do I need to be defending the fact that we should be unified with other churches and believers? And people wonder why so many leave fundamental circles? The NT has numerous unity commands, and it reinforces constantly the spiritual unity which just IS when it comes to believers. And acting like we don't need each other or anyone else, how is this Scriptural? "

Agreed as well. We are unified in Christ, we are to be unified in doctrine & we are to live out that unity. Unity is both a reality of our very existence as believers in Christ and we are commanded to live it out. So why do we have to defend this? Why does it seem like it holds 2nd place to separation? Why does it seem to get swept under the carpet?

It seems to me that we are to look towards practicing unity first and practice separation as we go along. We are unified first because it is a fact of our very existence as believers. If we cannot live out that unity w/ others because of their skewed doctrinal beliefs concerning the essentials then we need to separate from them.

Steve, heaven help me if it had been the title of one......lol

This seems to be definitely wrong. People saying we should observe holy days, are expressly addressed in Rom. 14 and 15, and there we are not told to separate from them. So Paul says their position is wrong. Elsewhere he teaches a contrary position, but he asks for unity when handling relationships with those people.

So actually this example you bring up defeats your point, I think.

As for where unity is taught, it is taught in the places that emphasize a universal church and a fellowship that believers have one with another. Rom. 15:5-7 and Eph. 4:3, 13 are verses I've already quoted above too. We're also told to be at peace with all men, and to bear one another's burdens. We're to share with others and provoke to love and good works. And this is across any strict local church lines, in my view, as the church was defined as being as wide as the geographical location, even though we know geographies like Corinth and Rome also had house churches (which by definition are not as all encompassing as the entire geography they are situated in).

Again, go back to the example of me and you. I really can't do any of these things with you in any meaningful way. I think the internet has made us, in some ways, redefine what fellowship and ministry participation is.

I need to quit here for the day, so I will respond to Craig quickly and then try to exercise some self-control.

I'm just a bit confused about those who are asking how unity can be applied to Grudem and myself since we have no meaningful interaction and yet can speak of separating from Graham even though they have no meaningful interaction with him.
I guess I would assume Christian unity would be the default position rather than separation.

Enjoying the discussion so far!

I'll bite.

I don't know who is saying the whole chapter of John 17 has no practical application for today. Help me here, Greg.

Usually the discussion is spurred on by an angst concerning John 17:21. Rarely is it noticed that the verse teaches the mutual indwelling of God in God, and that this mutual indwelling is the unity Jesus prays for in the life of every believer.

If someone wants to mutually indwell me, then I guess they can try to apply this verse that way. But even my wife has a hard time getting inside me, if you know what I mean, and we're one flesh. It is better to see the answer to Jesus' prayer for us as the unity He has with His Father, and that we have a full spiritual unity with each other. Not an indwelling unity with each other, but an indwelling unity in the same God, and He in us.

The other Arminian angst here is that Jesus prayed something that we are supposed to answer. Somebody made that point earlier in the thread. But no need for angst, for this prayer of our Lord is fulfilled every time the Father sovereignly regenerates another lost sheep, and causes His Holy Spirit to indwell them.

BTW, the faith Jesus prays for the world is not the belief that we Christians are unified, but a faith that the Father sent the Son. This has yet to be fulfilled, but it will. It will.

Before I try to counter to this let me mention something about the balance of the scales tipping to separation rather than unity. I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol' American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it's little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the "essential fact of unity" bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.

It's interesting to read of Calvin trying to preserve unity and prevent further splits among the Reformed back at a time when only three or four Protestant church options were available in all of Europe. We are so far removed from that day....

Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I'll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.

Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the "one body" of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious "eternal purpose" of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.

Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.

Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).

Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.

Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ's gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.

Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it's local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to "the unity of the faith", and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experienceing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.

I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Chirst and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.

Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it's easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It's easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?

Ah, yes . . . that day from which we are so far removed! You know why, don't you Bob, that so much unity existed during Calvin's day? The Catholic Church and all Reformed Churches were state churches. Whoever tried to start a new group that he felt was more along the lines of the Bible was burned alive, or beheaded, or drowned, or tortured to death, or branded, or maimed, or thrown into prison where he stayed until he died of a disease. So much for the love of Jesus securing unity in those days! Martin Luther admitted that the majority of the people in the churches of the Reformation were not in heart true believers in Jesus as their Lord. They were drawn or held to the Reformation out of other concerns than the Spirit of God dwelling in them. Frankly, though I will agree that the disassociation experienced in American Christianity is unfortunate, there is more true Christian unity there today, than was present in Europe in Calvin's day. I am a great lover of Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries, and my volumes are well underlined and noted, but please do not wish those former days on me again! Ever!

You have well-reasoned points from Ephesians, and they are worth interacting with.

I was thinking about this thread while talking to a friend who drives 45 minutes to church. Others I know drive 1 to 1-1/2 hours to church.

In the olden days, logistics defined much of how people interacted, did business, and attended church. It seems that today people don't live near their church, their place of employment, or regularly do business where they live, so all sense of community is gone, and the cooperative spirit and community church is gone with it.

Just seems to me that it could be a contributing factor regarding how churches view cooperation today. Not deep doctrinal thoughts here, just mental ramblings. But about a year or so ago my husband and I decided to attend a local (literally) church, and that was one of the reasons- to be part of a church in our community where we live and work, and get some of that sense of community back for our family. It certainly feels like a good place to start.

Susan and Bob, I concur with your remarks about the locality of the local church. Paradoxically, the more global we become, the more fragmented, it seems. I am most familiar with the history of the Reformed churches, but I believe a similar story holds for all the older European denominations.

From about 1565 to a bit after 1725, there was a tight consensus throughout the Reformed churches about doctrine and practice. Some tensions existed, of course, mostly between Anglicans and the rest or between proponents of various polities. Nevertheless, the congruence and cooperation is remarkable. The Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Synod of Dordt, Westminster Standards, both Helvetic Confessions, and French Confession are nearly indistinguishable in doctrine, despite the fact that they span a century and all of Europe. Some Reformed churches and schools hold to all the first 4 for their doctrinal standards. The Synod of Dordt, though a Dutch affair, included representatives from all of Europe except France, where royal decree prohibited attendance. The Westminster Assembly included over 150 people representing all of England and Scotland. Despite some disagreements, they composed one of the most coherent systems of doctrine ever created.

So, even though they had no telephones, airplanes, or cars, these churchmen were far more conscious of the theological scholarship and state of the churches throughout the world than we are. We are incredibly self-absorbed and near-sighted by comparison.

There is always the possibility that academia is serving its own interests rather than those of the church. That said, as someone embarking on a life of Christian scholarship, I'd like to share a few thoughts on the other side of the scale. First, American Christianity has long been influenced by several prevailing American trends -- egalitarianism, populism, and pragmatism. Most Americans share these three traits at the level of their attitudes, even if they reject the developed philosophies they represent. All three can work against developing the intellect.

Egalitarianism tells us that all people are basically equal, and though there are manifold benefits to this impulse, it can easily become a force that seeks to tear down any hint of excellence, legitimate or not. [Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in his justly famous Democracy in America. ] Populism is the tendency to weight the beliefs, needs, and preferences of "the common person" as more correct, legitimate, or proper than those of other classes. So, populists are naturally suspicious of anyone exhibiting extraordinary knowledge or skill in an area. Pragmatism, in its popular form at least, is the belief that ideas are to be tested by their usefulness. In its more vulgar expressions, it comes with the corollary that ideas for which no immediate use presents itself are useless, even wasteful.

Now, I believe that the biblical model of church discipleship is anti-egalitarian, anti-pragmatist, and not particularly populist. It is anti-egalitarian in that not anyone can be a teacher: it requires both divine calling and human aptitude. It is anti-pragmatist in that it does not begin with human curiosities and questions (though it does get there), but in the reality of what God has displayed in Christ. In fact, unregenerate people don't know what they need to know, and they don't feel the need to know what they need to know. When they become Christians, these sensibilities need training. Distinguished from populism, Christian truth is not to be identified with majority sentiment or the ideals that will be received eagerly by the "middle class."

So, your question "could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about?" evidences traces of these sentiments to me. I'm not convinced that regular church goers know what they're struggling with. I don't know that they care about what they should care about. Reading this link about the http://michaelhyatt.com/the-100-bestselling-christian-books-of-2010.html 100 Bestselling Books of 2010 tells me that American Christians want to be secure in their finances, charismatic in personality, and happy in their marriages. Legitimate desires, but hardly a God-transfixed vision of all things.

In all areas of learning, the teacher works to overcome not only the students' ignorance, but their lack of perspective. They want to be engineers, but they don't see the point of differential calculus. They want to be medical doctors, but they don't think they need chemistry. It's a general rule that you don't perceive the usefulness of a given field of study until you've acquired some proficiency in it. The teacher's job (like a Chinese mother?) is to get you to that point, where you're sufficiently equipped to keep learning on your own. My first year of Greek had almost zero actual effect on my life. Year two was a bit better, and every year since has reaped exponential dividends.

Well, historically speaking, yes. This happened in Scotland in the 18th century, and is called the Marrow Controversy. It ended up splitting the Church of Scotland. http://cavman.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/considering-the-marrow-controversy/ Here's a link .

I really don't know what they would say, but I don't think it's relevant. The challenges facing unstable, martyr nations and established Christian cultures are very different. And, as much as we must respect the faith of the martyrs, being persecuted isn't a qualification for ecclesiastical leadership.

Let me chip in here quickly on a few things:

To Forrest (#57) regarding Grudem and Graham, I think the difference is two –fold. First, Graham’s ecumenicism is/was a direct affront to the gospel inasmuch as he recognized unbelievers as worthy ministry partners without confrontation and rebuke and inasmuch as he sent “converts” back to churches that were/are no church at all since they did not have the gospel. Grudem has not done that, to my knowledge. Second, Graham is much more widely known and it is likely that most people in our fields of ministry are familiar with Graham and have never heard of Grudem. Therefore, comments or explanations are more necessary when something is more central or more threatening to our ministry.

To say that Christian unity is the default position is true, but again I ask (and I hope someone will chime in here), what is unity? As I have said, if Grudem and I have it, or Graham and I have it, or you and I have it, what is it? For me, at least, I am still not sure what you mean when you say “unity.” It sounds like “agreement.” But I agree with Catholics on some things, and I agree with JW’s on some things. I even agree with Muslim’s on some things, but I have no unity with them. Yet I disagree with Presbyterians on some things, and disagree with Bible church people on some things, and I do have unity with them.

Furthermore, I would suggest again that the unity of John 17 is visible unity. Whatever it is, it has to be seen.

To Bob (#63) on Ephesians and unity, let me enumerate a few things:

1. The present situation with communication has brought a world that I do not believe the apostles ever imagined. I think it would be inconceivable to them that unity would include the things we are talking about. To them, it was all local because that is what was possible and that is what was seen. And that is my point, largely. Unity, in order to be meaningful, has to actually be seen. You say it yourself when you speak of bearing it out in visible ways. But I don’t see any responsibility to go and seek visible unity with people who are far out of my ministry realm.

2. The passages you reference in Eph 3-4 are, to me, all so obviously local and so obviously not universal that I don’t think they support your point at all. I thought of responding to each individually, but I don’t want to take the time to do that. I just don’t see the universal church in that, in terms of visible unity, at least in terms of Paul’s intent. Paul was not, so far as I can tell, saying anything about how the Ephesians should relate to the Philippians or the Galatians, or the Romans, or us. He was talking about how the Ephesians should relate to each other. You invoke 4:11-16 and speak of offices in the universal church, but I can’t attach any meaning to that at all. I think apostles are the only offices with any “universal church” applicability, and that is a unique situation that does not exist today. The others are all local in nature. Reading from some pastor or teacher of the past does not make them a universal church officer and is not biblical fellowship or unity, so far as I can see.

3. As far as being the only gospel preaching church in our community, or acting like it, again I focus on ministry context. I was preaching on this yesterday on Mark 9 and the exorcist who was “not following us.” There are many gospel preaching churches and we are not enemies with them. But in Mark 9, that guy didn’t have unity with the disciples, and Christ’s message was essentially “Leave him alone.” Christ didn’t say, “Yes, you’re right, he’s not following us. Let’s go seek him out and get him on our team.” Or “let’s have a conference and invite him so that others will see we have unity.”

4. I suppose my default is too some too narrow for some, but I struggle to see that biblical commands for unity have any meaningful application to relationships that don’t exist and have no reasonable way to exist. To me, John 17 has a visible ongoing feature where the ongoing relationships of life show a life-transformation in which old barriers and issues are removed, in way that can only be explained by the power of Jesus. That is the same point of Ephesians 2. And having a one-time meeting with some teacher, or attending a conference, does not show that.

To Greg (G.N. Barkman, #64) I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by “reflect that unity” outside of our local ministry contexts? How do I reflect unity with you? Am I commanded to do that? Does the NT teaching on unity really mean that we participate in the same online discussion forum? There are people on SI that I am cordial to, and have a conversation with, with whom I cannot imagine anyway to participate in ministry. Yet we are both believers and will be in eternity in heaven together. But practically, we can’t participate in ministry. What do I do about that? Do I compromise what my conscience tells me the Bible teaches?

To Gabe (gsm, #70), two things: First, the statement “repentance is not part of the gospel,” as used in the conference is not really debatable, I think. The gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sin and rose again. Repentance is the response to the gospel, which I think was explicitly stated. I think this is the historic position. If not historic, it is at least the biblical position, precisely speaking. But I think the confusion comes from using “gospel” imprecisely, so it begins to include all manner of stuff.

In sum, I think a more biblical vision of unity involves visible participation in ministry efforts. I don’t think NT “unity” or “fellowship” is something like the Chicago Statement, or a conference. I don’t think it is merely agreeing on doctrine, or professing the same faith. I think it is actually participating in ministry.

Larry and Aaron,

Thanks for your response to my John 17 comments. Both of you helped clarify the issues that need to be addressed, correctly pointing out that my comments did not indicate what form unity should take.

I may have been addressing a "problem" that is uncommon to most, but was large in my youthful experience. I heard preachers, on more than one occasion, say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was effected by God, and was already accomplished, and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with it. I think such comments must have been a response to criticisms of the doctrine of separation. Critics, I assume, must have said something like, "We can't practice separation because the Bible commands unity. Don't forget that Jesus prayed for unity in John 17, so we must work at unity, not separation."

My posts were to point out that I know of no other doctrine where we could correctly use that kind of reasoning. If I were to say, "Since God has elected His people from all eternity, and has promised to bring everyone of them to Himself in time, therefore I do not need to concern myself with evangelism," I would be labeled a heretic, and rightly so. What God reveals He has done and is doing becomes the revelation of His will for His children. We are to be working with God to accomplish what He tells us He is sovereignly doing in this world. If He is unifying His people, then we are to be concerned to work with Him, not against Him, to accomplish His revealed purpose.

As to the nature and forms of unity, it is obvious that I cannot have organizational unity with every true believer, whether obedient or disobedient believer. It is humanly impossible. My post had more to do with attitude than details. I do not think John 17 unity requires that I seek to engage in ministry partnership with as many believers as possible. I think it requires that I endeavor to avoid intentional separation from as many brethren as possible. Obedience to Scripture requires that I separate from some of my fellow believers, if indeed they are true believers. Only God knows the heart perfectly. But my attitude should be toward unity in affection as much as possible. Similar to, "As much as lies within you, live at peace with all men."

Greg, perhaps you can word this a different way -

Greg, I understand and agree. We cannot claim to exalt the truth when we neglect, or even refute, a portion of that truth. It's interesting, though, how important it is to some people to try to make unity happen. I have always felt that unity is a function of truth. Consequently, I do not really see it as being something we work to make happen as much as something we enjoy when it happens. It's like being wet is a function of being in the water. We don't have to work to get wet, we just have to work to be in the water. Being wet is the natural, inevitable result of being in the water. In the same way. if I strive for truth, unity will happen with those who are also striving for truth. And, as a corollary, disunity will naturally happen with those who are not striving for truth. Truth is the core value and emphasis; unity is the natural, inevitable byproduct of truth.

Greg, a couple of thoughts struck me as I read your last post, but I will come back to those at another time. First I want to ask a question. I am curious how you would describe

Greg, looks like everyone has abandoned us!

Ok, this is a little bit of a rabbit trail, but do you see 2 Thess. 3:6-15 in the same way? Here, it is clear it really is a brother, and it is clear they are still treated in some special way because of their brotherhood despite losing full fellowship.

Thanks for interacting with me on this.

Well Greg, my fantastic example is laid to waste. Perhaps another thread on the nature of church discipline would be in order for further discussion of that rabbit trail. My own take is that the man in 1 Cor. 5 is a brother, as referenced by Paul. We are seeing a working example of Matt. 18 discipline there. Furthermore, I would argue the person identified in 2 Thess. 3 is a candidate for Matt. 18 discipline and censure, just like 1 Cor. 5, if he remains unrepentant after confrontation.

The point I was trying to make is that in the case of church discipline, I may still be spiritually united to the erring brother or sister, but my unity is practically limited by the sin present. This goes to the heart of posts 83 and 84.

Whew! Back on track.