Pursuing Unity or Keeping "peace"?
Thanks to my many friends who have offered much thought to my initial questions regarding Christian liberality. I do not wish to leave the initial discussion too early however, I do wish to build upon it.
Paul speaks to the Christian community in Ephesus in terms of "walking worthily", which is demonstrated in "humility", "gentleness", "patience", "bearing with one another", and being "EAGER TO MAINTAIN the UNITY in the bond of peace" (4:1-3). The faith community is to "speak the truth in love" as we are growing up in every way into him who is the head, that is, Christ (4:15). This type of Christ-ian living "makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love" (4:16).
When I examine the body consciousness of Paul I am doubtful that we are truly honoring the explicit teaching of Christian unity. That is to say, I reject the notion that pursuing (actively maintaining) unity is accomplished by simply co-existing with other brothers and sisters through a 'don't ask don't tell' policy. How is that receiving me and I receiving you? If we cannot know much about one another with regards to our lives lived out in faith, then we fail to authentically know one another at all, and thus are failing to receive one another in love. A 'don't ask don't tell' Christianity fails to demonstrate "humility", "patience", "bearing with one another" and most all fails to demonstrate authentic love. We are all very familiar with vague references to "loving" brothers and sisters that we do not agree with, but what does that mean? Or moreover, what does that look like?
In sum, I stating that we are not truly unified at all if we do not even know one another. I am not saying that we must bear all things, but lets face it, who we are in our homes is who we are and how we can be prayed for. Therefore, it is unchristian to keep the peace over and against pursuing peace, of which we are unfortunately unaccustomed too.
posted by adam at 8:07 AM
15 Comments:
Thomas,
I think you make a good point here. How can we pursue unity if righteous personal preferences are taboo in our church culture? Would not unity be better fostered when personal preferences were not taboo, but mutually affirmed as biblical, though not mutually participated in? Shouldn't responsible smokers, drinkers, and movie-goers relate in our churches as sports fans from opposing sides (Yankees, Red Sox) do [at least with respect to "biblicity;" I reckognize the illustration breaks down with respect to temptation for the weaker brother]?
Ed,
I think you are right that many people do use social drinking etc. as a way to fill to void or find satisfaction outside of Christ. And certainly those seek to fill the void with these things are mistaken, but what about those who drink, smoke, or listen to secular music not because they need to "escape reality," but because they enjoy it -- even give thanks to God for it?
baylor,
Good point. Some secular music just plain sounds good, and it does not always have a negative message. A nice glass of wine may bring out the flavors of a great meal, and some people (like Spurgeon) may love a good cigar. I think that as long as these things are not used to fill the void they are ok.
I enjoy reading everyone's perspective on "liberty" in light of the supremecy of Christ, but please help me think through the issues of UNITY!
As Baylor casted out (ek-Ballow, for Greek lovers)the first stone, I too believe that we can mutually affirm one another's deeds without mutually participating in them.
Without this (what was just stated above)do we ever have a right to claim "unity"? I really doubt it.
Thomas,
With regard to your topic for this post, Unity does not seem to be marked as anti-diversity. The diversity is quite present in your chosen text for unity in Ephesians 4 as we consider v.11. This variety of gifted men show a multiplex perspective of the body. 4:16 speaks of a division of labor as "each does its part" in the body. This could perhaps be one receiving and another caring for the weak. All this is done is the context of love (the same context stated as necessary in the 1 Corinthians liberty texts). Eph. 4:20 tells us our contrasted living with the unregenerate in vv.17-19.
Thus I think unity looks something like what Baylor was talking about -that is like we've learned Christ and not like vv.17-19's lack of sensitivity, total pursuit of sensuality, indulgent, with an unquenchable lust for more. I think your chosen text could a lot regarding unifying liberty within the context of a loving diverse community.
(I apologize for verbosity, but I'm too tired to edit:)
Thanks to all. I think that programatically speaking this kind of Christian maturity (brothers and sisters receiving one another in true unity), which gets beyond a 'don't ask don't tell' policy is only achieved through a steady diet of expository preaching or as Piper would say, "expository exaltation".
If our unity is upon Christ and his chosing of us (Eph 1) then upon that is what we must diet ourselves upon in order to see true unity achieved.
So, in sum, we must preach Christ if we are to see one another built up in love.
One thing about the brother who "escapes" by means of music, drink, or smoke. As you all know, the solution is not "Stop that activity!" That gets us nowhere except to cause the brother to find his escape in something more subtle, maybe in buying a nice suit and tie to wear to church. Teach him to savor Christ while he's doing these things. It is up to his conscience whether he needs to just discontinue these activities or not. As long as he knows that abstaining is not making him more righteous, but it may be giving him a better opportunity to look at Christ without distractions.
Back to unity. When I was attending a certain educational institution which forced conformity, the division was always apparent. Our dislike of the rules and practices, and our hidden differences seemed to transfix our fleshly minds. Now I am in a church where diversity is allowed and encouraged, and this is what makes our unity so divine. I know we are not perfect, but it is our diversity which makes our unity all the more satisfying. For 50 clones to possess unity means absolutely nothing, but for 50 diverse people to possess love, peace, and unity - that is the work of the Spirit of God alone! It really showcases to the world and to the heavens (as Ephesians brings out) what God is doing in the church for his own glory.
I am in total agreement with G's summation regarding the brother who is seeking escape. AT, this kind of goes back to the definition of sin you pointed out that I needed to clarify in a response to the last post. I would have answered the way Erikson does by saying sin is failure to let God be God, namely, sin is failure to worship with every aspect of my life. Any activity I participate in that is idolatry, not matter how good it may look on the outside, is sin. Sometimes there are specifics regarding this (ex. Paul's many lists of "let this not be once named among you"), and sometimes there are gray areas (ex, I can go to church and be sinning in it merely by the fact that I am not there to worship with my brothers but I am there to make myself seem more spiritual to my brothers--self exaltation) Basically, if you are in full submission to the Spirit and treasuring Christ, you can do whatever you want... I have personally witnessed a friend of mine exalting God with a beer in hand, and I don't think God was any less honored bc of it.
I agree that unity is lacking in the body, that we are not body conscious, and that there is a need for transperancy and not secrecy regarding our personal lives. The only question I have about unity however is, what are we unified behind? When you say that we do not know each other are you saying that we need to broadcast our preferences? If so, wouldn't this foster disunity, bc when it comes to preferences there is a tendency to disagree anyway? Romans 14:1 says we are to recieve one who is weak, but not for arguing over opinions.
I think you are right on when you say that if we keep expository, Christ-exalting preaching at the forefront, we cannot help but be unified. This is the type of preaching that has power to change people into Christ's image, which would take care of the little problems.
Rob, I certainly would not suggest that we ought to "broadcast" our preferences or flaunt our liberties. I am more thinking along the lines of not having anyone (whether they be indulgent or not)be ashamed of the life that they live in/by faith. That is to say, a brother who can rejoice in good faith through a "bud" must not feel as though he is sinning against his fellow Christians. If God has allowed his conscience to maneuver in that way then we as a community ought not make him feel ashamed. When he is not sinning before God we as a christian community must not make him feel as though it is a "crime" none-the-less in that he is "sinning" against our "holy writ" (i.e. our standards).
Where I am thinking that this would take place is in the thread that people simply have a way of finding things out whether we think they will or not. And when that does happen I want us all to have a biblical grid that ensures love between both parties (the indulgent and the non-indulgent).
No one ought to feel guilty for living by faith, no matter if those around him agree with it or not. This goes for BOTH, the non-indulgent and the indulgent brother.
Graciously noted,
Thanks Ed.
Ed, I guess the more I think about your admonishment to the group of bloggers here (and elsewhere for that matter)I think that I, well, not disagree with you (certainly not)as much as I agree more with something else.
In other words, I agree that the "issues" listed are addictive and dangerous for all. However, I more readily agree that addiction is what people who lack a relationship with Christ do with them rather than what they are inherently. That is to say, alchohol is not addictive (as far as I understand) because it is alchohol. Rather, I am under the impression that alchohol is addictive when it is consumed without caution and discipline. The person is the problem not the liberty. Am I right in this assessment?
Therefore, ANY addictive behavior is the fruit of godlessness rather than godlessness being the fruit of alchohol, music, movies, food etc.
Thus, I think that God has given us all things (lawful) for consumption given the nature of faith and prayer. Addiction is the ugly side of godlessness rather than vice versa.
Any thoughts?
Ed and Adam:
I agree with the spirit of your admonishment, though I would want to shape it differently. I think when we approach issues such as these, given that they are ools often used by those who love the world and hate Christ, we need to exercise caution so as not to be removed from a primacy of love of Christ ourselves, or encourage others to do so.
Aside from that, however, I would be in basic agreement with Adam that the problem is not the thing itself, but the abuse of the thing. Pardon the extreme analogy, but I would imagine that if the thing itself were inherently evil or addicting, then it would be wrong or habit-forming to hear secular music in Walmart, or to be near second-hand smoke (I am thinking of tabacco and not smoke from, say, a steak on a grill), or from taking even one sip of any alcoholic bev. (cough medicine?). Just as sexual contact is not wrong in itself, but depends on many other factors adjacent to it, so also I would argue these issues have many attending factors that make them sinful.
However, in agreement with Ed, I think I would argue, that drinking is inherently more dangerous than other activities and so, for that reason, ought to be handled with greater care. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the possibility of partaking righteously.
I am eager to hear what the others have to say on the issue.
Ed,
I appreciate the transparency. I think issues like these need transparency because until we understand that we are dealing with real lives of hurting people, it can all be very ethereal and theoretical. Thanks.
Adam,
Thanks for clarification on your point (from earlier)...I am right with you. Also, I have been blessed and encouraged by the conversations between my personal friends here and by Ed, whom I have not met. Ed, thanks for keeping it real and not hypothetical.
It is obvious from the conversation here that there is unity at least among these brothers behind Christ and the gospel, and that we can discuss things that have been touchy without a judgmental spirit, but rather a spirit of love...the way it should be.
Thanks for opening this up Thomas.
"Cheers" to that! :) Just kidding, or...am I? :) Anyway for real, thanks to all. I have been helped and encouraged
Post a Comment
<< Home