|
|
| Disagreements, Impasses, and Holy Wars | | |
|  3DJelly | Aug 28, 2007 9:44pm | I've been reading this recently: "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.
That was a tiny part of the Corinthian letter where Paul was explaining whether or not eating food sacrificed to idols was OK. The conclusion, in short, is that the food itself is OK, but eating it becomes not OK when it hurts the cause of Christ. Later on, Paul notes that "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial".
That got me thinking. In this particular case Paul was available to clarify things for the Corinthians and possibly everyone else indirectly. And he says that we should be reconciled to God (as well as each other) through love rather than knowledge, as in the passage I quoted in the beginning.
But sometimes we have serious disagreements that divide us and it becomes very difficult to try to be compatible with each other. It becomes even worse when there is no "authoritarian" figure like the apostles to settle it for us. It sometimes leads us to call each other anti-christs and the "other" church a cult. If it gets more serious, Martin Luther tacks a notice on the door. If it gets even more serious, armies are raised.
I take comfort in the fact that when Christ returns, the Church as a whole will be united once again in his name. But until then I see divisions based on opinions and ideologies whether petty or significant, right or wrong; Scripture is sometimes quoted AT people rather than FOR people. Even so, I'm sure we are meant to stay together as much as we can.
Any thoughts on how we should "build each other up" through love and how to deal with disagreements that seemingly cannot be resolved by what we think is "knowledge"? |
|
| 
|  timwat | Aug 29, 2007 12:02am | 3DJelly:
Interesting and insightful observations. I might amend your comments re: 1 Cor 8 that the food itself is OK, but eating it becomes not OK when it injures another brother's conscience.
The essence of the discussion of food implies the greater principle that in all things, our first thought should be for our brothers rather than ourselves.
Here is where I constantly struggle - I have so imbibed the spirit of the age - MY rights, MY liberties, MY knowledge, MY, MY, MY - that I am willing to injure my brother to gain what I believe is rightfully mine.
How rarely am I convicted until much later (if at all) that this flies in the face of the example of my Savior, Who lived out the highest definition of love - to seek the highest and best good of another, even to the injury and sacrifice of one's self. I might offer that this is where the discussion on disagreements, impasses and holy wars ought to start.
But I cannot throw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater - Truth matters - or God would not have condescended to communicate with us through His objective Word. I'm not saying you're implying that either - just making an observation for the sake of dialogue.
When I'm considering objective Biblical truth, for instance, there is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ - and any gospel that purports another way of salvation is no gospel at all. As such, there is NO unity where there is disagreement over this Truth. I simply cite that as an obvious example that there will be some "disagreements over knowledge" that should not be ignored, and some doctrinal error which must be called out as untruth.
That being said, I would agree that too often in this dialogue human pride supersedes Christian love, and our history is replete with brothers separating as a result of majoring on minors. But there have been notable examples to the contrary - John Newton and Robert Chapman are reknowned for their patience, deference and willingness to win over with love, proving time and again the truth of Romans 12 - "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Now, to the point of personal relationships (which is perhaps the more immediate context of 1 Cor 8), too often I've heard Christians quickly espouse "We're not meant to be doormats" - and while there is some truth with this, I'm reminded this proverb is extrabiblical, while the following are explicit:
"Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" (rather than sue your brothers) 1 Cor 6
"For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me." Phil 1
I guess the thing that most sticks in my heart with regard to this subject is 2 Tim 2:24-26:
"And the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."
Blessings,
Tim |
|
|
| | 3DJelly | Aug 29, 2007 10:21pm | Thanks for your reply Tim.
I knew my first post was missing something. Yes, obviously truth matters. But that is precisely the problem! It's so important to us that we so tend to disagree with the slightest disagreement about what truth is. And unfortunately sometimes we (as in all Christians) budge on precisely the one thing we shouldn't budge on: the Gospel.
My favourite example is the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I hope this thread doesn't get sidetracked into this one, now that I've mentioned it! Because it is so divisive. And yet it doesn't seem particularly important to how we live out our lives. At least I don't see how it can be. On the other hand it can divide entire denominations, so maybe I'm wrong.
My point is that it is obvious we'll be much better off together if we can accept each other as imperfect (try as we might in the other direction) and learn to live with that. At the same time we must prevent any distortions of the Gospel. Yet often those distortions come precisely from those imperfect people that we should care for. It seems to me this means some sort of line has to be drawn. Or is there another way? In reference to the last passage you quoted: how or when (if ever) do we conclude that a brother is not going to come to his senses? |
|
|
| | timwat | Aug 30, 2007 11:27am | All great points, 3DJelly.
I agree that Calvinism, if arrogantly taught without humility, meekness and a constant acknowledgment that no one has all the answers, too frequently divides and creates the ugliest of cosmic tragedies - a proud man proclaiming the sovereignty of God. I doubt there is a greater hypocrisy under the heavens.
I might suggest, however, that fully understood Calvinism and Arminianism say so much about God, man, salvation, mercy and grace that they will drastically influence how one lives out life and godliness...and really, that is the very nature of truth and I am guessing one reason you wrote your original post.
Now, that being said, it seems to me that humility is both in short supply and the most necessary prerequisite for these kinds of engagements.
On this very topic, John Newton commented, "I have been thirty years forming my own views; and, in the course of this time, some of my hills have sunk, and some of my valleys have risen: but, how unreasonable within me to expect all this should take place in another person; and that, in the course of a year or two."
You ask, "How or when (if ever) do we conclude that a brother is not going to come to his senses?"
I would answer, "When the brother is no longer living."
Consider the 2 Timothy passage I cited again - our Lord often grants repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, both in our own hearts as well as in our brothers and sisters - yet seldom according to OUR timetable. If I am firm in my convictions and sure that the Lord is to be taken at His word, yet I must always be mindful of how often I have sinned against not only His law, but against His love! It is only by His grace that He opened my eyes to glean any small thing from His beloved word - and so often have I myself misunderstood Him, glossed over a passage or just been plain blind.
I take it as implicit in that passage is that the Lord's bondservant is throughout this time in constant prayer for the mercy of God to graciously grant repentance to the brother in error. And if He has promised He will never give up on His child, who am I to do anything less?"
Now, of course for the sake of others there comes a time when wisdom must be exercised, heresy censured, divisive brothers called to account and from time to time, church discipline exercised - but all of this with tears and humility. These kinds of practical decisions can never be approached in a cavalier or perfunctory way. And of course James reminds me that the anger of man doesn't accomplish the righteousness of God.
But even when these things must be exercised, even here I can never conclude that a brother will never come to his senses - only that practical steps must be taken at particular points in time.
Blessings,
Tim |
|
|
| | 3DJelly | Aug 31, 2007 7:43pm | That makes a lot of sense, Tim.
Practical steps must be taken at the right times. I suppose that means difficult decisions must sometimes be made. Obviously, wisdom must be exercised, as you said.
But to reverse our divisions is an even trickier matter, or else they'll be happening all the time. How do you see Christians of different denominations and streams getting back together? |
|
|
| | timwat | Sep 5, 2007 12:48pm | I don't think I'm wise enough to offer anything constructive on reversing our divisions, 3DJelly. Doubtless there are wiser, more influential, far godlier men and women who know how to heal the breaches between denominations in practical ways better than I could even start.
But I will offer this observation - in the last 10 years I've seen denominational lines blur more than ever. What I mean is that the monikers Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Charismatic, Fundamentalist, etc. used to pretty accurately describe a whole 'package' of theological beliefs. If someone described themselves as a (you fill in the blank), then you sort of had a handle on what they believed.
I don't find that as true an assumption these days. I find I have to ask more questions to really understand where folks are at, no matter what label their church has or what denomination they belong to. And that may not be such a bad thing.
See, I think that at the end of the day, the only thing that will unite believers of different traditions, denominations, and theological backgrounds is the Gospel. I don't mean to offer a trite cliche, I mean that with full conviction and all my heart.
I find believers like Mark Dever (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), J.I. Packer (an Anglican), C.J. Mahaney (a Charismatic) and others all saying the same thing - that the Gospel IS the power of God to save, and the essence, foundation and fuel for ALL of the Christian life - not just an initiatory message and means of salvation, but the very heart and soul and reason for Soli Deo Gloria.
As more believers grapple with the real implications of this foundational truth in substantive, meaningful, theologically significant ways - and then these things trickle down from academia to the pulpits to the pews, I believe this is the 'how' of God uniting His children, holy and beloved, in real and actual ways.
The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that this is where His work reconciling brothers will start. But what do I know?
Blessings,
Tim |
|
| Disagreements, Impasses, and Holy Wars | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Bible Studies → Discussion