Monday, January 02, 2006

Any Given Sunday (part two)

It is possible to approve the recent proposal, but approving a new SoF and achieving the type of broad unity it desires appears staggeringly difficult this side of the Reformation.

At this point the question “is it necessary” is demanded by those who rightly reveal how it grieved Luther, Calvin, and other reformers to see the Church divide. Should we not desire to see unity among God’s chosen people? Were we called by God to argue with each other or to advance the gospel? How can God’s house stand if we allow “minor” doctrinal differences to divide us?

Paul, “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” wrote to the church in Ephesus, “There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one god and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:4-6).

Regardless of denominational differences evangelicals are united, not because of a parachurch movement like Prison Fellowship Ministries or an organization like the National Association of Evangelicals , but due to the work of Christ on our behalf. Our responsibility is to maintain unity (Eph 4:3,16). At the current time this unity is visibly maintained in at least two ways. There is unity in evangelical efforts to advance the gospel, thanks be to God! There is also unity in churches that are united through denomination distinctives, again – thanks be to God!

In my imagination there are two camps clamoring for the fire that is the SoF. The first camp believes that broadening the current SoF will strengthen the movement by enlarging it. The second camp believes that by making the tent larger there will be sharp disagreements in local churches due to variety of beliefs that would be considered tenable due to a broad SoF. Both camps want unity, but are divided on what that unity is to look like and how it is achieved, how ironic.

If you haven’t read The Church: One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic order it today and read Richard Phillips comments on this subject (it’s a short and inexpensive book – well worth the money). While waiting for your new book to arrive ponder the thoughts expressed by Russell Moore on why he considers himself a “Happy Evangelical”. As the head of the Carl Henry Institute, Moore appears to be one of the uneasy heirs of Henry’s evangelicalism; his statements about the “movement” (a term he wouldn’t use) deserve our attention as long as we are united as the Evangelical Free Church of America. http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=155

1 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

Somebody might say they want a broader unity, but we already have that. I am united in Christ with my PCA pastor friends, such as "Pastor Jim" from SC. We get along great. We joke about about differences, but are good friends.

But put us on the same examining board and force us to "affirm" in a candidate the differences that we now have the liberty to just kid each other about (and sometimes debate in a friendly way), and you will bring rupture into the relationship. We will both be called upon to violate our convictions by voting to affirm some candidate down the road. Maybe in the same candidate!

The Committee invokes "Significance of silence" when it suits them, but ignores the principle when it comes to the specific pet doctrines they want added or dropped. The "authoritative commentary" attached to the draft makes sure that we know what they really want, which then will become a "shadow SOF" always lingering in the backdrop -- like Scofield notes, used as an enforcement tool against me when I forbid the teaching of Real Presence in our church (as I will), and some smart-aleck starts quoting the new SOF at me.

Monday, January 02, 2006 8:55:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home