Relational Unity
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4.4-6
The streets of my community has many churches on them. Several Baptist churches, two instrumental Churches of Christ, three Lutheran churches, and at least four of the non-denominational variety. All in all there is probably at least 20 churches in this small town of 15,000 people. One way to interpret this verse with the reality of the church today would be to conclude that the church has been so badly damaged, so fractured, and is so far from what was intended by God for his bride that there is no possibility of the church looking like, well, the church. If we accept this interpretation there’s really only some variety of two ways of looking at this. First, we can conclude the church is a complete and utter failure. That whatever there was of God in it is gone, and what’s left is as dried up and useless as a branch that failed to graft to the tree it was placed on. Or you can conclude that out there somewhere is the church that got it right. That out of all those congregations, denominations and churches there’s one of them that is unified that got it right enough to be called the bride of Christ. Unfortunately that’s what at least some Christians have concluded.
But, if we take a look at the verses just prior to these there might be another way to frame the issue.
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Ephesians 4.1-3
I don’t think what Paul is urging here is a lock-step theological unity*. If that were the case it wouldn’t be couched in terms of a lifestyle of humbleness, gentleness, and patience. Instead it would be urgings toward studying, holding fast to the faith, and remembering what was of first importance. But that’s not what’s going on here.
I don’t think Paul is talking primarily about doctrinal unity here. Rather he’s talking about relational unity. Whether or not we are obedient to these scriptures has little to do with how many churches we have, or how many strains of doctrine exist within the body. What these verses have to do with is our relationships with each other, both in terms of the others within our respective churches, and the other found in other churches. This command given by Paul would not necessarily be fulfilled even if we all got together in some kind of massive, theologically monolithic, Voltron-esque church.
This command is only fulfilled when we are humble, gentle and patiently bearing in love with those who we disagree with. There is one Lord, one savior, on baptism, and one God and Father over all and through all, and well all need to live a life worthy of our calling, especially towards those we disagree with.
*This is not to say that theology doesn’t matter, or that doctrine is unimportant. Just in case you were given that impression.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I honestly thought for a second that I was going to have to drive in this winter mess to your house and kick your butt. You know why.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Come to the darkside Joe.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I have a friend that is an Elder in a Restoration Movement Christian Church (I used to attend there and also served as an Elder). My family and I now attend a reformed SBC.
Dale and I do not see eye to eye on issues such as the role of baptism in salvation, predestination, or security of the believer (”if saved-always saved”). What we do agree on is that Christ’s death on the cross purchased our salvation (there’s another whole discussion on limited atonement there, but we don’t talk about that either). We agree there is only “one Lord, one Savior, one baptism, and one God and Father over all and through all…” Brothers in the faith, both heirs/sons of God–we just believe differently as to “how we got there.”
Good words, Tim.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
It sounds nice, but in today’s denominational nightmare there are churches with whom I could not fellowship with. Gracious and friendly, but no fellowship. Churches that preach works salvation, churches that preach health and wealth, churches that have women pastors, churches that have gay pastors, churches that believe baptism saves, and other important issues that I have concluded are serious enough to warrant a cooperation breach.
And yes, it is subjective just like those who choose to cooperate do so by subjectivism. We are all prisoners to some extent of subjectivism.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Wow, that is hardcore. Is that women in any leadership role? Would you mind defining what you mean by fellowship? (I realize we could create a whole ‘nother post about that.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I personally define it as ordaining women. That to me indicates a departure from the clear teaching of Scripture. Fellowship meaning joining with that church in any spiritual endeavor. I still would pray God’s grace, but I would remain separate.
This would be considered hardcore only recently.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
This would include women bloggers who hide behind their unordained status while still speaking and acting in elder capacity. It is the elder’s calling to rebuke the church, not other men’s wives.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Rick Frueh wrote:
> in today’s denominational nightmare there
>are churches with whom I could not fellowship
>…Churches that preach works salvation,
>churches that preach health and wealth,
>churches that have women pastors,
>churches that have gay pastors…
Rick, how do you feel about fellowship with the real threats to the church: Samaritans, prostitutes and tax collectors?
December 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hello Tim,
I left the church I attended for seven years for just that very reason. They wouldn’t let me worship God my way. They were not the least bit “tolerant” of my beliefs. I guess if I had expressed them more, they might have been. That church was not fundamental, but “purpose driven”! When the church took the “paradigm shift”, I didn’t pay the “new” doctrine that much attention and just continued to have fun in the fellowship of the small group I was in anyway. They were good people.
I was very happy with my relationship with Jesus and had no desire to change. Because I didn’t “shift” my doctrine with the rest of the church, I was suddenly accused of causing “disscord” just by not changing in my beliefs with them! I was all of a sudden labeled a “virus” to the cell group because even though I loved the people and the fellowship, I didn’t embrace the “new” doctrine (paradigm shift).
I was told that if I didn’t embrace the “new” paradigm shift with the rest of the church then I was not a true Christian by one of the members. One person quoted this to me! Jesus said ” If you don’t gather with me, then you scatter abroad”.
You may preach on “tolerance” among Christian brothers and sisters, but the purpose driven church sure does not practice it. From my experience “tolerance” is a hollow word in the church from both sides. Fundemental and purpose driven. I did get a good laugh out of the article though! It was meant as a joke, wasn’t it?
F Whittenburg
December 16th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Rick, I can understand what you are saying and you know how I feel so I won’t bring it back up. The fellowship thing is different for me. That’s a new definition for me–not saying it’s wrong–just different from what I’m used to. For instance, I have a pastor friend that I would not seek to work full time with but we preached in each other’s pulpit’s. Our disagreement’s were down the theological tree beyond how does one have eternal life. We didn’t touch those topics when we preached and we enjoyed a lot of coffee together.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
FW,
Really all you can say (if your reciting of the story is accurate) is that the church you went to was not tolerant (your word, not mine) and it was purpose driven.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“Rick, how do you feel about fellowship with the real threats to the church: Samaritans, prostitutes and tax collectors? ”
I would gladly fellowship with them as the Scriptures command. That is a different issue.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Rick,
Honestly, the issues you’re bringing up are true within an individual church, but your definition of fellowship seems a bit severe when you’re talking about issues that aren’t essential to salvation. Would you seriously refuse to pray with a church that ordained women? Or would you really refuse to help re-build a damaged house of a neighbor using Lutheran labor? Seriously now, while I agree these are issues which are deeply divisive and cannot be stood within the same church to take the position that any spiritual activity must be avoided with these churches seems to be outside of the bound of behavior ordained by scripture.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I did not sy I would not reach out to help a church in need or even be gracious and friendly. But I said I could not join with them in spiritual endeavors, a case by case decision. I could not have a joint prayer service with a church that has a woman pastor. I consider that fundamentally unscriptural.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“Really all you can say (if your reciting of the story is accurate) is that the church you went to was not tolerant (your word, not mine) and it was purpose driven.”
Wow, since you put it like that, I understand alot better now. I now am beginning to see that maybe I was the intolerant one. Thank you for that clarification on my post!
F Whittenburg
December 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Rick,
I’m not sure we can have this conversation, because I’m not sure I draw any kind of line between spiritual and unspiritual activities.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
See, I am the emergent because I CAN have the conversation. You guys are imposters!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
WoW, all I was pointing out was I don’t know if it is accurate or not as I’ve never met you. Your accusations against all things PD was illogical. It cannot be deduced based on what you wrote. If you don’t like that, I’m sorry that’s the way it is. (See, I’m not all that post-modern, by some standards).
December 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Exposed by Rick Freuh! OH GNOS!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Humor, Joe, humor. You emergent types are so strung out!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
LOL
I was talking to F Wittenburg’s comment to me. I didn’t even see yours till after I posted mine.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I formally repent and am willing to come to Mars Hill and make it official. While there I may have a little chat with Rob about you, Joe. He needs to know some things!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
F Whittenburg,
I see that there is a “philosophy” of ministry with any church (I am sure someone else has said all this… I have not read every one’s thoughts here on this so forgive me if I repeat something).
With this philosophy, as in a PDC some may not move with it as is ebbs and flows… and that is fine. Not all are meant to be arms or ears of big toes… each of us have a place and sometimes when we sense discord, it is not that the “church” is out of touch with God, (though it may be) but it could mean God has something else for you elsewhere to do.
What I mean is I believed I was to move from Ca. to Mt. to do a church plant, since I was part of a PDC in CA, I just believed I was to come here and find one and settle in and go wherever their next “plant” was… but it did not happen that way, instead I struggled doing a plant on my own, until I found another church planting (Vineyard) and since we all became friends, I came on board with the Church Plant I am doing now in Vineyard as an intern pastor.
God will guide you. It takes time and patience and listening. You will make mistakes and misunderstand, I mean we are are finite beings right? He is infinite and all knowing right? So we will just miss things at times.
God is gracious and patient with us. All He desires is that we are available for Him to do His works in and thru0ugh us.
be blessed
iggy
December 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Don’t be like that, Joe… My original post just said that I have not recieved tolerance from the purpose driven church, not all purpose driven churches like you pointed out.
F Whittenburg
December 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Rick,
I’d wait till July or August. The snow couldn’t be good for your ankle.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Hello Iggy,
Thank You!
F Whittenburg
December 16th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Hello Joe,
Do you see how Iggy handled my concerns for tolerance? The way he address my concerns is to gently point me out the door. That way the PDC can appear “tolerant” of other veiwpoints and still be completly intorlerant at the same time.
His post and response still gave me fuzzy feel good feeling even though I still knew it was a line of garbage. Don’t ever forget, you have to protect the unity of your church at all cost!!! You need to go back to PDL leadership school! Iggy, please teach him.
F Whittenburg
December 16th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
LOL,
I promise F, I am not PDL. Not even a little bit. Well, that’s not true, I am purpose driven, but not that way.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hey Joe,
I am laughing with you
I figured you would like that!
F Whittenburg