We’ve grown
to become a diverse group of over 1,900 people who have come
together to form the Pleasant Valley church family. Though differences
do exist among us, have class members to describe in their own
words the fellowship, community, and unity they have found in
this place.
Paul in his writings
insisted that “in Christ” - - societal, cultural,
economic, and sexual barriers could be broken down and people
from all segments of society who would normally be estranged
could be brought together. This is the divine plan for the church
(ekklesia) – that those people whose only common denominator
is their relationship to Christ as Lord and Savior and who because
of Christ can share an uncommon commitment to love and respect
other believers.
What is at stake
when we don’t embrace this fundamental truth is the very
essence of our Christian faith!
Paul knew that while
in theory the walls of partition were broken down, in practice
he knew the walls would have a nasty habit of resurfacing. Because
of this reality, Paul specifically spent time in his writing
to the Christians in Rome (Romans
14) to address the issues of meat eating and holy days to
establish principles which were to govern the exercise of Christian
liberty in the societal context of differing opinions.
The Jews imagined
they had more at stake than the Gentiles. The advice Paul gives
here is marked by great pastoral sensitivity and is of much
wider relevance than this issue alone. Paul masterfully redefined
the boundaries of the people of God. The covenant promise to
all of Abraham’s seed had been extended beyond physical
descent (Rom.
4:16; 9:8). Common to the old definition of the people of
God was the imperative, “this do and live” (Lev.
18:5). With the people of God now redefined, the equivalent
rule of life formulated was “walk in newness of life”
as opposed to the walk in the ordinances of Israel’s law
(Rom.
6:4); and serve in newness of Spirit (Rom.
7:6).
20 Minutes - DIG
Modeling
a Covenant Relationship
Throughout scripture, God is described as a father passionately
pursuing a covenant relationship with His children. This covenant
relationship with his people is built on reconciliation, fellowship,
oneness, harmony, love, forgiveness, and unity. God will forevermore
pursue these ideals with us.
And so on a secondary level, this same commitment must become
ours. Will we in turn pursue these same ideals with one another?
Many times in Jesus’ teachings and in the apostles’
writings you will find admonitions to allow your brother the
freedom to determine his own convictions – even when they
differ from yours. As far as Paul was concerned, a Christian
assembly should be able to embrace divergent views and practices
without a feeling that they must be resolved or that a common
mind must be achieved on every point of disagreement. The well-being
of the body supersedes personal differences. Sometimes we should
just agree to disagree! Consider the words of Paul in Ephesians
4:2, “be completely humble and gentle; be patient,
bearing with one another in love.”
We must narrow the gap existing between the message and our
demonstration of reconciliation. Our fellowship with Jesus Christ
creates and sustains a radical restructuring of our relationships
with others (Mark
9:38-41; Romans
14; 1
Corinthians 12:12-26; Galatians
3:26-28; Philippians
2:5-11).
Paul knew that a church which was quarrelsome, divisive, and
fragmented would be a very poor advertisement for the body of
Christ. It was Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one
“so that the world might believe” (John
17:20-21).
Following Saul’s
conversion, many believers in Jerusalem were afraid and skeptical
of him “not believing that he was really a disciple”
(Acts
9:26). He was denied their fellowship until Barnabas took
him under his wing, vouched for him, and secured his acceptance
by the church (Acts
9:27-31).
Then there is the incident recorded in Mark
9:38-41. When is failure in our lives a failure of faith?
Is it truth that faith fails when we stop trusting God and rely
on our own judgments? The issue in Mark 9 was the disciples
came upon one who had been casting our demons in Jesus’
name. John says, “we told him to stop.” Why? “Because
he was not one of us.”
Jesus response to John’s report was “you did the
wrong thing.” Because what you did is arrogant. “He
who is not against us is for us.”
This reaction by John gives us a picture of the sectarian attitude
that draws harsh lines, severs fellowship, and creates disunity.
The spirit John practiced on that day is the one we are fighting
to avoid!
Allow different ones in the class to describe a time when they
realized in their relationship with another person they must
agree to disagree. In practical terms, how did they manage this
difference while preserving the relationship?
In Pursuit
of Unity
The desire to be
united and have fellowship with others can never be used as
an excuse to ignore biblical truth. We struggle with trying
to distinguish essentials from non-essentials and we sever fellowship
more often than not over the latter. We must realize in dealing
with those who differ with us, both inside and outside of our
fellowship, that tolerance and a certain level of fellowship
is not the same as a total endorsement of another’s views.
If we create closer ties, common ground can be discovered; the
experience of fellowship can be increased; and whatever remaining
differences we have can be addressed in less emotionally charged
settings. Those involved in such discussions are less likely
to forget that God himself ultimately judges the participants
in the race of life (Matthew
7:1-6; Luke
10:25-37; 18:9-14;
Acts
10:1-23; Romans
2; 14:1-15;
Galatians
2; James
2:1-13). This leaves a lot of room for mutual consideration
of our differences and a charitable spirit toward those with
whom we disagree.
Unity does not mean uniformity of belief. It never has . . .
and it never will. We must determine the essentials of faith
apart from traditions, customs, comfort, and personal preferences.
20 Minutes - REFLECT
The Restoration
Plea
The dream of the Restoration fathers was not a new denomination,
nor an unwritten codification of every question, but freedom.
By their courage and perseverance, our Restoration Fathers found
that freedom in many areas, just as we may today!
Alexander Campbell did not demand uniformity from every believer
on every point of doctrine. Neither did Barton W. Stone or their
immediate followers. But the weight of time often flattens the
freedom of discovery into a rigid pattern from which no deviance
is allowed.
Ironically, there are some decisions which make it easier to
please God than to please our fellow Christians. Given the nature
of humanity and the reality of freedom of choice, it is inevitable
that believers are going to come to different conclusions concerning
what is permissible and what is not. That fact has caused no
small amount of trouble in the history of the church. For people
tend to feel threatened by disagreement. And Christians, being
less than perfect, have not always responded to their differences
with an overabundance of charity or wisdom.
In an atmosphere of respect for one another, what are some practical
ways that we learn from one another and heighten the prospects
of our being united in Christ for eternity?
So What Are the Essentials?
The challenge is to determine – “what are the essentials?”
To that question we must go to Ephesians
4:4-6. It is interesting that most of where we get at odds
with one another is not on these essentials. We find it necessary
to give our approval and endorsement to one another on varied
controversial issues such as millennial views; the war question;
divorce and remarriage views; the place of deaconess in the
church; instrumental music in worship; capital punishment; etc.
These issues are certainly not equal in importance and are listed
together only because they share a common feature of having
been topics of sharp contention and/or severing of fellowship
in the past.
If one adopts a policy of refusing to extend any measure of
fellowship to brethren in Christ whose beliefs and practices
he cannot fully endorse, he will live in isolation.
Maybe part of our problem is that we labor under a false illusion
that the early church was something it never was. A doctrinally
flawless and behaviorally pure church which was uniform no more
existed in the first-century church than it does today.
Is it possible that we have a narrow notion of unity which holds
that a Christian cannot be one with people with whom he has
doctrinal disagreements, whose commitments he cannot embrace,
or whose projects he cannot share? Do you differ with your parents
or siblings or mate or children on any issue? If so, how do
you maintain a loving relationship in spite of significant disagreements
and differing views?
Some Practical
Suggestions
We’ve got to think our way out of a sectarian attitude
(Rom.
15:5-7). To that end, we must: