Tag Archives: unity

Can we support those with whom we don’t agree?

5 Replies

Beheading of Anabaptist Martyrs (Rembrandt)

Goshen College has been in the news a lot this year. This small school in Indiana was founded by believers steeped in the Anabaptist tradition, specifically Amish and Mennonites.

In keeping with their beliefs in peacemaking, Goshen College did not play the national anthem at school activities. In 2010, school officials decided that as a gesture of hospitality toward visiting athletic teams, they would begin to play the anthem at sporting events.

Their was a strong outcry among their alumni, leading the administration to return to the policy their school had practiced for over 100 years. That’s when the national media jumped in, especially Fox News. Reports came out that the school had “banned” the national anthem, and patriots everywhere denounced this act. [Anabaptists have been persecuted for centuries because of their views. As someone said on Facebook, “during the Reformation, the one thing that Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists could all agree on is that Anabaptists ought to die.”]

I’m not surprised that groups like Fox News would jump on Goshen. What’s been sad to me is to see the Christians that have done the same. Even if we don’t agree with them, shouldn’t we support a school that makes an unpopular decision based on Christian principles? Someone who stands up for their convictions despite the ridicule of non-Christians?

[A sports writer in Oklahoma had an interesting take yesterday, not as a Christian, but as a citizen of the U.S. He wrote:

The decision brought home the true dichotomy in the debate of freedom of religious expression and paying homage to the nation that enables such freedoms.

Clearly, the school has the right to play or not play any song it wants and it would run counter to everything our many valiant, brave citizens and soldiers have given in the fight for freedom.

It would be ironic if a school were forced to play a song that celebrates the birth of a nation born out of the desire for freedom.

You can read his whole article here.]

Maybe I’m only saying that because I’m sympathetic to their position. (There’s a well-written explanation of one alumnus’ views in this article title “Why I Don’t Sing The Star-Spangled Banner“) So I’ll look for input from you. Should we support those who stand up for their convictions even when we don’t agree with them?

Let me point out, as the discussion begins, that Goshen only changed what the school does as an official organism. They did not ban the anthem, as has been wrongly reported in the press. They do not forbid other schools playing the anthem when Goshen is the visiting team. They don’t burn flags nor beat up soldiers. I feel that their stand is different from that of some who try to impose their views on others or flaunt their views in the face of others. Goshen’s decision affected what they did on their own campus.

Is this a time for Christians to stand united or are their bigger principles in play here?

Unity for Christ’s sake

2 Replies

Once again, the comments section on this blog is proving to be the most enlightening part. If you haven’t had a chance to do so, read over the comments from Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s posts. Lots of good, insightful discussion.

I’ve heard it said that David Lipscomb taught that it was a sin for a member of the churches of Christ not to attend the congregation closest to his home. (That would make sinners out of a lot of people in Abilene!) I see some merit in the idea. I think we’ve been too quick to find a congregation that fits our tastes rather than pausing to see if God is trying to shape our views through the people around us.

That’s a hard one for me to do, yet I fully believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in community. We tend to be very individualistic with our faith, be it concerning our salvation or be it about our beliefs. The Hebrew mindset was much more community oriented.

I’m not arguing for unity for unity’s sake. I’m arguing for unity for Christ’s sake. For the good of the body. Yes, there are critical issues on which we much agree, but none of these critical issues allows us to leave love by the wayside. (just ask the Ephesian church addressed in Revelation 2!) There will be extreme moments where separation is the only answer, but these should be few and far between.

In the United States, we often have the luxury of being able to leave one group to find another where we are more comfortable. I’m not sure that luxury has served the body well. I’m wondering if we wouldn’t do better if we were forced to try and work through our differences in love, forced to find reconciliation and restoration. In places where there are no alternatives, Christians are forced to stay together and learn to get along.

I’m largely preaching to me here, reminding myself of things that should never have been forgotten. When I get full of myself, believing that I have all the answers and that my way is the right way, I need to remember that those hard-headed, closed-minded people are the temple of the Holy Spirit. And maybe, just maybe, God has something to tell me through them.

(Any resemblance to persons now living or dead is purely coincidental)

The Fissiparous Church

7 Replies

I came upon a quote from N.T. Wright that seems to speak to yesterday’s discussion:

It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based on the Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right.

I saw this quote in another context, but it comes from Wright’s excellent article titled “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” (Any quote that uses the word “fissiparous” has to be good!) I don’t have enough experience with other groups to speak to them, but Wright’s words certainly ring true about the churches of Christ.

As many have long said, hermeneutics are a big part of the problem; our approach to biblical interpretation is often flawed. (Especially among those who reject the idea of interpretation: “We don’t interpret the Bible, we just read it and do what it says.”)

But is that the whole problem? Philip’s analogy yesterday was helpful, talking about his relationship with his wife. Where there is love, all differences can be worked out. Where there is no love, any difference is grounds enough for separation.

The New Testament speaks more about love and unity than it does any other doctrinal issue. Unfortunately, we want to relativize those things. When a friend from the Boston Movement shared with me an article claiming that number of baptisms was the biblical standard of success for a church, I told him that unity was the biblical standard of success. He replied, “Yes, but it’s unity that comes from a common commitment to evangelism.”

Others claim that unity comes from complete doctrinal agreement. I disagree (which immediately puts me out of their circle). The early church maintained its unity despite doctrinal differences. When we place rightness over oneness, there is a division in our future.

Or am I off base? Yesterday’s comments were full of wisdom; I look forward to further guidance and necessary correction today.

Caged hunting dogs

9 Replies

I was talking with a coworker yesterday, recalling an illustration by Joseph Aldrich, author of Lifestyle Evangelism. He said that many in the church are like caged hunting dogs. With no birds to hunt, they turn on one another, biting and fighting. When set loose to do that for which they were trained, they work together to accomplish their goal.

When the church turns inward, we can fight over whether that was a gnat or a mosquito that we strained out of our water. When we turn our focus outward, we can find the unity described in the Word.

I’ve found that illustration to be very helpful to me over the years.

Not worth the fight

17 Replies

I guess it’s no secret that the topic of music is a highly-charged one in our brotherhood. I don’t plan to get into that argument per se; you can look at the discussion going on over at Jay Guin’s blog if you don’t know what I’m talking about (I would send you directly to Wineskins.org, but there is a brother there who insists on completely dominating the discussion. If you can’t be coherent, be loud).

Something that concerns me about the historical view held within our brotherhood are the multiplicity of arguments used to support, many which actually contradict the others. I can’t help but wonder if, when pressed on the matter, if these brothers would insist that others hold exactly to their view or is belief in the same practice enough?

The typical assertion about baptism is that the act isn’t enough, that you need to hold to the proper understanding. Does the same hold true about music? If one believes that all use of instruments in the Bible was sinful while another holds that the Old Testament allowed instruments but the New Testament doesn’t, do they believe the same thing? If one believes that the Greek word “psallo” excludes the use of instruments while another believes it refers to instruments, but that our instrument is the heart, do they believe the same thing? I could go on and on.

My fear is that we are starting from a conclusion, then working backwards to support it. If not, why the wide variety of opinions to support our practice? Many of these beliefs, might I add, are virtually unique to the person holding them.

I’m an a cappella guy. My roots are in the a cappella church, and unless I can see something of real substance to be gained by bringing in instruments, I’m not interested. But I’ve read the arguments that try to make this a critical issue, from the bizarro world of Piney to well-reasoned arguments by men like Everett Ferguson and Jack Boyd. I’m just not convinced.

It’s not worth the fight. Not worth the fight to make people use instruments, not worth the fight to make them stop. God is quite capable of expressing himself clearly on important issues. And he chose not to on this issue. Because it’s not worth the fight.