November 22, 2010
Walking Wounded
I like this quote from Winston Churchill, “Politics are almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics - many times.” Those of us living on the religious landscape can also look back on our lives and remember feeling spiritually killed on more than a few occasions. For many, a church split qualifies as a near death experience. Even though it sometimes feels like it, we really don’t die spiritually, however there is a lot of walking wounded in our midst. Jesus said, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt 10:28 NIV)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gail;
-----Much support for church splits is made of Paul and Barnabas’ separation at Acts 15:39. And I think that support is correct. But little support for church splits is made of Paul and Barnabas’ relationship thereafter. I think failure to understand the rest of Paul and Barnabas’ story is problematic. The stated fact that Paul was commended by the brethren does not imply Barnabas was not. Certainly, Paul’s work became the focus of Acts from that point on. But Paul’s letters developing much of our knowledge about the Lord and our new life indicate Act’s focus upon him was about his laying the foundation for the church, not about his being right and Barnabas’ being wrong. The only negative mention Paul later makes of Barnabas was to the Galatians regarding Barnabas’ being carried away by the confusion in Jerusalem over Jewish observances. Paul’s condemnation of Peter concerning that matter was much sharper, yet even Peter was commissioned by the Lord Himself for service (feed My sheep) and was used by the Holy Spirit to deliver two very meaningful epistles into the Holy Canon. Peter was, at that time, just being unscriptural.
-----The unattended attitude of church splits is that both resulting fellowships still serve the Lord. I believe we accept a bad attitude about our individual churches that is toxic to our spirituality. We do acknowledge the service of other fellowships to the Lord. But our sub-conscious thought seems to be that ours is right. And I believe this is wrong. Knowing the Lord is not about belonging to a specific church.
-----Not all believers in Montrose can fellowship in one single church. The most basic reason is that the immense size of such a gathering would not be efficiently conducive to all the aspects of edification and evangelism which are the outcome of fellowship. More subtly, the variety of ideas which can arise in different minds, each being fully convinced (Rom 14:5), are no more conducive to mutual service than were the different ideas Paul and Barnabas had about Mark. Yet, those many ideas still do produce service in their own ways, and the Word calls none of us to condemn another for what he believes.
-----Please do not mistake me to be meaning there are not some ideas about Christ and Christianity that are wholly unscriptural and completely poisonous to the new life. As John wrote, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they are not of us.” (John 2:19) Laying aside for the moment that this Scripture is often used to support condemnation of one side or the other of a split, along with many other passages it indicates the reality of those unscriptural and poisonous ideas. So there is an important line of demarcation concerning the significance of differences and the reality of abiding in the light.
-----My focus is upon the insignificant side of that line. The use of such passages to view the other side of a split as being “not of us” draws upon the same spirit as belongs to those John mentions as going out from us; that is, “I am right, you are wrong.” God has not put within us a condemning spirit. We must recognize the service to the Lord of everyone in the Lord. Paul implied an important principle about fellowships at I Corinthians 16:15-16, “Now, brethren, you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints; I urge you to be subject to such men and to every fellow worker and laborer.” Stephanas’ household was not the only one in the world at that time. There were many other households also having men and women devoting themselves to the service of the saints. So also Paul was urging other believers to be subject to them as well. And certainly, not everyone of these households served by the same ideas having identical focus. Nor could everyone meeting at those households have identical ideas. Yet, everyone should recognize each other as fellow servants. It is just the way different minds approach the same task. So Paul and Barnabas went their different ways, not to the condemnation of one another, but to the more effective service each could give to the Lord by being amongst minds more alike than not.
-----I like your allusion to a church split as qualifying to many as a near death experience. Allow me to play with it. It should be a death experience. It should be the death of the difficulties mutual service has amongst differing minds. After a split, two fellowships can work more effectively from different perspectives, yet serve the Lord each will do. And with the death of that should be the death of disagreements. Many times Paul bids us to agree with one another. Church splits can effect such agreement, and it is not an agreement to disagree. It is, as Paul commands, agreeing with one another, not agreeing with one or the other.
-----This is commonly difficult to perceive. Please bear with me, and I will illustrate it. Say the objective is to get ten people to Grand Junction from Montrose. We have the choice of three vehicles: a noisy, old, poorly suspended, twelve person van, a comfortable and roomy Cadillac, and a cramped-up, little smart car. A few of the people are old and stiff, and a few are young and pliable. Some of the older folks would get nauseous in the van, and simply would not be pliable enough to ride in the smart car. So it is agreed that they ride in the Cadillac along with whoever else must also in order to allow the smart car’s delivery of its meager four riders. Since the objective of getting to Grand Junction will be served regardless of the individual disagreements about abilities to ride in specific vehicles, there is no reason for condemnation or animosity between the two resulting carloads of people. Rather, honor and respect will have been shown regarding their relative comforts, discomforts, abilities, and inabilities. And even if there were any animosity on the part of someone crammed into the smart car rather than stretching out in the Caddy, from him the pleasing of his neighbor (that old stiff person) is what the Word asks (Rom 15:2). So, agreeing to ride in one car is agreeing also with those who ride in the other. In this case, disagreement is a mere illusion, and so should it be in the church.
(continued: I apologize but I believe thinking carefully about church splits is important)
-----Its objective is to serve the Lord. There are many aspects to serving the Lord. Each aspect receives more or less regard than the others only by the limitations of our individual natures. We each mutually work better with those having more similar regards as do we than we do with those having less. The same principle applies to ideas. It is only natural, then, that folks fellowship better and more comfortably amongst some than they do amongst others. The resulting groups are referred to as churches. So more efficiency is born of church splits, and inefficiency dies. And that is another resulting death. We can know that a church split is honorable to the Lord when we can know that no condemnation or animosity has been born of it, only freedom in the Lord through agreement, and more service through efficiency.
Love you all,
Steve Corey
Post a Comment