In part 3 of this series I wish to explore the Biblical data that is many times used against participating in ministerial associations. I will argue that the fundamentalist baptist argument is flawed, and stems from a poor understanding of Scripture teaching.Amos 3:3 - Can two walk together unless they have agreed to meet? (ESV). This truism from Amos is quoted widely, though usually in its King James form ("Can two walk together unless they be agreed).
..........The King James mistranslates the Hebrew, and misses the larger point Amos is trying to make. The actual meaning (as indicated by the ESV) demonstrates that if you see two people traveling together, it obviously means that they met on the path previously. This is a far cry from agreement (i.e. the "meeting of minds") on every issue. In fact, the two people may even be bickering while walking along the path. All Amos is indicating is that some basic level of meeting (or, agreement) has taken place. There is no basis to suppose this passage is teaching the necessity of complete unity of thinking.
John 17:20-21 - “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
..........Those who insist we must separate from all other denominations love quoting this verse. They state that since Jesus' goal was unity, and since there are disagreements among the denominations, such unity is impossible. It should be noted that there is such a thing as false unity, but I find it difficult to understand how we are obeying Christ's command to unify by separating from other denominations. If we are truly concerned at obeying Christ, shouldn't unifying with other denomination be our highest priority? Should we not join in fellowship with them unless there is a clear and unmistakable Jesus-denying heresy? Instead of supporting the separatist position, this verse clearly condemns it.
Ephesians 5:11 - "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
..........In learned discussion there is a fallacy of argument that is referred to as "begging the question". While indeed unfruitful work of darkness need to be exposed, do all denominational differences fit into this category? If one church sprinkles or pours for baptism, is this a work of Satan? Or, is it perhaps an honest difference of opinion? Is it perhaps a well-intended, though perhaps faulty interpretation of Scripture? What about post-tribulationalism? Is this a doctrine from hell? Or is it instead a different interpretation of Scripture?
By separating from everything, we lose our ability to expose that which is truly dark and evil. For example, the current Prosperity Gospel that is sweeping the nation is in great need of being exposed and condemned by all branches of Christianity. The Emergent church--with its rejection of propositional truth--is another area that at least needs careful investigation. Universalism, that old doctrine that denies salvation is found in Christ alone, remains an important issue that needs the voice of the orthodox church.
1 Corinthians 1:10 - "Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose."
.........Fundamentalists focus on the words "in the same mind". It is claimed that true fellowship requires sameness in thinking. But again, how far to we take this? How exact do our theological positions need to be? The verses that follow indicate what Paul means by this. He chides the people--not for having different preferences of thought and not for "following" different strains of teaching, but for allowing these differences to cloud their inherent unity. I find it amazing that the people who cite this verse as proof for separation completely ignore the command that there be no divisions. Allowing non-essential theological differences to divide the bride of Christ is disobedience to this command.
2 Corinthians 6:14 - "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or, what fellowship has light with darkness?
..........It has always amazed me that some extreme fundamentalists have the audacity to use this verse against other denominations. The key word here, of course, is unbelievers. This brings us to the heart of the issue: which is determining what makes one a believer. Is a charismatic not a believer because they speak in tongues? They believe in the Trinity, in salvation by grace alone, salvation by faith alone, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the 2nd coming, the inerrancy of scripture, and just about everything else. Will Christ refuse to accept all of these, simply because they speak in tongues? And, if we admit that Charismatics are indeed believers (even if it is maintained they are defection ones), then by implication of this verse we are instructed to "yoke" with them.
Conclusion
Most of the verses fundamentalists use to support separation refer to (1) self-declared unbelievers, and (2) false teachers who deny the core doctrines of the faith. These verses are quoted, with almost no attention given to the context or intended meaning of the author. When we look closer at these verses, it seems clear to me that there is no hint in scripture that we must separate from people who hold to different theological positions, as long as they hold to the historic and foundational truths of the Gospel.
Coming Up Next - When Separation is Needed (according to Scripture).
Ephesians 5:11 - "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
..........In learned discussion there is a fallacy of argument that is referred to as "begging the question". While indeed unfruitful work of darkness need to be exposed, do all denominational differences fit into this category? If one church sprinkles or pours for baptism, is this a work of Satan? Or, is it perhaps an honest difference of opinion? Is it perhaps a well-intended, though perhaps faulty interpretation of Scripture? What about post-tribulationalism? Is this a doctrine from hell? Or is it instead a different interpretation of Scripture?
By separating from everything, we lose our ability to expose that which is truly dark and evil. For example, the current Prosperity Gospel that is sweeping the nation is in great need of being exposed and condemned by all branches of Christianity. The Emergent church--with its rejection of propositional truth--is another area that at least needs careful investigation. Universalism, that old doctrine that denies salvation is found in Christ alone, remains an important issue that needs the voice of the orthodox church.
1 Corinthians 1:10 - "Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose."
.........Fundamentalists focus on the words "in the same mind". It is claimed that true fellowship requires sameness in thinking. But again, how far to we take this? How exact do our theological positions need to be? The verses that follow indicate what Paul means by this. He chides the people--not for having different preferences of thought and not for "following" different strains of teaching, but for allowing these differences to cloud their inherent unity. I find it amazing that the people who cite this verse as proof for separation completely ignore the command that there be no divisions. Allowing non-essential theological differences to divide the bride of Christ is disobedience to this command.
2 Corinthians 6:14 - "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or, what fellowship has light with darkness?
..........It has always amazed me that some extreme fundamentalists have the audacity to use this verse against other denominations. The key word here, of course, is unbelievers. This brings us to the heart of the issue: which is determining what makes one a believer. Is a charismatic not a believer because they speak in tongues? They believe in the Trinity, in salvation by grace alone, salvation by faith alone, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the 2nd coming, the inerrancy of scripture, and just about everything else. Will Christ refuse to accept all of these, simply because they speak in tongues? And, if we admit that Charismatics are indeed believers (even if it is maintained they are defection ones), then by implication of this verse we are instructed to "yoke" with them.
Conclusion
Most of the verses fundamentalists use to support separation refer to (1) self-declared unbelievers, and (2) false teachers who deny the core doctrines of the faith. These verses are quoted, with almost no attention given to the context or intended meaning of the author. When we look closer at these verses, it seems clear to me that there is no hint in scripture that we must separate from people who hold to different theological positions, as long as they hold to the historic and foundational truths of the Gospel.
Coming Up Next - When Separation is Needed (according to Scripture).
As a member of the same ministerial association that Josh is speaking of let me offer a thought on denominations. I am a father of six children. My wife and I also raised a neice as our daughter. Two of our daughters have married. We have six grandchildren. Two are the offspring of our neice and her husband. Two are biological children of our oldest daughter and her husband. Two are adopted by our other married daughter and her husband. All my daughters are different from each other. My son is different as he is my only son. My sons-in-law are different. Yet I love them all and accept them all as family. Some have come into my family through "normal" channels, some by marriage, some by adoption. Does that change anything? It does not. I belong to the Assemblies of God, a classic Pentecostal denomination. I consider my personal philosphy of ministry to be much more in harmony with Fransican Friars and their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. I enjoy contemporary worship yet revel in the old hymns of the church, enjoy bluegrass gospel and stand in awe of high church litergy. I have been welcomed into pulpits from Catholic to Episcopalian to Baptists to Independent (and sometimes Pentecostal). I believe all who call on the name of Christ and surrender to his claims on their life are part of the Father's family. We may be different but we have one Father. Forgive my epistle but let close with one last thought. As the father of that diverse crew I spoke of in the beginning there is only one thing they can do to cause me pain--fight with each other! If we who are Christians say we love our Father in Heaven and hate his other children...
ReplyDelete