The modern Christian church is sorely divided. We are much like the church in Corinth, which was dividing over every minor thing (1 Corinthians 1:10-17;3:1-9; 4:1-5). But the reaction to this can be to embrace a vague, nebulous unity that does not really stand for anything. Now the unity Scripture calls for is more than a broad sentiment. It is a genuine unity of conviction and purpose (Ephesians 4:1-6; Philippians 2:1-4; Romans 15:4-7). Without this, unity becomes meaningless. Therefore we need to veer between the extremes of dividing over everything and accepting everything. We have to ask what things are important. Now I believe Scripture itself sets the limits by what it puts it states to be crucial (Galatians 1:8,9; 1 John 4:1-3: Deuteronomy 13:1-4). But we need to ask the question of where those boundaries are.
Perhaps unity is more about ...
ReplyDelete“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. -John 17:20-23
I don't know if we disagreeing about something here or not. I would not deny the supernatural unity Christ gives, only claiming it should be about something.
DeleteMaybe unity is more about loving Jesus than loving doctrine?
DeleteBut who is Jesus, if we do not know anything about Him. Doctrine is simply the basic teaching about who Jesus is, who God is and what what He has done. It is true you can get caught up in the details or in loving an intellectual system as a system. But it is hard to know someone you know nothing about.
DeleteCan one love Jesus without understanding the doctrine of the Trinity? And can one love Jesus by simply reading of him in the gospels? Is there a simple love that an unlearned person can have and still be ignorant of the complexities of soteriology? Methinks that it is possible to love Jesus and not love doctrine? But I may be wrong?
DeleteWhat does this unlearned person see in the gospels? (I am convinced from personal experience unlearned people often know more than it is assumed they know.) Do they see God come in the flesh to deliver them from their sin. The gospels would seem to force them that way. Then the trinity and soteriology are simply attempts to understand this fact. And before such mind boggling ideas we are all unlearned. But that does not mean it is wrong to try to have a basic understanding of the principles.
DeleteWhat of the unlearned masses in the gospels? What of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears? Perhaps it is more about understanding how much we are forgiven? Maybe such people are the ones who love much even though they cannot spell soteriology? Maybe. ツ
DeleteIt is of course very hard to tell how much many in the gospels did or did not know. Now I have no love of big words and if the word "soteriology" vanished from the language tomorrow, I would not weep a single tear. But the heart of soteriology is that our sins are forgiven. It does seem reasonable after concluding this to ask how and why. But I cannot get a knife's blade of difference between the concepts.
DeleteGuess my original point Mike is that our love of Christ Jesus can be something that we can unify around if we can find a way to share that love with each other. For 10+ years a group of protestants and Catholics that I worked with gathered once a week at lunch to study the scriptures. We could not be more different in theology. Yet we loved Jesus and found a way to love each other. Those times represent some of my sweetest memories of Christian unity.
ReplyDeleteIf is of course impossible to comment on a group I was never at. I do think it is possible sometimes to discern a unity at the interpersonal level that transcends one's stated opinions. But I am concerned if we say the issue is merely to love Jesus, where "Jesus" means anything we want it to mean, we end up being about nothing at all.
DeleteOf it would have to be the Jesus of the gospels. ツ
DeleteI am not sure I can separate the Jesus of the gospels from the Jesus of theology. The one seems to be just an attempt to describe the other.
DeleteI wonder. Can one be drawn to the compassion of Jesus and not fully accept the theology of penal substitution? Some feel that you must accept this view or some other to be in unity with them. IMO it is the minor (though some call them major) theologies about Jesus that divide people into one ism or another.
ReplyDeleteGuess my point is that theology usually divides us into camps but the person of Jesus unites us. That said, I am not against theology. In fact I love it. I think that the theology of the resurrection could really unite us but it rarely does because we love theology more than unity.
Having said all this, I am reminded that there have been glimpses of unity in my life. I still have vivid memories of Billy Graham crusades where Baptists, Pentecostals and Methodists all gathered in one places to exalt Jesus in our city. And my experiences with Promise Keepers allowed me to rub shoulders with like-minded men as we worshiped Jesus. Perhaps cities would do well to gather in mass every few years?
Thanks for helping me to remember these things Mike. Always enjoy our friendly conversations.
You are welcome. I do not want you to think I am against unity, I am in favor of it. I have also been to events like those you have mentioned and have greatly profited by them. My main contention is if we want to avoid arguing over nothings, we need to be clear on what we are about. I is my experience that it is frequently the people who know least about theology that can end up arguing over appearances. They get up in arms when they see things done different then what they are used to.
ReplyDelete