I have been reading through some of Gresham Machen's sermons recently in the book God Transcendant which is a mighty little book containing some wonderful sermons. Today I read one called "The Separateness of the Church" which speaks of a topic which has been close to my heart this summer and speaks of something I am sure was close to Machen: Ecumenism.
I started this summer by reading Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided which more or less tracks Ecumenism in Britain and America. I had no idea how relevant the issue would be for me but I have been in an argument with a friend recently concerning the so called "Limited Atonement" in which my friend says that if we do not come to an agreement on this doctrine than we have no unity and must part ways. I am all for standing for doctrine in a world of shifting sands and a church of silly Ecumenism but for two solid Christians to part ways over the extent of the of the atonement seems a bit much to me. My friend of course defines unity from John 17, "I pray Father that they may be one as you and I are one." I have no problem with this and I long for the unity of which Jesus speaks but I do yet have a problem. I don't think that perfect agreement on the extent of the atonement is quite what Jesus was talking about, or if it was, it isn't expected to be absolutely fulfilled on this planet or in this age. This is the issue: Ecumenism. You see, if I say, "We can agree to disagree on this" I sound Ecumenical to him, in fact I begin sounding Ecumenical to myself.
Let this be my sounding point, I feel that Christians should never be ultra tolerant or even a little tolerant of a world comprised of insidious Postmodernism.
I have a similar problem with my school librarian. I love my school librarian, he is one of the coolest people I know and I call him the "Iain Murray of the Brethren" because of his hair and the way he talks and how much he knows about books and controversies. But the problem I have with my librarian is the same problem I have with my friend only with the roles reversed. He takes the stance of George Mueller and the Bristol Brethren and says that he will for the moment "bear with their infirmities" when it comes to the issues which break unity. However, I feel that when the strongest Protestant in the Anglican world goes and joins in with a load of Catholics we shouldn't be simply "bearing with their infirmities" we should be fighting for the faith. The same goes for Protestant Liberals and Emergent Church Postmoderns.
Here is where Machen comes in,
"[The apostles as new Christians] were living Christian lives because they were devoted to Christian truth. 'Ye turned to God,' says Paul, 'from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.' That was the secret of their Chistian lives; their Christian lives were founded upon Christian doctrine - upon theism ('the living and true God'), upon christology ('His Son...whom He raised from the dead'), and upon soteriology ('which delieverd us from the wrath to come'). They kept the message intact, and hence they lived the Christian life."
Further,
"If the sharp distinction is ever broken down between the church and the world, then the power of the church is gone."
I believe this wholeheartedly. We should not let the little things in that quietly destroy the church and as Machen was saying, "Make the salt lose its savor." We should contend earnestly for the faith. But I am simply not sure where the line is drawn, it is such shady line, and I hate shady lines. I want to be separate from the world, clearly separate from the world, but I also don't know how I am going to avoid losing one of best and only friends over the issue of the extent of the atonement. I have no desire to return to the recycled Liberal Ecumenism of the Emergent world but I also have no desire to go down the road of small, tiny, sectarian, 20 person and shrinking churches where if you don't agree with every jot and tittle of the unspoken doctrines of the church you don't go to that church.
Decisions, decisions.
For the glory of the almighty risen Savior,
R.D. Thompson
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteA few observations from a brother also seeking the glory of our risen Lord:
I am saddened to hear that your friend believes that if you two cannot agree upon the extent of the atonement, then you have "no unity" and must part ways. I would guess that you and your friend agree upon many other points of doctrine that you both consider vital. It is interesting, is it not, to note that we as Christians may become friends with the unsaved, both to simply share Christ's love with them, as we are commanded to do, and also to follow Christ's evangelical charge of going into all the world and preaching the Gospel. These friendships may last for years, but let a division such as you described come between two brothers in Christ, and a rift so serious that you spoke of losing one of your "best and only friends", emerges. These things ought not to be so.
And what of this talk of Ecumenism, brother? It's a word, as are Catholic, Anglican, Emergent, Brethren, and liberal. I don't know your heart here, but should the God of Truth leads you to say to your brother, "We can agree to disagree on this", say it! If that action gives others (or yourself!) the opportunity to liken you to an Ecumenical, so be it, if the Lord led you to say what you said. If we are so afraid of labels or the possibility of being labeled, then we are not free to live according to God's precepts.
The bottom line, as concerns your argument with your brother in Christ, is that either one of you is right and the other wrong, or both of you are wrong. Said differently, at least one of you is wrong. I trust that both of you can remember at least one instance in which you were wrong, doctrinally. I would posit that in that situation, the Holy Spirit did *not* lead you to error (in other words, it was of you, not of the Spirit), but in fact worked in your heart to show you your error. Having been there before, both of you, why not agree with your brother that you are both capable of mistakes, and pray that the Holy Spirit will work in both of you and bring you to a better understand God's truth?
-J
Hmmmm....who is -J? Why all this secrecy. I appreciate this encouragement and would love to speak more about this with whoever -J is. Anyway, thank you for your (criticism?) and loving Christian support. I am ready to be branded ecumenical finally in saying, "Let's agree to disagree" but I feel so saddened that this response will bring about a strong reaction in my friend who insists that Christians cannot agree to disagree. So saddened that I am ultra hesitant to even say it. We also disagree on whether or not "Proverbs are Promises", his idea of the family, the extent and subsequently nature of the atonement, all things that I feel we could agree to disagree on, but he insists that there is no such thing.
ReplyDeleteI could use your advice again or in person.
Hmmm...lets speculate who -J is:
John Piper? Jordan Stark? Jim Timms? Jon Glock? Justin Taylor? Josh Harris? Jed Clampett? Jacques Chirac? Johnny Bloom?
I try to remember who I told that this blog existed but my mother...
Well, thanks a ton anyway.
Jason Harms?
ReplyDeleteSorry to throw you into a tizzy as to my identity, Ryan. Who are all those names you listed? Call me Ishmael, and remember that Google knows about your blog too, so it might be encountered by future surfers searching for the phrase, "call me Ishmael". :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for further explaining the situation with your friend. It seems that he is headed for what he will find to be (should he indeed arrive there) a "tough spot"--the realization that he disagrees with every Christian he knows about something, and I don't mean matters of opinion, like whether or not there should always be a prayer after the sermon. And this "tough situation" will be particularly perplexing to him because should he judge every Christian friend by the same measure, he will soon have rid himself of friends.
I am interested in what you think Jesus *was* talking about in John 17. Holding to a certain interpretation of that passage, I might very well opine that your friend's "hangup" about unity is exactly what is KEEPING you two from the unity Christ prays for amongst his disciples in that passage!
I have Christian friends with whom I rarely discuss spiritual matters, particularly issues of doctrine and debate. We may have discussed these matters in the past, but we don't now, by their choice. I believe I am right, they believe they are right. At least one of us is wrong. I could be wrong. I am open to that, and should they ever wish to discuss those matters again, I pray that the Holy Spirit would use such discussion to unveil my error. Yet we are still friends. We are still brothers in Christ. We will all one day praise our risen Lord in heaven together. If your brother cannot even agree to keep his relationship with you at that level, then it seems to me that something is not right. If so, in essence, he is implying that the areas in which you two disagree are *so serious* that he must have nothing to do with you. Furthermore, his position smacks of pride, of the idea that he has all his "ducks in order" and that the order in which he has his ducks is *precisely* the perfect order, and precisely the order they will be in 50 years from now. That is naive thinking.
As for what you should do about this, I don't know that I'm qualified to say anything definite. You could (and probably already have) discuss opinions and beliefs and dogmas and doctrines in general, and their various importances. If I were in your shoes, I might ask your friend, "Are you correct in everything that you hold to, doctrinally?" He would certainly answer, "Yes." To which I would reply, "So, when you are an old man, will you believe precisely what you believe now?" If he answers "yes" to this, he is either very wise and sensitive to the Holy Spirit, or a fool. If he answers "no" or "maybe" (which is really a "no" in clever disguise), then I would ask, "Well, how will you find out that you are wrong?" and of course the obvious answer is that the Holy Spirit will work in his heart and life to illuminate Scripture more clearly and bring him to a better understanding of its truths. If he is able to assent to this, then he has no business judging a brother who is not guilty of any heretical belief, by a standard to which he knows he cannot hold himself indefinitely.
But this may be a losing argument. Your mileage may vary. Pray!
-J
Everything you say sounds like stuff Jordan would say. Especially that "Call me Ishmael" thing in which you avoid telling me who your are. Very Jordan-like.
ReplyDeleteBut Jordan would just call me and say this stuff so it can't be Jordan.
I guess I will settle for Jacques Chirac since "Ishmael" doesn't begin with "J".
Well mister used-to-be-french-president-who-gives-spiritual-advice-to-the-needy.
That is all very useful. It is encouraging to know that there are other Christians who give the advice you just gave me. Thank you tons and I will be keeping it all in mind.
I think one reason why my friend stands so string is that I have well formed arguments, but still show the appearence of being "unsure". I have to say that I am really unsure about what Jesus meant in John 17 when he spoke about unity. I am still unsure if Particular Redemption is the best stance to take.
I feel that "unsure" is a humble place to be for this time in my life but he sees "unsure" as "he wins" and now I must agree with him. I can't in good conscience agree with his argument, which, while stronger still seems to lead to Universal Redemption, something I KNOW isn't biblical.
Thank you for your counsel. I need to go work on why I believe anything.
Hey Ryan? How is Du Bu Que?
ReplyDelete