[CS-FSLUG] A couple of thoughts on denominations

[Don Parris]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:43:53 -0500, Ed Hurst <softedges at tconline.net> wrote:
> Nigel Ridley wrote:
> 
> > So divisive denominations are a sadness but differences in worship forms
> > are not.
> 
> Precisely. Worship is the easiest place to cross the divide. When we sit
> down to teach and make application of the things for which we worship,
> the divide is not so easy to cross. Those divisions exist for very good
> reasons, but the hard feelings that often come with them do not. Some
> songs that sound beautiful I cannot sing, for they celebrate ideas that,
> to me, are not biblical.
> 
Amen.  You hit the nail on the head here.  The hard feelings that
arise between Baptists & Presbyterians, or between any of the
denominations is definitely bad.  That, more than the fact of having
different denominations, reflects our loss of unity.  When I say Ed's
going to burn because he's a Baptist (which I couldn't), then I'm
being arrogant and showing a serious lack of grace.  I also think this
is the real root of Nathan's problem with denoms.  I've thought about
it, and I know many others who have wrestled with it.

I don't view denoms as sports teams who come against each other, but
rather as military units who play different roles in order to
accomplish the main mission.  The US Marine Corps has three (active)
divisions, each with three infantry regiments and some support
regiments.  Each regiment has five battalions, each with five
companies.  Each company in turn has five platoons.  Each platoon has
three squads, consisting of three 4-man fireteams.

When we would attack an enemy position, one squad would lay a base of
fire, while the other two sneaked around the enemy's flank.  Once the
two squads left the third, no one could really see each other, so
various communication tools were used to coordinate the attack.  So,
too, God has arranged His Army into divisions, regiments, and so on. 
He coordinates the attacks on the enemy - even though we cannot always
see it.

God may have the Baptists doing one thing and the Methodists another -
don't forget about the varieties of gifts, and parts of the body.  The
tactics used by the Marines have the drawback of potentially
subjecting the flanking element to friendly fire if the communications
goes down.  I think that sometimes happens on the spiritual front as
well.  We get caught up in the action and get caught in the friendly
fire.  That doesn't mean that we're not united in purpose or in Christ
- we are.

> I'm altogether willing to worship with a wide range of folks under
> widely varying circumstances. So can a lot of lost folks who don't
> really know Jesus. In worship they do me little harm. When we teach
> about daily living, they can do tremendous damage. I can *say* those who
> dissent are not listening to the Spirit, but that is arrogance. So I
> withdraw a safe distance (a phrase the means different things in
> different places) so that those with like conviction can gather to find
> a living pathway to service. Those with other convictions are then not
> bothered by what I teache.
> 
> I admit it is altogether likely our convictions are flavored by simple
> differences in personality and personal experience. If so, then they
> remain differences that I did not create by any choice. The easiest
> example to raise is Calvinism: I cannot be any other. The way I came to
> Christ was purely a matter of that theology. The "absolute truth" of
> whether I am correct in that view versus the view of one who is certain
> we can loose our standing in the Kingdom may be something of both or
> neither. Scripture certainly seems at points ambiguous, depending on how
> you read it.
> 
> Still, I simply could not follow a God who would let me slip away.
> Another could not remain faithful without that hanging over his head. I
> must give that brother freedom to follow as best he can. I must ask the
> same freedom for myself. When we teach how to live the Word, we will
> naturally have different applications, as naturally arise from different
> foundations. Our freedoms mean we do not sit down to lessons together,
> but choose our own respective circles for those lessons.
> 
> If that could be institutionalized, I would be fine with that. In some
> places, it works -- witness my discussion of the NATO chapel in the
> Netherlands. Even there, we had numerous independent groups in the
> military community who found a better atmosphere of worship and service
> in other facilities. The chapel had limits to what it could accommodate.
> 
The military probably has the best non-denominational program of
anyone I know.  But it's mainly a captive audience when you're out in
the field. :)

> For 2000 years we've worked at this. The cultural setting may or may not
> permit wide open fellowship. The nature of the institutions will change
> from generation to generation. The emergent church is the house church,
> and brick-n-mortar will decline. The issues of what to teach will not go
> away. Until God comes down and answers the questions to the satisfaction
> of all, debate will continue. If we focus too much on the organizations,
> we will be distracted from the mission, even while we cannot do much of
> anything without those organizations.
> 
I think this is an important point, Ed.  Our unity will be made
perfect in Christ's return.  We cannot forget the end of John's
gospel.  One may be required to tarry, while another is compelled to
go.

<SNIP>

-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
Free software is like God's love - 
you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!