The less concentrate you put in the weaker your squash will be: a reflection on eccumenism
Now I am eccumenical. Not that I am an eccumenicist but that I am eccumenical.(as a description not a label. See a previous post on which there was much confusion!) I don’t think that I’m the only one who will be saved nor only those who agree with me on every letter of the law, so to speak. I would love to see the church unified as Jesus prayed for in John 17:21. But the fact is, it’s not. So the solution surely is that we unite over the lowest common denominator. So we’ll start an eccumenical church where anyone who calls themselves Christian, who claims to follow Christ, can join and we’ll accommodate them all, right?
But if you put too little concentrate in your blackcurrant and apple squash you end up with disgusting stuff, the sort that normally gets given to kids in Sunday School. I noticed this yesterday in the service. The thing is, I couldn’t really disagree with anything. Ok, so the candle lighting was a bit la-de-da and though I may think that a lot of the practice was not the best practice, it didn’t mean it was wrong per se. Then in the reflection/sermon, she went through the stories that were read out, she even spoke about the Hebrew word ruah, which means wind or spirit or breath or something (and no jokes about my Hebrew exam: yes I did fail!) Her two application points didn’t say anything exactly wrong. They were: 1. We need to be loosed from whatever it is that binds us. 2. We need to loose others who are binded by whatever binds us. There was nothing wrong as such, but she could’ve gone on to explain that it is sin that binds us and it’s only in Christ’s atoning work and in being united to him that we can be freed. But if she had gone on to say that, well she would’ve been saying more than that eccumenical spirit allows and she would’ve offended someone for talking about sin binding us or something.
So why am I eccumenical at all? Well I think the converse is also true. If you put too much concentrate in your blackcurrant and apple squash you end up disgusting stuff that’s just too sharp and strong for anyone to drink. I’ve been along to churches where only one type of person is allowed, where everyone agrees with every letter of every individual doctrine and you end up with clones and a flat, dull, two-dimensional expression of church! In unity we have a greater knowledge of the riches of Christ (Col. 2:2). We all understand Christ in slightly different ways so when we unite and share our differences we have greater understanding of Christ and a richer gospel.
So how concentrated should our churches be? Well, my blackcurrant and apple squash should be done 4 parts water to one part concentrate, but I dunno what that means for the church! How much should we seperate and how much can we unite over? It’s an interesting question and one that the Bible doesn’t really give us any guidelines on. Pretty much my favourite author pretty much always goes on about how we should unite over the creeds such as the apostles’ or other creeds, Nicea maybe? I also asked a well known Bible College Principle (no prizes for guessing who), and he said it was a case of looking back over history and see what the majority have always agreed upon as the core. Both are similar answers but majorities can be wrong and old creeds addressed the needs of the time. I haven’t really got any strong answers, though I think a lot of it has to do with humility, conscience, seeing what is clearly taught in scripture and an understanding of the difference between heresey, error and difference of opinion. Any other answers, on a postcard or in the comments below!
It’s all very well saying we unite over Christ and the gospel according to the scriptures, but what does that mean? Whose Christ? Whose gospel? Whose interpretation of the scriptures?
I always find it interesting that the reformed boys slam the Catholic church for holding scripture and tradition together - yet they hold EXACTLY the same position, only they dress it up in terms of the reformation, calvinistic methodism, Lois Berkhoff, the Westminster Catechism, whatever Dr Martyn said, etc. Interesting uh?
It seems to me that the reformed boys are more Catholic than the Catholics!
I like drinking my squash neat…I love the tang, any water ruins it for me. (By the way I am literally talking about squash, I have no worthwhile answers to the larger discussion at this stage)
calvinistic methodism, Lois Berkhoff, the Westminster Catechism, whatever Dr Martyn said . . . or Mark Driscoll or Jonathan Thomas. . .
“How much should we seperate and how much can we unite over? It’s an interesting question and one that the Bible doesn’t really give us any guidelines on.”
Is that really the case? Some much-needed clarity on this point would be helpful please
“Calvinistic Methodism, Louis Berkhoff, the Westminster Catechism, whatever Dr Martyn said . . . or Mark Driscoll or Jonathan Thomas. . .”
Ok, but I disagree with at least something with each of those in their understanding, with the possible exception of Jonathan Thomas (because he hasn’t written a systematic theology…yet) and Louis Berkhof (because I haven’t read all of his systematic theology)
‘”How much should we separate and how much can we unite over? It’s an interesting question and one that the Bible doesn’t really give us any guidelines on.”‘
Ok, perhaps that should have been a “many guidelines” not “any guidelines”.
And since you asked so nicely, here’s some clarification. The Bible obviously does give us some guidelines. I’m gonna constrain myself to 1 Timothy and to John’s letters for this reply.
In 1 Timothy, Paul spells out the problem that the false teachers in Ephesus have, and that is that they don’t use the law properly. But then Paul doesn’t go on to tell us how exactly to use the law, as believers. For example, why do we claim flexibility with the fourth commandment and not with the sixth? Christians have debated how exactly to use the law since the Church began. Obviously we don’t do away with it completely, nor do we embrace it fully. Beyond that…what?
Paul also warns Timothy that those who argue over silly minor points, genealogies and so on, and who are quarrelsome and just looking for an argument are naughty too…I think someone should feel rebuked by God’s Word…mentioning no names (since you never give one anyway!) Quarrellers, who do so for quarrelling’s sake, should be silenced.
Paul pretty much defines false doctrine as that which is against the teaching of Jesus in 6:3. So we can obviously say that anything against that which is clearly taught in scripture is false and needs to be separated over. People who uphold a particular confession would uphold that as that which is clearly explained in scripture. But they look at things with blinkers.
Then on to John’s letters
In 1 John 2, it is clear that the false teachers are those who deny that Jesus is the Christ. “No one who denies the Son has the Father” (v. 23). This is quite a large bracket. Mormons would say that Jesus came in the flesh, though they would mean something ever so slightly different to what we mean by that. Do we welcome them?
Then in 4:6, John says, “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” Do we take the “We” to mean just the Apostles. In which case, anyone who accepts the teaching of them is sound. Or do we take the “We” to mean all believers, in which case, well, we end up in a bit of a circular argument. How do we know who are true believers, it’s those who listen to true believers (over-simplified I know). But even if it is the Apostles, who has the correct understanding of what the Apostles taught exactly. Obviously some things are clear but others are less clear…such as, dare I say it, women preachers…ooooh there’s a can of worms!
He says in his second letter that, like Paul, false teaching is that which is against Jesus’ teaching (v.9) and that false teachers are those who don’t acknowledge Christ as coming in the flesh (v.7). False teachers are not to be welcomed into their houses/churches (v.10)
I think my conclusion on this matter that I’ve pondered for years now is that whatever destroys the Gospel and is against very clear biblical teaching (not just what you think is clear biblical teaching) is heresy and should be divided over. Jesus’ manhood and deity would be one. The denial of Penal Substitution outright is another. Anything that doesn’t destroy the Gospel and isn’t absolutely clearly taught in scripture can be united over. Examples would be women preachers, baptism, gifts of the Spirit, the Sabbath, creation…the list goes on of what believing evangelical Christians dispute.
The question then is if it’s not heresy but just something we disagree on, how much can we unite in order to function as churches and in order to share the Gospel?