Thanks for the link and responding to that commenter. I agree with you. As I said in my response to him, I think that unity can be more fully achieved with those who have differing ideas. If they can set aside the secondary ideas and focus on what they have in common - namely the Holy Spirit.

God’s Glory,
Lew

The Pursuit Online Store

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Our identity should be in Christ, not a denomination, school of thought or belief system. More and more I am thinking that our systematic theology has less and less to do with knowing God. Actually, I am finding that it can, and in some cases, does become a substitute. I think that God’s call to know Him is a call to experience Him; not so much to figure out information about Him. Through Christian education, I found myself knowing alot about God, but actually knowing God seemed to be more elusive. As I am progressively letting go of my need to have God “figured out”, I find myself experiencing Him more…maybe not so much with my head, but with my heart.

“you’re used to feeling security in how good a grip you perceive you have on God. it’s time to cross that line of knowing that it’s all about how good a grip God has on you.”

I like that.

As is the case, In our effort to organize & coordinate we end up complicating.

By realizing there is more than one view we are freed to not get hung up on everyone believing exactly the same and free to enjoy one another more as we walk through this life experience together.

Who cares if you were “dunked or sprinkled”? Have you entered into an eternal saving relationship with Christ? Yes! Let’s share together. Let’s build up one another.

Steve, you are right on: Conflicting ideas? Sure. Ability to fellowship and work together despite those differences? Absolutely — because it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit that unites us.

In Him,
-marty

Say, the path God asks us to walk is 100 paces long. Each step is a milestone of faith. How should we treat someone on step 3 if we are on step 87? Then, how are some now treated that are on step 3 by those that are on step 87? Then, how are those on step three treated when they falter in there faith by those on step 87?

I think answering those questions is the crux of unity. Until we can understand that people will be all along the path, and have the understanding that they will have to search and ask questions to get to step 87, that we can even begin to perceive of unity. By understanding that people are HUMAN and are GOING to fail at this, and accept them when they do fail. Who else accepts us when we fail? Then how could we do any less with that example in front of us.

What do you think of all of these musings?

How we perceive and react to sin, immaturity, and personality are much more divisive than issues of interpretation.

Ephesians tells us to maintain the unity of the spirit not unity of doctrine. Love is a heart thing, not an intellectual debate.

Great thoughts! The one you quoted cannot be married!
After 46 years my wife and I still are not united in all of our ideas, but we are very happily in unity!

Pride prevents us from, acknowledging others can also be right and, admitting that we can be wrong. Pride declares that number one is ALWAYS RIGHT, therefore EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG! Pride asserts that, because I SAY they are wrong, THEY (whomever they are) are the ones causing disunity!

Great post!

A difficulty with the single file 100 step analogy in this discussion is that I may assume that those who disagree with me must be the ones on step 3 while I’m the one on step 87. Of course that’s true in my case, but you others …. The issue is that when I find myself on the same step with a brother who has landed there by planting his left foot on it while I’ve used my right foot — well, one of us must be wrong, we each mistakenly think.

And perhaps the steps split into two (or more) paths. The one I take leads to God, so clearly (to me) my brother is going in the wrong direction. In reality, maybe he is, and maybe he’s not.

Or maybe I take the next step, and my brother stays behind. Am I more mature, or did he stop to tend the wounds of someone beaten by robbers?

If there were clearly defined steps, what would they look like? Who would define them? I think that’s the problem the rich young ruler created for himself when he asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Better to behave as a little child, or Zacchaeus, and simply delight in His presence.

For example, if my identity is in my nationalism, then I may easily become offended and break unity with my brothers and sisters from France, Germany, or anywhere else that may have a differing perspective. If my identity is in my generation (or age demographic), then I may be offended by someone of another demographic who sees things differently. If my identity is in my education level, my career, my political leanings - all of this things can be sources of disunity, I find.

When Christians root their identity in things other than Christ, then when a brother or sister with a different perspective verbalizes their viewpoint, it is taken personally - and the relationship suffers. I think if we truly see our identity in Christ (and not other things - which quickly become idols), then our offendibility plummets and unity is much easier.

It seems to me that unity is the unconditional commitment to relationship with people regardless of similarity or differences. I want to be part of a company of people that embody an attitude that says, “No matter your perspectives, opinions, nationality, age, gender, whatever… no matter your doctrinal particularities… these things can’t deter me from accepting and honoring you as my brother/sister in Christ, and that’s that. ” In that atmosphere, I think we could discuss things more freely - knowing that our acceptance or rejection isn’t dependent on peripheral non-essentials.

And on the other hand, I sometimes wonder where the balance lies between being honest and being sensitive… Don’t have that one figured out yet…

Aussiejohn hit on one of the worst of the western stumbling blocks to unity. Pride. We are taught to achieve, overcome, and conpuer in this land of opportunity. When we do, we believe WE have the right answer and they don’t.

George hit on the other, though he did not come right out and say it. We have to respect that God has each person on their own path, and that we should not be the ones to guide it. Only God should. For example, my brother follows God in everything. God has placed him where he wants him. I cuss very rarely anymore, though he does very often. But that is the language of the people that God has ask him to reach. Should I chastise him for speaking the language of the lost, or respect that God has his plan for him? Tough one.

Lastly Sarah with Identity. When we feel our identity to be threatened we lash out. So when someone has a belief different from ours, we feel that we need to correct that person so others don’t misunderstand who we are because they say that they go to churhc so and so, and so do I. Identity is something we will viciously fight for. It is why dying to self is so hard, we want to be who we want to be, but we must be who God wants us to be instead.

Got a little long there. Sorry, next time I will bring snacks when I do this.

So, yes, we should see our unity in our identification with Christ, but that does not take us outside the realm of doctrine, because doctrine plays an important role in how we conceive of and know Christ. Doctrine is essentially an agreed upon interpretation of Scripture. How we conceive of the death, burial and resurrection are essentially doctrinal questions, as are questions about Christ’s divine and human natures, the nature of the church and how it should look/operate on earth, the role of faith and works in our salvation, etc. If we are to understand and live out our unity, it is helpful to understand where unity ends and why. Does it consist in merely loving my neighbor? If so, then my Mormon friends and I are much more unified than many of my evangelical brothers and sisters.

It was stated above that a person who denies the validity of a baptism outside his or her denomination is a heretic. I agree to an extent (e.g., I believe Mormon baptisms are invalid), but calling somebody a heretic implies a moral judgment about their doctrine that one must be able to defend. There are instances in Scripture of rebaptism, so there are obviously some fundamental distinctives regarding Christian baptism that need to be gotten right. To say someone is a heretic who holds such beliefs is to essentially say that their theology of baptism does not properly capture those distinctives. I would agree with Steve that the idea that all baptisms outside of a specific denomination are invalid is heretical, but one should acknowledge that that idea is itself based on certain doctrinal ideas of unity, heresy and baptism.

Since we cannot separate doctrine from our constructs of unity, it is important to understand what are the fundamental Christian doctrines that must be held and why. We must also be able to figure out ways to live in harmony and mutual respect when there remains disagreement in “peripheral” areas.

MB

In I Corinthians 12, we find: “But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” (NIV)

And in Titus 3, we read: “9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” (NIV)

Unity of Faith, not unity of man’s imperfect ideas.

Sorry, just had to ask!
-marty

Regarding which doctrines are fundamental, that is a controversial question that sometimes ends in the type of nit-picking that this post correctly decries. Nobody agrees on the list, but everybody has one. If not, then people would consider Muslims to be our brothers in Christ, since they claim to believe in Jesus… it’s just that their definition of who Jesus is/was and did while here on earth varies from the orthodox Christian version (orthodox with a small “o”). Regarding the specifics, Muslims aren’t too far off from many “Christians” who claim that all the miracles in the Bible were merely literary tools to communicate a “larger message,” however that is defined.

If you think that one can’t be both Muslim and Christian, there are plenty of very intelligent folks who disagree.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

If I were to try to set out which doctrines are fundamental, I would start with who Jesus was and the facts of his life on earth (e.g., the Trinity, His incarnation, death, burial and resurrection) and the divine inspiration of Scripture. One can go on from there, but that is beyond the scope of my point, which is that all Christians have a set of doctrines that they consider to be fundamental and core. When they discuss unity among believers, they are almost always talking about unity among people who meet some minimal set of doctrinal criteria. While we may use terms like identification in Christ, that concept is almost always tied to doctrinal assumptions.

MB