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.
Nowhere is what N.T. Wright describes in that quote better illustrated than in the a cappella Churches of Christ. As I said yesterday, it seems to me that there are a lot of folks more willing to debate details (however important they may seem) and assume the worst of others than to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with their God.
Not sure I’d agree with Adam that we’re the “best bad example.” My conversations with ministers in Baptist churches revealed some pretty ugly schisms as well.
Back to Wright’s quote: I don’t think he’s saying that the way to unity is to disregard biblical authority, but to put it in proper perspective. “As much as it depends on us” do we seek doctrinal purity or spiritual unity, according to the Bible? We are indeed called to doctrinal purity and commanded to seek it, but when the responsibility is placed squarely on us, the emphasis seems to be unity. We can try to argue how we’re supposed to get there, but if the end result isn’t unity, perhaps the means was mistaken (fruit of the root, as it were).
Barry,
Wright definitely believes the Bible is authoritative. He just feels that most people have made their theology/interpretation of the Bible authoritative, rather than letting the Bible itself be authoritative. It’s an excellent article. I’ve used his analogy of “the fifth act” quite a bit in teaching.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Unity for the sake of unity is also a mistake. We are called in Scripture to uphold to doctrinal purity. We are also told to throw false teachers out of the church. The question is, which doctrines are close-fisted (meaning, we won’t budge) and which doctrines are more open-handed (willing to disagree and remain in fellowship)? There lies the issue.
Can we fellowship with someone who does not believe Christ is preexistent? Can we fellowship with someone who does not believe Jesus bodily rose from the grave? These are just two much more important unity questions than multi-cup or whatever other rubbish divisions happen over.
I think J.R. has a point to a certain extent. But I still would not want to make doctrinal purity the end goal, since it is not the case in scripture. I think what contemporary Christianity needs is a better understanding of not just what the important doctrines are but also why (what reasons) were the New Testament writers so interested in protecting the church from those who would teach certain false doctrines. In my experience, the later concern of why is often misunderstood. In good Greco-Roman thought, it seems to be understood that the doctrinal proposition itself was what the NT was interested in protecting. But we need to remember that the NT is rooted in Jewish thought and in such thought, knowledge isn’t knowledge if it doesn’t translate into the way we live (obedience) as God’s people. That seems to explain, by way of example, why 1 John so effortlessly weaves together the Christology with the way believers love each other and the way sin is viewed.
Also, just as another observation, I’ve been preaching through the book of Colossians. In chapter one, Paul claims to have heard of the true gospel among the Colossians not because he knows they all have uniformed agreement with some arduous creed but because he sees their faith, love, and hope. Here then is a point to remember: if we have no faith, love, and hope, we have not heard the true gospel! We may have heard something that we or someone else called the true gospel but if we have no faith, love, and hope then it wasn’t the true gospel. For the true gospel produces faith, love and hope…it always has and always will.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex: People may have heard the true Gospel, but may not have been regenerated by the hearing of it. Faith, hope, and love are evidence of the Gospel taking root. This is how we can identify who is born-again more-so than simply who has heard the Gospel. Millions of unregenerate people have heard the Gospel and have no faith, hope, and love; (even some who attend church!); and they remain unregenerate.
I’ve been teaching through Galatians. Paul is clear that if one does not rely on Christ alone for their own justification, then they have not adopted the true Gospel. They are condemned. It doesn’t mean they haven’t heard the true Gospel, for Paul indeed preached it to the Galatian churches. But it means they have turned away from it, and have relied on their own works (or, obedience to the law) for their own justification. Or, they have just ignored it as folly (1 Cor 1:23). That is just one example.
We must not confuse the fruit of our lives for the root of our justification. We are found right with God in Christ, by grace through faith. Our lives are but evidence of that justification. Fruit is simply our duty: Luke 17:7-10.
Some have ears to hear. Some don’t. Some are good soil. Some are not. That is what determines production of fruit.
Back to the issue of unity, I do feel the issue is which doctrines we each feel are close-fisted and which are open-handed. Some actually think the one-cup or instrument issue is salvific. Some don’t. But if we see the NT battles, it was over more critical issues like Christology (who Christ is and where He came from). This is where the conversation needs to go. What do we believe about God and Christ? This is where the lines of unity need to be drawn in my view.
J.R., I am using the word “hear” in the sense of having ears but not hearing, having eyes but not seeing. Some people hear the gospel but they don’t hear it.