Preserving Some Truth
On Friday and Saturday (January 7-8), more than three hundred registered attendees (and about that many more walk-ins for the evening service) gathered for a “symposium on biblical separation.” I’m pleased to have had the opportunity to be among them.
Though the event could be improved in some substantial ways, it was an important step toward developing a biblical separation model that (a) improves on what separatists have practiced in the recent past and (b) functions better in the current evangelical landscape in America.
A significant plus is that this more theologically grounded and thoughtful approach to separatism stands a chance of winning the acceptance of theologically serious young people within fundamentalism (but on their way out) or outside fundamentalism but still listening to its better representatives.
Host pastor Mike Harding described the goal as a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” separatism as well as “cultural conservatism.”
What follows is a survey of conference highlights followed by some analysis.
Conference highlights
The event began with two workshop periods of about an hour each. Due to a snow storm I hadn’t anticipated, I missed the first hour and walked in just as the second was about to begin. Since I was late, I just headed straight for the nearest workshop.
It turned out to be one in which Dr. Bruce Compton provided an analysis of Wayne Grudem’s view of the NT gift of prophecy (a non-authoritative and potentially erroneous cousin of the OT gift). Grudem’s view has been foundational for much of current non-cessationist thought about the gifts of the Spirit. Compton’s analysis was interesting and helpful and highlighted some of the unresolved problems with Grudem’s view. The session concluded with brief consideration of whether non-cessationism is a separation issue. Compton’s view was that personal fellowship with non-cessationists was not a problem, but that continuationism’s threat to our belief in a closed canon is serious enough to preclude some other forms of fellowship. He explained that this included avoiding ministry cooperation and pulpit cooperation with non-cessationists.
An evening double-header
The evening service began at 7 PM. I was encouraged by the quantity of teens and young adults attending. This was not one of those “old guys bemoaning how things aren’t like they used to be” events. The gray hair ratio was probably well below 50%.
To me, things had a noticeable “Bob Jones” feel as well. Maybe it was the giant piano on the unusually high platform or the duet Mr. & Mrs. Scott Aniol sang in the characteristic BJU vocal style (thankfully, not with the full operatic-amplitude vibrato I recall hearing so often in my BJU days). Maybe it was the relative scarcity of women in pants (there were a few here and there, I think, though I didn’t exactly make a study of it). Men involved on the platform were in coats and ties but I saw few elsewhere.
The BJU déjà vu passed when we sang two songs I’d never heard before by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger (words projected on the big screen and sheet music in the conference binder). These were traditional hymn-structured songs but still clearly (to me, anyway) not set to music of the 19th or 20th centuries. I’d characterize them as thoughtful, doctrinally meaty and not short on pathos and warmth. We’ll definitely sing these at our church.
Chris Anderson was the first of the evening’s two speakers. His message on “Gospel-Driven Separation” (from Jude) set an excellent tone for the meeting. The high insight-per-paragraph ratio will reward taking the time to hear the mp3. Some points:
- Jude 3: Jude was a reluctant warrior. His delight was in the gospel and he wanted to write a letter focused on “our common salvation.” The situation required that he write about contending for the faith instead.
- Our own contention for the faith must begin with a delight in the gospel. “If we don’t defend the gospel, we lose the gospel.” But we must make sure the fight has not become our delight.
- Jude urges the defense of the faith on every believer. It is not a fundamentalist thing. It’s a Christian thing.
- Contending does not begin with separation. This comes late in the process.
- Jude is not about separation from disobedient brethren (taught elsewhere). Our dealings with brethren in error do not fall under the Jude umbrella.
- If we allow the fight to distract us from the faith, we experience a slow death.
- We must delight in the gospel, defend the gospel, and advance the gospel (v.20-22).
After a song or two, Dr. Mark Minnick took the pulpit and preached on the topic of what the gospel is. Again, the audio is well worth hearing. This was the first message I’d heard by Dr. Minnick in person since the late 1980’s. I was encouraged to see that his love for people, love for the gospel, love for the Scriptures and love for teaching are undiminished.
Day two
Saturday’s first session belonged to a newly-bearded Dr. Kevin Bauder who noted that he was lecturing, not preaching. The topic was officially to be “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Part 1,” but rather than rehash the points of his 2005 address by that title (given to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries), he focused on what else (beyond defending the gospel and practicing separation) a future fundamentalism should do.
The rest of the lecture articulated a vision for a relentlessly—and comprehensively—thoughtful fundamentalism, one that concerns itself with all of life, especially the questions weighing most heavily on the society in which we live. A key component, he said, was to recover the Christian doctrine of vocation and stop viewing God’s call to business, science, medicine, the arts, etc. as inferior to God’s call to do the things we usually think of as “ministry.”
I can’t begin to say how encouraging I found that lecture. Where can I sign up? It’s true that the vision is far from the reality, but everything important begins with a vision. If we can get the audio transcribed, the lecture may appear here at SharperIron in written form down the road.
Later in the morning, Dr. Dave Doran provided a thoughtful exegesis and application of Romans 16:17. A twenty-something young man told me later that this was the most persuasive case for separation he’d ever heard and that he was now far more open to the whole idea.
The discussion session
The highlight of the event for many was probably the afternoon “discussion session.” All the platform and workshop speakers were invited to the platform to discuss a series of selected questions.
Though the audio will probably be available shortly, you’d really have to see video to fully appreciate this session. The body language was at least as interesting as the verbal responses (and several moments in the audio will make no sense at all without seeing the interaction).
Several thoughts stood out in my mind when the session ended.
- These men possess serious and thoughtful convictions. The discussion format was making some of them squirm but their willingness to be involved speaks well of their courage as well as their desire to be persuasive.
- The old separation-by-category (or maybe separation-by-acronym, as Chris Anderson observed in his Friday PM message) paradigm doesn’t work anymore. There are too many leaders and ministries promoting and defending the gospel these days that just do not fit into the boxes we used in the 70s and 80s (it’s debatable whether the boxes worked well back then either, but that’s another subject). There seemed to be general agreement on this point, though Doran was most emphatic and Minnick most hesitant.
- We need more of this. When the hour ended, there was a silence I took to mean something like “What? We’re done already?” It’s difficult to impossible to alter the schedule of an event of this sort on the fly. But I wished we could have taken a break and resumed the discussion for another hour.
- We separatists have work to do. As a thoughtful conversation about separation—with no fear of anyone labeling anyone else a “neo” or “pseudo” for differing on one point or another, the discussion was important and encouraging. 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. Many questions remained unasked and unanswered.
Next time?
I came away with the feeling that more work toward a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” doctrine and practice of separation is too urgent to wait for 2013 when the next PTC is tentatively planned. I also believe that what we need now is not so much a conference as a work group of some kind that produces a document or two—not another “resolution” by a fellowship or association, but a document aimed at answering the questions most are actually asking about separation, developed through a process that is sure to attend to those questions. Ideally, the document(s) would have the support of leaders from multiple associations and fellowships.
Mike Harding suggested that the next PTC may be devoted to “cultural conservatism.” Either way, I look forward to how this event develops in the future.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
[CPHurst] I dont get the aversion here to this visible unity.I am not sure there is an aversion to it. I am not convinced, at least for me, that we have even defined it yet. What is unity? What does it mean to be unified? And if Wayne Grudem and I have unity, what do we have and how is it visible?
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.And this is exactly the point I was making earlier. There is no way to see anything between Grudem and I. So how does my “unity” with him qualify for what Jesus is talking about John 17? Do I need to fly to wherever Grudem is in order to fulfill John 17? Obviously not, and I think you agree. So how can this unity be seen?
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?Precisely because they are scattered all over the world. How could they have visible unity? I am really struggling to understand what that means.
Why do I need to be defending the fact that we should be unified with other churches and believers?As I said to Craig, before we defend it, I think we first need to define it. When you say we should be unified with other churches and believers, what do you mean? Do you and I have unity? I don’t even know where you live (I haven’t looked at your profile, so it may be on there.) What is unity if you and I have it? What is unity if Wayne Grudem and I have it? What is unity if Wayne Grudem and I get it because he comes to preach for me one time? If we are to have unity, what should it look like and how will the world see it?
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?But where are those commands applied as they are being applied here? I don’t see that in the Scripture.
[From another of Bob’s posts] Agreed. It seems that people have a hard time even admitting that the Scripture teaches us to prize unity. That seems like this makes for a sorry state in fundamentalism, if this is the case.Does Scripture really teach us to prize interchurch unity? Or interstate unity? Or international unity? I am willing to be convinced, but I am going to need to see an argument from Scripture.
John 17 is, so far as I know, the closest and there is a number of questions that need to be answered about that.
When it comes to separation, Paul seems to only do it with tears in his eyes.I totally agree, and this was part of Chris’s point on Friday night.
Often it isn’t that someone doesn’t follow 2 Thess. 3 and so we need to apply 2 Thess. 3 to them. Instead it is that they are applying 2 Thess. 3, but they are judging the “disobedience factor” if you will, of someone to be at a different level than we’d like.I actually addressed this at my blog last week. And this is why I think separation is over things that are clear. We are not separating over unclear things.
Thanks Bob. Enjoying the interaction.
In other words, would Paul say, “Yes, I mean to separate from brothers who think the DOL has already come or who are lazy, but I don’t say that about people who think that we should observe holy days (Col 2) ”? In my mind, I have hard time seeing Paul limiting this command only to what 2 Thess says. It seems to me that the principle is broader if, in fact, all apostolic revelation is revelation from God. I think we have to treat it the same.Larry,
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).
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Larry, I agree with separating from faith deniers and in Graham’s middle to later part of his ministry I would have separated from him both for stances he made and people he consistently joined with because I would have taken it as he agreed with them enough to having that much contact with them. To have a catholic as part of your evangelistic meeting team is to deny orthodox view of the Gospel so I would separate from him. Unfortunately I think this is an easy example though I am the one who brought it up. Come up with one that would hit home for most people with an area pastor.
Maybe I am confusing core doctrines with apostolic teaching but I thought we got the idea of core doctrines from the idea of apostolic teaching?
No, the command to separate from faith deniers is not a core doctrine of the faith because it is not part of the Gospel itself. It is a means to preserving ourselves and the teaching of the Gospel.
Like I said, even if 2 Thess. 3 was referring to core doctrines or even more broadly all apostolic teaching I think it would be a rare occasion when I would have to exercise it - thus, making the mountain out of the mole hill. I just dont know when any of may pastor friends would be allowing faith deniers to do ministry in and for their church. I would suspect that they had other underlying issues that would drive them to do this and thus there might be a primary reason with them that I needed to separate over.
Question: Here is a question for 2 Thess. 3:14. Is the disobedience that Paul is referring to (1) the disobedience of not working and thus being idle in waiting for Christ’s return or (2) is it referring to being disobedient towards everything Paul wrote to the Thessalonians? If the first then this passage does not warrant person A from separating from person B because they will not separate from person C who is being disobedient. If it is the 2nd then we might be on our way to some kind of 2nd degree separation where person A would have to separate from person B because they will not separate from person C who is some kind of faith denier. Again, presently I dont know when I would have to apply this. Not to say that some would not have to do this but again, I think they are very few and far between.
If core doctrines are not synonymous with apostolic teaching then where are we told in the NT what the core doctrines are? Wouldnt Paul use similar language to describe them? Larry, if you think you are confused then I am right there with ya’:)
Ok, forget Grudem since he is a hang up for everyone (though I cant understand why) just because you are not local to him.
Maybe I am confusing core doctrines with apostolic teaching but I thought we got the idea of core doctrines from the idea of apostolic teaching?
No, the command to separate from faith deniers is not a core doctrine of the faith because it is not part of the Gospel itself. It is a means to preserving ourselves and the teaching of the Gospel.
Like I said, even if 2 Thess. 3 was referring to core doctrines or even more broadly all apostolic teaching I think it would be a rare occasion when I would have to exercise it - thus, making the mountain out of the mole hill. I just dont know when any of may pastor friends would be allowing faith deniers to do ministry in and for their church. I would suspect that they had other underlying issues that would drive them to do this and thus there might be a primary reason with them that I needed to separate over.
Question: Here is a question for 2 Thess. 3:14. Is the disobedience that Paul is referring to (1) the disobedience of not working and thus being idle in waiting for Christ’s return or (2) is it referring to being disobedient towards everything Paul wrote to the Thessalonians? If the first then this passage does not warrant person A from separating from person B because they will not separate from person C who is being disobedient. If it is the 2nd then we might be on our way to some kind of 2nd degree separation where person A would have to separate from person B because they will not separate from person C who is some kind of faith denier. Again, presently I dont know when I would have to apply this. Not to say that some would not have to do this but again, I think they are very few and far between.
If core doctrines are not synonymous with apostolic teaching then where are we told in the NT what the core doctrines are? Wouldnt Paul use similar language to describe them? Larry, if you think you are confused then I am right there with ya’:)
Ok, forget Grudem since he is a hang up for everyone (though I cant understand why) just because you are not local to him.
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.Colossians 2 seems to be a different sort of teaching than Romans 14, doesn’t it? I think the question in Colossians 2 is whether they are brothers or apostates. I don’t think they are Romans 14 kind of people. Read it and see what you think. I see some significant differences.
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.And where is that? I don’t want to be pedantic, but I think it would be helpful to get the verse on the table so we can see them.
Rom. 15:5-7 and Eph. 4:3, 13I am reading right that people want to limit the context of 2 Thess 3 but want to expand the context of these types of verses.
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).Not sure this supports the argument. I will think about, but it I think you are taking some things that are dependent on being the same place and trying to apply to people that aren’t in the same place. The whole “local church” thing is a big one. Even if we grant that it is as big as a city, it is still smaller than the universal idea right? And at least in a city, we can do stuff together.
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.
Come up with one that would hit home for most people with an area pastor.I agree that Graham was easy. If you keep asking easy questions, we will get somewhere …
I don’t have a good example right off the bat because I do not see the need to run out and seek partnership with a lot of churches. If our paths cross, we evaluate things and see if we can work together in some way. If our paths don’t cross, I don’t even think about it.
So if you say, “Who are you secondarily separated from?” my answer, “I don’t know.” I don’t even think about it because it’s not really in my ministry right now. Perhaps in a different place it would be.
Maybe I am confusing core doctrines with apostolic teaching but I thought we got the idea of core doctrines from the idea of apostolic teaching?I think core doctrines (whatever they are) is a part of apostolic teaching, but not the sum total of it.
No, the command to separate from faith deniers is not a core doctrine of the faith because it is not part of the Gospel itself.So is the inspiration of the Bible a core doctrine of the faith? I think it is, but it isn’t part of the gospel itself. Or what about the unchangableness of God? I think that is pretty core, but it isn’t part of the gospel. I would break fellowship with an open theist or process theologian even if they affirm the gospel itself. This is why I think “the gospel” is perhaps a bit narrow for many things.
Question: Here is a question for 2 Thess. 3:14. Is the disobedience that Paul is referring to (1) the disobedience of not working and thus being idle in waiting for Christ’s return or (2) is it referring to being disobedient towards everything Paul wrote to the Thessalonians?I think it is the second since “our instruction in this letter” is more than simply separating from the lazy man.
If core doctrines are not synonymous with apostolic teaching then where are we told in the NT what the core doctrines are?I think this is a good point, and it is why I am questioning how useful the idea of “core doctrines” are. Doran talks about things that tear at the fabric of the faith. I have typically talked about load-bearing doctrines, the doctrines without which Christianity falls to the ground. I think we can come close to some sort of agreement about what Christianity needs to be Christianity, but it is certainly broader than the gospel proper, I think.
But 2 Thess 3 shows separation over something that aren’t a core doctrine. The question is whether there is anything besides laziness that fits into that category.
Ok, forget Grudem since he is a hang up for everyone (though I cant understand why) just because you are not local to him.That’s why I want to broaden the discussion out to whoever – you and me, me and Bob, you and Bob, whatever. Proximity matters in terms of unity. More matters, but at least proximity does. And I think, at this point, it is misguided to assume that we have unity with everyone that we aren’t separated from for cause. I don’t think that is the case, at least if “unity” is something that the world is supposed to see and believe in Jesus.
So that’s why I say, What is unity? Because if you and I have unity, I don’t know how that will cause anyone to believe that Jesus is sent from God.
I will look forward to your response, but do my best not to respond today.
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 guess I would assume Christian unity would be the default position rather than separation.
Enjoying the discussion so far!
Forrest Berry
In some respects, unless we have some kind of link with another ministry or person, we can’t really be united or separated from them.
But where a ministry directly impacts my own, I can make those kinds of choices.
Most of us have little or no direct connection or possibility of joint ministry with Grudem (the example used) so for most of us, other than deciding whether to use or recommend his books or not, there is little meaningful relationship to talk about.
The same is basically true about someone like Graham, except that his ministry is very wide-ranging. His team has sponsored evangelistic campaigns in my town (not him personally, but his team) and we regularly get invitations from his organization to participate in some event locally that is sponsored by his ministries.
Does that make it a little clearer?
But where a ministry directly impacts my own, I can make those kinds of choices.
Most of us have little or no direct connection or possibility of joint ministry with Grudem (the example used) so for most of us, other than deciding whether to use or recommend his books or not, there is little meaningful relationship to talk about.
The same is basically true about someone like Graham, except that his ministry is very wide-ranging. His team has sponsored evangelistic campaigns in my town (not him personally, but his team) and we regularly get invitations from his organization to participate in some event locally that is sponsored by his ministries.
Does that make it a little clearer?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I think Bob has put nature of the church-to-church relationship problem succinctly and helpfully in the first few paragraphs http://sharperiron.org/comment/24222#comment-24222] in this post .
That seems like a great place to launch a conversation w/a panel of guys like those who were at PTC (but with some additional leaders from GARBC, FBF, ACCC, etc.)
I’m not really making a case here so much as explaining myself… To me it’s a bit like being alive. You don’t have to plan ways to show that you are alive. If you’re alive, you breathe, you eat, you interact with your environment, etc. You don’t have to wonder “How can I make the fact that I’m alive visible?” And the evidence of your life is there, though some may not see it. If you’re sleeping or in a coma, someone who isn’t looking closely might think you’re dead.
So the reality of visible evidence and the perception are two different things.
(Like all analogies, this one is imperfect… but maybe its true that if the evidence of life is hard to see, sickness is implied… and so if evidence of unity is hard to see, some unhealthiness in the unity is implied. Not sure.)
So my point about unity is that it exists and it shows, automatically. We do not really have to contrive ways to show it unless the ways it naturally shows are deficient in some way. Are they deficient? I’m not sure. It’s true that thousands of churches worshiping the same God, believing the same gospel, embracing 90% of the same understanding of apostolic teaching but operating mostly separately do not look unified to many observers. But they look unified to those who know what to look for. Do we need to contrive ways to look unified for those who don’t know what to look for?
(I tend to think that cooperation should be driven by practical factors, not a desire to show unity—that is, work together when it is more effective at accomplishing ministry goals/”mission” than working separately)
And, as Bob asked where I linked above, is that kind of unity (essential unity) enough or is it supposed to extend to cooperation in multiple endeavors?
So it may be helpful—at least in understanding where I’m coming from—to distinguish between unity and cooperation. To me, cooperation is another form of unity (but unity is not its purpose) in addition to the unity we have in the faith. It’s multichurch teamwork. But it’s not clear to me that an obligation to be involved in this teamwork is taught in John 17. (Other places, like Acts would be stronger… but again unity—or its demonstration—is not the point there)
That seems like a great place to launch a conversation w/a panel of guys like those who were at PTC (but with some additional leaders from GARBC, FBF, ACCC, etc.)
[CPHurst] 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?…It’s not an aversion to visible unity. It’s just that efforts at visible unity are so often mistaken for actual unity and folks tend to assume that the absence of these programmed events = lack of unity.
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?
I’m not really making a case here so much as explaining myself… To me it’s a bit like being alive. You don’t have to plan ways to show that you are alive. If you’re alive, you breathe, you eat, you interact with your environment, etc. You don’t have to wonder “How can I make the fact that I’m alive visible?” And the evidence of your life is there, though some may not see it. If you’re sleeping or in a coma, someone who isn’t looking closely might think you’re dead.
So the reality of visible evidence and the perception are two different things.
(Like all analogies, this one is imperfect… but maybe its true that if the evidence of life is hard to see, sickness is implied… and so if evidence of unity is hard to see, some unhealthiness in the unity is implied. Not sure.)
So my point about unity is that it exists and it shows, automatically. We do not really have to contrive ways to show it unless the ways it naturally shows are deficient in some way. Are they deficient? I’m not sure. It’s true that thousands of churches worshiping the same God, believing the same gospel, embracing 90% of the same understanding of apostolic teaching but operating mostly separately do not look unified to many observers. But they look unified to those who know what to look for. Do we need to contrive ways to look unified for those who don’t know what to look for?
(I tend to think that cooperation should be driven by practical factors, not a desire to show unity—that is, work together when it is more effective at accomplishing ministry goals/”mission” than working separately)
And, as Bob asked where I linked above, is that kind of unity (essential unity) enough or is it supposed to extend to cooperation in multiple endeavors?
So it may be helpful—at least in understanding where I’m coming from—to distinguish between unity and cooperation. To me, cooperation is another form of unity (but unity is not its purpose) in addition to the unity we have in the faith. It’s multichurch teamwork. But it’s not clear to me that an obligation to be involved in this teamwork is taught in John 17. (Other places, like Acts would be stronger… but again unity—or its demonstration—is not the point there)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Great discussion. I’m just reading it today, having been busy with other pressing matters this week.
I have only one thought at this point. It has long bothered me when I hear fundamentalists say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was a spiritual unity effected by God, and therefore has no practical applications for Christians today, or something similar. It sounds to me like, “We can ignore the unity for which Christ prayed, and get back to our first and second degree separation unhindered without wrestling with the troubling implications of Christ’s prayer.”
What other area of God’s will, revealed in Scripture, are we free to ignore? Doesn’t Scripture teach that if God reveals something as His will (or His work), our posture is not to leave it Him, since it’s His and not ours. Rather, we should make His will our will, and endeavor to cooperate with God in what He has revealed He is doing. Isn’t the highest level of honoring God our desire to make His will our will? Am am I missing something in this analysis?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
I have only one thought at this point. It has long bothered me when I hear fundamentalists say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was a spiritual unity effected by God, and therefore has no practical applications for Christians today, or something similar. It sounds to me like, “We can ignore the unity for which Christ prayed, and get back to our first and second degree separation unhindered without wrestling with the troubling implications of Christ’s prayer.”
What other area of God’s will, revealed in Scripture, are we free to ignore? Doesn’t Scripture teach that if God reveals something as His will (or His work), our posture is not to leave it Him, since it’s His and not ours. Rather, we should make His will our will, and endeavor to cooperate with God in what He has revealed He is doing. Isn’t the highest level of honoring God our desire to make His will our will? Am am I missing something in this analysis?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
I’ll bite.
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.
[G. N. Barkman] It has long bothered me when I hear fundamentalists say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was a spiritual unity effected by God, and therefore has no practical applications for Christians today, or something similar. It sounds to me like, “We can ignore the unity for which Christ prayed, and get back to our first and second degree separation unhindered without wrestling with the troubling implications of Christ’s prayer.”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.
[CPHurst]Grudem is a charismatic which would remove him in some manner from some non-charismatic Evangelicals and fundies. That would be one reason I am sure you would understand. Secondly Grudem is not just a charismatic but a Calvinist charismatic. This combination may seem benign but this particular label, Calvinist charismatic, is an identity which has with it specific levels of fellowships within Evangelicalism which are based on very specific views.
Ok, forget Grudem since he is a hang up for everyone (though I cant understand why)
Within the Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed circle, charismaticism is rejected on many levels, yet tolerated and embraced in other places. For those rejecting it, it is not just charismaticism that is rejected for the sake of rejecting charismaticism thereby placing Grudem at a distance for some, rather it is the hermeneutic and theology upon which it is based which forces one to respond and interact with Grudem as a proponent of an interpretive practice not received by those who otherwise may share theological views with Grudem. It is a consequential separation due to a view and practice of Grudem’s. Surely you can understand why non-charismatics are removed from a charismatic to some degree though they may share some or much of the remaining theology.
But do remember, it isn’t just the objectionable position(s) of Grudem but the hermeneutic and theology which he embraces that lies behind such assertions; assertions which hold implications that eventually lead to very unacceptable theological constructs. I believe the link at the main article on Dr. Bruce Compton’s coverage of Grudem on prophecy is worth a listen.
[Larry]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.[Bob] 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.And where is that? I don’t want to be pedantic, but I think it would be helpful to get the verse on the table so we can see them….
The whole “local church” thing is a big one. Even if we grant that it is as big as a city, it is still smaller than the universal idea right? And at least in a city, we can do stuff together. 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….
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?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Ted,
Several good insights. Thanks. I’m still not sure that this removes the “practical” application that because all born again believers are one with Christ, and one with each other in Christ, that we have a duty to reflect this unity, which is admittedly already accomplished by the work of the Father, in our relationship with other believers. At least we should give it every effort. Something like “as much as lies wihin you, live at peace with all men.”
Cordially,
Greg
Several good insights. Thanks. I’m still not sure that this removes the “practical” application that because all born again believers are one with Christ, and one with each other in Christ, that we have a duty to reflect this unity, which is admittedly already accomplished by the work of the Father, in our relationship with other believers. At least we should give it every effort. Something like “as much as lies wihin you, live at peace with all men.”
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
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.
You have well-reasoned points from Ephesians, and they are worth interacting with.
Jeff Brown
Great point, I must admit. What I was getting at was Calvin lamenting the disunity between Lutherans and Reformed in his day, and the counsel he gave to Knox and others to permit some things they didn’t like (vestments, and other high church trappings in worship) so as to still maintain unity. And yes the state church is not ideal in my view, either. Still we independent church folk could do a better job at working together realizing that small compromises and allowances for differing opinions on lesser matters are not a sell out to the cardinal truths of the Gospel.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
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.
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.
You bring up a great point, Susan. Think about this too, many times people drive that far to find a church they agree with on all points or that they are comfortable with. The churches near them are weaker and not as good. Do you think that maybe if they stayed in those churches and tried to help and work for growth and change, that maybe they would eventually become better churches? Instead, we leave them for greener pastures.
In fact, we end up having people jump from church to church, always looking for the perfect one, as if that just happens completely independently of their involvement. Never satisfied they move on, and the churches are the worse for it.
In fact, we end up having people jump from church to church, always looking for the perfect one, as if that just happens completely independently of their involvement. Never satisfied they move on, and the churches are the worse for it.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
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.
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.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
A couple of comments and questions about the conference:
The word “Christian” was nowhere to be found on the PTT website nor is it usually present in the labels we give ourselves. I suggest we always call ourselves “Christian” first and then, if we really have to, follow with other labels, after all none of the other labels are in the Bible! This would be good for us first, as a reminder of what we really are, or should be, Christ like, and as an identifier for those not familiar with our “name calling”.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?
I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?
Gabe
“Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1st Timothy 1:2
The word “Christian” was nowhere to be found on the PTT website nor is it usually present in the labels we give ourselves. I suggest we always call ourselves “Christian” first and then, if we really have to, follow with other labels, after all none of the other labels are in the Bible! This would be good for us first, as a reminder of what we really are, or should be, Christ like, and as an identifier for those not familiar with our “name calling”.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?
I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?
Gabe
“Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1st Timothy 1:2
[gsm]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.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
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.
[gsm] If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?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-controver… Here’s a link .
[gsm] I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?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.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
Great points you’ve added in your last two points. On your first post, I wanted to demur a bit and say that there has been some togetherness and unity shown of late that can approach (in a limited sense), that displayed in the time period you surveyed. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy comes to mind. But part of our problem is a few more centuries full of ever more numerous differences between Protestant churches and more distance from a one state-one church reality than they had then.
ON your second post, I particularly amen the pragmatism points you make. I think that Gabe’s comments are sincere but represent a pietistic emphasis in American church culture too, which prizes the heart over the head, rather than affirming both spheres as important.
Great points you’ve added in your last two points. On your first post, I wanted to demur a bit and say that there has been some togetherness and unity shown of late that can approach (in a limited sense), that displayed in the time period you surveyed. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy comes to mind. But part of our problem is a few more centuries full of ever more numerous differences between Protestant churches and more distance from a one state-one church reality than they had then.
ON your second post, I particularly amen the pragmatism points you make. I think that Gabe’s comments are sincere but represent a pietistic emphasis in American church culture too, which prizes the heart over the head, rather than affirming both spheres as important.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
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.
Second, the question with regards to what other Christians would think is helpful, but a bit misleading I think. I would suggest that we must address the issues we are facing. The Christians in Darfur, Sudan, China, etc., are all facing different issues. Now, do they need teaching on these types of things? Certainly they do. But they need application in different areas, and perhaps teaching on some different areas. That’s not to say that we should be preoccupied with these things. I think Chris’s point from Friday night is well-needed: We need to delight in the gospel and talk about it. Separation is a necessary step, but not one that we delight in. So the fact that other Christians might not talk about a particular topic does not mean it isn’t relevant for us.
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.
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.
Second, the question with regards to what other Christians would think is helpful, but a bit misleading I think. I would suggest that we must address the issues we are facing. The Christians in Darfur, Sudan, China, etc., are all facing different issues. Now, do they need teaching on these types of things? Certainly they do. But they need application in different areas, and perhaps teaching on some different areas. That’s not to say that we should be preoccupied with these things. I think Chris’s point from Friday night is well-needed: We need to delight in the gospel and talk about it. Separation is a necessary step, but not one that we delight in. So the fact that other Christians might not talk about a particular topic does not mean it isn’t relevant for us.
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.
[G.N Barkman] What other area of God’s will, revealed in Scripture, are we free to ignore?I explained in some earlier posts that it’s not about ignoring God’s will but about understanding what that will is, and specifically, what Jesus actually meant in John 17 when you take it in context.
Surely the fact that all who believe posses an actual unity—whether visible or not—is indisputable. But the question remains whether intentional displays of this unity are called for in the NT.
They are certainly not called for by Jesus’ prayer. He was asking the Father to do something, not instructing us to do something (and as I pointed out earlier, the “something” has to do with shared faith).
I’m open to the possibility that other passages make that case, though I have not yet seen a persuasive one.
So… much hinges on understanding the difference between actual unity vs. displays of unity/cooperation. These are not the same thing and we really need to stop using the word “unity” to lump these different things together. It’s not helpful to understanding the teaching of Scripture. You have unity and you have cooperation. The latter can exist without the former (as in the case of the old Billy Graham events… he was cooperating with men and ministries who did not share his belief in the gospel: cooperation without unity.) And the former can exist—does exist—without the latter. I have unity with thousands (millions?) of believers I’ve never even met.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Larry] Repentance is the response to the gospel, which I think was explicitly stated.Yes, it was.
Minnick was a bit confusing I think… or illustrating the confusion that exists among fundamentalists. He wanted to be able to say that the gospel is a small, distinct set of ideas and simultaneously say that it encompasses everything Jesus’ taught and lived (which really means all the teaching of Scripture if you think it through… it’s the “word of Christ”).
So he described a model where you have a central core set of beliefs that are necessary for justification, and a broader set of beliefs including all the teaching of “the Gospels” (it seemed important to him to link “the gospel” with “the Gospels”)—and these both constitute “the gospel.”
So when repentance came up, he denied that it was part of the gospel (the core of ideas you believe for justification) then amended his statement to say that repentance is part of what Jesus taught so it’s part of the “gospel” in that sense.
I think Kevin Bauder’s approach (not part of the conference but in several Nick of Time essays) is better in general. If I remember right, the idea was that you have the core tenets of the gospel (1 Cor.15) but also have several necessary implications of it—ideas that cannot be denied without effectively denying the gospel (even though you may insist you are not denying it). He identified both the core and the necessary implications as the standard for “separation” (in the sense of rejecting apostasy).
But Minnick’s understanding of what “separation” is seems better to me than Bauders. He made several observations that indicated that he sees the action properly called “separation” as intentional and punitive. It is a rebuke, not just the presence/introduction of non-cooperation/non-fellowship. Doran seemed to see it this way as well.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
I agree that Minnick was confusing at that point. I also think part of the confusion is the broadness of the way we use “gospel.” There is no agreement on how to use it, so probably better just to explain how we are using it.
But think of it this way: Jesus’ words in Mark 1:15 are, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
For the moment, take out the issue of what the “gospel” was here, and the whole kingdom idea and focus on the last: “Repent and believe the gospel.”
It seems that here, Jesus affirms that the gospel and repentance are two different things. He doesn’t say “Repent and believe which is the gospel.” The gospel is rather the object or the content or the basis (however you want to say it) of repentance and belief. It seems that Jesus makes a pretty clear distinction, and it’s one we all make.
I think Dever in his book on Personal Evangelism makes this point as well, that we confuse “evangelism” (telling the good news) with a number of things including the response to the good news.
So, the word “gospel” is used a number of different ways both in the NT and in our context. Perhaps, it’s easy to get lost in the details and fine distinctions, and miss the point.
I agree that Minnick was confusing at that point. I also think part of the confusion is the broadness of the way we use “gospel.” There is no agreement on how to use it, so probably better just to explain how we are using it.
But think of it this way: Jesus’ words in Mark 1:15 are, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
For the moment, take out the issue of what the “gospel” was here, and the whole kingdom idea and focus on the last: “Repent and believe the gospel.”
It seems that here, Jesus affirms that the gospel and repentance are two different things. He doesn’t say “Repent and believe which is the gospel.” The gospel is rather the object or the content or the basis (however you want to say it) of repentance and belief. It seems that Jesus makes a pretty clear distinction, and it’s one we all make.
I think Dever in his book on Personal Evangelism makes this point as well, that we confuse “evangelism” (telling the good news) with a number of things including the response to the good news.
So, the word “gospel” is used a number of different ways both in the NT and in our context. Perhaps, it’s easy to get lost in the details and fine distinctions, and miss the point.
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.”
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.”
G. N. Barkman
Larry,
Forget about inter-State or inter-Country unity. Go ahead and think locally. Think Eph. 3 & 4 in a local-universal sense. Does the language and teaching in those chapters naturally fit with just the people inside the boundary of your local church? Or can’t you see something wider than that in Ephesians? Some of the verses in chapter 3 are foundational for belief in a universal sense of the church. Ephesians is where many of the proof texts explicating that doctrine are found, by the way. Do you not believe in the universal church? That would explain some things.
But back to your situation. In your town. We’ve admitted (I think), that Ephesus was a large city with groups of people scattered around all called one church, with a large group of elders overseeing it all. And then there is your church in a city where there are likely many other gospel-preaching churches (Presbyterian and Bible to be sure, but likely even others), within a relatively close distance. Can you admit that Ephesians 3 & 4 would have something to say about how you view those other churches, the solidarity you have with them in Christ, and may it not push you to work with them in ways you can to express and work out this real unity that you share with them in Christ?
Forget about inter-State or inter-Country unity. Go ahead and think locally. Think Eph. 3 & 4 in a local-universal sense. Does the language and teaching in those chapters naturally fit with just the people inside the boundary of your local church? Or can’t you see something wider than that in Ephesians? Some of the verses in chapter 3 are foundational for belief in a universal sense of the church. Ephesians is where many of the proof texts explicating that doctrine are found, by the way. Do you not believe in the universal church? That would explain some things.
But back to your situation. In your town. We’ve admitted (I think), that Ephesus was a large city with groups of people scattered around all called one church, with a large group of elders overseeing it all. And then there is your church in a city where there are likely many other gospel-preaching churches (Presbyterian and Bible to be sure, but likely even others), within a relatively close distance. Can you admit that Ephesians 3 & 4 would have something to say about how you view those other churches, the solidarity you have with them in Christ, and may it not push you to work with them in ways you can to express and work out this real unity that you share with them in Christ?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[GNB]…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.That is pretty much what I’m saying, except for the already accomplished part. It is in progress and won’t be done until all who are going to believe actually do.
But it isn’t possible to get an obligation to “organizational unity” out of Jesus’ prayer and do justice to the text and the context.
The application of that prayer could go several directions, the most obvious being a revelation of some aspects of how we ought to pray.
I’m still not entirely clear on what your view of unity itself is.
- Does unity exist where people believe the same thing or…
- Does unity not exist until those people get together under the same roof or join the same organization or cooperate in a project together?
- Do you disagree with my idea that actual unity is a distinct thing from cooperation?
So my point is that organizational membership and cooperation are independent from unity.
But your post introduces a third thing (or maybe we’re up to four now?): the absence of strife and fighting is yet another thing we often call unity. We’re on more solid ground here because the epistles sometimes call it unity also. But this is unity in the sense of harmony in (usually inter-personal) relationships. It presupposes unity of the faith and calls for mutual respect and love.
But mutual respect and love do not create unity of the faith. Again, they are independent things though unity in relationships ought to go hand in hand with unity of faith.
So “unity” in that sense (treating eachother right): yes, I believe the NT calls us all to it and that this applies outside local church boundaries, too. (But John 17 isn’t where we find that)
The problem is that many call for this kind of harmony in situations where there is no actual unity of the faith and the result is that either a) the effort fails or b) it succeeds but it’s a sham. It’s barely skin deep.
[Bob] the solidarity you have with them in Christ, and may it not push you to work with them in ways you can to express and work out this real unity that you share with them in Christ?Not speaking for Larry, but for my part, I think this is a weighty question… but not one with an obvious answer. For me, joining in projects together hinges on questions like these…
- Is there some way that doing this project together will make it more effective than doing it separately?
- Are there differences in ministry philosophy, emphasis, etc., that commend doing the project separately?
But my mind is not settled on the question by a long shot.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
No, I do not disgree with your idea that actual unity is distinct from cooperation. Nor do I understand where you picked up the idea that I believe John 17 obligates us to organizational unity. I thought I stated that I do not believe this. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough.
I believe John 17 obligates us to an attitude that manifests a spirit of unity, that is, love and good will toward other Christians as much as possible. In broad generalities, perhaps we can say that one of the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is that it exalts unity so highly that it seems unable to strongly defend truth if it perceives unity to be threatened. Conversely, one of the weaknesses of Fundamentalism is its tendency to exalt truth above unity so much that it seems unable to practice unity if the slightest disagreement develops. This is an attitude, a mindset. It is not the same as organizational unity, nor ministry partnership, although it may well influence decisions that impact these areas. I recall someone saying on a previous SI post, “Try unity first.” I think that’s the correct Biblical attitude. Separation may become necessary, but let’s work hard to avoid it if at all possible. Some Fundamentalists have developed an attitude akin to, “He was ready to fight at the drop of a hat, and he’ll even drop the hat.” Surely John 17, as well as numerous other NT passages forbid such an attitude.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
No, I do not disgree with your idea that actual unity is distinct from cooperation. Nor do I understand where you picked up the idea that I believe John 17 obligates us to organizational unity. I thought I stated that I do not believe this. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough.
I believe John 17 obligates us to an attitude that manifests a spirit of unity, that is, love and good will toward other Christians as much as possible. In broad generalities, perhaps we can say that one of the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is that it exalts unity so highly that it seems unable to strongly defend truth if it perceives unity to be threatened. Conversely, one of the weaknesses of Fundamentalism is its tendency to exalt truth above unity so much that it seems unable to practice unity if the slightest disagreement develops. This is an attitude, a mindset. It is not the same as organizational unity, nor ministry partnership, although it may well influence decisions that impact these areas. I recall someone saying on a previous SI post, “Try unity first.” I think that’s the correct Biblical attitude. Separation may become necessary, but let’s work hard to avoid it if at all possible. Some Fundamentalists have developed an attitude akin to, “He was ready to fight at the drop of a hat, and he’ll even drop the hat.” Surely John 17, as well as numerous other NT passages forbid such an attitude.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Greg, perhaps you can word this a different way -
one of the weaknesses of Fundamentalism is its tendency to exalt truth above unity so much that it seems unable to practice unity if the slightest disagreement developsbut I had to stop and read it twice when I came to it. Surely, are not saying we can ever give to much priority to truth, right? I mean, what basis is there for Christian unity without truth? Any diminishing of truth MUST diminish unity, since the structure cannot stand if the foundation crumbles or disappears. I cannot conceive of any way in which we might say the exaltation of truth is a bad thing. Now, honestly, I think I might know what you are trying to say here, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
I agree. We cannot exalt truth too much. Perhaps my thoughts were not well conceived and stated. But the doctrine of Christian unity is Divine truth. Perhaps what I should have said was something like this:
One of the weaknesses of Evangelicals is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of Christian unity to the neglect of defense of the faith. One of the weaknesses of Fundemantalists is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of separation to the neglect of the doctrine of Christian unity.
I am encouraged to see this issue openly discussed on SI, and in various other Fundamentalist forums. Thankfully, many now recognize that there is a problem. Identifying and addressing the problem accurately will no doubt require much discussion. In the past, the prevailing attitude seemed to forbid honest discussion of the issues of separation, at least in my experience. Now, thankfully, that is changing. Thanks for extending this helpful discussion.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
I agree. We cannot exalt truth too much. Perhaps my thoughts were not well conceived and stated. But the doctrine of Christian unity is Divine truth. Perhaps what I should have said was something like this:
One of the weaknesses of Evangelicals is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of Christian unity to the neglect of defense of the faith. One of the weaknesses of Fundemantalists is that they tend to exalt the doctrine of separation to the neglect of the doctrine of Christian unity.
I am encouraged to see this issue openly discussed on SI, and in various other Fundamentalist forums. Thankfully, many now recognize that there is a problem. Identifying and addressing the problem accurately will no doubt require much discussion. In the past, the prevailing attitude seemed to forbid honest discussion of the issues of separation, at least in my experience. Now, thankfully, that is changing. Thanks for extending this helpful discussion.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
To your latest post, I both agree and disagree. I agree that unity is the natural byproduct of truth. The more truth we agree upon, the greater unity we enjoy.
The danger I see is that of setting myself up as the standard of truth, and recognizing unity only with those who agree with me, or at least closely agree with me. From a purely practical standpoint, a certain amount of this is inevitable, for the reasons you stated. Unity of this nature just “happens” when I come into contact with those who agree with me. However, that can also lead to arrogance and condescension. For my part, I try to remind myself regularly that I do not have a corner on truth. Other believers understand some areas of truth better than I, and if I am wise, I will endeavor to learn from them. If I “separate” myself from everyone with whom I do not agree, I will stagnate. I will also fail to recognize and exercise the unity God has created with every born again believe in Christ.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
To your latest post, I both agree and disagree. I agree that unity is the natural byproduct of truth. The more truth we agree upon, the greater unity we enjoy.
The danger I see is that of setting myself up as the standard of truth, and recognizing unity only with those who agree with me, or at least closely agree with me. From a purely practical standpoint, a certain amount of this is inevitable, for the reasons you stated. Unity of this nature just “happens” when I come into contact with those who agree with me. However, that can also lead to arrogance and condescension. For my part, I try to remind myself regularly that I do not have a corner on truth. Other believers understand some areas of truth better than I, and if I am wise, I will endeavor to learn from them. If I “separate” myself from everyone with whom I do not agree, I will stagnate. I will also fail to recognize and exercise the unity God has created with every born again believe in Christ.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
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
the unity God has created with every born again believe(sic) in Christas you see it played out in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
As I understand I Corinthians 5, those who persist in living in immorality are not to be considered as genuine believers by the visible church. Verse 11 says, “not to keep company with anyone ‘named’ a brother.” He is a “so-called brother,” which is to say that he calls himself a brother, but the church does not consider his profession valid. The church refuses to call him a brother. That is why he must be put out of the church. The church’s relationship to him must match his actual condition.
When he is put out of the church, the church will have no more responsibility to him as a Christian. Then he will be treated as an unbeliever to be evangelized. That’s the jist of the “inside/outside” language of vs 12, ie. “inside” the visible church vs. “outside” the church.
Kind regards,
Greg Barkman
As I understand I Corinthians 5, those who persist in living in immorality are not to be considered as genuine believers by the visible church. Verse 11 says, “not to keep company with anyone ‘named’ a brother.” He is a “so-called brother,” which is to say that he calls himself a brother, but the church does not consider his profession valid. The church refuses to call him a brother. That is why he must be put out of the church. The church’s relationship to him must match his actual condition.
When he is put out of the church, the church will have no more responsibility to him as a Christian. Then he will be treated as an unbeliever to be evangelized. That’s the jist of the “inside/outside” language of vs 12, ie. “inside” the visible church vs. “outside” the church.
Kind regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
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.
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
No, this is a different situation. It is corrective discipline within the local church, not excommunication from the church, as in I Corinthians 5. This man is considered a brother, but a disobedient one. Specifically, he is guilty of sloth. He will not work, and is a gossip. (I’m writing quickly and recalling from memory, as I’m due at a budget meeting in 15 minutes.)
His sin is not one of the serious sins resulting in excommunication (if confrontation does not bring repentance and change) listed in I Corinthians 5 and 6. Apparently he doesn’t fall below “bottom line” behavior for a Believer, but he needs to be corrected.
That’s all for now. More later if needed.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
His sin is not one of the serious sins resulting in excommunication (if confrontation does not bring repentance and change) listed in I Corinthians 5 and 6. Apparently he doesn’t fall below “bottom line” behavior for a Believer, but he needs to be corrected.
That’s all for now. More later if needed.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
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.
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Greg, looks like everyone has abandoned us!Got swamped.
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.
I personally think the 2Thess situation is quite a bit diff. from the Rom.16.17 situation, but I do think it is an example of unity of the faith working out. The separation occurs as discipline but is never—in this case—seen as separation from apostasy.
I found the unity vs. truth exchange very interesting. The tension is an interesting one. There is an inverse correlation between the exhaustiveness of the truth that unifies and the number of people that exist to be unified. That is, the the more truth you agree on, the fewer of you there are to agree on it. If you take it all the way in that direction, it’s “just me and you and I’m not too sure about you.” But the reverse is also true. The bigger the tent, the less truth there is truly uniting its occupants. We could all get together under the banner “We love Jesus,” and even include a fair number of Buddhists and Muslims, know what I mean?
So there is a real need for discernment as to how much truth/which truths to be slushy on in order to cooperate, fellowship, demonstrate visible unity, etc.
(Which is why I think we are hearing more emphasis from guys like Bauder and Minnick on the gospel as the boundary of separation…. though we are not seeing complete agreement on what we’re including in the term.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Bob,
Returning to this tonight after catching up on some blogs and seeing this on yours. I wanted to reply briefly.
But here continues to be my struggle.
First, I am still not sure what we are talking about when we talk about unity. What actually is that? What does it mean? I don’t want to kill the thing here, but I am not sure what you mean by this. When you talk about “expressing and working out this real unity” what are we talking about? I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don’t see it. I know what unity is in the local church. It’s people working together for the sake of the gospel to build a church. I can see that unity being worked out in financial support for another church, such as the Philippians giving to Paul or our church supporting a missionary. That is working together for the sake of building a church. But what else does that apply to? I would really like to see some development of this.
In the second place, and I don’t want to be pedantic here, but I am not seeing how Ephesians applies to churches that are separate churches, and which do not share doctrinal agreement. If there is any place that emphasizes doctrinal agreement, Ephesians would be it, wouldn’t it? Ephesians 4 clearly speaks of “one faith.” Where someone has a different faith, even in good conscience, then we don’t have unity. The degree of that difference determines how much we can work together, if at all. And it determines the degree to which I will “work against” them. But following up on the earlier comment, until I know what we are talking about, I don’t really know what to say.
I think Philiippians 1 is a better model where I rejoice that Christ is preached, even by people with whom I disagree about doctrinal matters, or other matters.
But I think the unity discussion floats about freely without much substance. The words get thrown around a lot but what does it actually mean? What does it require?
Hoping this sheds some light at least on my concerns. I am not opposed to unity at all. I am a good deal freer than many in my approach to some of this. I think Paul’s principle of “where Christ has not been preached” is a better model, which is to say, Why are there two churches who agree with each other close enough to work together in any meaningful way? If there is already a good church there, why not go somewhere else?
I know there is plenty of room, and differing church personalities and the like, so I am not a big stickler on this, but I think it is worth considering. And I think this dynamic from 2000 years ago is why the Bible is actually pretty silent on the types of things you are talking about.
Thanks for indulging me here.
Returning to this tonight after catching up on some blogs and seeing this on yours. I wanted to reply briefly.
Does the language and teaching in those chapters naturally fit with just the people inside the boundary of your local church? Or can’t you see something wider than that in Ephesians? Some of the verses in chapter 3 are foundational for belief in a universal sense of the church. Ephesians is where many of the proof texts explicating that doctrine are found, by the way. Do you not believe in the universal church? That would explain some things.I believe in a universal church though I prefer invisible as the term for it.
But here continues to be my struggle.
First, I am still not sure what we are talking about when we talk about unity. What actually is that? What does it mean? I don’t want to kill the thing here, but I am not sure what you mean by this. When you talk about “expressing and working out this real unity” what are we talking about? I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don’t see it. I know what unity is in the local church. It’s people working together for the sake of the gospel to build a church. I can see that unity being worked out in financial support for another church, such as the Philippians giving to Paul or our church supporting a missionary. That is working together for the sake of building a church. But what else does that apply to? I would really like to see some development of this.
In the second place, and I don’t want to be pedantic here, but I am not seeing how Ephesians applies to churches that are separate churches, and which do not share doctrinal agreement. If there is any place that emphasizes doctrinal agreement, Ephesians would be it, wouldn’t it? Ephesians 4 clearly speaks of “one faith.” Where someone has a different faith, even in good conscience, then we don’t have unity. The degree of that difference determines how much we can work together, if at all. And it determines the degree to which I will “work against” them. But following up on the earlier comment, until I know what we are talking about, I don’t really know what to say.
I think Philiippians 1 is a better model where I rejoice that Christ is preached, even by people with whom I disagree about doctrinal matters, or other matters.
But I think the unity discussion floats about freely without much substance. The words get thrown around a lot but what does it actually mean? What does it require?
Hoping this sheds some light at least on my concerns. I am not opposed to unity at all. I am a good deal freer than many in my approach to some of this. I think Paul’s principle of “where Christ has not been preached” is a better model, which is to say, Why are there two churches who agree with each other close enough to work together in any meaningful way? If there is already a good church there, why not go somewhere else?
I know there is plenty of room, and differing church personalities and the like, so I am not a big stickler on this, but I think it is worth considering. And I think this dynamic from 2000 years ago is why the Bible is actually pretty silent on the types of things you are talking about.
Thanks for indulging me here.
Discussion