Last weekend we had some Christian friends over who belong to another denomination. As we were talking, the issue came up of differing doctrinal views. One friend asked me what the Adventist position was on hell. With a great philosophical argument, I presented the position of hell as annihilation (vs. eternal burning). Then she asked me a question—“What texts could you use to support that biblically?”
Uhhh….
I stuttered through some texts with their contexts. I threw out some Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings. But the truth is…I was caught off guard.
As we ate dinner together, I admitted freely that it had been a long time since someone had challenged me about my view on hell. Then it hit me. The reason I’ve not been challenged is because most people I'm around either view it the same as me or don't care.
When our friends left that night, I got out my books and my bible, and I went right to work. It was great! I refreshed myself on the reasons why I believe what I believe, and I went to bed that night feeling good, yet still slightly disturbed.
Aside from the Authority of Christ and the Supremacy of the Word, some people think having differing Theological views is dangerous. They might argue that it creates an atmosphere of disunity. I would argue, however, that unity couldn’t be real without diversity. If everyone looks/acts/believes the same, then unity isn’t unity—it’s uniformity. Genuine unity comes from bringing together differing viewpoints/people/personalities and not dividing. In short, unity becomes more beautiful as diversity increases and people still stay together. (Rev. 7:9)
In Jesus’ prayer to His Father in John 17, He prayed “that they would be one as we are one.” Surprisingly enough, He said this unity would cause the world to know that “you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (vs. 23)
Is this wonderful or scary? What do you think? Is this what our church should be striving for?
David Achata
There are times when I don't even have uniformity in my own head. (many have heard me argue both sides of the same argument.) I WISH that the things I believed would fit neatly together like a jigsaw puzzle, but for some reason my mind and heart can't jam all the pieces together and there are more than a few pieces missing. That's why I'm trusting in a reality, in a God that is bigger than my own understanding, even bigger than my faith. If I have accepted the discrepencies in my own mind how on earth can I expect uniformity within any group? I think a life of faith inherently accepts mystery and paradox. Why should we expect anything different in a community of faith. It sure would be easier if everyone dressed like, talked like and lived like I do and wouldn't it be great if everyone could read a bible text and see the same thing I see. Anyone interested in being just like me?..... Didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I am troubled by how much we (yes, we) try to nail everything down for ourselves, and even more often, for everybody else. How many times do we say "I don't know". I suspect that the desire for uniformity has more to do with selfish preservation than communion. There are churches that hold out the illusionary promise of uniformity because many people want their lives to be confirmed and preserved. It may sound odd but I don't really trust the puzzle that has all its pieces fitting neatly together framed, shellacked and hanging on the wall. (why do people do that?) Imagine a group of people who desired communion in spite of their discrepencies, who accepted a bit of mystery in God and each other. I belive that church will change the world.
Yes, the church that will change the world is the church that unifies despite their differences. When I say "church", I mean local body of believers who believe God is bigger than their understanding and therefore fall on their knees in worship.
ReplyDeleteI agree--things don't fit together like a puzzle. Nevertheless, as we unite on primary issues and accept/love one another then we fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal.6:2)
-David
Well, who cannot adequately defend his position on the state of the dead should not be expected to understand the much deeper issues surrounding his opinions on unity between churches. In Revelation we are told that the catalyst for the second coming is the prayers of the saints for justice for the blood the dragon spilled (Rev 6:10). In Daniel there is clearly no united world in the end, signified by the clay and iron feet. As long as our church leaders are reaching out to the very organization that caused the spilling of the blood of the saints and is working in defiance of the word of God by trying to unify the world instead of telling the news of Christ’s second coming we should not be surprised that most of our church members find the messages in Daniel a Revelation to be non-applicable and therefore uninteresting or worse, scary.
ReplyDeleteSee if you can get your hands on the transcript of the sermon Ted Wilson delivered at the GC session... He thinly veiled this idea in it and I think it was one of the bravest messages delivered in my lifetime as far as calling pastors to task when it comes to the watering down of Adventist doctrine.
Sentence 1 should read:
ReplyDeleteWell, an Adventist pastor who cannot adequately defend his position on the state of the dead should not be expected to understand the much deeper issues surrounding his opinions on unity between churches.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure what organizations you are referring to that "caused the spilling of the blood of the saints", but I'm guessing you mean all of the martyrs that have been killed by the Church in the last 2000 years and going all the way back to Old Testament times. Sadly, this is the heritage of all Christian churches. The Adventist denomination did not fall out of the sky pure and undefiled. We have the same bloody heritage as Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, and Jews. Even if we don't agree with their actions, they are still our heritage. That heritage contains murders, sinners, saints, and even our Savior.
The suggestion that we cannot work together with other Christians who believe differently without watering down our doctrine is the very idea that David is countering in his blog. Unity does not mean uniformity of belief, action, etc. When a man and woman get married and "the two become one", there is still a whole lot of diversity between the two! But they are united in their common goal of a commitment to each other and God. In the same way, two Christians with different beliefs can unite in their common pursuit of telling the news of Christ's second coming without giving up their unique individual beliefs.
As David points out, pursuing unity is not a heretical distraction, but the prayer of Jesus for his followers.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteIf you believe the Bible is the word of God, wouldn't that be the unifying principle? That's all I'm trying to say.
My comments simply stated that Jesus wants believers to be unified.
Thanks for your comments.
-David
David,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe He would want us all to be unified if that meant we all were wrong/uninformed. It is fun and easy to talk about what we all agree on and forget what we disagree on but it doesn't do anything for advancing knowledge. My point is, we should all learn what the Bible says then share that knowledge with others.
Chad,
I am talking about the Romans and the Catholic Church. History tells us that there were two huge diverging points in the Christian history, one at Constantine and the other at the Reformation. Now I am not saying all Romans are bad or all Catholics are bad, I am just saying that Protestantism was born out of fundamental, irreconcilable differences in beliefs and it is important for modern Christians to remember that.