Christian Unity

Unity news:

Thirty-four churches and national Christian organizations, representing over 100 million Americans, have formed the broadest, most inclusive fellowship of Christian churches and traditions in the USA in a gathering at Simpsonwood Conference and Retreat Center near Atlanta, Georgia, March 28 – 31, 2006.

These groups officially launched an organization known as Christian Churches Together. Such an event can hardly escape the notice of anyone who longs for unity among believers in our Lord. The groups represented include the Evangelical/Pentecostal, Historic Protestant, Historic Racial/Ethnic, Orthodox and Catholic churches. It is quite remarkable that groups of such diverse doctrinal beliefs have chosen to organize together with a shared mission “to enable churches and Christian organizations to grow closer together in Christ in order to strengthen our Christian witness in the world.”

Christian Churches Together has been in formative stages for several years. According to an article at beliefnet.com:

Organizers had hoped to launch last year but put off any official action until the group could attract more interest and participation from historically black churches.

Two of the nation’s largest black denominations — the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. and the National Baptist Convention of America — officially joined as members during the Atlanta meeting.

From an earlier article at religioustolerance.org:

The 2003 meeting approved a proposal to be distributed among “…churches, Christian communities, and national Christian organizations” that might wish to join the CCT. Their theological requirements for membership are minimal. Members are expected to:

• “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the Scriptures
• Worship and serve the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
• Seek ways to work together in order to present a more credible Christian witness in and to the world.”

The phrase “according to the scriptures” allows each of the member organizations to interpret the Bible in their own way. This will inevitably lead to a great diversity of latitude in beliefs about Jesus.

This list of doctrinal requirements allows the CCT to include a much broader range of Christian faith groups than, for example, the NAE which requires members to specifically affirm the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and of Jesus’ virgin birth and sinless life, atonement, resurrection and ascension.

Some more conservative groups, including the Southern Baptists, chose to participate as observers only rather than join the organization. These groups have concerns about the liberal views of some of the member organizations regarding the scriptures, and about some conclusions that those organizations reach as a result. The CCT steering committee holds that their policy of decision by consensus will prevent the group from moving in directions that are offensive to some of the members.

As members of the Restoration Movement, how should we view such an event? We would certainly have more in common with the conservative groups who, while watching with interest, are concerned about the liberal views of many at that table. It is hard to accept the notion of unity with someone who doesn’t hold to the inerrancy of scripture and the virgin birth. For most of us in the Restoration Movement, it is equally difficult to imagine unity with those who do not hold to biblical teachings about conversion.

I think we should welcome constructive dialogue with other groups such as these. But for that dialogue to be constructive, it must deal with the important issues that separate us. I don’t think we can call the results “unity” as long as we cannot mutually accept one another as Christians.

In practical terms, we have much work to do within the Restoration Movement itself. I believe that is the right place for us to start. Meanwhile perhaps God is doing something among the other groups which will lead to greater unity in the future. Wouldn’t that be amazing!

Great leaders have led God’s people to some of the most dramatic victories in the Bible. God chose Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. He chose Joshua to lead them into the Promised Land. But at the death of Joshua, God elected not to appoint a new central leader of his people. Instead they were led by judges in each town, with God himself as their king.

When the Israelites fell into sin, he subjected them to the surrounding nations. But when they cried out to him, he had compassion and selected a leader to bring them out of captivity. After one such rescue, the Israelites tried to make the deliverer become their king.

Judges 8:22-23 Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, both you and your son, also your son’s son, for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.” But Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you.”

So the local judges continued to lead as God had ordained. After several hundred years under the judges, the elders of the people came to Samuel asking for a king.

1 Sam 8:4-9 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day–in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods–so they are doing to you also. “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

Samuel warned the people, but they would have it no other way. So God relented and allowed them to have a king. But when Samuel addressed the people after Saul became king, he said:

1 Sam 12:12-13, 16-18 “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ although the LORD your God was your king.”Now therefore, here is the king whom you have chosen, whom you have asked for, and behold, the LORD has set a king over you.
…
“Even now, take your stand and see this great thing which the LORD will do before your eyes. Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the LORD, that He may send thunder and rain Then you will know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the sight of the LORD by asking for yourselves a king.” So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.

But that was not the end of the matter. After generations of unfaithful kings, God removed the kingdom from Israel. He spoke through Hosea:

Hosea 13:9-10
“You are destroyed, O Israel,
because you are against me, against your helper.
Where is your king, that he may save you?
Where are your rulers in all your towns,
of whom you said,
‘Give me a king and princes’?
So in my anger I gave you a king,
and in my wrath I took him away.

The human kings, to whom the Israelites looked for deliverance, were powerless to save them from their enemies. Instead they led them away from God, and God gave them over to their enemies. So God ultimately took away the human monarchy which Israel had insisted upon, and which had led them into devastating unfaithfulness.

From the beginning God knew that the kings would bring about the ruin of Israel. The elders and the people sinned greatly by asking Samuel for a human monarchy to replace God himself as their king. God punished them by giving them what they asked for, and they suffered the consequenses of their rebellion. They went into spiritual decay lasting hundreds of years, and leading to their captivity and exile at the hands of the Assyrians (Israel) and Babylonians (Judah). No wonder God was opposed to the idea of a human monarchy.

What does this have to do with unity?

Some people believe that unity can only be achieved by organizing all God’s people under a human leader. Such a leader would set the direction and the vision for the people, and lead them as a unified people. This idea makes sense from a human point of view, but it neglects to consider the plan and power of God.

God has organized the Christian church in a manner analogous to the judges of Israel. In each congregation, He has given us evangelists, shepherds, and teachers (Eph 4) to equip the congregation for works of service. He has placed his Holy Spirit in each Christian to empower and change us into His image. But He has provided no formal organization above the local congregation. God himself is the only king we need.

History shows us repeatedly how centralized human leaders eventually lead the church astray. That is not the path to meaningful and lasting unity. Real unity is formed in individual hearts by the Holy Spirit as a result of our mutual relationship with our Father. Let’s walk in step with the Spirt as God brings about the unity for which Jesus prayed.

Can we have unity with brothers in error? When we encounter believers who are teaching or practicing Christianity with (what we believe to be) an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of scripture, what relationship should we have with them?

I just performed a quick Google search for the term “brothers in error.” The query returned 177 links. I did not visit them all, but the vast majority of the ones I saw were making the point that we are all brothers in error. None of us has figured everything out perfectly, so we are all “in error” on some point. So if unity is possible, it must be possible to accept a brother who is in error. And therefore if unity is commanded, it is mandatory that we accept those who are our “brothers in error.”

Hebrews 5:11-6:3 says:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

Here we read of a group of Christians who apparently lacked a basic understanding of things like repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment. Yet it is quite clear (eg. chapters 12 and 13) that the writer is addressing them as Christians.

Carl Ketcherside once wrote:

It is not a choice between “the instrument party” in error, and “the non-instrument party” with no error. The fact that there are two dozen factions in the non-instrument segment proves that we are not free from error. It is a question as to which brothers in error I will associate with openly and freely. I do not endorse any of their errors, nor do I expect them to endorse any of mine. Therefore, it is really a choice of brethren, and not of errors. But I have no choice of brothers. I can no more choose my spiritual brothers than I could my fleshly brothers. Brotherhood is established by fatherhood; fraternity is the result of paternity. I shall love all of my brothers and move among them as they will allow, sharing in what they can convey, sharing with them what little I have learned. I shall receive them as God received me, not because of perfection, but in spite of imperfection.

We can embrace a brother without endorsing his errors. And hopefully he can embrace us without endorsing ours! It is not our doctrinal agreement that makes us brothers. Everyone who is a son of God is my brother. Gal 3:26-29 states:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What makes a person a son of God? From the above passage, a person becomes a son of God through having faith in Christ Jesus, being baptized into Christ and thus being clothed with Christ. And therefore all who have done that are “one in Christ Jesus.” That defines who is my brother. I must accept all such people as my brothers regardless of their misunderstandings about other things. They may need to be gently and patiently taught, but I must embrace them without reservation as my brothers.

In the same article linked above, Carl Ketcherside continued (emphasis added):

Our brother is mistaken when he writes that I think “that all of us ought to ignore all doctrinal differences.” That is the exact opposite of what I think. We could not ignore doctrinal differences if we tried to do it, and the harder we tried the less possibility there would be of doing it. What I think is that conformity in opinions and interpretations is not essential to the fellowship but fellowship is essential to arriving at harmony. Not one admonition to “live in harmony with one another” (e.g., Rom. 15:5) was ever written by an apostle to bring people into the fellowship. All such exhortations were addressed to those in fellowship and because they were in it. So long as we try to restore “fellowship” by arguing our differences we will only create more division. We need to restore a proper sense of fellowship first and discuss our differences within this frame of reference. Then fellowship will not be disrupted every time we differ. Our present course is suicidal!

Ketcherside made a crucial point: We cannot restore “fellowship” by arguing over our differences. Instead we need to restore fellowship based on our common adoption as sons of God. Then, we need to instruct one another with great humility, gentleness, and patience, until we all reach unity. Let’s not wait until all disagreements vanish before we embrace our brothers. And above all let’s not engage in quarrels over every point of disagreement. As Ketcherside points out, that path is suicidal.

Paul wrote in Eph 4:11-13:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

That is the biblical route to unity. We don’t start out knowing it all. We need to be taught, and inspired, and shepherded, until we reach a mature understanding of the Son of God. Let’s embark on that route!

Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Skepticism permeates our culture. Cynicism toward government, corporations, the news media and even established religion is evident in many ways. Much of that skepticism and cynicism has been well earned. As a result, our society is quite ready to believe contradictory accounts that paint the establishment in a bad light.

Two notable examples of this are currently making headlines. First, the DaVinci Code is reportedly one of the most widely read books of all time, and will soon be released as a major motion picture. The book claims to be based on extensive research, and contradicts the biblical acounts of Jesus in shocking ways. Secondly, a supposed “Lost Gospel of Judas” has been recently made public, presenting a contradictary account of the betrayal of Jesus. Both of these sources directly challenge the faith that was “once for all entrusted to the saints.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury attacked both of these sources in his Easter message yesterday. Quoting from the linked article:

…there is a tendency to treat Biblical texts “as if they were unconvincing press releases from some official source, whose intention is to conceal the real story”.

According to the article, even the Pope addressed these issues in his Easter address.

How should Christians respond to something like The DaVinci Code or The Lost Gospel of Judas? Certainly we should stand ready to “contend for the faith” in some manner when unbelievers attack the foundations of our beliefs. But what form should that contending take?

First, we should know what we believe, and why. We should “always be prepared” to explain the reasons for our convictions (1 Pet 3:15). Individual Christians should invest the effort of preparation that is necessary to make that defense. We should study it out in our Bibles for ourselves!

Second, we should be teaching not only the convictions, but the reasons for those convictions, to our congregations. We need to prepare people so that they will not be tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching (Eph 4:14).

Third, we need to proclaim the truth publicly so that honest outsiders can decide for themselves whether the latest bit of scandalous news is more credible than the Bible that Christians have followed for nearly 2000 years.

There are some things we should not do. We should not quarrel with our opponents (2 Tim 2:23-26). We should not engage in ad hominem attacks and slander. And we certainly should not engage in acts of destruction or violence.

It may seem strange that I would bring up the subject of destruction and violence in this context. But in some religious circles, there is an idea that believers must defend God, his prophets, and their beliefs, even to the extent of violence and destruction of property. Anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past few months must be aware of the violence that was prompted by the offensive (to some) cartoons about Mohammed. But taking matters into our own hands only discredits the beliefs we are defending. The true God does not need for us to defend him. He is quite capable of taking care of himself. (Judges 6:30-31, 1 Sam 5). The anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God (James 1:20).

Let’s contend for the faith in a godly manner, even when the opponents are unbelievers. Let’s not give outsiders yet more reasons to be cynical about the gospel.

I am still wrestling with the question of Inter-Church Conflicts .

It seems that there is a certain amount we can do toward unity, but God must do the rest. (Note that Jesus asked God that we should be one in John 17). Perhaps in some cases God must prepare the way for reconciliation before our efforts can succeed–particularly in the case of conflicts between large groups.

On the individual level, I do think that we have to make the effort without delay. Matt 18 requires the offended party to go through the three step process. Also, the offending party is commanded to leave his gift at the altar and to go and be reconciled.

In either case, for successful reconciliation there must be two willing parties. If one party is not willing to reconcile (after the appropriate process), perhaps we are to treat him as a sinner / tax collector (ie someone to be avoided) while God works to bring about a change. In the group scenario I think we avoid them not for the purpose of punishing them, but to avoid further conflict.

Sometimes part of one group is willing to reconcile, but their reconciliation would create a rift with others of their own group who are not prepared to reconcile. The objectors may feel that the reconciliation does not fully address their issues (“You cannot speak for me”). Or they may feel the effort is a distraction from what the church should be doing. Sometimes bridges have been burned and there is an unwillingness to be humble.

When there is a lack of consensus within a group about pursuing reconciliation, I think that the reconciliation should proceed on the individual level anyway, as a matter of principle. By example and teaching the others can be called to do the same. If they do not, then perhaps the rest must be left to God. But it would be so much better if everyone could be brought along together to be reconciled.

I would still love to hear of processes that have worked (or not worked) in such situations.

I am wrestling with a thorny issue.

The biblical process for resolving conflict between two individuals is very clear.

Mat 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Both the injured party (Matt 18) and the guilty party (Matt 5) are commanded to take initiative to resolve conflicts quickly.

Mat 5:23-24 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Conflicts between congregations are more complicated. Reconciliation between leaders according to Matt 18 can be a good first step. But what if other members of the churches do not accept that resolution? Some of those individuals may have their own personal conflicts which they are required to resolve according to the above passages. Others may not have any personal experiences to resolve. Instead they may have been deeply offended by the conflicts between others. These third-party issues might be a byproduct of slander and gossip in the past, or merely an unavoidable consequence of public sin. Often there can be many more individuals with third-party issues than with direct personal issues to resolve. How should one address these?

Is there a way to get a deep and satisfying resolution to such conflicts between groups? Is it necessary to air out all the old dirty laundry publicly in order to get a public conflict resolved? What is the best process? I would be interested in any scriptural insights related to this, and also in any examples where a process worked.

Please don’t include names of people or congregations, or specifics about offenses involved, in any responses. Thank you for any insights you can provide.

Note: If you are looking for helpful thoughts on resolving church conflicts, perhaps you will find something helpful in this post.

What does the NCAA basketball tournament have to do with biblical hermeneutics?

Out of over three million brackets submitted to ESPN’s Men’s Tournament Challenge, there has not been a single entry that picked every game correctly to this point (with the Final Four weekend remaining to be played). Twelve contestants correctly picked fifteen of the Sweet Sixteen correctly. Only four out of the three million managed to pick the Final Four teams correctly. Why?

I see two main factors. First is pre-existing bias. Conventional wisdom did not see George Mason reaching the Final Four. Their chances were discounted by most contestants (probably based on minimal information) due to preconceived notions about the quality of the various teams.

Second is the compounding effect of probabilities. Suppose instead of basketball games we were predicting coin flips. The probability of guessing the winner of each game would be 50%. But the probability of guessing two in a row right would be only 25%. And the probability of guessing all 32 first round games correctly would be a little less than one in four billion. The probability of guessing correctly all of the 60 coin flips in the first four rounds would be about one in a billion billion (no typo–that’s a billion times a billion!) So it is no wonder that none of the three million contestants managed to do that.

The point is that when you chain together a series of decisions, the uncertainty compounds. The more decisions you chain together, each with some degree of uncertainty, the more uncertain your composite decision will be.

The same thing is true when interpreting scripture. In our Doctrines of CENI project we can see that these doctrines are not all equally supported in the scriptures. Some are based on direct commands. Others are supported by combining a command with an inference or an example. And some are supported merely by inferences and/or examples. Those differences in scriptural foundation translate into differences in the objective certainty that the scriptures have been understood correctly.

For example, consider the doctrine of observing the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. That doctrine is supported by an example and a reasonable inference.

The example is a single occasion in Acts 20 when they met on the first day of the week to break bread. From this passage people sometimes infer that we should take the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week. For that conclusion to hold, several things must be true from this passage:

1) It must have been true that they broke bread every first day of the week, and not just on this occasion.
2) it must also be true that to “break bread” in this context meant to take the Lord’s Supper.
3) And finally, it must be true that their example is prescriptive for our practice today.

All three points must be true for the conclusion to hold. And none of those points is explicitly stated in the passage. So we cannot be 100% sure of the conclusion. Suppose we are 70% sure of each point. Therefore we can be no more than 70% * 70% * 70% = 34% sure of the conclusion based on this scripture.

The reasonable inference is derived from 1 Corinthians 11 and 16. In chapter 11 we learn that they periodically assembled to partake of the Lord’s Supper (at least that was the proper purpose of that assembly). In chapter 16 we learn that they collected the funds on first day of each week. From those two passages we could reasonably infer that the assemblies mentioned in 1 Cor 11 occurred each first day of the week. But that is not a necessary inference. For the conclusion to follow in this case, both of the following must be true:

1) The meaning of the two passages is that the Corinthians actually partook of communion every first day of the week.
2) Their frequency of observing communion is binding on us.

If each of these two inferences is 70% certain, the conclusion that we are bound by these passages to take communion every first day of the week is 70% * 70% = 49% certain.

If either the Acts 20 example or the 1 Cor inference is correct, then we are bound to partake every Sunday. So in this illustration, we would be 34% + (50% * 66%) = 67% confident that we should partake of communion every Sunday. Is that a high enough level of confidence for us to draw a line of fellowship? (Note of course that these are hypothetical percentages).

Of course the degree of confidence in each component affects the confidence in the composite decision. For example, adult believer baptism is supported by a clear command and a necessary inference. Our degree of confidence is quite high that repentance must accompany baptism (Acts 2:38), because it is clearly stated. And our degree of confidence that an infant cannot repent is likewise quite high. Furthermore, that doctrine has a second independent line of reasoning from Mark 16:16, indicating that belief must accompany baptism. We are likewise quite confident that an infant cannot believe. In order for our conclusion to fail, both of these lines of reasoning must fail. So the confidence is substantially greater for this doctrine than for the weekly observance of communion.

One other point jumps out of this. Just as the odds are extremely remote that anyone would guess all of the 60 games correctly leading up to the final four, the odds are low that anyone would reach the correct conclusion on every doctrinal point. We are seriously handicapped in our reasoning ability by preconceived notions, emotional ties, and limited knowledge. Just as few people picked George Mason to make it to the final four, few of us will be objective enough, and have enough understanding, to reach every conclusion accurately. That should drive us to our knees in humility. And it should drive us to extend grace to those around us. We will be judged with the same judgment we use toward others. Claiming we know all the answers is the real madness.