DIFFERING THEOLOGIES AND CHRISTIAN UNITY
By Steve Behlke
The following list of words are woven into the DNA of contemporary Christianity, sometimes to the point of sizing up who is a good Christian and who is not, who understands God the best, and who is too liberal or too fundamental.
The craziest thing, perhaps, is that these words aren't even in the Bible. I don't want words that aren't even biblical to be used to divide and size-up and ostracize and alienate.
I'm talking words like Arminianism and Calvinism and Free Grace, amillennial and premillennial, rapture, limited atonement and unlimited atonement, and inerrancy (the words may not be in Scripture but a case can be made, by assembling certain verses, for the general concepts). But also words and phrases like the sinner's prayer, worship wars, and culture wars (which I don't think the concepts are even found in Scripture, let alone the words); and words like Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative (which the Bible knows nothing about); and the list goes on.
Some of these have biblical associations. Some do not. Either way, Christians can get overly excited over these words and concepts.
I myself, naturally gravitate toward this. I take some of these things very seriously, like Calvinism (though I'm more of a Calvinistic-Free Grace theologian), premillennialism, and inerrancy. "It's a matter of correct Bible interpretation," I protest. "It's a matter of God's glory."
None of these words or phrases, however, should divide the body of Christ.
I just finished a sermon series on the bigger story that Christians are a part of, starting with Creation, arriving at the cross, and, at the end of the series, just a few weeks ago, we ended with a three week look at future things (eschatology).
Since the associate pastor and I have a difference of opinion regarding future things I thought it would be good for Don to present the amillennial position (which he believes to be true) and I would follow up the next week by presenting the premillennial position (which I find to be true).
He did a great job. Gentle, conciliatory, humble.
When it got to be my turn, I felt myself wanting to attack his position. What's that?! Well, I wanted people to see why the kingdom of God must be fulfilled under Christ's reign, on this earth, in ways that mankind has never seen before, all in fulfillment of the ancient promises both in the Old and in the New Testaments.
I could've done a better job and definitely just presented the premill view and not even compared or contrasted it with the amill view. Not everyone liked the message or the way we did it. But most of them saw something beautiful and powerful take place. At least after the message...
For I explained how even though we view things differently, we truly respect each other, value each other, and love each other. I also mentioned how even though God's future promises are important, for it is part of God's redemptive plans in Christ, any differences of opinion on these matters do not generate any bad thoughts or divisiveness at all. None! And except for a few stupid comments (by me), we modeled love and respect and unity amidst diversity.
After this... our church celebrated communion together.
And all sorts of people, hundreds of them, a mass of broken, wounded, sinful, grace-healing humanity approached the Lord's Table together.
In spite of differing views and diverse levels of maturity and perplexing sin-struggles, in spite of various views on eschatology, different backgrounds, likes and dislikes, all came up together to the tables at the front of the church, all manned by spiritual elders, who pronounced blessings on each person and handed them hearty chunks of french bread and a glass of wine, er, juice, to return to their seats and pray or share or contemplate God's work on the cross and what it means for those called to follow Jesus both now and forever.
And watching everyone come up to the Lord's Table together as one people, with faith in Christ's sacrifice, their forgiveness assured, with a God-given love for Christ and each other, it was beautiful to behold! Imperfect, but beautiful.
I care about theology. I care about the things that God deemed important enough to tell us about with the intention to give us hope, to inspire faith, and to encourage holiness. But holiness is lived out now through faith in Jesus and the promises of God, also in our relationships, particularly in unity among those who love Jesus.
The following list of words are woven into the DNA of contemporary Christianity, sometimes to the point of sizing up who is a good Christian and who is not, who understands God the best, and who is too liberal or too fundamental.
The craziest thing, perhaps, is that these words aren't even in the Bible. I don't want words that aren't even biblical to be used to divide and size-up and ostracize and alienate.
I'm talking words like Arminianism and Calvinism and Free Grace, amillennial and premillennial, rapture, limited atonement and unlimited atonement, and inerrancy (the words may not be in Scripture but a case can be made, by assembling certain verses, for the general concepts). But also words and phrases like the sinner's prayer, worship wars, and culture wars (which I don't think the concepts are even found in Scripture, let alone the words); and words like Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative (which the Bible knows nothing about); and the list goes on.
Some of these have biblical associations. Some do not. Either way, Christians can get overly excited over these words and concepts.
I myself, naturally gravitate toward this. I take some of these things very seriously, like Calvinism (though I'm more of a Calvinistic-Free Grace theologian), premillennialism, and inerrancy. "It's a matter of correct Bible interpretation," I protest. "It's a matter of God's glory."
None of these words or phrases, however, should divide the body of Christ.
I just finished a sermon series on the bigger story that Christians are a part of, starting with Creation, arriving at the cross, and, at the end of the series, just a few weeks ago, we ended with a three week look at future things (eschatology).
Since the associate pastor and I have a difference of opinion regarding future things I thought it would be good for Don to present the amillennial position (which he believes to be true) and I would follow up the next week by presenting the premillennial position (which I find to be true).
He did a great job. Gentle, conciliatory, humble.
When it got to be my turn, I felt myself wanting to attack his position. What's that?! Well, I wanted people to see why the kingdom of God must be fulfilled under Christ's reign, on this earth, in ways that mankind has never seen before, all in fulfillment of the ancient promises both in the Old and in the New Testaments.
I could've done a better job and definitely just presented the premill view and not even compared or contrasted it with the amill view. Not everyone liked the message or the way we did it. But most of them saw something beautiful and powerful take place. At least after the message...
For I explained how even though we view things differently, we truly respect each other, value each other, and love each other. I also mentioned how even though God's future promises are important, for it is part of God's redemptive plans in Christ, any differences of opinion on these matters do not generate any bad thoughts or divisiveness at all. None! And except for a few stupid comments (by me), we modeled love and respect and unity amidst diversity.
After this... our church celebrated communion together.
And all sorts of people, hundreds of them, a mass of broken, wounded, sinful, grace-healing humanity approached the Lord's Table together.
In spite of differing views and diverse levels of maturity and perplexing sin-struggles, in spite of various views on eschatology, different backgrounds, likes and dislikes, all came up together to the tables at the front of the church, all manned by spiritual elders, who pronounced blessings on each person and handed them hearty chunks of french bread and a glass of wine, er, juice, to return to their seats and pray or share or contemplate God's work on the cross and what it means for those called to follow Jesus both now and forever.
And watching everyone come up to the Lord's Table together as one people, with faith in Christ's sacrifice, their forgiveness assured, with a God-given love for Christ and each other, it was beautiful to behold! Imperfect, but beautiful.
I care about theology. I care about the things that God deemed important enough to tell us about with the intention to give us hope, to inspire faith, and to encourage holiness. But holiness is lived out now through faith in Jesus and the promises of God, also in our relationships, particularly in unity among those who love Jesus.
I think there's a tendency to fall into one of two extremes. We have all experienced - or been the offending party! - Christians who militantly oppose other believers because of doctrinal differences. Unfortunately visceral reactions divide and contribute nothing to a deeper understanding. We see the folly of internecine feuds when we consider Jesus’ prayer in John 17. "May they [believers, then & now] be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Consequently, we might overcompensate in our efforts to avoid unnecessary polemics by simply evading theological specificity, especially theological matters which have become divisive. This vice is much easier to succumb to because of its subtlety. It seems better to hollow out our theology for unity's sake. (Unity does not mean uniformity!) Paul or Luther hardly advocated a theology like this.
For example, both Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists have called those holding the opposing position all sorts of names. Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments (in short, name calling rather than dealing with the person’s position or arguments) reduce the discussion to verbal stone throwing. Thus, others seeing this sort of debate are tempted to say, "Who cares? Let’s just say that God created everything and not worry about when or how He did it." We don't need to devote our lives to studying the age of the universe, but these things matter - as we seek a deeper understanding of God and as we interact with non-Christians in the marketplace of ideas.
Two concluding comments:
(1) Regarding the two extremes I mentioned, I think we can draw from the insights of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. Aristotle said that virtues or excellences are located in between the extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, consider the virtue of courage. Courage is situated in between the extremes of rashness and cowardice. We all have predilections toward one extreme or the other, but I think we should seek to the virtues of charity, graciousness, open-mindedness, thoughtfulness, understanding, and tolerance as we interact with others who disagree.
(2) The church is a great place for us to learn and practice the art of respectfully disagreeing, dialoguing, and even arguing (not being argumentative). If Christian brothers and sisters can’t have a fruitful discussion about creation, eschatology, forms of worship, ecclesiology, etc. without becoming hot under the collar, how in the world can we have meaningful conversations with non-Christians? If I can’t lovingly tolerate a brother who has a different view of creation—albeit while still arguing for my position—how am I supposed to effectively dialogue with someone who believes my faith is harmful or a delusion? We should seek more opportunities to engage each other, especially when we disagree.
Bravo to you and Don for your recent efforts to inculcate this charity-in-all-things ethos.
Reply to this
You didn't even mention pacifism vs just war, complementarian vs egalitarian, infant vs believer baptism, understanding of gifts of the Spirit, opinions on evolution, preferences on church leadership structure (congregational, elder-led, pastor-led, ecclesiastical) etc. How dull it might be for us if when we move, we end up in a church where we were not in the minority on most points of disagreement!
At least we've all come to unanimity on the common points, like how justice, evangelism, service, simplicity, forgiveness, peace-making, risk-taking, purity, and charity should best be manifest in our lives... or maybe not. Good thing we have a whole lifetime (plus eternity) to try to truly understand Jesus' words and deeds -- and the global and historic church to help us unpack them.
Reply to this
You know, Kathleen, for the first several years I was a Christian, I was on a quest to find the church (or denomination) with "perfect doctrine" (which was probably a euphemism for one that taught everything I happened to believe). As my understanding deepened (a little bit), I realized that we need just what you said: the global and historic church to begin to understand things as we ought...and our inquiry will endure forever.
We should become “doctrinally humble” as we recognize our limitations and our own fallibility. In fact, when we truly listen to the views of others, we gain so much more than we would if we act as though we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth in our back pockets. Our conversation a while ago about women’s role in ministry made me appreciate the biblical case for the full inclusion of women in ways that I had not previously. The creative tension of doctrinal differences in a church can cause us to reflect critically and (hopefully!) come to a better understanding of God.
Reply to this