CoD V.1.4.8- Convictions.
There's been something sitting at the back of my mind for a while now which was dredged up last night. Earlier this year I read this book called 'From Jerusalem to Iryan Jaya' (by Ruth Tucker). It's a great big book on the history of Christian missions- not comprehensive, but it gives a fairly accurate account of noteworthy, recorded missionaries of the last 2,000 years.
It really made me think though. It started off with arguably the greatest missionary of all time- Paul, the apostle. It spoke briefly about his life and ministry. All good. Next, it spoke about Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, a sweet guy who was martyred for his faith at 86 (ca.162 AD) .
The thing is though that after that, pretty much everybody right up until William Carey and Adoniram Judson (the first wave of modern missions - ca. early 1800s) was either such a huge jerk (of the prideful, arrogant, pompous variety), or had such faulty theology that I would hesitate to call them true Christians by my understanding of the term.
And yet, even though they would not be my role models, they apparently still loved God- they still left their homes, their family, their comfort; and went forth in pursuit of God's glory. In one way or other, God apparently used them to further His Gospel and to build His Church. But we're talking over 1600 years of people who were really nasty (or misinformed)!
I remember that it really made me question, at the time, how God could use people who were seemingly so unsanctified. What then, made someone a Christian? Was it not our lives and our fruit? Well, my conclusion at the time was that this was a stupid line of thought- whatever those guys did was between them and their God- they would give account for it; but I had a responsibility to my God to act according to my convictions - to be who I thought He wanted me to be - they may have been big jerks, but I was still called to strive to be like Christ. And so I let this matter lie...
Well, if this story ended here it would be pretty boring methinks. It does not!
A couple of days ago I picked up this little book by George Verwer- 'The Revolution of Love'. I'd read it last year, and it impacted me then, but it's really small, so I thought I'd read it again- and once again, it really spoke to me. Now, I'm not likely to meet those weirdos of the past, except in Heaven (IF they make it! :P). Nonetheless, it's very likely that I'm going to meet all manner of strange people in the near-future. People who either aren't nice, or who I disagree with, or whose theology seems weird to me, but who still (earnestly, I hope) pursue God's glory and call themselves Christian. So what happens then? Do i keep away and have no fellowship with them? Do I change to fit in with them?(Not likely, I'm a stubborn mule!) Do I accept them at all, or consider them non-Christian? How much do I accept?
Well, thankfully, this was not my problem only-
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
Apparently more people than I have had this problem.
I have been more and more impressed lately, by how personal Christianity is. Fellowship is certainly very important, as is communal worship, the people you surround yourself with, etc. But at the end of the day, you may be surrounded by Christian friends, have all the fellowship in the world, worship in congregation like there's no tomorrow, but these things don't make you a Christian. It's what you do when you're alone- just you and your Lord- that really prove your mettle. Unlike every other religion in the world, Christianity is not just about a community that hold to the same list of do's and dont's- it's primarily about a personal relationship. (although I realize that the community aspect of it is very important).
I have many different friends (or so I'm told) and most of them have vastly different personalities. Now for the most part, my relationships with them are fairly different. I'm still the same person, but some of my friendships are high energy, some are not. Some friends I'm fairly intimate with, many I'm not. I have friends who share my interest in biking, some who share in my interest of theology, some that share in my interest of cooking, some that share in my interest of literature, etc, etc, etc; but I know of no one that is interested in all the things I am. Many different relationships, many different dynamics.
Would God be like this also? If all of us have different personalities does that mean that, remaining true to who He is, God still has very different relationships with different people?
Verwer seems to think so (remember, I mentioned him earlier? 'Revolution of Love'? Seriously, get with it!) - discipleship, he writes, is not a set of rigid rules. The principles of discipleship are more flexible and adaptable than many of us would dare to admit. God works in different people in different ways. He goes on to say that flexibility is an important characteristic of spiritual maturity and balance. By flexibility, of course, he doesn't mean one's gymnastic ability; or one's ability to stay cheerful through plan C if plan A and B fail. He means our ability to accept others with different convictions- do we try to convince everyone of the great teaching we have received or of the great way we do things, or do we accept people as they are? (Apparently this is a big problem with 'keen' young people)(Keen- you don't come accross that word like you used to. I think I used to play a videogame called Captain Keen, or Commander Keen, or something...).
Apparently young people always think their way is the best, and try to change everyone to their way, which is often resented by other people (older... set in their ways...). Different people have very different convictions, Verver argues, but may still be working for the same goal. God is so mighty that He will always carry on the work of His kingdom, and He will use people despite their mistakes, weaknesses, and even wrong ideas and minor beliefs. Sometimes we will have to say 'Others may, I will not', but love and humility will go a long way in helping us deal with such situations.
Now, my first reaction to this was to disagree with him and question his theology (and because of his convictions, he'd just have to accept me, haha!). I have been trained to remain, as far as possible, orthodox - true to God's Word. It has always been my assumption that I do what I do and how I do it because it's Biblically sound, and everyone else is wrong (assuming that there's one right way in God's mind; if I know what that is, everyone who disagrees would, logically, be wrong). And yet, there are people who I'd disagree with on some things (we're not talking fundamentals here) who God is still apparently using for His glory, and the furthering of His kingdom (like every missionary from 163AD- 1783AD, and others today). How do I reconcile that?
Verwer argues that it's important to learn to distinguish the difference between what is biblical principle, and what is personal conviction. Sometimes we are so narrow-minded and so rigid that our hearts are not wide open to what God is doing. Well, I can certainly sympathize. I am, by nature, pretty conservative theologically. My parents are more liberal than I am (those hippies!)(well, not really, they work at a Baptist church, but still...), how often does that happen?
It's always been my instinct to distance myself from what I don't understand, don't agree with, or don't feel comfortable with. And yet, I have to wonder, is that the way of love?
I know that either extreme would not be healthy- the theologically conservative extreme tends to give rise to people who seem proud and arrogant. Who may know God's Word, but who don't let it rule their lives. Who seem very unloving, seem not to care much for others, and in the extreme, would not be moved to missions. Who seem not to worship God with their hearts. That can't be right- we're not called to be cold robots (Learned this from the Tin Man- I'd be tender, I'd be gentle/ And awful sentimental/ Regarding love and art./ I'd be friends with the sparrows/ And the boy that shoots the arrows/ If I only had a heart).
But the theologically liberal extreme tends to give rise to people who seem very driven by feelings and emotions, and the experience of worship; but whose knowledge of God seems defficient, and who don't seem to worship or serve God with their minds. That can't be right either- we're not called to be flakes (Learned this from the Scarecrow- I'd unravel any riddle/ For any individ'le/ In trouble or in pain./ With the thoughts I would be thinkin'/ I could be another Lincoln/ If I only had a brain).
(Man, I'm sure I'm going to get into trouble for writing these last two paragraphs).
So then is there a middle point? Is there balance between the two poles? One sweet-spot where the 'perfect Christian' lies? I guess that's what everyone who pursues God is looking for- and in some small (or not so small) way, everyone has arrived at a different place.
In the end my relationship with my Saviour will be based on my convictions; but I think it would be very presumptious of me to assume that my convictions alone are right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I could follow that path, which leads to schisms, disunity, and seems to have plagued the church for so many centuries, or I could learn from Verver (and John, the apostle), the way of love. I've been more convicted recently though, that if God can use people who I would not have normally been comfortable working with, then who am I to judge them?
Now, you may say, it is all very well learning to compassionately disagree over socks, or worship styles, or the wisdom of the Wizard of Oz, but still fellowship with people. But what about much more important matters? What about people who deny the Lordship of Christ? Or the full inspiration of the Bible, or the need for mission and evangelism. Surely our attitude to them must be one of absolute rejection!
That would be my first and natural instinct (I know, I guess I'm not that nice either by nature). And yet, I have to wonder, what would that accomplish? If I am convicted by God on the right things, and God is using me; would it not be my responsibility then to be a light to people whose knowledge of God is deficient? By avoiding them, I am just furthering a rift instead of acting in love, and removing the possibility of God working through my life to convict them of their wrong (or working through their lives to convict me of my wrong).
On this issue, Verwer writes that sometimes, because of fundamental disagreements in doctrince, people might not be able to work together. We might decide that we cannot work with particular indivuduals or groups, but nonetheless, we don't need to become arrogant, or unloving towards them- we can compassionately disagree.
It has become my strongest conviction, over the last year, that nothing is more important in the Universe than the glory of God. Rifts, divisions, backtalk, bad blood... these are so unglorifying to Him- they shame His name (the same name of which we pray: 'Hallowed be...') before people whose only experience of Him may be our witness. If instead of concentrating on our small differences, or what we are uncomfortable with; we concentrated instead on God's glory, and worked together to that goal, could we not glorify Him so much more?
Unlike every other religion in the world, our Lord has called us to be known by our love of one another.
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35
From looking at history, I'm pretty sure we've mostly failed so far...
Well, I'm not sure how this post is going to be taken. Maybe the conservatives will try to bump me off for writing it. Or the liberals won't understand it (man, NOW i'm definitely going to get into trouble. The things I'll do for a laugh...). Nonetheless, this is what I have been convicted of lately, and I can but write of what I have been led to believe. If anyone would argue me wrong from scripture though, I'm willing to be corrected. Until then, my conviction stands...
"This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another." 1 John 3:11
It really made me think though. It started off with arguably the greatest missionary of all time- Paul, the apostle. It spoke briefly about his life and ministry. All good. Next, it spoke about Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, a sweet guy who was martyred for his faith at 86 (ca.162 AD) .
The thing is though that after that, pretty much everybody right up until William Carey and Adoniram Judson (the first wave of modern missions - ca. early 1800s) was either such a huge jerk (of the prideful, arrogant, pompous variety), or had such faulty theology that I would hesitate to call them true Christians by my understanding of the term.
And yet, even though they would not be my role models, they apparently still loved God- they still left their homes, their family, their comfort; and went forth in pursuit of God's glory. In one way or other, God apparently used them to further His Gospel and to build His Church. But we're talking over 1600 years of people who were really nasty (or misinformed)!
I remember that it really made me question, at the time, how God could use people who were seemingly so unsanctified. What then, made someone a Christian? Was it not our lives and our fruit? Well, my conclusion at the time was that this was a stupid line of thought- whatever those guys did was between them and their God- they would give account for it; but I had a responsibility to my God to act according to my convictions - to be who I thought He wanted me to be - they may have been big jerks, but I was still called to strive to be like Christ. And so I let this matter lie...
Well, if this story ended here it would be pretty boring methinks. It does not!
A couple of days ago I picked up this little book by George Verwer- 'The Revolution of Love'. I'd read it last year, and it impacted me then, but it's really small, so I thought I'd read it again- and once again, it really spoke to me. Now, I'm not likely to meet those weirdos of the past, except in Heaven (IF they make it! :P). Nonetheless, it's very likely that I'm going to meet all manner of strange people in the near-future. People who either aren't nice, or who I disagree with, or whose theology seems weird to me, but who still (earnestly, I hope) pursue God's glory and call themselves Christian. So what happens then? Do i keep away and have no fellowship with them? Do I change to fit in with them?(Not likely, I'm a stubborn mule!) Do I accept them at all, or consider them non-Christian? How much do I accept?
Well, thankfully, this was not my problem only-
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
Apparently more people than I have had this problem.
I have been more and more impressed lately, by how personal Christianity is. Fellowship is certainly very important, as is communal worship, the people you surround yourself with, etc. But at the end of the day, you may be surrounded by Christian friends, have all the fellowship in the world, worship in congregation like there's no tomorrow, but these things don't make you a Christian. It's what you do when you're alone- just you and your Lord- that really prove your mettle. Unlike every other religion in the world, Christianity is not just about a community that hold to the same list of do's and dont's- it's primarily about a personal relationship. (although I realize that the community aspect of it is very important).
I have many different friends (or so I'm told) and most of them have vastly different personalities. Now for the most part, my relationships with them are fairly different. I'm still the same person, but some of my friendships are high energy, some are not. Some friends I'm fairly intimate with, many I'm not. I have friends who share my interest in biking, some who share in my interest of theology, some that share in my interest of cooking, some that share in my interest of literature, etc, etc, etc; but I know of no one that is interested in all the things I am. Many different relationships, many different dynamics.
Would God be like this also? If all of us have different personalities does that mean that, remaining true to who He is, God still has very different relationships with different people?
Verwer seems to think so (remember, I mentioned him earlier? 'Revolution of Love'? Seriously, get with it!) - discipleship, he writes, is not a set of rigid rules. The principles of discipleship are more flexible and adaptable than many of us would dare to admit. God works in different people in different ways. He goes on to say that flexibility is an important characteristic of spiritual maturity and balance. By flexibility, of course, he doesn't mean one's gymnastic ability; or one's ability to stay cheerful through plan C if plan A and B fail. He means our ability to accept others with different convictions- do we try to convince everyone of the great teaching we have received or of the great way we do things, or do we accept people as they are? (Apparently this is a big problem with 'keen' young people)(Keen- you don't come accross that word like you used to. I think I used to play a videogame called Captain Keen, or Commander Keen, or something...).
Apparently young people always think their way is the best, and try to change everyone to their way, which is often resented by other people (older... set in their ways...). Different people have very different convictions, Verver argues, but may still be working for the same goal. God is so mighty that He will always carry on the work of His kingdom, and He will use people despite their mistakes, weaknesses, and even wrong ideas and minor beliefs. Sometimes we will have to say 'Others may, I will not', but love and humility will go a long way in helping us deal with such situations.
Now, my first reaction to this was to disagree with him and question his theology (and because of his convictions, he'd just have to accept me, haha!). I have been trained to remain, as far as possible, orthodox - true to God's Word. It has always been my assumption that I do what I do and how I do it because it's Biblically sound, and everyone else is wrong (assuming that there's one right way in God's mind; if I know what that is, everyone who disagrees would, logically, be wrong). And yet, there are people who I'd disagree with on some things (we're not talking fundamentals here) who God is still apparently using for His glory, and the furthering of His kingdom (like every missionary from 163AD- 1783AD, and others today). How do I reconcile that?
Verwer argues that it's important to learn to distinguish the difference between what is biblical principle, and what is personal conviction. Sometimes we are so narrow-minded and so rigid that our hearts are not wide open to what God is doing. Well, I can certainly sympathize. I am, by nature, pretty conservative theologically. My parents are more liberal than I am (those hippies!)(well, not really, they work at a Baptist church, but still...), how often does that happen?
It's always been my instinct to distance myself from what I don't understand, don't agree with, or don't feel comfortable with. And yet, I have to wonder, is that the way of love?
I know that either extreme would not be healthy- the theologically conservative extreme tends to give rise to people who seem proud and arrogant. Who may know God's Word, but who don't let it rule their lives. Who seem very unloving, seem not to care much for others, and in the extreme, would not be moved to missions. Who seem not to worship God with their hearts. That can't be right- we're not called to be cold robots (Learned this from the Tin Man- I'd be tender, I'd be gentle/ And awful sentimental/ Regarding love and art./ I'd be friends with the sparrows/ And the boy that shoots the arrows/ If I only had a heart).
But the theologically liberal extreme tends to give rise to people who seem very driven by feelings and emotions, and the experience of worship; but whose knowledge of God seems defficient, and who don't seem to worship or serve God with their minds. That can't be right either- we're not called to be flakes (Learned this from the Scarecrow- I'd unravel any riddle/ For any individ'le/ In trouble or in pain./ With the thoughts I would be thinkin'/ I could be another Lincoln/ If I only had a brain).
(Man, I'm sure I'm going to get into trouble for writing these last two paragraphs).
So then is there a middle point? Is there balance between the two poles? One sweet-spot where the 'perfect Christian' lies? I guess that's what everyone who pursues God is looking for- and in some small (or not so small) way, everyone has arrived at a different place.
In the end my relationship with my Saviour will be based on my convictions; but I think it would be very presumptious of me to assume that my convictions alone are right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I could follow that path, which leads to schisms, disunity, and seems to have plagued the church for so many centuries, or I could learn from Verver (and John, the apostle), the way of love. I've been more convicted recently though, that if God can use people who I would not have normally been comfortable working with, then who am I to judge them?
Now, you may say, it is all very well learning to compassionately disagree over socks, or worship styles, or the wisdom of the Wizard of Oz, but still fellowship with people. But what about much more important matters? What about people who deny the Lordship of Christ? Or the full inspiration of the Bible, or the need for mission and evangelism. Surely our attitude to them must be one of absolute rejection!
That would be my first and natural instinct (I know, I guess I'm not that nice either by nature). And yet, I have to wonder, what would that accomplish? If I am convicted by God on the right things, and God is using me; would it not be my responsibility then to be a light to people whose knowledge of God is deficient? By avoiding them, I am just furthering a rift instead of acting in love, and removing the possibility of God working through my life to convict them of their wrong (or working through their lives to convict me of my wrong).
On this issue, Verwer writes that sometimes, because of fundamental disagreements in doctrince, people might not be able to work together. We might decide that we cannot work with particular indivuduals or groups, but nonetheless, we don't need to become arrogant, or unloving towards them- we can compassionately disagree.
It has become my strongest conviction, over the last year, that nothing is more important in the Universe than the glory of God. Rifts, divisions, backtalk, bad blood... these are so unglorifying to Him- they shame His name (the same name of which we pray: 'Hallowed be...') before people whose only experience of Him may be our witness. If instead of concentrating on our small differences, or what we are uncomfortable with; we concentrated instead on God's glory, and worked together to that goal, could we not glorify Him so much more?
Unlike every other religion in the world, our Lord has called us to be known by our love of one another.
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35
From looking at history, I'm pretty sure we've mostly failed so far...
Well, I'm not sure how this post is going to be taken. Maybe the conservatives will try to bump me off for writing it. Or the liberals won't understand it (man, NOW i'm definitely going to get into trouble. The things I'll do for a laugh...). Nonetheless, this is what I have been convicted of lately, and I can but write of what I have been led to believe. If anyone would argue me wrong from scripture though, I'm willing to be corrected. Until then, my conviction stands...
"This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another." 1 John 3:11
posted by dan at 9/11/2006 10:04:00 a.m.
9 Comments:
Good post, dude. But dude you've written, once again, a tome not a blogpost.
Funny - I would categorise you as more of a liberal than a conservative, but so be it. Guess it's shades of gray.
What a can of worms... this is tricky ground to tread... but I do agree with you in that life is less black and white than we would like.
Isn't it funny that we can be more guarded with fellow believers having different theology than we are with a pagan friend? I've seen this! It's sad.
As far as false gospels are concerned, there is no room for tolerance... scripture is clear about this - Galatians, Jude, 1 John to name a few places - some shocking words. But then we have to define the fundamentals... so we can decide who's a false teacher and who's just a misinformed believer. That's another story.
In the context of the brethren, rhere's a word that I have come to love: Grace. This we have received so freely and this which we wallow in, so to speak - how can we not let it overflow in our dealings with saved men? (not counting false teachers... that's a different subject.) To rephrase scripture... hope I'm not being too liberal here... "if I have all the right theology, but have not love, I am but a crashing gong or resounding cymbal".
But... the big but.... It is so hard to live this out practically. When you arrive at convictions through careful study, passion necessarily follows- for the truth. If everyone were true in their pursuit of truth and reasonable in their approach to doctrine, so much could be accomplished positively. We see some of this reflected in the recent comeraderie and fellowship between reformed charismatics and more conservative reformed evangelicals.
But that's not the norm. Sadly not everyone's reasonable. And while I agree with you about the need for love, humility, gentleness & long-suffering practically there's only so far you can go. Where does the train of your thought take you? Partnering together in ministry? Or are you talking just about a mutual love and respect (and correction)? Where the rubber meets the road is where you're going to find skidmarks. A lot of these differing doctrines have very peculiar and specific applications... and in a ministry context that's so darn tough.
Lastly, you said "if God can use people who I would not have normally been comfortable working with, then who am I to judge them?" But you did talk later about working with people to help correct their errors (and vice versa). To spot error, there's a definite place for judgement. We're not to judge arrogantly or hypocritically, but we ARE to judge. Now granted some go overboard with it, but we don't want to go to the other extreme either, especially in this generation of "don't judge me". Statements like that have caused unnecessary confusion in the church - especially where people who preach the truth are looked at as arrogant, when that is not always the case.
Whew now I'm writing a tome. Shame on you for making me. This is such a big issue though, and it's something I often think of, especially in a non-western missions context where you necessarily have to work with all kinds of people, and the going gets kind of rough sometimes. It's good to think outside some of these boxes, though - we want to be God pleasers and Christ lovers above all... but dude, sadly sometimes form wins over function.
Since you're quoting wierd sources, I shall do it to. From those famous canadian philosophers, Rush:
"Everybody need reverse polarity
Everybody got mixed feelings
About the function and the form
Everybody got to deviate from the norm"
I'm done.
A tome you say? My Pangyah, your reply is at least of epic lenght, if not encyclopaedic. My long-windedness rubs off on people! :)
Interesting you would think of me as liberal. Compared to many of my friends, you would be very, very conservative (but in a good way! don't shoot me!!). The church you (and I) grew up in is rather conservative compared to the Baptist Evangelical church I am now a member of. So I could see you seeing me as liberal compared to you (i must be more liberated now than I was when I was 17 or 18), but compared to how far liberality that I've come accross goes, I'd say I'm still pretty conservative.
As far as where the train of my thought takes me on the grace, love, humility and gentleness; well, the ideal I think would definitely be to partner together in ministry. Barring a disagreement in fundamental doctrine, in which case the compassionate disagreement comes into play (we may not work together, but I can still love you. And I'm not just saying that- we may dialogue, run ideas off each other, correspond, etc., by love I dont mean just not speaking ill about you). I think there's so much more that can be accomplished by working together, or at least sharing strategies so that we don't work at odds and/or undo each other's work (which has happened on so many ministry/mission fields). Verwer argues (and he has much more experience than I do) that much can be learned by working together with people who come from very different faith backgrounds than you. Much stretching and much growth to be had. (However, I'm going to unreached people groups. No one before me, no one there but my team, HAHA!)
When i spoke about correcting errors, and vice verse, perhaps i miswrote, or perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant God's work in using your life (and His Word) to convict someone of something, or vice-versa. This is very difficult- people are very sensitive to being corrected on anything by anybody (even pretty mature Christians, there's very few Christians I know who really embrace humility, and not just the veneer of it). Maybe this is pride on people's part, but I don't think it's my place to break pride in people's lives, that's between them and God- if they have pride, their ministry will be hindered, and their work for His glory will be made less effective.
So then if it comes to a choice, and if correcting them would most likely cause them to react very negatively (which could lead to a big argument, which could blow out of proportion, and God's work could suffer); i think obviously if there's sin in someone's life, you should help win your brother back; but short of that, even though my nature is to try to 'correct' people, i think the wiser course would be to pray for them, and let God work on their hearts (I've come to believe very, very strongly that there is no power on earth that can change a man's heart but prayer. I have learned this from personal experience on my own stubborn, calloused heart).
I've always been iffy on the judging part (remember my name Crown-boy), obviously you have convictions, and immediately upon seeing anything your mind will evaluate whether you agree with what you're seeing or not, but again, short of sin, I think what I wrote above would apply.
I can understand that the going may get pretty rough though. Would dying to self come into play here? I found that it has helped me in arguments. Anyone who's known me for any lenght of time can attest to the fact that I'm about the most argumentative person around, but I'm trying to change that (2 Tim 2:23, Titus 3:9).
If it gets too rough, of course, you could always come look for an unreached group! There's still many who've never heard the Gospel, and will not hear, and end up in a Hell of eternal torment unless you go! :D
If I've forgotten to address anything, let me know, i was in a bit of a rush, which is why this is so small ;)
Do comment lengths have to correspond with post lengths? I'll try my best...
Anyways, I had a conversation with my housemate about (some of) this stuff the other day. This first part may seem unrelated, but it gets there. When presenting the gospel to people, I find that most people agree that there is a God (he may or may not love us), that people generally don't have God in their lives and that people aren't perfect.
But a lot of people can't accept that Jesus is God's only provision for our sin. They just can't believe that Jesus was sent from God and can connect us to God. And I think a big reason for this is because believers haven't been loving one another.
"May [believers] be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:23
The way Christians have been treating each other, it's a bit of a stretch to believe that their saviour is actually from God - or that God loves us. Now, I'm not saying we need to unite under a single denomination or anything, but we need to love each other and work together as the body of Christ despite some theological differences.
So, yeah. Long enough to pass? Also, there's a serious lack of the Cowardly Lion in your post.
Abby, Abby, you still have much to learn. Your comment was of intermediate lenght at best, still far from gargantuan...
Nonetheless, here it is, just for you-
"Yeah, it's sad, believe me Missy,
When you're born to be a sissy,
Without the vim and verve(pronounced voive),
But I could show my prowess,
Be a lion, not a mowess,(mouse?)
If I only had the nerve(noive!).
"Liberated". Lol. The implication being the other side is in bondage. You DO want to stir the water up, don't you? I'm probably more conservative than you but again, it's shades of gray. Hey, who am I kidding, you're Canadian. That settles it, I'm a right-wing nutjob compared to you.
But serously, I think we're more on the same page than you think. When I say some of these things are tough, I'm not saying that means they're undesirable... just that a proper framework needs to be created so that a God-glorifying solution is found.
We need to remember that this isn't a new discussion. The problem with ecumenical ministry historically is so often a dilution of doctrine. You see this all the time. It's because people set out to cooperate and choose to ignore anything that might cause conflict. This may sound like a generalisation, but it is the direction this goes. The intentions are good, but the end result many times weak. While the gospel is preeminent , as ministers of the gospel it is our ultimate responsibility to present every man not just saved, but mature in Christ. (Col 1:28) And maturity, involves doctrine, which is where correction of error comes. Can't escape it.
See, I'm totally for cooperation and love and partnership, and a fellowship that is the fragrance of Christ to a watching world. But not with a hands-off approach to error - sounds a little too postmodern for my liking. Hey, I need that jugding as much as anyone else! It's interesting to me how the pet verse for not judging is misused so much in our age, when it's not about not judging, but about hypocrisy. (Matt 7:5). God holds us to the measure that we hold others. God is our judge, but that does not mean people shouldn't be. The problem is self righteous judgement, which creates so much pain and hurt. And which I distance myself from. I think the Bilical pattern is in-between the arrogant self righteous judge and the hands-off let-god-work calvinist. Humble, loving, sensitive, God-honoring correction.
I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to convey... There could be a lot of disclaimers but this is a comment not a blogpost. If I am long-winded, it's because I'm being all things to all men.
Hey I'm so sorry, by 'liberated', I had no intention of saying anything about anyone's bondage, I was just thinking of being a liberated woman (as in the women's lib movement- not that I am one)(i'm going to get a whole new group angry at me now), and I thought that would be funny- I didn't mean to stir up anything!
No, I don't think we're that far, the worries and concerns that you fear I fear also, I totally agree that we're very close to the same page.
I understand completely your concern, and share it also. I think that to some extent, there is a need for correction in intimacy, but as your intimacy and bond with someone decreases, it becomes more and more difficult to take correction from them (take it from someone who's been corrected by many people! Some close, some not so much...)
I read somewhere recently (i'm so sorry, I've read many things recently, I can't remember where), that the need for evangelism cannot possibly ever end. God has no grandchildren- even after the whole world has heard the Gospel and repented, or rejected it; every new generation will have to hear it again and respond to the Gospel message anew for themselves.
I think if each one of us who call ourselves Christian was taught to study the Bible for ourselves, and dilligently and earnestly sought to worship God both in spirit(right heart?) and in truth (right mind?), God, through His Word and through the crowd of witnesses around us who did not reject the message, would most certainly convict us of wrong. I don't think anything has more power to convict the hearts of men as does God's Word.
And this would also give rise to a body of true disciples, whose greatest passion and striving is to know God better, to enjoy Him more, and to glorify Him. Who work at this.
And this would also call for such a change of heart that people couldn't get away with just talking the talk but not walking the walk (as I feel a large part of the unpersecuted church does).
Maybe this is too Utopian? I certainly think it could not happen except through God. But I also think that like Lembas, the more you rely on God and are desperate, and have no other leg to stand on, the more you will see God do in and through your life.
Does that make sense?
No offense taken on your liberation comment... just having fun. People think I'm kind of liberal, so go figure.
I believe we're on the same wavelength on that last post. The Word of God is the power of God to bring change, through God the Spirit working in mens' hearts. Conviction is the work of God (John 16:8). Let me never ever think that by my wit or wisdom I can bring change to someone's heart regarding the things of God. There's a place for teaching, but ultimately the final work of change rests with Him. Therefore we flee to him and his word. Oh dude, easier said than done.
I should elucidate my concerns just so it gives context to my previous thoughts. As far as the judging issue... I think this is a big deal in (but not exclusive to) the West , and I've personally experienced the pain of it. Western independence can be a plague. This idea of "this is my private space, don't encroach, don't judge" even in the church has battered the biblical idea of fellowship. To the point where you can't say anything "negative" because that would be judgemental, whatever spirit you say it in. Again, I say this from experience. But I've also seen that standing your ground and lovingly confronting error has brought fruit, and initial conflict has led to growth on both sides. After all, God has commanded us to admonish one another (Col 3:16).
While I do agree with you that as intimacy decreases it's less up to us to correct or counsel (but not necessarily so), it reminds me of another concern I have, related again to western independence - because independence ("don't judge me, leave me alone") leads to de-prioritizing the local church and fellowship. But God's priority is the Church (big C), manifest in the local church (small c). Where am I going with this? Well - Biblical fellowship. A believer maybe out of MY circle of influence, but the pattern is for him/her to remain in the pattern of influence of SOMEONE in his/her local church. If not, it is a symptom of deeper issues that some loving brother/sister needs to address. Where refusal to deal with sin is the issue, Matt 18 comes in.
Love is 1 Cor 13, but love is also understood in context of the broader teaching of scripture. Passages like Gal 6:1 onwards. And ultimately Matt 18 which is the last resort.
I agree with your last point that if we truly sought God by and through his word, we would find change. But in our sin we don't always seek God, and there's where God pattern of fellowship plays the role to bring us back on track to where we need to be.
When it's a matter of erroneous doctrine that does not have implications in sin (paedobaptism, for example - notice how I made my stand? Lol.), then it's a matter of wisdom. How much ever you love each other in Christ, you do things differently... and creative solutions might need to be found. That's what I mean in my previous statements on the difficulty of working together. Personality issues only add to the problem. But I think we already beat that horse not to death but at least to the point where it's not getting up off the ground anytime soon.
Well, I don't think anything you say is erroneous or diagree/differ from you in my opinions enough to warrant further discussion, so i'll hereby close this as the first friendly argument to not end in disagreement despite no prior mutually held belief on the subject between the two parties.
So unless Abby (or someone else) has something more to add, I hereby declare this topic conquered and placated in the spirit of love. Hurrah! Hurrah!
See, we're showing them how it's done: Peacefully & with love.
*whacks Dan and runs away*
Post a Comment
<< Home