House of Bread

Defending doctrine; ignoring relationships July 21, 2011

Yesterday a friend mentioned that he just finished reading the new book by Rob Bell, Loves Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. He commented that while he found much to dispute in Bell’s theology, he thought the widespread evangelical trashing of Bell to be a bit over the top.

I know something about the deep need that arises within some of us to defend sound doctrine in the face of the increasing number of Christian leaders and others who seem willing to embrace the latest theological fad or, worse, outright heresy. I spent a fair amount of my ministry in a mainline denomination doing just this. I wrote letters to denominational leaders and I wrote articles for the denominational publication. I spoke to these matters in various pulpits and engaged in debate with my ministerial peers. I also drafted synodical legislation to support the church’s historic doctrines. And I eventually resigned, partially out of disgust for the drift away from sound doctrine.

 More than a half dozen years later I sometimes wonder why these doctrinal matters were so important to me and what exactly I was trying to protect. I especially think about the cost in broken and terminated relationships.

So where do relationships figure in the grand scheme of things? How important are they and what is their relationship to preserving or affirming sound doctrine? Being part of a small house church has unquestionably forced these questions on me. What has emerged is the conviction that relationships are a lot more important to me than they used to be. In a house church setting, numbers alone help focus the mind: Lose just one couple and you’ve lost one-third of your members!

My ministry in a prison setting has also helped focus me in this direction. I have seen some of the inmates break off relationships with other inmates because of petty doctrinal differences. (“Petty,” of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and I readily acknowledge that).

Added to these two experiences, I was also quite profoundly challenged by the 14th and 15th chapters of Romans, where Paul provides strong counsel on how believers ought to handle their differences. I wrote a number of blog posts about this earlier.

Tonight, our team is going into the prison to lead a study and discussion of the “one-anothers” of the New Testament. I’ve listed about 35 such references on three sheets of paper. Looking over them again I could not escape the fact that Jesus and his apostolic church-planters cared a great deal about promoting strong and good relationships within the community of believers. This concern is a clearly identifiable thread in the fabric of New Testament teaching. No, I think it is more than a thread: It is the stitching that holds together the many panels of the New Testament quilt.

It is now astonishing to me how little I have cared for this vital stitching over the years of my ministry. I am deeply grateful for a few dear brothers who have shown me by their own prizing of a relationship with me just how important the one-anothers really are.

One thing is certainly inescapable: the three dozen or so one-anothering verses are presented as imperatively strongly as any other teaching in the New Testament. What causes some of us to overlook them?

Wise counsel: an attempted conclusion January 17, 2011

Let me cut to the chase: is Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 and 15 comprehensive or authoritative enough to apply to all matters that might provoke division in the church? I have my doubts, but let’s give it a try anyway.

For a wide range of issues that most Christians would agree do not touch any essentials of the faith, Paul’s approach in Romans 14 and 15 can surely be helpful. Assuming that the fellowship is of good quality and that believers have been cultivating brotherly love, Paul’s approach to managing divisive issues will do much to maintain unity. But in the absence of a healthy fellowship, or among a body of believers where there is no sense of brotherly love, Paul’s prescriptions are not likely to avert division over matters that aren’t even essential.

What Paul writes in Romans 14 and 15 is not radical surgery for a deeply dysfunctional fellowship; it is over-the-counter medicine for an otherwise healthy fellowship that is being tested by mostly normal disagreements.

But there are disagreements and, then again, there are disagreements. Paul himself had a fairly nasty falling out with Barnabas as the two prepared to depart for their second apostolic mission. The insistence of Barnabas that John Mark join the team, after having previously forsaken the team, was met by Paul’s insistence that John Mark not be taken along. Paul and Barnabas could not find an acceptable solution or compromise and they parted company. Paul proceeded to form a new team and Luke continued his story in Acts. We hear nothing about what became of Barnabas and John Mark, which leaves the impression, valid or not, that Paul was in the right. Nevertheless, this is a startling illustration of an irreconcilable disagreement that fractured fellowship.

Paul wrote Romans much later. Who knows? Perhaps his counsel to the church at Rome grew out of his experience in failing to resolve the conflict with Barnabas without separation.

There is another, earlier, issue in Paul’s life that is worthy of note here. It is the matter of Paul’s considered decision that Gentiles should be accepted into the household of faith on equal footing with Jews. This was the single most divisive and controversial question to roil the life of the early church.

Paul’s position on this matter was the result of a divine revelation, about which he writes extensively in Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians. He notes in Galatians that quite early in his ministry he sought the counsel of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to make sure his understanding of God’s heart was right. But later, some who also traced their authority to the Jerusalem church, countered Paul’s preaching and told the new Gentile believers that faith in Christ was not enough; they had to adopt certain Jewish practices, circumcision in particular.

Paul, who in this matter had Barnabas on his side, quickly determined to resolve the question without delay. The two joined others in bringing the question to Jerusalem for a full airing and a final decision. Paul’s sense of urgency cannot be overstated. His understanding of the scope and nature of the gospel was at stake. Moreover, his call to proclaim Jesus as Messiah among the Gentiles was also in question. Luke reports the story in Acts 15. His report is selective, of course. He tells us about the arguments in favor of the full inclusion of Gentiles in the household of faith; he tells us very little of the arguments made by the other side. He is careful to report, however, that the final decision enjoyed a broad consensus: “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas….”

It’s safe to say that Paul was prepared to go to the mat for the full inclusion of Gentiles into the household of faith. What is certainly clear is that Paul never backed down an inch from the high-water decision of the Jerusalem council, regardless of whoever disagreed or regardless of the consequences of division. Had the matter of the inclusion of Gentiles been the topic of Romans 14 and 15, it is unimaginable that Paul would have counseled the kind of approach Romans 14 and 15 actually contains. Why? Because this is not a non-essential or an incidental. The core of the gospel is at stake in a question like this.

This brings me, inevitably and unenviably, to what is probably the most divisive question facing churches in the 21st century: what is the church to do about the homosexuals among us who desire to be fully included in the fellowship of believers? (The question could be asked many ways; this is how I choose to frame it). In particular, is this the kind of question that could be resolved by means of Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 and 15, or is this one of those questions that goes to the core of the faith and about which there can only be one answer?

I’ll begin this way: having watched the major Protestant denominations in America grapple with this question over the past thirty years, it seems as irresolvably divisive to our generation as was the question of slavery to the generation living at the time of the Civil War. Mark Noll, as I noted earlier, wrote in his excellent book, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, that the question of slavery seemed to have  “no  apparent biblical resolution.”

But this has to be qualified. There is almost always a “biblical resolution” to every question, depending on to whom the question is put. The problem is that the “biblical resolutions” vary from person to person or church to church. What Noll meant is that across the broad sweep of American Christianity, there was not a consensus on how the Bible spoke to the question of slavery and, thus, there was “no apparent biblical resolution” that commended itself to vast majority of mid-nineteenth century American Christians.

On the question posed above concerning homosexuality, there seems likewise not to be a “biblical resolution.” It isn’t that the Bible doesn’t speak to the question; but rather that believers appeal to different scriptures and cannot agree on how the broad sweep of relevant scripture verses should be interpreted or harmonized.

This unfortunate reality leads to a great deal of hard feelings and a significant amount of mutual judgment and recrimination from those who stand, generally, on opposite sides of the question. Fortunately, we are beyond a Civil War kind of solution — a recourse to arms — but we are no closer to any other kind of solution that would keep churches from splintering and Christians from breaking fellowship with one another.

I left my denomination, at least in some measure, because of this question. My sister and her husband, pastor of a Lutheran congregation, along with the members of the church, were unable to find a way to resolve this question other than a congregational split. The ecclesiastical landscape of America is littered with divisions of this nature. Could Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 and 15 have averted any of this?

At a denominational level, I think the answer is probably not. The reason is that denominational structures are generally extra-biblical inventions that conform more to the world than to God’s kingdom. Attend any denominational gathering and you will find something that resembles a political convention or a meeting of the United Nations with a bit of thin religious syrup spread over the top of it. These are generally hopeless gatherings and there is a reason they are viewed as positively by most participants as is a trip to the dentist’s chair.

At a congregational level, I am much more hopeful that Paul’s prescriptions can help maintain unity, even in the atmosphere of a highly charged question like homosexuality. One of the things  that helps is that within a congregation, members have lived with each other, often for a long time. They have already weathered some squalls in the relationships. Another thing that helps is that there is often love and sympathy for one another. In churches we share the joys of births, marriages, graduations and new jobs; as well as the griefs of deaths, unemployment, personal losses and broken marriages.

When my sister and brother-in-law were in the throes of a growing division over the position taken by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on homosexuality, I asked why this family of believers, many of whom had been friends for years, were permitting a denominational decision to threaten the love  and fellowship they had supposedly cultivated over the past twenty years. Why did they not prize their unity above a denominational decision and collectively decide that the loved each other enough not to wreck their communion by making this an issue? Why, I asked, was this not an acceptable course of action?

Some matters cannot be resolved by voting. Some questions cannot be answered with finality right away. It seems to me that Paul’s overarching point in Romans 14 and 15 is that relationships among members of the body really do matter and that in everything we do and say those relationships should be considered precious.

What would Paul say about the question at hand? In fact, he said several things about it elsewhere. But in Romans 14 and 15, I think he would say this: “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of resolving, once and for all, the question of homosexuality.”

Point 6: What love looks like in the midst of disagreement January 12, 2011

The original post from which this segment derives is almost ancient history. I was reading Romans 14 and 15 and discovered several things that struck me as helpful when the body of Christ is divided over a particular matter. In subsequent posts I’ve been fleshing out these points, and I am now up to the sixth point, which I originally stated this way:

Paul defines what love looks like when differing opinions on various questions rise to the point of becoming divisive. “For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.” This is a big step beyond just admitting that our differences are matters of opinion and leaving it at that. Paul’s counsel is to not only stop passing judgment on each other’s opinions, but to avoid any behavior that will injure the faith of a brother or sister. In other words, this is not about the freedom I may have in Christ to act on my convictions; this is about my brothers and sisters as well. Paul is offering a caution about what we might call individualism and he is arguing for the priority of the community: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.”

Paul placed a much greater priority on the community of believers than is customary in churches in the west, where believers have imbibed deeply of an ethic of individualism. Christians in the United States, it seems to me, largely understand faith as an individual commitment to God that has only minor implications for relationships with other believers. This is understandable given the peculiar spiritual history of our country. Waves of spiritual revival from colonial days to the present have profoundly impacted millions of people. The messages largely preached in these revivals were directed to individuals as men and women in relationship to God, however, not to individuals in relationship to one another. The result is that the revivals helped many to repent of sin, turn to God, believe the Bible, and strive for personal holiness.

The unintended side effect of America’s revivalistic history, however, is that it has created churches filled with people unwilling to submit themselves to one another when they perceive (as often they do) that faithfulness to God requires them to stand firm for what they believe in, even if division and fracture is the result. This is surely more true of Protestants than of Catholics, who have a central ecclesial authority that Protestants lack. Moreover, Protestants seem much more inclined to understand their faith in individualistic terms — a particular heritage bequeathed by the Reformers and their emphasis on the individual’s right to read, understand and interpret scripture apart from any dictate of the church.

The right of the Christian individual to discern and believe for him- or herself often trumps the right of the Christian community to do so for all its members. In the communities Paul planted in the first century, however, this was not the case. The rights of the community trumped the rights of the individual.

This is clear in how Paul argues in Romans 14 and 15 that the meaning of love in the midst of disagreement means that no one is permitted to have his or her way if it means that others in the community are thereby “grieved” and the community itself is “destroyed.” Those who are convinced that they have clearly heard from God on a particular matter are not thereby permitted to have their way at the expense of the community, which inevitably contains some who have not heard the same message from God.

So what does this mean? For one thing, it means we should take account of how our convictions about various things impact others, especially in the area of behavior. If we are convinced of our liberty in Christ to do certain things for which there is no clear biblical proscription, we should do so with awareness of its impact on others, especially those who are close to us in fellowship and who may find our freedom a stumbling block. When, where and how alcohol is consumed is a good example, since there is anything but consensus among believers about the advisability of drinking.

The checklist Paul gave in 1 Corinthians 13 is always a good place to start in determining what love looks like, especially in the kinds of close relationships that should mark the church.

Another thing the practice of love means is that sometimes the decision we wish could be made sooner rather than later must be postponed, even if we think the majority of the fellowship is on our side. There is little in the New Testament to suggest that decisions made within the church should conform to customary democratic processes. “Consensus” is a better term to describe the decision-making processes of which we are told anything in the New Testament. The idea that decisions are made by majorities or even super-majorities has little warrant in the apostolic teaching.

But the issue is greater than numbers; it is really a question of respecting the convictions of others enough that decisions can be postponed while the Holy Spirit is given time to speak to everyone. Is fast-tracking a decision worth the collateral damage to the fellowship. I think Paul would  say not.

In my final blog on this topic I will address the question of whether there are times when a decisive and clear position on a matter is of such grave importance that it must be made regardless of the consequence.

Point 5: Stop judging one another December 29, 2010

After a brief hiatus to prepare for Christmas (I wrote a poem to my wife and three short stories for my children), I return to this seemingly never-ending task of expanding on the seven points I made in an earlier blog — an attempt to derive helpful insights from Romans 14 and 15. In that original post, I outlined seven points, the fifth of which was stated as follows:

[Paul] insists that everyone stop “passing judgment on your brother.” This apostolic demand pervades Romans 14. In other places in his letters Paul often appeals to the “better angels” of the members of the churches. Here he simply lays down the law: judging others because of their convictions is off limits.

The believers to whom Paul wrote this letter were obviously experiencing challenges to their fellowship, love and unity over differences of understanding about the continuing relevance (since the death and resurrection of Jesus) of dietary and Sabbath laws.

Paul’s general counsel on how to handle challenges to unity among the members of the body is an appeal to keep differences in perspective by considering one’s own position as an opinion and ascribing to the positions of others the highest motives. He also reminds everyone that we will all stand before God to give an account of ourselves; in other words, God is the judge of all and the judge of everyone. In addition, it also seems that Paul accepts that scripture may not speak with the kind of clarity we wish on every question we bring to it. Accepting the scripture’s occasional ambiguities may help us be less inclined to use it as a weapon against those with whom we disagree.

Throughout his argument, Paul appeals to the ability of believes to exercise discipline over their feelings and passions and to use reason and common sense.

But Paul is not above making one authoritative pronouncement: “…stop passing judgment on your brother.” The Greek word is “krino,” which has a range of meanings depending on context. “To pass judgment” is a possible, but extreme, meaning and, in this case, seems to fit the context.  Differing opinions are inevitable. Disagreement is fine. Debating the meaning of scripture is acceptable. Judging one another  is not. Since everyone will stand before the Judge of all, God, judging one another is unacceptable.

Another word for what Paul is forbidding is “condemnation,” though there is another Greek word more often employed when this meaning is intended. In Romans 8, Paul reminded his readers that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus….” If God is not in the habit of passing judgment on us, it should not be something believers do to each other. This is why Paul forbids it.

And it is why we should banish it as well.

Point 4: My convictions; your convictions: God is judge of all December 15, 2010

I’m continuing to flesh out the seven points Paul made in Romans 14 and 15, which I wrote about here. What I wrote about Points 1,2 and 3 can be seen here, here and here. In the original posting here’s how I described the fourth point:

Paul asks both sides to shift their attention from the rightness of their own convictions or opinions and consider their own standing before God. “…each of us will give an account of himself to God.” “…we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.” In other words, a bit of humility before God is in order. Perhaps even the fear of God.

Paul’s statements remind me of what Jesus said about judging:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in  your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

The desire to set others straight is a natural human tendency. It manifests in all areas of life and in nearly all relationships. Among the spiritually devout it is especially prevalent. Why? Because truth is important and because God’s revealed truth is especially important.  Moreover, the path to eternal life has boundaries and limits:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Biblical believers have been setting each other straight for centuries, sometimes helpfully and sometimes not; sometimes with discretion and wisdom, sometimes not. One of the common problems is to make something that is not terribly important into something that is vital. The ancient Moravians had a threefold categorization: the essentials, the ministerials and the incidentals. This formulation comes from Luke of Prague (1460–1528) and can be described this way:

The essentials are God’s work of creation, redemption and sanctification, as well as the response of the believer through faith, hope and love. Things ministerial are such items as the Bible, church, sacraments, doctrine and priesthood. These mediate the sacred and should thus be treated with respect, but they are not considered essential. Finally, incidentals include things such as vestments or names of services that may reasonably vary from place to place.

Not surprisingly, believers rarely agree about which matters of faith should be slotted into each of these three categories. One person’s essential is another person’s ministerial. My incidental could well be your essential. Thus, Moravians are fond of a motto they often cite: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.” Even when we can’t agree about essentials and non-essentials, love among brothers and sisters is vital.

In Romans 14 and 15 Paul approaches the matter a bit differently, though I think he would be in broad agreement with the Moravian formulations. Paul doesn’t talk about Sabbath and dietary observances as non-essentials; rather, he thinks these things are matters of faith best kept “between yourself and God.” In other words, whatever conviction one has about this is derived from what one believes God has revealed to him or her about it. Paul says to keep such matters of personal revelation between yourself and God. Do not assume that God holds others to the same revelation he has given you.

What is important, Paul says, is that you will have to give an account to God for what you have done with any personal revelation he has given you. God will not hold someone else accountable for what he has shown you and neither should you.

When we talk with other believers about these personal revelations or convictions, Paul says that we should consider them as “opinions.” I’ve already written about why Paul used this term. If my conviction is derived from what I believe to be a word from God to me, then I am bound to believe it and honor it with my life. But in talking about it with another believer, it is an “opinion.”

That’s a difficult idea for some to swallow, especially for those who believe that truth trumps every other consideration every time. What I think Paul is saying is: consider your truth as an opinion for the sake of unity. If one thing is certain, it is this: Devout and sincere Christians disagree about many things and they disagree about how essential and important those things are. In the midst of such disagreement, unity is still a vital experience to which God has called all his people. There are things we can do to promote unity. There are also things we can do to destroy it. Romans 14 and 15 offers wise counsel for promoting unity.

Point 3: The legitimacy of differing convictions December 12, 2010

I am in the process of fleshing out the seven points I derived from Romans 14 and 15, found originally in this post. Points 1 and 2 can be found here and here. I’d like to expand here on the third point, which was expressed this way:

[Paul] legitimates the convictions and devotion of both sides. “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Even if the motives of some are questionable, Paul offers the most charitable interpretation possible and applies it to everyone regardless of which side they have taken. By doing so, he is inviting both sides to acknowledge the best and highest motivations possible.

It seems clear that early Christians wrestled with how to understand and apply the Sabbath and dietary laws which the earliest Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah brought with them into their new faith. Not only did the earliest Jewish Christians bring their observance of these laws with them, they obviously taught Gentile believers that faithfulness to God and his Messiah meant that they should also observe these practices. Paul was clearly not one of those Jewish Christians who taught these things, but he was forced to address the confusion and conflict that arose in congregations that consisted of Gentile and Jewish believers in Christ. Romans 14 and 15 is Paul at his best, attempting to navigate toward unity in the midst of real-world differences.

Part of Paul’s strategy is to legitimate the convictions held by those who fervently disagree with each other. He does this by ascribing the highest motives possible to each side. Those who practice strict Sabbath observance do so “in honor of the Lord.” Likewise, those who see all days as equally holy to the Lord are also seeking to honor the Lord. Concerning abstaining from certain foods proscribed under the Law, Paul says that those who abstain do so “in honor of the Lord” and with thankful hearts. Likewise, those who believe that in Christ they are free to eat anything and to be thankful for it, do so as well “in honor of the Lord.”

Now, in reality it is surely possible that such high motives do not, in fact, animate the hearts of everyone who chooses to engage himself in discussions about such issues. It is possible that some believers, succumbing to pride or arrogance, want to show themselves off as more holy or righteous than others by observing various aspects of the Law’s ceremonial code. They want to distinguish themselves from other believers; they want to make others appear to be less devout than they. Paul does not address this in Romans 14 and 15, though he does elsewhere.

Here, Paul is striving to unite. One of the ways he attempts to do so is to single out and praise what is likely the highest motive possible — a sincere desire to honor God by what one chooses to do or, conversely, what one chooses to abstain from. Any other motive is not important, for its very existence is likely carnal and possibly divisive. To focus on it here is guaranteed to distract the congregation from what Paul sees as most important — that believers affirm the best in one another and abstain from judging one another’s convictions.

Of course, believers do this quite often. And the results speak for themselves. “I am, of course, sincere and pure in my thoughts and convictions. I am not so sure about you.” Such reasoning is used to justify division by casting those on the other side of the difference as less spiritual or devoted or committed or Bible-believing or whatever other adjective we want to use to describe a Christian. When one starts down this track, the end result with be a train wreck of division and heartache. To be sure, abstaining from such judgments will not guarantee unity. Coddling such judgments, however, is a sure path to division.

Point 2: Accepting scriptural ambiguity November 30, 2010

This post continues a series begun here, which was an overview of how Paul, in Romans 14 and 15, counseled churches to deal with divisive disagreements. In a second post, found here, I expanded on Paul’s counsel to consider our convictions as opinions and, thereby, to extend to others the right to hold different opinions.

It is important to hold our convictions as opinions so that constructive discussion and conversation can take place with those who hold different opinions. If I accept that my conviction is, first and foremost, my personal opinion on the matter then I am more likely to entertain the possibility that I don’t know everything, that I might be comprehending only in part and that the opinions of others might sharpen my own understanding.

Since Christians almost always appeal to scripture as the source or authority behind their convictions, we have to face an inescapable reality — believers do not agree about how scripture speaks to the questions we bring to it. This was brought home to me in a powerful way in a book by Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Noll explores how, in the mid-nineteenth century, overwhelmingly “Christian” America could not agree on how the scripture’s various references to slavery should be interpreted or how they might speak to the peculiar question of American slavery. He summed it up this way:

With debate over the Bible and slavery at such a pass, and especially with the success of the proslavery biblical argument manifestly (if also uncomfortably) convincing to most Southerners and many in the North, difficulties abounded. The country had a problem because its most trusted religious authority, the Bible, was sounding an uncertain note. The evangelical Protestant churches had a problem because the mere fact of trusting implicitly in the Bible was not solving disagreements about what the Bible taught concerning slavery. The country and the churches were both in trouble because the remedy that finally solved the question of how to interpret the Bible was recourse to arms. The supreme crisis over the Bible was that there existed no apparent biblical resolution to the crisis. As I have written elsewhere, it was left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.

Noll’s suggestion that the Bible could sound “an uncertain note” would trouble many believers: “Maybe it sounds an ‘uncertain note’ in your ears, but not in mine!” Indeed, the problem for everyone who appeals to scripture is that what, in the Bible, is clear to me is not clear to you. Or to put it another way, the chapter and verse that resolves the matter for me does not resolve it for you because you seem to find a higher authority or inspiration in another chapter and verse.

I refer to this dilemma as the ambiguity of scripture, although I would just as cheerfully acknowledge to those offended by my words that it is the ambiguity concerning our interpretation of scripture. For the Bible to be useful and relevant, we all know that it must first be interpreted. This is not an easy task and it involves many parts. It first has to be translated into a language that is comprehensible to us. We also have to ask what it might have meant to those living at the time of its writing, recognizing that parts of it are centuries removed from other parts of it. In addition, we have to somehow take into account what appear to be internal inconsistencies in what the Bible says about a particular matter. We also have to ask questions about how the Old Testament is to be understood in light of the New Testament. We may also find it useful to consider how believers of previous generations used and understood scripture. And, if possible, we have to arrive at some conclusions about what the Bible means to believers today.

As I wrote earlier, everyone brings to her reading of scripture everything that has gone into making her who she is — family, experiences, values, education, relationships, culture, gender, nationality and more. All of these things condition and influence us, and it is always wise to ask ourselves what bearing these things have on the way we interpret the Bible. Doing so is an important check. It is also part of the reason why we should consider our particular interpretations and understandings of scripture as opinions rather than non-negotiable absolutes. Biblical interpretation is neither a legal process nor a precise science; it is more like negotiating a relationship. It is a two-way conversation. It involves nuance. Love is the essential ingredient.

By the time he wrote Romans, Paul had considerable experience dealing with real Christian communities (as opposed to theoretical Christian communities, which are a far cry from the real ones). He knew what he believed (a point I’ll come to later), but he also knew that other believers had other beliefs. He also knew that differing opinions on various questions could not be resolved solely by appealing to scripture. Some questions could not be resolved at all by an appeal to scripture. This is why in Romans 14 and 15, Paul does not address the questions about diet and Sabbath by quoting scripture. He knows already that each side can produce relevant verses. No, Paul is after something far more important than a resolution of questions about diet and Sabbath. He is after unity, and he knows that quoting scriptures to each other has a poor track record of producing unity.

Point 1: Convictions as opinions November 22, 2010

Christians find themselves in disagreement about many things and churches of all sizes experience strain and sometimes division and fracture over those disagreements. This is nothing new.

In a previous post I examined Romans 14 and 15, where Paul clearly speaks to disagreements among believers in Rome over questions related to what a Christian should and should not eat and whether observing the Sabbath was mandatory for a Christian. I identified seven points Paul made in his attempt to help the church remain united even in the midst of disagreements. Before proceeding here I recommend you read that post.

Christians still disagree over diet and Sabbath observance and several denominations exist because of it. Over the years hundreds of other questions have provoked disagreements among believers, leading to fractured fellowship, judgmentalism and a myriad of new denominations. Reading church history one could easily conclude that division is the natural state of the followers of Jesus. It has happened so often and so routinely that it seems normal.

But we who are believers know in our hearts that it isn’t supposed to be normal. There is simply too much in the New Testament, not to mention the Old Testament, that cries out against division and pleads for unity. I believe the vast majority of Christians would love to agree and get along, but don’t know how to handle the disagreements that are often so intense and sharp that, like Paul and Barnabas, they feel they must part ways.

Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 and 15, given years after he and Barnabas broke up their apostolic team, offers a helpful, but not foolproof, way to navigate through differences and maintain unity at a congregational level. (Paul and Barnabas, by the way, seem to have eventually reconciled).

In Romans 14 Paul used the word “opinions” to describe the various positions held by individual believers on the questions of diet and Sabbath. I suggested in my previous post that there were surely some who considered their studied conclusions on these questions more than “opinions.” I also suggested that Paul was deliberate in his use of the word and that his purpose was to dial down the passions of all sides.

The first step in attempting to resolve any major difference and avoid division is to own one’s conviction as a personal opinion, not as a divinely revealed absolute. This requires a dose of humility, which some people (obviously not me!) have in short supply. But it is a critical starting point. It requires one to think, at least initially, in this way: “Although I have studied this matter carefully, and think I have scripture on my side, it is obvious that others have also studied this matter and come to different conclusions. I could be right and they could be wrong. I could be wrong and they could be right. Perhaps we are all wrong. I have prayed about this as well, and they say they have also prayed about it. They did not get the same answer I did and that is disconcerting. Why do equally sincere Christians disagree about this question? Could it be that God has allowed us to have different opinions so that he could teach us something that is more important?”

Once in a meeting with denominational officials, where one of the issues at hand was how the denomination chose to address homosexuality, I was stating my conviction on the matter. In response, one of the officials said that everything I’d just said was my opinion. I readily agreed that it was indeed my opinion and that I thought the sharing of such opinions was the purpose of the meeting.

Expressing even the deepest convictions as opinions is a step in the right direction. Doing so can, at least initially, help everyone keep the temperature of passion under control and allow for discussion and conversation that might actually shed some light on the question at hand.

But this is only a first step, not the whole answer. In my next post I will consider the difficult question of ambiguity in the Bible.

Wise counsel for preventing division November 10, 2010

Anyone who has spent any time at all participating in a church has witnessed at least the potential for division arising from how members of the body address controversial questions. Most of us have witnessed more than potential division; we have seen the real thing unfold before our eyes in all its ugliness.

There is no sure-fire preventative to division and disunity. Genuine unity, however, is very high on the priority lists of Jesus and Paul, whose teachings pretty much dominate the New Testament. John’s Gospel makes quite clear that Jesus prized the unity of his disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus firmly addresses his disciples concerning divisive attitudes and ambitions. Paul, in his letters, repeatedly calls on members of the body to “agree” and “be united.”

Among Paul’s correspondence Romans 14 and 15 deserve special recognition for contributing wise counsel to the body of Christ on how the body should function when there are differences of opinions about matters that members of the body are likely to have strong feelings about, feelings strong enough to cause division. Paul’s counsel begins with the first verse of chapter 14 and concludes with the seventh verse of chapter 15.

The concluding statement is this: Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God (ESV). Other English versions render it similarly:

“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (NIV).

“So reach out and welcome one another to God’s glory” (The Message).

“Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (NASB).

Here is how I unpack this single verse: When I came to Christ he accepted me with a gracious welcome. He accepted me with all my imperfect and immature ways of thinking. He did not require me to agree to anything other than my need for him to save me and make me his disciple. In welcoming me “just as I am without one plea,” the Son of God brought praise to his Father. When I accept a brother or sister who came to Christ with similarly imperfect and immature ways of thinking, I am imitating Christ and also bringing praise to God.

From Romans 14.1 to Romans 15.6, Paul writes about specific questions that first century believers had a variety of opinions about. And he does call them “opinions,” even if some who held them believed them to be more than opinions. Not surprisingly, the issues that seemed to bring the greatest vexation to first century believers related to what one could eat and what day one should observe as holy. Considering the church’s roots in Judaism, and the decades-long struggle to determine the place of [old] covenant law in the life of the church, it is not surprising that Jewish and Gentile believers would have unanswered questions about these things and that various opinions on how to interpret scripture and God’s will would strain fellowship.

I call them “unanswered questions,” but for many first century believers there were definite and clear answers to the questions about diet and Sabbath. For some, the Law of Moses was both clear and relevant, despite the fact the Messiah had come. For others, the coming of the Messiah raised all kinds of questions about the continuing relevance of the Law of Moses for both Jewish and Gentile believers.

What was Paul’s response? I identify seven important things Paul said:

1. He calls the arguments of both sides “opinions” (14.1).  This is not meant to diminish the importance of the questions or the convictions involved, but to legitimate the inevitability and value of differing perspectives. On both sides were believers who were sincere and prayerful, and who had done their homework. Still, their conclusions were personal opinions. Paul uses the word “opinions” at the outset to establish a shared starting place and to signal his intention to dial down the passions of both sides.
2. Paul tacitly acknowledges that clear unambiguous answers are not possible even if, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “both read the same Bible and prayed to the same God.” In other words, much more is involved in such matters than prayers for understanding and the seemingly plain words of the scriptures. To the prayers and the study of scripture each believer brings everything he has acquired from all of his life experiences. These factors cannot simply be checked at the door, leaving one completely clean of all such influences and thus able to approach God and the scriptures with objectivity and thereby find certain and absolute answers. This is probably the reason why Paul declines to quote any scriptures that may pertain to the questions. There are scriptures, but these questions will not be resolved by both sides quoting them to each other. In fact, there may be no resolution to these questions anytime soon. In the meantime, the members of the body must abstain from every action or behavior that would divide the body.
3. He legitimates the convictions and devotion of both sides. “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Even if the motives of some are questionable, Paul offers the most charitable interpretation possible and applies it to everyone regardless of which side they have taken. By doing so, he is inviting both sides to acknowledge the best and highest motivations possible.
4. Paul asks both sides to shift their attention from the rightness of their own convictions or opinions and consider their own standing before God. “…each of us will give an account of himself to God.” “…we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.” In other words, a bit of humility before God is in order. Perhaps even the fear of God.
5. He insists that everyone stop “passing judgment on your brother.” This apostolic demand pervades Romans 14. In other places in his letters Paul often appeals to the “better angels” of the members of the churches. Here he simply lays down the law: judging others because of their convictions is off limits.
6. Paul defines what love looks like when differing opinions on various questions rise to the point of becoming divisive. “For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.” This is a big step beyond just admitting that our differences are matters of opinion and leaving it at that. Paul’s counsel is to not only stop passing judgment on each other’s opinions, but to avoid any behavior that will injure the faith of a brother or sister. In other words, this is not about the freedom I may have in Christ to act on my convictions; this is about my brothers and sisters as well. Paul is offering a caution about what we might call individualism and he is arguing for the priority of the community: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.”
7. Paul shares his own opinion, not once but twice. “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself….” “Everything is indeed clean….” But each time he states his own conviction, he places a limit on how that is put into practice within the body of Christ. “…but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.” “…but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.”

One can probably glean more from this passage than I have. These seven points, however, seemed clear to me and strike me as very practical counsel for any body of believers, regardless of its size or ecclesiastical flavor. It seems to me that more often than not Christians will yield to the temptation to harden their opinions into mountains they are prepared to die on. When this happens the underlying pride really does become a deadly sin. But if Paul’s counsel is followed, division is not inevitable.

Finally, we return to the conclusion: Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. Some have suggested that all of this can be summed up by the word “tolerance.” I think “tolerance” is a woefully inadequate word to describe all that Paul writes here. Paul is talking about the body of Christ – believers who are members of God’s family and are therefore brothers and sisters. He calls not for an ethic of tolerance but for the practice of welcoming acceptance rooted in Christ himself. By this God is praised.

In subsequent post, within a day or two, I will apply this to the kinds of things that divide Christians today.